The 1650 Psalter

James Carfrae Alston (1835-1913): “[W]e have in our metrical Psalms a reserve of splendid material, archaic and uncouth at times, if you will, but dignified, fervid, and on a high level of devotion — material whose texture and tone have always been in accord with Scottish temperament.” —“Preface,” in Selection from the Scottish Metrical Psalms and the Paraphrases. Suitable for Public and Private Worship. — with Appropriate Tunes (Glasgow: Aird and Coghill, Limited, 1907)

John Anderson (1748?-1830): “As to the versification, it is only a circumstance used for the conveniency of singing; and by no means incompatible with a due care to retain the words of the Holy Ghost, or the form as now described. Take the first Psalm in the version authorised by the church of Scotland for an example. The first line of that version is a more adequate representation of the emphasis of the two first words of the original; it is a more strictly literal translation of them, than that which we have in prose. Whatever faults may be charged upon that translation, they are not such as arise from a designed neglect of the phraseology of the sacred original: a religious regard to the principles now laid down is manifest through the whole of it.” —A Discourse on the Divine Ordinance of Singing Psalms (Philadelphia: William Young, 1791), p. 32

“It is also inconsistent with candour to impute to the Seceders a superstitious attachment to what is called Rouse’s Version of the Psalms. They prefer it as the most correct verse-translation in our language. They have reason for this preference from its having undergone the correction both of the Westminster assembly and of the general assembly of the church of Scotland.” —Alexander and Rufus; or a Series of Dialogues on Church Communion, in Two Parts. The first being a vindication of scriptural church communion in opposition to latitudinarian schemes. The second being a defence of the communion maintained in the Secession Church (Pittsburgh: Cramer & Spear, 1820), p. 404

Associate Presbytery of Pennsylvania: “We use, it is true, a poetical version of the psalms; and it is scarcely, if at all, possible to form a version of this kind, as strictly agreeable to the original as a prose one may be formed. But this defect cannot be remedied, by departing still further from the original, in an imitation which bears but a very feint, imperfect resemblance to it. We have the original matter, and the original order of the matter in the version used by us: and we are not ashamed to prefer this matter to the sayings of men; and this order to any, men ever did or ever will devise.” —Declaration and Testimony, for the Doctrine and Order of the Church of Christ, and against the Errors of the Present Times (Philadelphia: R. Aitken, 1784), p. 88

Associate-Reformed Synod: “Whereas the poetical version of the psalms, commonly called the psalms of David, which hitherto has been used amongst us, is a safe translation of these psalms, and has been very instrumental in promoting sincere and unaffected devotion; it shall be retained in the congregations under the inspection of this Synod, till another version equally safe and acceptable and more adapted to the improved state of the English language, shall be prepared.” —Extracts from the Minutes of the Acts, and Proceedings of the Associate-Reformed Synod, Met at Philadelphia, May 29th, 1793 (New-York: S. Loudon & Son, 1793), p. 6

Associate Reformed Synod of New York: “The following preamble and resolutions were moved by Mr. Connelly, seconded by Mr. R. H. Wallace, and passed unanimously, namely:

“‘Whereas, the subject of Psalmody has been under the consideration of Synod for several years past, and whereas fears have been entertained in some parts of the church, that the Synod had in contemplation to lay aside a Scripture Psalmody, in singing the praises of God, in his worship, the Synod consider it their duty to declare, that it neither has been nor is now their wish, or intention to lay aside the version now in use, in singing the praise of God in his worship. Therefore,

“‘Resolved, That the version of the Book of Psalms now in use amongst us, be exclusively used in singing the praise of God, in his public and private worship, in all the congregations under the care of Synod. . . .'” —“Extract from the Minutes of the Associate Reformed Synod of New York,” in The Evangelical Repository (November 1842), 1:267

John Wallace Bain (1833-1910): “[T]he version we use was in the hands of a committee of that [Westminster] Assembly for two years, and much pains taken in revising it. It was then sent to Parliament, and then over to the Scottish General Assembly. It was nearly five years in the hands of two able committees of that Assembly, and the Presbyteries of that Church, undergoing a most searching examination and revision, and was then, in 1649, adopted as the Assembly’s version; ‘translated and diligently compared with the original text and former translations; more plain, smooth and agreeable to the text than any heretofore;’ and we might truthfully add, ‘OR SINCE.’ Now those who call this Rouse’s version, either expose their ignorance, or design, by an implied untruth, to ward off an argument they cannot answer. The controversy is not about versions. We now use the best there is: and if any one can furnish us one more literal, and one better adapted for singing, gladly will we use it.” —God’s Songs and the Singer. Four Sermons (Pittsburgh: United Presbyterian Board of Publication, 1871), pp. 13, 14

George Baird (1761-1840): “Principal BAIRD made a report from the Committee on Psalmody. The reverend Principal stated, that he was desirous to remove a misapprehension as to the New Psalmody, which he understood prevailed in some quarters, namely, that there was some purpose in the Committee to alter, or to attempt improving, the present authentic version of the Psalms of David. Now, he begged to explain explicitly that no such purpose existed. It would, he thought, be a kind of sacrilege to infringe, in any shape or degree, on a version so excellent in itself, and so hallowed in the estimation of the people by all their earliest and dearest associations.” —The New Scots Magazine, Vol. 2, No. 11 (September 30, 1829), p. 150

David Douglas Bannerman (1842-1903): “But, among all the metrical renderings of the Psalter which became current in the Reformed Churches, the foremost place must undoubtedly be given to the Scottish version. It was published in its present form about two years after the close of the Westminster Assembly, after long and careful adjustment and revision by a well-chosen committee of ministers and elders appointed by the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland. . . .

