The 1650 Psalter

The Psalms of David.
Metrical Version of the Church of Scotland Defended.

By Rev. Andrew Stark, L. L. D.,
Late Minister of the Associate Presbyterian Church, Corner of Grand and Mercer Streets, N. Y.

Accompanied by a Brief Article on the Propriety of Evangelical Churches and Christians using Only the Psalms of Inspiration in the Service of Praise to God.

New York:
Holman & Gray, Printers, 88 & 90 Fulton St.
1850

————

Preface.

The brief note which precedes Dr. Stark’s defence of what has generally been called Rouse’s Metrical Version of the Psalms, sufficiently explains the occasion and time of its first publication. This note obviates the necessity of prefatory explanations. It shows also the high veneration and fervent admiration in which this good man held these songs of praise, of penitence and faith, inspired by God to be the comfort, consolation and joy of His people and His church in their militant career. May his words of sober earnestness continue to rebuke men of vain conceits and proud pretensions, and may the spirit of his holy, humble love, work in many hearts a purer, true devotion in the praise and service of God.

The Psalms of David in Metre.
(Authorized Version.)

————

(To the Editor of the Presbyterian’s Armory.)

REV. AND DEAR SIR:—

The enclosed observations were written, on seeing some reproachful and rather indecent epithets supplied to our very respectable, and I may add venerable version of the Psalms of David. In case you think they may be useful, I will be obliged to you to publish them in your periodical.

I am, &c.
A. S.
Dec. 1, 1847.

————

This is sometimes called Rouse’s version, and it is represented in the title page as having been “translated and diligently compared with the original text, and former translations, more plain, smooth, and agreeable to the text than any heretofore. Allowed by the authority of the General Assembly of the Kirk of Scotland, and appointed to be sung in congregations and families.” This version is still used in all the churches belonging to the establishment in Scotland, in all the congregations belonging to the Free Church, in all the secession churches in Scotland, amounting to nearly six hundred. It is also used in all the Presbyterian churches in every denomination in Ireland, in all the Presbyterian churches in Nova Scotia and the Canadas, and in all the Scottish Presbyterian churches in the United States, not in connection with either of the General Assemblies. It has indeed been excluded from most of the churches belonging to these Assemblies, but not by any special act, for so far as the writer of this article has been able to ascertain, it is still authorized by these Assemblies, and is still used by several congregations in connection with them.

It cannot, therefore, be denied that this “authorized version” is used by several very numerous and respectable denominations of Christians. Nor can it be denied that in these denominations there are many men distinguished for their piety and learning,—men, to say the least, as well qualified to judge of the merits of a Psalm-book, as the “Correspondent of the Christian Intelligencer,” or “the editor of the Evangelist.” To say nothing of that courtesy which is so becoming in Christians when speaking or writing about their fellow Christians, it seems scarcely consistent with decency to characterize as “doggerel,” or “an abortive attempt at versification,” a book that has received the approbation of men alike preeminent for their learning and taste.

This version cannot, with strict propriety, be called Rouse’s, because although originally made by him, yet it was so often corrected, and so materially altered before it was allowed by the Assembly, that it may with more propriety be called the authorized or Assembly’s version.

It is mentioned by Neal, in his history of the Puritans, that during the sitting of the Westminster Assembly, complaint was made of the obsolete version of the Psalms by Sternhold and Hopkins, and the Parliament desired them to recommend some other to be used in churches. They accordingly read Mr. Rouse’s version, and after several amendments sent it up to the House, Nov. 11, 1645, with the following recommendation: “whereas the honorable House of Commons, by an order bearing date Nov. 20th, 1643, have recommended the Psalms published by Mr. Rouse to the consideration of the Assembly of Divines, the Assembly has caused them to be carefully perused, and as they are now altered and amended do approve them, and humbly conceive they may be useful and profitable to the church, if they be permitted to be publicly sung.” They were accordingly authorized by the two Houses.