“No version of the Psalms in any country has ever obtained a greater hold of the national mind and heart than the Scottish; none, probably, has so powerful an influence in the present day, and none better deserves it. Its faults lie on the surface. It is not unfrequently rough and uncouth to modern ears. Some of its phrases and rhymes quoted in an isolated way may easily raise a smile. But, as a whole, it has surpassing merits, which are seen and felt the more carefully it is studied. In respect of faithfulness to the inspired original, in a certain high and grave simplicity, in strength and dignity, the Scottish Metrical Psalter is not unworthy of the name, given it by competent judges, of ‘the prince of versions.’ Rugged as its verses sometimes are, they are never weak. Along with its simple ballad metres, it has the noble directness, the unsought felicities of expression which mark the best of our Scottish ballads. Passages meet you on almost every page which are fully equal in this respect to the one fine passage in the version of Sternhold and Hopkins, ‘The Lord descended from above, and bowed the heavens high.’ And it has been often remarked how, when the theme of the Psalm is the loftiest and most fitted for worship, the Scottish version seems to rise in power and beauty along with it.” —The Worship of the Presbyterian Church, with Special Reference to the Question of Liturgies (Edinburgh: Andrew Elliot, 1884), pp. 34-37

Hugh Barclay (1799-1884): “It is easy to test the rigid adherence of our received metrical version to the prose edition by comparing the one with the other. It is marvellous how closely the order of words in the prose are adapted to rhyme, and yet with no inconsiderable regard to taste and harmony. This may be tested by one person reading the prose version and another the metrical version of the same Psalm.” —Notes on the Psalm Book, Especially on the Scotch Metrical Version (William Blackwood and Sons: Edinburgh and London, 1877), p. 42

Richard Baxter (1615-1691): “Concerning the Psalms for public use. We desire that instead of the imperfect version of the Psalms in metre now in use, Mr. William Barton’s Version, and that perused and approved by the Church of Scotland there in use, (being the best that we have seen,) may be received and corrected by some skilful men, and both allowed (for grateful variety) to be printed together on several columns or pages, and publicly used; at least until a better than either of them shall be made.” —“The Reformed Liturgy,” in The Practical Works of Richard Baxter (London: George Virtue, 1838), 1:928

Henry Casson Barnes Bazely (1842-1883): “First, as to our metrical version of the Psalter. Fault is sometimes found with this version, on the score of its antique style and the alleged uncouthness of its rhythm. I suspect those who find fault with it are not seldom persons who do not venture to attack the Psalter itself, but think that they can perhaps successfully put it aside for an uninspired hymnal by disparaging the version now in use in our Church. This version, made by an Englishman named Rouse, a learned member of the Westminster Assembly in 1645, and carefully revised by the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland in 1649, does not need an elaborate apology from me. It is, considering its metrical form, a remarkably faithful translation of the Hebrew original, and is by no means deficient in such poetical vigour and beauty as a translation can attain to.” —“Inspired Psalmody: A Plea for the exclusive use of the Psalter in Christian Worship,” in E. L. Hicks, Henry Bazely: The Oxford Evangelist: A Memoir (London: Macmillan and Co., 1886), p. 271

Donald Beaton (1872-1953): “It may be also noticed that the United Presbyterian Church of [North] America uses a revised version of the metrical Psalms. It reads much smoother in many places than the Scottish version, but in our view it loses much of the virility and rugged grandeur of the old version.” —“The Psalms in Worship” (review) in The Free Presbyterian Magazine and Monthly Record, Vol. 12, No. 7 (November, 1907), pp. 249, 250

James Beattie (1735-1803): “The next English version of the Psalms in metre, is that which is now used by all the Presbyterian congregations in Scotland. And this, notwithstanding its many imperfections, I cannot help thinking the best. The numbers, it is true, are often harsh and incorrect; there are frequent obscurities, and some ambiguities in the style; the Scotch idiom occurs in several places; and the old Scotch pronunciation is sometimes necessary to make out the rhyme. Yet in this version there is a manly, though severe, simplicity, without any affected refinement; and there are many passages so beautiful as to stand in no need of emendation.” —A Letter to the Rev. Hugh Blair, D.D. one of the Ministers of Edinburgh, on the Improvement of Psalmody in Scotland (Edinburgh: R. Buchanan, 1829), pp. 9, 10

William Beveridge (1864-1937): “A peculiar interest attaches to the Assembly’s work on the metrical version of the Psalms, and it is too often forgotten how much in Scotland we owe to the Assembly in this matter. Certainly, the revision of the Psalter had a minor place in the deliberations of the Assembly; but, on the other hand, no work of these learned divines has led in a deeper sense to that Uniformity which they so longed and laboured for. . . . [O]n August 28th, 1647, the General Assembly declared that ‘it was very necessary that the Paraphrase sent from England should be yet revised.’ So the work of revision was entered upon. It was a most careful revision. Committees were appointed; Presbyteries were consulted, the Presbyteries being specially instructed that ‘it was not enough to find out faults, except they also set down their own essay correcting the same.’ The work lasted a long time, but at last, on November 23rd, 1649, the General Assembly’s Commission issued an Act discharging all old versions, and appointing the new version to be used in congregations and families after the first day of May 1650. The Committee of Estates approved of this on January 8th, 1650. The utmost care had been bestowed in the revision of Rous’s version; but the labour has been justified in the warm place the Psalm-book has taken in Scotland and elsewhere.” —A Short History of the Westminster Assembly (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1904), pp. 99, 102-103

Alexander Blaikie (1804-1885): “In teaching the doctrine of this manual [the New England Primer] for above thirty years, the matter of praise in this church had ever been ‘the Book of Psalms appointed by the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland’ in 1650, even after change came in their own denomination and the ‘revised’ psalms were in order. The old version had ‘a gnarled vigor’ (Choate) which the others have not, and never can have, and could be committed to memory for night enjoyment, or for blindness, for journeying or for the bed of sickness and death, while the other, as cast into the mould and peculiar metres of the varied sectarian hymns, has, excepting in removing a few obsolete words and improving some defective rhyme, weakened the sense, destroyed the dignity and beauty of the old version, without adding to its faithfulness, by substituting a depleted and impoverished English for their standard text.” —A History of Presbyterianism in New England. Its Introduction, Growth, Decay, Revival and Present Mission (Boston: Alexander Moore, 1881), p. 461