Hist. of the Puritans, vol. 3. pp. 317, 318

The book was two years under consideration, and great pains were taken in its correction before it was approved and recommended by the Westminster Assembly. In the meantime, as stated in Baillie’s Letters, the version was sent down to Scotland, by the Scottish commissioners, and there also it underwent a thorough revision. Many and extensive alterations were proposed and adopted. It was taken up for consideration in 1646, by the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, and at their annual meeting in 1647 a committee was appointed for its revision and correction. An act was passed at Edinburgh, 28th Augt. 1647, “for revising the paraphrase of the Psalms sent from England,” from which the following is an extract, viz:—

“The General Assembly, having considered the report of the Committee, concerning the paraphrase of the Psalms sent from England; and finding that it is very necessary that the said paraphrase be yet revised; therefore doth appoint Master John Adamson to examine the first forty Psalms, Master Thomas Crawford the second forty, Master John Row the third forty, and Master John Nevey the last thirty Psalms of that paraphrase; and in their examination they shall not only observe what they think needs to be amended, but also to set down their own essay for correcting thereof; And for this purpose recommends to them, to make use of the travels of Rowallen, Master Zachary Boyd,* or of any other on that subject, but especially of our own paraphrase, that what they find better in any of these works may be chosen: and likewise they shall make use of the animadversions sent from Presbyteries, who for this cause are hereby desired to hasten their observations upon them. And they are to make report of their labours herein to the Commission of the Assembly for public affaires against their first meeting in February next: And the Commission, after revising thereof, shall send the same to Provincial Assemblies, to be transmitted to Presbyteries, that by their further consideration, the matter may be fully prepared to the next Assembly.”

The Assembly, at its meeting in 1648, took into consideration all the alterations and amendments suggested by the inferior judicatories, and proposed by the Committee, agreed to pass the following act, on 10th Augt. 1648, viz:—“The General Assembly having taken some view of the new paraphrase of the Psalms, in metre, with the corrections and animadversions thereupon, sent from several persons and Presbyteries, and finding that they cannot take the review and examination of the whole: This Assembly do appoint Masters James Hamilton, John Smith, Hugh Makail, Robert Trail, George Hutcheson, and Robert Laurie, after the dissolving of this assembly, to go on in that work carefully, and to report their travels to the commission of the General Assembly for publike affaires, at their meeting in November, and the said committee, after perusal and examination thereof, is hereby authorized, with full power, to conclude and establish the paraphrase, and to publish and emit the same for publike use.”

The committee having reported to the Commission in November, as directed, the book of Psalms was published and authorized in the following terms: viz.—“The Commission of the General Assembly have with great diligence, considered the paraphrase of the Psalms in metre, sent from the Assembly of Divines in England, by our Commissioners, while they were there, as it is corrected by former General Assemblies’ committees for them; and now, at last, by the brethren deputed by the last Assembly for that purpose; and having exactly examined the same, do approve the said paraphrase as it is now compiled: And therefore according to the power given to them by the said Assembly, do appoint it to be printed and published for publike use, hereby authorizing the same to be the only paraphrase of the Psalms of David to be sung in the kirk of Scotland; and discharging the old paraphrase, and any other than this new paraphrase to be made use of in any congregation or family after the first day of May, 1650. And for uniformity in this part of the worship of God, do seriously recommend to Presbyteries to cause, make publication of this act, and take special care that the same be put timeously in execution, and duly observed.”

This version having been thus corrected, approved, and authorized by the General Assembly, it was shortly after sanctioned by the Scottish Parliament, by the following act, “Jan. 8th, 1650. The Committee of Estates having considered the English paraphrase of the Psalms of David in metre, presented to them this day by the Commission of the General Assembly, together with their act, and the act of the late Assembly, approving the said paraphrase, and appointing the same to be sung throughout the kirk, doth approve the said paraphrase, and interpose their authority for the publishing and practising thereof; hereby ordering the same and no other, to be made use of throughout this kingdom, according to the said act of the General Assembly and their Commissioners.”