James Boswell (1740-1795): “Some allowance must no doubt be made for early pre-possession. But at a maturer period of life, after looking at various metrical versions of the Psalms, I am well satisfied that the version used in Scotland is, upon the whole, the best; and that it is vain to think of having a better. It has in general a simplicity and unction of sacred Poesy; and in many parts its transfusion is admirable.” —The Life of Samuel Johnson (London: Henry Baldwin, 1793), 2:367, 368

Patterson Proudfit Boyd (1842-1922): “But we believe there be yet extant a few poets of the ancient seed; and we would recommend to them an object worthy of their muse, to give to the church a uniform metrical version of the Psalms, whose improvement should consist, not in sacrificing the true expressions of the original to mere poetical language, but in a close adherence to the words of the original, even a more close condensation of them than in the prose version of which condensation our Scottish version contains many admirable examples. For poetic beauty and close adherence to the original, our Scottish version is as yet without a peer.” —“Report of the Committee on Psalmody,” in Minutes of the Synod of the Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America. Session LXXII. Pittsburgh, Pa., May 29-June 5, 1901, p. 18 — NOTE: Boyd is here borrowing liberally from Edward Irving, without indicating the source.

Charles John Brown (1806-1884): “I scarce feel warranted to speak of the Metre Psalms as a part of the formularies of the Assembly. They were all but a part of them, however. They may be said to have emanated from it,—to have been one of the direct and proper results of it. And assuredly there can be no hesitation in pronouncing them a mighty engine, under God, for the forming and maintaining of the right character of the Church. If any man prefer the paraphrases, or any hymns whatever, I am sorry for it,—I cannot agree with him. The divine simplicity, the very roughness of these Psalms, has, to my mind, an unspeakable charm. It brings out all the better the words of the Holy Ghost, in which the true poetry, that goes to the heart, lies. No psalmody like that,—

“‘Lord, thee my God, I’ll early seek;
My soul doth thirst for thee;
My flesh longs in a dry parched land,
Wherein no waters be,’ &c.

“It appears that the paraphrase of the Psalms in metre by Mr Francis Rous, was examined, corrected, and approved by the Assembly of Divines at Westminster and by them recommended to the English Parliament, which ordered that version to be sung in all the churches of England, Wales, and Berwick-upon-Tweed. The General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, before agreeing to the use of Rous’s version, ordered it to be reviewed, and compared with other versions. And our present version, though substantially that of Rous, and in many instances identical with it, is the result of numerous corrections and improvements made on it by a Committee of the General Assembly, which was employed some years in this work. Hence the title, ‘The Psalms of David in Metre, newly translated, and diligently compared with the original text and former translations: more plain, smooth, and agreeable to the text than any heretofore.'” —“The Leading Features and Excellencies of the Westminster Standards,” in Bicentenary of the Assembly of Divines at Westminster, held at Edinburgh, July 12th and 13th, 1843 (Edinburgh: W. P. Kennedy, 1843), p. 114

Hugh Brown (1810-1888): “The version of the book of psalms in use in the churches of Scotland and Ireland, and in the American churches where Scripture psalmody is exclusively used, is known by the name of the Scottish or Rouse’s version. The ground work of this version was laid by Francis Roos, or Rouse, and was intended both for the churches of England and Scotland. A committee of the church of Scotland having diligently compared it with the original Hebrew, sent it to the Presbyteries, and these with their observations to the original committee. This committee then sent it, with their observations on the remarks of the Presbyteries, to the commission of the General Assembly for public affairs. The whole having been carefully revised by the commission, was sent to the Provincial Synods, and through them again transmitted to the Presbyteries; and after being diligently considered, was at length sent up to the General Assembly. The version thus prepared was in the year 1649 received by the authority of the General Assembly, the highest ecclesiastical court in Scotland, and appointed by them to be sung in the public and social worship of God. . . . We affirm, that the Scottish metrical version, is nearer the original, than the prose translation.” —Discourses on Scripture Psalmody in Praising God; and against Instrumental Music in Public Worship (North White Creek, N.Y.: R.K. Crocker, 1859), pp. 19, 28

James Rossie Brown (1886-1953): “The completed work which I now present is not therefore to be regarded as offering any wholesale challenge, properly so-called, to the Scottish Metrical Psalms, which, in fact, on their own ground, may safely be regarded as unchallengeable. The aim which their authors set before themselves is the faithful rendering into verse of the prose psalms as contained in the Authorised Version of the Bible. That is not to say that there is no trace of independent scholarship in their work, or that no other consideration had any weight with them than the accurate reproduction in verse of what the Authorised Version so magnificently says in prose. But by and large it is true that our metrical psalms are not a rendering of Hebrew into English. They are a rendering of a particular English prose translation into English verse, a rendering in the careful exactitude of which I have found more and more to admire the more closely I have studied and weighed every word contained in them. Crude as they no doubt are in places, and occasionally unintelligible or ambiguous, they are yet as a whole a most extraordinarily accurate and faithful metrical version of the prose psalms as we have them in the Bible; so much so, that in that respect I cannot imagine any version ever excelling them.” — The Murrayfield Psalms: A New Metrical Version with Introductions and Notes (Edinburgh: Church of Scotland Committee on Publications, 1954), pp. xiii, xiv — NOTE: It should be pointed out that most other authors disagree with Brown’s assessment of the Scottish Psalter, that it was based upon the Authorized Version, rather than upon the Hebrew original.