From the above documents it is sufficiently evident that the greatest care was taken to perfect this version of the Psalms before it was introduced and authorized to be used in the churches. The Psalms were first of all collated by a committee in 1647, from the English Psalms, the translations of Rowallen, Z. Boyd, and others. They were next revised and corrected by the various Presbyteries. Next they were reviewed by the General Assembly. Again they were reviewed by another committee, and finally they were authorized by the Commission and sanctioned by Act of Parliament. When they came into use, they were sanctioned by the highest authority, as a very literally poetical translation of a poetical book, universally admitted to be a part of the canon of scripture. No translation, it is readily admitted, whether it be in prose or verse, is divinely inspired. But, so far as known to the writer of this article, this version of the Psalms of David in metre, is as much an authorized version, as what is called the authorized version or translation of the Bible itself. This is probably more than can be said of any other collection of Psalms.

It will be also apparent, from the documents quoted, that this metrical version of the Psalms cannot properly be called Rouse’s version. Mr. Francis Rouse was a gentleman of respectability. He was an esteemed member of Parliament, and also a lay member of the Westminster Assembly, but his book of Psalms was not received and sanctioned, till it was metrically altered. Many entire Psalms were inserted which were not in his collection. It is also a notorious fact that Zachary Boyd was one of the principal versifiers of the Psalms as authorized by the General Assembly, and now used in the Scottish churches.

It has been matter of astonishment to many, why pious persons who have long used them, should cherish such a deep rooted attachment to these Psalms. This it is humbly conceived arises merely from a correct knowledge of their beauties and excellencies, and the associations called up by their use. In the first place, many are strongly attached to them from their scriptural character. They were not written like many other metrical productions to please the ear and to amuse the fancy, but to inform the understanding and to enlarge the heart. Being as nearly, as a translation can be, the word of God, they are eminently calculated to awaken feelings of true devotion, more sublime than any flight of the imagination can excite. In this way the most exalted ideas have come to be connected with the use of this Psalmody.

It should also be remembered that these Psalms are intimately associated with the devotional feelings of those who have used them for a lengthened period. They are also the Psalms which the children of other times, at least, if not the present time, have treasured up in their memories. And they are the Psalms which many a hoary patriarch, now in the dust, sung with his children around him at the family altar.

If we go further back, we associate their introduction with those stirring times when the friends of religion and liberty arose to break the chains of civil and ecclesiastical despotism. When the Church of Scotland had been relieved from the yoke of papal oppression, after a dismal period of calamity and persecution, these songs of Zion were her songs of thanksgiving and praise. They were sung by the noble martyrs of the Presbyterian church, in caves, in deserts and on mountains, when they resisted even unto blood, the forms and ceremonies and persecutions of an Episcopal church. Those who can estimate the beauty and the force of divine truth, and the associations connected with the use of this inspired Psalmody, will be at no loss to account for the ardent attachment that exists in so many hearts to this authorized version.

As to the superior excellence of the Psalms of David, and their inestimable value as devotional exercises, nothing need be said. Their exquisite beauties as poetical composition infinitely surpass all other Psalms and Hymns that have ever been written. They have formed the spiritual food of the faithful in every age, since they were given to the church. Nor is there a single condition in which a human being can be placed, but they will furnish him with the advice, the reproof, or the consolation of which, from his situation, he may stand in need. About the intrinsic excellence of the matter of the book of Psalms, it may therefore be presumed there can be no dispute.

As to the authorized version, notwithstanding the excellence of its matter, and the inspiring associations connected with its use, it is readily conceded that no associations should reconcile us to its use, if it, in fact, be either inelegant or incorrect. Were the version in question really liable to this charge, then all prejudices in its favor should be given up, and all our early impressions should be forgotten, and every effort should be made to get a Psalmody that might be agreeable to the man of learning and taste as well as to the unlettered and less refined, that all might harmoniously unite in this sublime part of devotion. But we strenuously contend that this version is by no means liable to the charge of want of elegance. Even in this particular it will bear a comparison with all other Psalm books now in use. It is not indeed held to be without defects, for what work of man is perfect? Nay, there are a few Psalms in this version that cannot be admired, and which it would be desirable to see altered and amended.

But while this admission is readily made, and while there is no objection to the Psalmody being revised provided it can be improved, truth and justice require that the high superiority of this version should be asserted. If any unprejudiced person would but examine this version of the Psalms, and contrast it with Tate and Brady, Watts’s Psalms and Hymns, and Milton’s and Montgomery’s, it will gain by the comparison. Look even at Lord Byron’s song of the captive Jews, and it will appear weak and insipid when compared with the beautiful Psalm, “By Babel’s streams we sat and wept.”

It is true that this version of the Psalms was made in a comparatively remote age, but notwithstanding all the refinement of the present time, it may well be doubted whether any version that could be made, even in this age of elegance and refinement, would answer the same purpose of devotion. Many have made the attempt, and signally failed. One cause of the failure is thought to be, that the church has required that the Psalms of David must be rendered literally into measured lines, or verse, as it is called, without other aid or imagery further than the language of the inspired text may strictly imply. But poets of imagination scorn all restraints, and are ever ready to substitute their own ideas and flights of fancy, in the place of divine truth, and therefore must necessarily prove very unsafe guides of the devotion of the people of God. On the whole, as we have now got a very good version of the Psalms, it will be our wisest course to use it diligently, gratefully and devoutly, till we shall be furnished with a better, notwithstanding the slang about “doggerel,” and “abortive attempts at versification.”

Propriety of Using the
Psalms of Inspiration Only,
in the
Praise of God.

————

In the previous article Dr. Stark has fully vindicated the metrical version of the Psalms of Inspiration, (or as they are commonly called, the Psalms of David) sanctioned by the Church of Scotland, and in use in other Churches, from the imputations of “doggerel,” or “vulgar versification,” which men of minds more vain and boastful, than Christian and reverential, have plentifully put forth. With what motives they have done so, they themselves can best judge; but if their only object has been the greater glory, and more acceptable worship of God, we cannot envy their judgments, while we believe we have good grounds to compassionate their error and deception. In an age like this, when men set themselves to exalt their own puny reason above the infallible mind of their Creator, it is salutary and encouraging to meet with words of truth plainly and pointedly spoken. Such are the words in which Dr. Stark penned the concluding paragraph of his article. It is, we believe, the last published production of his pen. It bears the impress of his chaste, forcible and effective style; and as his living voice is now hushed for ever to those who learned from him, while here, many a lesson of Gospel love and truth, they will not be ungrateful to us for bringing up before their minds this memento of his faithfulness while he was yet a watchman on Zion’s walls. Others too will read it to their advantage, and to the confirmation of their partiality and respect for one of the sweetest and most sublime portions of Divine Revelation.

But beside the beauty and correctness of the metrical version of the Psalms, there is another question of dispute of much more serious import, and involving principles and results deeply affecting the discipline, if not the purity of the Church. This is whether the Psalms of Divine Inspiration shall alone constitute the songs of praise of God’s church and people, or are they at liberty to use such songs as uninspired men may compose, and their own taste and fancy dispose them to employ. That the Church and Christians enjoy this liberty has been widely maintained and widely carried into practice. To discuss this question to the full extent of all the sophistry and rubbish of reasoning with which it has been surrounded, is not our intention.

The chief matter in dispute can be reduced to a very simple proposition, and a very few facts will fully serve our present purpose. The proposition may be stated thus:—Is praise an essential part of the worship of God? If it be, then how shall it be performed?—has God provided the matter and manner of its performance?—or has He left it to the wisdom and decision of man’s reason how this service shall be rendered? That praise is an essential part of the worship of God is conceded by all Christian denominations, and therefore argument on this point is needless. Praise is ever the adjunct as well as the reflecting medium of glory. To the praise of His glory was the end and design of God’s creation of us, our earth, and the glorious system in which it moves; to the praise of His glory are all His works and providences; and even throughout the wide and varied economy of nature, He hath made all things “vocal to his praise.” “All thy works shall praise thee, O Lord!” And when we contemplate on the work of fallen man’s Redemption, we find therein the full development of all those glorious and exalted attributes of the Godhead in Trinity, which exhibit to us the infinite and incomprehensible glory of the Divine character, and constitute the highest and never-ending theme of our adoring gratitude and praise.