John Brown (1754-1832): “From all this, we see the great care our fathers took to have our form of Psalmody as exact as possible, and, indeed, the present metrified and paraphrastic version of the Psalms, appears one of the best in the Reformed Churches. It has long been in high reputation, for its short, but judicious enlargements, its fidelity to the original, and its plainness suited to worshippers of every description.” —“Preface,” in The Psalms of David in Metre: . . . with Notes, . . . by John Brown, Late Minister of the Gospel at Haddington. . . . With a historical sketch of the Authorized Metrical Version of the Psalms, and the various steps by which it has been brough to its present standard of excellence. . . . by the Rev. John Brown, Minister of the Gospel, Whitburn (Edinburgh: Thomas Nelson and Peter Brown, 1831), p. vi

John Brown (1812-1901): “Candor requires me to state that the hymns adopted by the Baptist denomination are the hymns used by the congregation over which I preside. I should greatly prefer the Scotch version of the Psalms, and that alone, believing it to be the purest metrical translation extant; but, of course, I cannot compel my brethren to see with my eyes.” —“Hymns in the Psalms,” in The Reformed Presbyterian and Covenanter, Vol. 8, No. 1 (January, 1870), p. 10

George Burns (1790-1876): “In many instances, the versification is far from being smooth or agreeable to the ear. The fact is, a literal was more an object of attention than an elegant translation, and we have the satisfaction to know that we utter praise in the very words of inspiration.” —“The Early Settlers in New Brunswick,” in The Scottish Christian Herald, Second Series, Vol. 1, No. 6 (February 9, 1839), p. 81

Samuel William Carruthers (1866-1962): “After the Confession of Faith and the Shorter Catechism, the best known piece of work by the [Westminster] Divines is what are usually called the ‘Scottish Metrical Psalms.’ They were neither originated, nor were they finally completed by the [Westminster] Assembly; but it was due to their adoption by that body that they came, as a part of the proposed uniformity of worship, to be used in Scotland, and their singing by the Covenanters endeared them to the heart of that nation.” —The Everyday Work of the Westminster Assembly (Philadelphia: Presbyterian Historical Society, 1943), p. 115

Thomas Chalmers (1780-1847): “Dr CHALMERS . . . entirely coincided in the opinion so well expressed in the letter of Sir Walter Scott, which at once combined high poetic feeling with humble piety. He considered our metrical version to have a charm peculiar to itself.” —The New Scots Magazine, Vol. 2, No. 11 (September 30, 1829), p. 151

Elizabeth Rundle Charles (1828-1896): “Thus the Book of Psalms became the hymn-book of the Reformed Churches, adapted to grave and solemn music, in metrical translations whose one aim and glory was to render into measure which could be sung the very words of the old Hebrew Psalms. By what ingenious transpositions and compressions of words and syllables this has been accomplished, in the case of Scotland, is known to these who attend the Scotch Presbyterian services. The labour must have been conscientiously and painfully accomplished; for although the result may, to the uninitiated, bear something of the same resemblance to poetry as the fitting of fragments of Hebrew temple and Christian church into the walls of Jerusalem bears to architecture,—columns reversed and mouldings disconnected,—yet the very words are there, and the use to which they are applied is most sacred. At all events, the Scotch Psalms are David’s Psalms, and not modern meditations on them; and with all the sacred associations which two centuries of such a Church history as that of Scotland has gathered round the song of to-day, mingling it with echoes from mountain-gatherings, and martyrs’ prisons and scaffolds, and joyful deathbeds, probably no hymn-book could ever be one-half so musical or poetical to Scotch hearts as those strange, rough verses.” —The Voice of Christian Life in Song; or, Hymns and Hymn-Writers of Many Lands and Ages (London: James Nisbet and Co., 1858), pp. 254, 255

Rufus Choate (1799-1859): “An uncommon pith and gnarled vigour of sentiment lies in that old version; I prefer it to Watts’.” —Quoted in The Evangelical Repository, Vol. 11, No. 5 (October, 1852), p. 259

Thomas Clark (1720-1792): “So after nigh seven years labour and critical care, spent on it by both Assemblies and Parliaments, it may be called the Assemblies Metre Version of the Book of Psalms; and they have brought it so very close to represent the same ideas of things, the same doctrines, precepts, &c. as the Hebrew Psalms, wrote also in Hebrew Metre, that those who use it may with great propriety be said to praise the Lord with the words of David and Asaph &c. according to the commandment forecited, 2 Chron. xxix. 30.” —Plain Reasons, Why neither Dr. Watt’s Imitations of the Psalms, nor his other Poems, nor any other human Composition, ought to be used in the Praises of the Great God our Saviour—but, that a Metre Version of the Book of Psalms, examined, with wise and critical Care, by pious and learned Divines, and found by them to be as near the Hebrew Metre Psalms, as the Idiom of the English Language would admit, ought to be used (Albany: Balentine & Webster, 1783), p. 16

Joseph Claybaugh (1803-1855): “We use the version of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland because we regard it as the most correct; but we can, in the strictest consistency with the principle for which we contend, lay this aside whenever we can get one more correct. . . . This version, first prepared by Mr. Rouse, an able and pious member of the British Parliament, was altered and amended, and then approved by the Westminster Assembly, and afterwards, after careful revision, approved and adopted by the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, chiefly on account of its being a faithful metrical translation, nearer the original than any before in use. It was also considered smoother. While Rouse was the honored instrument of first proposing the version, it was subject to the revision, and met with the approval, of that assembly which furnished the ecclesiastical standards of the whole Presbyterian Church in Great Britain and America, and the revision and approval of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland in its best and purest days,—of such men as Twisse, and Lightfoot, and Rutherford, and Gillespie. But what the advocates of the Scripture Psalms contend for, is a faithful metrical translation. Such a translation we can account God’s word, just as we do our translation of the Bible. And what is called “Rouse’s version” is used because it is such a translation; at least incomparably more so than any other in use. So soon as a version shall be furnished better adapted to the present state of the English tongue, and decidedly nearer or equally as near the original, we are ready for its adoption.” —The Ordinance of Praise; or, An Argument in Favor of the Exclusive Use of the Book of Psalms in Singing Praise to God, Third Edition (Pittsburgh: United Presbyterian Board of Publication, 1864), pp. 4, 9, 10

Joseph Waddell Clokey (1839-1919): “It may be said in its praise that at the time of its completion it constituted the best metrical translation of the Psalms that had ever been published. Its close adherence to the original text has not, even to this day, been surpassed. Accepting the opinions of good and unprejudiced critics the assertion may be ventured that while the Old Testament would lose in grandeur and in sublime diction, it would not sacrifice any of its ideas and inspiration by a substitution of Rous’ metrical version of the Psalms for King James’ prose translation. These Psalms are, as far as a translation can well be, the very utterances the Spirit dictated to the Psalmists in the days of old.” —David’s Harp in Song and Story (Pittsburgh: United Presbyterian Board of Publication, 1896), p. 200

John Locker Clugston (b. 1942): “[W]e cannot agree to substitute a less accurate translation in the place of a more accurate one. It should be obvious that the more complicated the metre the more difficult it is to combine with it accurate translation and natural English expression. In their attempts to use the French metres in English Pont, Craig, Kethe, Wittingham and Ainsworth succeeded only by dislocation of words and sense and bold defiance of syntax. Our latter-day revisers have avoided this by involved circumlocution which is LESS ‘plain . . . and agreeable to the text than any heretofore.’ Tested by how it would compare with the original text if translated back into the original language one would suggest that the Scottish Version overall would fare considerably better than any of its modern competitors. . . .