Praise, then, being an essential part in man’s service of his Creator, the question comes up, how shall man render this service? The praise of God in its broadest meaning, is not simply confined to the utterance of lyrical compositions, or compositions to be accompanied with music. We may, and ever Christian does, shew forth God’s praises in holy actions, and in all life’s varied duties, whether of speech or conduct. “I will bless the Lord at all times: his praise shall be continually in my mouth.” But when God’s people unite in His public worship, it has been their custom in all ages, to tune their hearts and voices in one common song to His praise. And even the private Christian never feels his soul filled with so exalted and rapturous enjoyment as when in his family or his closet, he pours forth in tuneful measures some holy song of praise to the God of all his mercies. Surely, this holy exercise deserves the earnest attention of every true Christian; and his great enquiry should be—“How shall I perform it aright? Where shall I find songs to sing my Maker’s praise, His goodness and His love? Shall my own erring reason dictate the strains; or is human language adequate to express the glorious attributes of the God of all the earth—the Mighty Ruler of the Universe? Shall I look to my fellow-man to supply me with the object of my desire; or has God himself provided amply for this delightful service?” There is but one proper answer—but one that will stand every test—to these questions. That answer is: Our reason cannot teach us how to praise God aright. Mere human language is too much under the influence of our depraved and corrupt nature to be formed into a pure offering of praise, unless sanctified by the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Many of our fellow men may be, and are, highly gifted with the genius to express fine poetic sentiment, but we know not that they are so peculiarly privileged as to be able to extend the comprehension of their souls so far and wide beyond the things visible to the natural sense, and the common thoughts of the human mind, that they can take in infinite views of the majesty of Heaven, and express in all the fidelity of truthful description, the glories, the excellencies and the praises of the Infinite Jehovah. Not even have we evidence that they can trace aright the secret thoughts and workings of their own minds; and that any men are endowed in these latter days with any special inspiration, is what we are neither warranted nor safe in believing. But we are relieved from all these difficulties by God having furnished us under the sanction of His own inspiration, a book of Psalms, sufficient for all our necessities, and adapted to every state and condition of life in which we, as Christians, may be placed.

To this answer, hundreds of objections have been, and will be raised; but with all their multiplicity, we deny that they possess force sufficient to overthrow its truth. If those who object can show that the worship of God has become so loose a matter under the Gospel dispensation, that every man may do what seemeth right in his own eyes—that each one may compose his own songs of praise; and that such are more appropriate and more acceptable to God than the songs He inspired to be sung by His church in ancient times, then we will yield the question, and allow the Psalms to become like the people to whom they were first given, “a bye-word and reproach.” If, however, they admit that God is still jealous of His worship, and that they who worship him, “must worship Him in spirit and in truth,” we insist that the worship of praise is better performed in accordance with this command, by using those songs written under divine inspiration, than by substituting the most beautiful compositions ever produced by man. And if we sanction any human compositions, as appropriate to be sung in the public service of God, we open the door to their admission to any extent, and create a never-failing source of dispute and confusion in the Church. We offer an inducement to every rhymer to jade his “muse” to produce a paraphrase or a poem to be set to sacred (beg pardon, church) music, and have the proud satisfaction of hearing its words honored, though buried and lost, by the organ’s deep tones and the studied harmony of a trained choir. Even though we had a surety that from this time forth there should be no additions allowed to the present stock of modern spiritual songs and hymns, we would consider the stock much too extensive, and, in many instances, too deficient in quality, to be worthy of the Church’s appropriation and use. But since God has provided for her a book of Psalms, fitted for every condition in her history, and has given no warrant that these were only intended for the age in which they were written, or that they were to be rejected and despised under the New Testament dispensation, we think there is much dangerous proudness of spirit and departure from the humble and pure worship of God, in the Church, or Christians, casting aside the songs of Zion, comprehensive as the human soul and varied as human life, for the tinsel beauties of uninspired poetry. Nor is there need that we unite the puny flights of man’s poetic genius with the inimitably sublime, heavenly, and perfect songs of the inspired Psalmist. The Songs of Zion fully express not only the most important events in the spiritual experience of the most gifted saints, “but are the record of the most wonderful dispensations of God’s providences to his church.”