“[T]o reintroduce more difficult tunes is to ignore 80 years’ psalm-singing experience in Scotland, England and New England. It was found that many people simply could not join in. This was one reason why may peculiar metre versions in the First Scottish Psalter and Ainsworth’s Psalter were not included in our present Scottish Version. ‘If there is one principle in Scottish Psalmody especially entitled to the rank of fundamental, it is that it should be performed by the mass of the congregation.’ . . .

“The Scottish Version has served as a common bond in a way that no revision can hope to. No revision will be welcomed unanimously. Some congregations and families are bound to continue to use the old version. Moreover, any revision adopted in Australia can only accentuate existing divisions among the psalm-singing Reformed Churches. . . . The responsibility for widening the breach will rest squarely with those who make or permit Changes.” —Making and Marring the Scottish Psalter (Sydney: Reformer Print, 1974), pp. 45, 47

Henry Sloane Coffin (1877-1954): “These metrical psalms which have so endeared themselves to Scottish hearts and played so significant a role in Scottish history, have valuable qualities, of which the following deserve mention. . . . They are characterized by a rugged simplicity. According to the canons of lyric verse they leave much to be desired, but ordinary folk with the scantiest education can understand and memorize them, and find them fitting expressions of their penitence, praise, and prayer. . . . Along with this simplicity there is a strict faithfulness to the original. Nothing is added or taken away. So far as English verse can utter it, this is the thought of the Hebrew Psalmists.” —“The Enduring Significance of the Scottish Psalter” (New York: Hymn Society of America, 1950), p. 2

John Colquhoun (1896-1976): “It may be said that the present version of the metrical Psalms has penetrated into the warp and woof of the religion of Scotland, and the common people have not found any difficulty in understanding the English of the Psalms, and have never found fault with what some, who pretend to an aesthetic taste, call the ‘uncouthness of the rhyme.’ Those who approved this version, both in the Assembly of Divines and in the Assembly of the Church of Scotland were gracious men of outstanding gifts and attainments, and knew very well what they were doing, and succeeded well in producing a version not only for their own day but for many generations to come. . . . One advocate of change at the last Free Church Assembly referred to the Reformed Presbyterian Psalter, and said that he had used it quite extensively in the United States, and that there was much in it to commend it, while it may have many defects. That may be so, but let this book, The Book of Psalms with Music, be distributed in the average psalm-singing congregations in Scotland, and they would soon throw it away as something that made very little sense for them. It would be a very poor and emasculated substitute for those who were accustomed from their childhood to the grand old version which stood the test since 1650, and which voiced their deepest feelings in all the circumstances in which they happened to be placed.” —“The Scottish Metrical Version of the Psalms,” in The Free Presbyterian Magazine, Vol. 72, No. 5 (September, 1967), pp. 139, 141

Committee — Robert John Black (1820-1860); Joseph Tate Cooper (1813-1886); William Sterrett (1823-1903); James McLeod Willson (1809-1866): “We are, certainly, at liberty to pronounce, very decidedly, the ‘Scottish version’ to be an accurate rendering of the original. We are aware, indeed, that attempts have been made to disparage it even in this respect, but they have signally failed. In fact, it is even less liable to the charge of inaccuracy than our generally faultless English Bible. Where it differs from the prose, competent judges pronounce most frequently in its favour as really the more accurate.” —The True Psalmody, 2d ed. (Philadelphia: William S. Young, 1859), p. 222

Joseph Tate Cooper (1813-1886): “If the claims of these respective versions are to be decided by a reference to the authority with which they come to us, the decision must be given in favour of the one which has been excluded from the sanctuary, to make room for that of Dr. Watts. Suppose we view it simply as ‘Rouse’s version,’ (which by the way it is not, as it underwent material alterations after it came from his hands,) is it to be despised on this account? He was, according to ‘The History of the Westminster Assembly,’ before referred to, ‘a highly esteemed member of Parliament,’ and was also a member of the Westminster Assembly. He was also provost of Eton college; and any one who has read his ‘Academia Coelestis,’ cannot but be impressed with the conviction that he was a man of vast erudition, as well as deep and fervent piety. The ‘version’ of Dr. Watts has the authority of the General Assembly of the United States in this country, and has not the version of Rouse the same authority? The History before referred to, tells us that it is ‘still authorized’ by this body. But in addition to this, this version was adopted by the Westminster Assembly of Divines, and afterwards by the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, after a careful revision, in which they were for at least three years employed. . . . We think, too, the great length of time in which it has been in use, and the strong attachment with which it is cherished, are pretty conclusive evidences, that, whatever may be its defects, it is not destitute of poetic taste. It has at least the poetry of thought, if there is any of it in the Psalms of David, for we think it would be hard to discover a thought there, which is not brought out in this version, and that, too, almost in the very words of the prose; and where there are variations between them, there is sometimes a greater conformity to the spirit of the original.” —“The Friends of Inspired Psalmody Defended against the Charge of Prejudice and Illiberality,” in The Evangelical Repository, 1850, pp. 257-258

Robert Marshall Copeland (b. 1945): “One of the tasks assigned the Westminster Assembly of Divines (1643-1653) was to prepare a new version of the Psalms, suitable for use in England, Scotland, and Wales. The version they approved in 1646 was revised and emended by the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland and approved in 1650. That version embedded itself in the Scottish soul; it fortified and consoled them during the persecution and the ‘Killing Times,’ and has been sung by countless presbyterians of every stripe around the globe for 350 years. Its persistence is more than a habit of the familiar; at its best, the Scottish Psalter has an incomparable majesty of language which sinks deep into the heart. It continues to be used by various Presbyterian bodies in Scotland, Canada, the United States, Australia, and elsewhere. It has shaped the development of psalters in Turkish, Armenian, Modern Greek, Chinese, Japanese, and other world languages in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.” —“The Experience of Singing the Psalms,” in The Book of Psalms for Worship, Fifth Printing (Pittsburgh: Crown and Covenant Publications, 2011), pp. xiv, xv

John S. Craigie (1895-1981): “The Psalms in Metre that have now been sung in the Church of Scotland for three centuries were perhaps the most lasting work of the Westminster Assembly of 1644. This body, it will be remembered, had been summoned by the English Parliament to devise a common religious settlement for both England and Scotland. In that it failed, but out of its deliberations came the Shorter Catechism and the Psalms in Metre. Both were accepted by Scotland, but the Shorter Catechism has gone, almost certainly beyond recall. The Psalms in Metre, however, are still happily with us. . . . A committee does not seem to be the instrument best fitted to produce a lasting piece of literature. Yet twice in English literature it has succeeded, once in the 1611 Authorised Version of the Bible and once in the Psalms in Metre of 1650.” —“The Psalms in Metre,” in The Scottish Educational Journal, Vol. 33, Iss. 17 (28th April, 1950), pp. 282, 283

A. P. C. Cumming: “As part of the worship, it continues to use metrical Psalms, for which [the] C[hurch] of S[cotland] was responsible and are often referred to as Scottish Psalms. It is unfortunate that so many churches have stopped singing these great works, which add dignity and a sense of awe to the service.” —Balanced Doctrine: What the Bible Says (Mustang, Okla.: Tate Publishing and Enterprises, 2008), p. 70

John Cunningham (1819-1893): “The same Assembly which sanctioned the ‘Confession of Faith’ had under its consideration a new metrical version of the psalms. . . . The Assembly appointed a committee to revise the poetical translation of Rouse, with instructions to make what use they could of the version of the Laird of Rowallan, and of Zachary Boyd, at that time well known to the lovers of sacred poesy. The result of their labours was that version of the psalms now sung every Sabbath in our churches, and which, though neither so classical in its language, nor so melodious in its measures as we would expect from the age which produced a ‘Paradise Lost,’ and ‘L’Allegro,’ is yet so terse, so true to the original, and so natural, as to be upon the whole the best poetical translation of the psalms of which the English literature can boast.” —The Church History of Scotland: From the Commencement of the Christian Era to the Present Century (Edinburgh: Adam & Charles Black, 1859), 2:155, 156

John Spencer Curwen (1847-1916): “The position of the old Scots Psalter [of 1564], however, was not nearly so secure as that of the English. After many attempts to supplant it, including a determined attempt to enforce the use of King James’s Psalter, it was finally superseded in 1650 by the version which was the outcome of the Westminster Assembly. This version was founded on that of Francis Rous, provost of Eton, which, on the recommendation of the Westminster Assembly, was printed in 1645 by order of Parliament, and recommended for general adoption. The Church of Scotland, however, was not wholly satisfied with this new version. It was indeed taken as a foundation, but six brethren were commissioned to compare it with the versions of Sir William Mure (Rowallen), Zachary Boyd, William Barton, and especially with the old Scottish version. These revisions at length completed, the version was authorised and published in 1650. It is curious to note that Rous, the father of the new Scots version, was an Englishman, while Tate and Brady, who nearly half a century later made the new English version, were both Irishmen. But the new versions of the two countries ahd nothing in common. They moved in opposite directions. While the new Scots version was welcomed as a closer and more literal rendering of the text, Tate and Brady’s version made an attempt at elegance which many of the most devout and learned Englishmen of the time strongly resented. The new Scots version is still used in every service of the Presbyterian Churches, while the new English version is extinct.” —Studies in Worship-Music, Chiefly as Regards Congregational Singing (London: J. Curwen & Sons, 1880), p. 67

John Blakely Dales (1815-1893): “We do not claim for this version absolute perfection. . . . We claim for it higher perfection than belongs to any other; that is, we claim for it superiority. The special question which the Plea in this part of it proposed to meet was this—Is our own version justly entitled to the claim of superiority as a metrical version? That we should be confined to the Psalms in singing praise, is one proposition; that we should be confined to this version in singing the Psalms, is another. On the former I have said all I intend to say. The present question has respect to the latter. If our version is in fact superior to every other, it ought to be preferred. If it ought, for its merits, to have the preference, it should be approved and used by all; and if it is worthy to be esteemed the best, then we ought, in singing praise, to be confined to it. Even should the Scriptures allow of the use of hymns and paraphrases, if we were also required to sing the Psalms, we should sing them from this version, on the ground of its superiority. If the Scriptures furnish no warrant to sing human composures, and authorize only the use of the Bible Psalter in offering praise, we should still use this version on the ground of its superiority. . . . Call this version what you please—Rouse’s version, the Westminster version, the Scottish version, the Irish version, the English version, or call it as it is sometimes affectionately styled in the Plea, our own version. The question is, Is it justly entitled as a metrical version to the claim of superiority above all others? . . . How can its superiority be proved, or disproved, except in the way of trying it in common or in contrast with other versions, by the test of the original text? . . . I will furthermore affirm that if the author had compared our version with the Psalms in Hebrew, he would have ascertained that several of his alleged samples of paraphrase are not such, but are in fact instances in which our version gives the sense of the original more fully than it is given in the prose translation.” —“Review of M’Laren on Psalmody,” in The Evangelical Repository, Vol. 13, No. 1 (June, 1854), pp. 27, 28

James Dick (1842-1916): “With regard to accent, it is possible for us—and I suppose every one who reads poetry will say that it is possible for us—to lay quite too much stress on accent. The very faults of accent, to which the writer of the Paper referred, as found in the Scottish version of the Psalms, are found within the first three lines of ‘Paradise Lost’—

‘Of man’s first disobedience, and the fruit
Of that forbidden tree, whose mortal taste
Brought death into the world, and all our woe.’