Could it be shown that the Psalms of inspiration (for we are not writing for any who deny their being inspired), are deficient in their scope and adaptation to the Church in these Gospel times, we would be forced to admit the desirableness of, at least, an additional form of psalmody. But though this has been attempted by various and able reasoners, we have not yet met with one who has been successful. Even the groundwork for establishing a successful argument to this end, cannot be found in the whole compass of God’s word, and out of His word the orthodox Christian cannot consistently go. If in the word of God we have given us not only a perfect rule of faith, but of worship, where, we ask, in that word, is the sanction for bringing into our worship of praise the hymns and songs of our own composition? Where, even, in God’s word, is there authority to be found for the liberties that that most admired of all paraphrasts, Dr. Watts, has taken in departing from and altering the sense of the original, in many of his so widely revered psalms and hymns? This question will be denounced, we know, as rank audacity, by many who hesitate not to state their belief that Dr. Watts was raised up specially by God to give us a superior style of Church psalmody. As well might we say that Sir Francis Rouse was specially raised up to versify the psalms. As well, too, might the translators of the Holy Scriptures have departed from, or changed the meaning of the original in their translation, as that Dr. Watts, or any other man, should be allowed the bold privilege he assumed. We know that the purity of the original has been departed from and abused by certain orders of translators, nor are we at a loss to discern for what object they did so. Happily, the Reformation rescued God’s truth and the songs of His Zion from the prison and corruption of superstition and priestcraft, and we would sincerely hope, that the vaunted progress of human reason, and the proud sufficiency of man’s ambitious mind, may never again so far prevail, as to elevate their idol imaginations, or tasteful beauties, above the pure sanctitude of Divine inspiration.

Christ did not throw contempt on these Jewish† songs, so slighted now by men who profess to be his faithful followers, but spoke of their prophetic application to himself, his work, and the glories of his Gospel kingdom. And we have good evidence that they were sung by him and his band of followers. He did not tell his disciples that these Jewish Psalms were no longer to be used by his people. He did not tell them that they were thenceforth to celebrate the praise of God’s Anointed, of Zion’s King, and Zion’s Lord, in songs of their own composition. Neither did he give them a new book of Gospel songs, nor direct that after his ascension to his Father’s right hand, and the Holy Spirit had fallen upon them, they should indite godly songs to his name. Their duties he certainly did point out to them before taking his leave of them, and his instructions they faithfully obeyed, but in no part of their history, in none of their teachings and epistles do we read of any of them composing a new psalmody for their converts, or the church, though they were frequent and fervent in songs of praise. And let those who talk so lightly of these Jewish psalms, and their inappropriateness to be sung in Christ’s Church, read Peter’s eloquent quotation from the 16th psalm, on the day of Pentecost, after the Spirit had fallen on him and his brethren. But we might give reference to almost the extent of the whole book of Psalms to prove that they are full of the praise and glory of the Messiah and His kingdom. Now if any man think he can better express the deep secrets of the Christian faith, the devotional thoughts and aspirations of the Christian’s soul, or the trials, the afflictions, the consolations, the joys, and the varied providences of God’s church, than he finds them portrayed and presented in the Book of Psalms, let him essay the task, but let him refrain from the presumption of asking the church to elevate them above, or place them in equal honor with those inspired songs.

We might easily trace back the history of songs of human composure, to an age when the truth and purity of the volume of Inspiration were too dangerous to be kept in the way of the innovations of an anti-christian creed—when the Psalms of David afforded no songs of praise to saints of its canon—when the simple worship of the one Mediator and a triune God, consorted not with its grand ritual and mind-enslaving doctrines—when the creature again came to be worshipped more than the Creator. Then, indeed, did the Psalms well seem to be inappropriate in the church’s service of praise; and we find, there were not a few “specially raised up” to supply the adoring Christians of that age with what Christ and his apostles neglected to do—psalms and hymns and spiritual songs. Many are the specimens that yet remain, and in good classic Latin too, and some have charitably been translated for the benefit of vulgar minds into chaste and tasteful English. Few of these, however, excited the reverence of the apostles and martyrs of the Reformation. Their souls warmed to the early songs of Zion. They loved the soul-stirring strains of the Psalmist’s lyre, for it roused their spirits to struggle with the mighty Mistress of iniquity—with the enemies of their faith, their God and their Savior. Oh, with what consolation and hope could they sing of the rage and the banding together of the kings and the rulers of the earth against the Lord and against his Anointed; of God’s great power to set their rage and purpose at nought; of Zion’s king, and the heritage of God’s begotten Son—as the Psalmist sings in the second psalm. And how their souls must have been rejoiced, and their courage strengthened by the glorious truths of such psalms as the 46th. Yes, when wicked men and princes wreaked their persecuting fury upon their heads, in prison, and at the stake, these Jewish Psalms sustained them in their sore trials, and they sung them, rejoicing in being thought worthy to bear shame and death for the God of their salvation. If these men, “of whom the world was not worthy,” feared no “judaizing” of Christianity from the use of these inspired songs, but judged them full of the spirit of the Savior they so fearlessly served, how can we admire the refined sentimentality of the quiet minds of the present age, who can see little poetic beauty, but much judaical and unchristian deformity in the Psalms. As to their want of poetic beauty, our schools of rhetoric are not yet so vitiated with the sentiment of the age, as to leave the discussion of that matter necessary; and of their judaical and unchristian character we have already sufficiently hinted our opinion; and those who feel offended by our plainness, may either compassionate our dogmatic temperament, or soothe their feelings by opening a copy of Watts’ hymns, and singing, in the most approved style, the following verse from the first hymn of the second book, “drawn from the New Testament”!—We could give others, but this one may fully serve the purpose.

“God builds and guards the British throne,
And makes it gracious like his own;
Makes our successive princes kind,
And gives our dangers to the wind.”

As beauty is often increased by contrast, we will give the above the benefit of a quotation of a verse from one of those Jewish, unchristian psalms.

“For God the Lord’s a sun and shield,
He’ll grace and glory give,
And will withhold no good from them
That uprightly do live.”

But our article has swelled beyond the extent of our intention at the outset. We did not intend it to do more than suggest and excite investigation on the important subject of sacred Psalmody. If our cursory remarks produce that effect, we will be satisfied with what we have done, and those who wish to investigate the subject fully, and all should, can be at no loss to find sufficient helps. The best help, however, is a close and prayerful reading of the Psalms themselves, of the many references to them in the New Testament, and by a diligent comparison of them with those human productions some would have supersede them. By such means, it will, we think, be possible for every sincere Christian to satisfy his mind, whether there has been raised up in these latter days, men endowed with a purer and more sublime gospel inspiration, than breathes throughout the songs of the sweet singer of Israel.