The ‘first’ of the first line is shortened and ‘dis-‘ is lengthened, and the ‘and’ must be accented, if we insist upon a mechanical adherence to accent; so the word ‘into’, in the third line, would require to have the accent on the second syllable. We find a similar defiance of mechanical rules in that line which is well known—

‘Hail! Holy Light, offspring of Heaven first-born!’

Here the accent required by a rigid adherence to the iambic flow of the verse would be on the syllable ‘spring’; but the great poet was satisfied to have the accent on the syllable ‘off’. The Scottish version may surely be allowed the same latitude in the matter of accent that was good enough for John Milton. To refuse such latitude would be to turn poetry into mathematics.” —“Discussion” on “A Uniform Metrical Version of the Psalms,” in Psalm-Singers’ Conference, Held in the Y. M. C. A. Hall, Wellington Place, Belfast, on 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th August, 1902 (Belfast: Fountain Printing Works, 1903), p. 321

Robert James Dodds (1824-1870): “I thought this a favorable opportunity for throwing out a few hints, tending to show what an excellent metrical version of the Psalms we have. Its excellence consists, not in smoothness of versification,—for it is granted that it has many rough versions, and awkward rhymes;—but in that which is infinitely better,—fidelity to the original Hebrew.

“It may be asserted without fear of successful contradiction, that, take it all in all, it retains the meaning, spirit, life, energy, majesty and sublimity of the Hebrew Psalms, as little impaired as does the prose translation. And even if the singing of the psalms in Divine worship, were left out of view, it would be difficult to tell whether the world would sustain more injury, in the loss of the Scotch metrical version, or in the loss of the prose translation. Indeed, if the former were treated according to its merits, it would be inserted side by side with the latter, in every English Bible. It is freely granted that the Scotch version of the Psalms is not perfect; but the same thing is true of our most admirable English translations of the Bible: both may be corrected and amended and even superseded by translations still more excellent.

“But no argument is needed to prove that the Book of Psalms, in Rouse’s version, is the word of God; it presents to every reader the same internal evidence of its divine origin, as the Bible does in the common English translation; any man of sound mind can see it, and it would not be too much to assert that any man who has any grace at all, will, upon inspection of the Psalms of David in Metre, discern them to be the language of the Holy Ghost, as readily and as certainly as a man of healthy palate will ascertain by tasting an apple whether it be sweet or sour.” —A Reply to Morton on Psalmody: To Which is Added a Condensed Argument for the Exclusive Use of an Inspired Psalmody (Pittsburgh: Kennedy & Brother, 1851), pp. 88, 89

Andrew Duncan (1820-1894): “This version, after repeated revisals, was approved of by the Westminster Assembly; and, having undergone further careful revision by members of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, it was adopted and sanctionedin 1649, and, on the 15th day of May in the following year, was for the first time used publicly in Glasgow. It claims to be ‘more plain, smooth, and agreeable to the text, than any’ versions ‘heretofore;’ and though many attempts have been made to supersede it, yet none have been successful, the firmness with which it has held its place being, undoubtedly, owing to its real excellence, its intrinsic merits, as well as to the endearing associations with which it has come to be surrounded.” —The Scottish Sanctuary as it was and is: or recent changes in the public worship of the Presbyterian churches in Scotland (Edinburgh: Andrew Elliot, [1882]), p. 6

John Eadie (1810-1876): “They [the Psalms] were originally composed in Hebrew verse, and translations of them have been made into many languages, both in prose and verse. They are still sung in Christian assemblies of various nations, in poetical versions, which they understand. A poetical version of them, in English, has for many years been sanctioned by the Church of Scotland, which is remarkable for its fidelity to the original Hebrew, and for the ancient simplicity of its style.” —Translation of Buchanan’s Latin Psalms into English Verse (Glasgow: Muire, Gowans, & Co., 1836), p. v

John Edgar (1798-1866): “The Scottish version of the Psalms is not perfect, nor is the English translation of the Bible; but both are so near perfection, and so interwoven with Christian faith and feeling, that it is a question of the gravest character whether either of them should be changed. Independent of inspiration and the highest sanctions, and of very many tender, holy, and sublime associations the Book of Psalms, in the Scottish version, is incomparably superior to any book of sacred song that the world ever saw. To my own heart it is very dear; to my own ear it is poetic, spiritual, and sublime; and in my own mind, it is associated with the sunniest memories of the sacred past, recalling testimonies to its excellence from those who sing now before the throne, and triumphant quotations from its heavenly pages, as I drew the last curtain round the bed of death.” —“Preface,” The True Psalmody (Belfast: James Johnston, 1861), p. 9, 10

John C. Endres (b. 1946) and Elizabeth Liebert (b. 1944): “In Scotland a second method of metred psalmody developed, the most notable being the Scottish Psalter of 1650. Here the psalms were translated into common poetic metres so that a variety of tune/hymn combinations could be used interchangeably.” —A Retreat with the Psalms: Resources for Personal and Communal Prayer (New York: Paulist Press, 2001), p. 40

David Marshall Forrester (1859-1952): “Those Psalms, oft-times rugged indeed—take such a line as ‘Thou Tarshish ships with East wind break’st’—and yet how could the words and sense be rendered into smooth flowing stanza?—at times flat and customary, but entering into the very soul and life, and ready to guide upwards and prompt to faith and obedience, and lead into the very presence of the Almighty and All-merciful. Yes: these Psalms in this version formed no small part of the ground-work of Scots religion. Other religions would have perhaps a glimpse of the sublimities: but none of them had such a vision of God and so keen an appreciation of man in all his needs and moods.” —First Address (delivered 7th May 1950, in Broughton United Free Church, Peeblesshire) in Commemoration of the Tercentenary of the Scottish Psalter of 1650