To those who are not yet affected by doubt on the appropriateness of the Psalms, to be used, and used exclusively, in the celebration of the praise of the glorious persons of the Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, it is confirmation to know that the churches of the Reformation that profess the greatest purity of worship and discipline, maintain the superior appropriateness of the Psalms as mediums of praise. The General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland, a few years ago, passed a resolution, almost unanimously, in favor of the exclusive use of the Psalms of Inspiration in the public worship of God, and the various congregations within its connection as unanimously received it as a salutary and scriptural reform. The example of no section of the church, however, should be taken as authority. God’s own word is to be our guide and instructor, and we should not be hasty in departing from a practice of worship until we have full conviction, through His truth, that such departure is not only allowable, but proper. The right worship of God is no light matter, in which we may follow the particular bent of our own erring judgments. Our reforming forefathers stood firm, even unto the death, against what they believed departures from pure scriptural worship, and while we affect to venerate their memories, we should avoid bringing their spirit and noble endurance into contempt, by an over-readiness to associate the refinement of the age, with a worship as old as the church itself. However much such innovation might popularize our religion, by pleasing men’s taste in lyric poetry, and by elevating human reason to a new dignity and privilege, we should only inquire whether it will add to the purity and power of religion, or if it has countenance and sanction in God’s word. The fashion of the age, or of churches which conform to all its outward elegance and ornament, and which thereby may obtain a present higher respectability, should not induce us to despise the plain and scriptural manner in which the old Puritans and the Reformers of the Presbyterian Church worshipped God. They judged David’s Psalms as forming a perfect Psalmody for the Christian Church, and until it can be shown that they were in a grievous error, we may safely abide by their example.

NOTES:

* Master Zachary Boyd, of whose “travels” the Committee on Psalmody of 1647, are directed to make use, was a pious man, and for some time an eminent and useful minister in the Protestant Church of France, and afterwards in the city of Glasgow. He made a metrical version of the Bible, and most people acquainted with his history have heard of some ludicrous and rather indecent passages given as quotations from it, altogether unworthy of his character, and which it is probable are not to be found in his version.
. . . Rowallen, the other person named in the Assembly’s minute, had also made a metrical version of the Psalms, and which was preferred to Boyd’s by Principal Baillie. It is highly probably he made some alterations on Rouse’s version. The name of this person was Sir William Muir, but called in the minute Rowallen, from his estate or place of residence. A letter, of which the following is a copy, will show that he was held in high estimation by the Scottish Commissioners to the Westminster Assembly. The letter is without date, but was probably written about the year 1643, or 1644.
. . . “Right Worshipful,”
. . . . . . “We have thought meet to signify to you that the Committee appointed by the Assembly here for the revising of Rouse, his last translation of the Psalms hath given to us now a hundred Psalms so perfyte as they have a mind to make them, which we have sent down to the Commissioners of our General Assembly to be amended in every thing which the Committee appointed there for that end, shall find to have need of amendment; the fifty that remain ere long will follow. It is our earnest desire that the Psalter at this time might be put in such a frame that we needed not be troubled hereafter with any new translation thereof. We acknowledge our distractions have been so many that we have not been able as we would to attend this work: we fear also that, in our Committee there, all men who are able be not so useful to attend that service as the weight of it doth require: we know that God hath given you a great and singular ability in this kind, and accordingly hath put it in your heart to mind the Psalms for many years more than any man we remember in all our land; if you might be pleased to bestow some pains upon the recognition of this hundred we have sent down, and of the fifty which shortly will follow, your labour certainly would be spent on that which concerns very nearly the honour of God, the good of the churches in all the three kingdoms, both now and in the after ages, also, which in some measure may be for the reputation and credit of our church and nation. We have written to Mr. Robert Dalgleish, agent of the church, to provide and sent to you copies. The words or lines you think may be helped, and your amendment of them, we wish so soon as may be, were sent either to us, or some of the committee there, which will transmit them to us, that in time we may make use of them. Hoping, sir, you will not deny to God and your country, and to us, this very necessary and honourable labour, we rest,”—“Your much honouring and loving
. . . Friends to serve you,
. . . . . . LOUDOUN,
. . . . . . LAUDERDAIL,
. . . . . . JOHNSTON,
. . . . . . ALEX. HENDERSON,
. . . . . . SAMUEL RUTHERFORD,
. . . . . . ROBERT BAILIE,
. . . . . . GEO. GILLESPIE.”
. . . “To the Right Worshipful
. . . . . . the Laird of Rowallen.”

† A common objection to the Psalms of David, is, that they are Jewish Psalms, and intended for Jewish worship only.