Finley Milligan Foster (1853-1948): “This Revised Rous Version, known as the Scotch Psalter, is the Version, and the only Version of Psalms, that has been in continuous use for two hundred and fifty years (250). It has, as has King James’ Version of the Bible, left all others in incontestable inferiority. It has seen all others, excepting those of recent years, laid away in Museums. . . . ‘The English speaking world,’ say the Editors of the Scofield Bible, ‘gives no indication of accepting a version of the Bible other than the Authorized Version, though several have been produced.’ Almost contemporaneous with that Version is the Old Scotch Version of the Psalms; and we give it as our judgment that no other will be sung for a very long time. We have, with some care, examined Versions and for closeness to the original, for use of almost the very words of the prose, no version can stand in comparison with the Old Scotch Version.” —“Plea for the Old Scotch Version,” in Christian Nation, Vol. 52, No. 1337 (May 4, 1910), p. 9

James Mitchell Foster (1850-1928): “[I]n reading its [the UPCNA 1912 Psalter’s] lines page after page, I cannot dismiss the conviction that compared to the Scotch version, there is a rugged, sturdy, towering grandeur and sublimity in the latter that is wanting in the former. Having committed the Psalter in our boyhood and having drunk in the spirit of the sweet singer of Israel as voiced by the Scotch bard who was so wonderfully enrapport with the Psalmist, the reading of this new version suggests the Saviour’s contrast between old wine in old bottles and new wine in old bottles. ‘And no man having drunk old wine, straightway desireth new: for he saith, The old is better.’ . . . We are profoundly convinced that the old Scotch Version is safer, saner and better than the New Metrical Version.” —“The New Metrical Version of the Psalms,” in Christian Nation, Vol. 52, No. 1320 (January 5, 1910), pp. 5, 6

Susan E. Gillingham (b. 1951): “Eventually, by 1650, the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland approved a revised version, called The Scottish Psalter. This was essentially the work of one Francis Rous, whose work had been thoroughly examined by a committee over a six-year period for its accuracy of translation from the Hebrew, and rendering of metre and rhyme. This scrutiny stood the test of time: with the exception of some modernization of spelling, The Scottish Psalter is still sung today, and its version of Psalm 23 is amongst the best known amongst all types of English-speaking Christians.” —Psalms Through the Centuries (Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, 2008), 1:153

Henry Alexander Glass (fl. 1888-1899): “Undoubtedly the Scotch is one of the best of the old popular versions. With all its defects, there is a ring about it which we do not find in Tate and Brady, and a smoothness which was not a characteristic of Sternhold and Hopkins. It is difficult for Englishmen to realize how much the Rous Psalter entered into the religious and social life of the Scotch people. Wherever they went they took their psalm-book with them, and while Tate and Brady was slowly vanishing from sleepy parish churches in English rural districts, the sturdy Presbyterian might here and there be still heard shouting his Psalms with as great vigour as ever.” —The Story of the Psalters: A History of the Metrical Psalters of Great Britain and America: From 1549 to 1885 (London: Kegan Paul, Trench & Co., 1888), p. 38

James H. Grant, Jr. (b. 1976): “When I introduced the practice of psalm singing at our church, we started with the Scottish Psalter of 1650, titled ‘The Songs [sic] of David in Meter.’ Although the language is not modern, I could easily adapt the psalms to tunes we already knew. Another benefit is that we did not have to deal with any copyright laws connected to this Psalter, and it is available free online. I also appreciate the fact that this Psalter was approved by a church, the Church of Scotland, because they believed it was an accurate translation of the psalms. In a ‘Letter to the Reader’ that was included in the 1650 Scottish Metrical Psalter published in 1673, several Puritan divines acknowledged the importance of this particular translation: . . . Not only was this Psalter an attempt at precise translation into meter so it could be sung, but these Puritan scholars believed that the translators actually accomplished their purpose. The signatures on this letter included the names of Puritan greats—Thomas Manton, John Owen, Thomas Watson, and Matthew Poole, to mention a few. That is a significant testimony to the accuracy of this Psalter.” —“How I Introduced Psalm Singing to My Church . . . without Getting Fired!” in C. Richard Wells and Ray Van Neste, eds., Forgotten Songs: Reclaiming the Psalms for Christian Worship (Nashville, Tenn.: B&H Publishing Group, 2012), pp. 97, 98

James Cuthbert Hadden (1861-1914): “Regarded as a literary production, the Rous version is greatly in advance of its predecessor. Indeed, it is upon the whole the best poetical translation of the psalms of which the English literature can boast. There is a fine, manly ring about it that is quite foreign to Tate and Brady, and a smoothness which the Sternhold versifiers seldom attained. It is characterized by an eminent truthfulness to the original, and it yields the sense of the Hebrew in a real Saxon strength and simplicity.” —“Sternhold and Hopkins and their Followers,” in The Living Age, Vol. 208 (January, February, March, 1896), p. 372

William Hanna (1824-1860): “The metrical version of the Psalms is in every respect worthy of our confidence, and suitable for use in Divine worship. . . . No one has ever claimed that our metrical version was perfect. That any work be perfect, the author must be Divine. But this we can establish on behalf of the Book of Psalms, that the original is perfect, and that the translation we use in Divine worship is ‘exactly framed according to the original text,’ in the judgment of the most distinguished Assembly that met since the Reformation. . . . Our Scottish metrical version of the Psalms is a clear, sound, and accurate translation of the original. It bears the imprimatur of the Westminster Assembly of Divines who commend it to general use on the ground that, ‘it was exactly framed according to the original text.'” —A Plea for the Songs of Zion: or, The Book of Psalms the Only Inspired and Divinely Authorized Matter of Praise (Belfast: J. Johnston, 1860), pp. 40, 41, 43

William Ramsay Hemphill (1806-1876): “[T]his version, the first draft of which was prepared by the Hon. Mr. Rouse, comes to us approved and authorized by Church and State—by Parliaments and Church Assemblies. It was subjected to the most rigid and careful investigation by men of eminent learning and godliness, ministerial abilities and fidelity. But what are the defects of this version now called Rouse’s, that it should be so obnoxious to so many of the friends of Zion? It leaves out no Psalms, nor parts of Psalms—it alters neither the strain of discourse nor the arrangement of the matter—it contains all the figures and metaphors, and all the ideas that are to be found in the original, and not unfrequently it conveys the sense of the Hebrew, it is said, with greater precision than the prose translation.” —A Discourse on Psalmody, Delivered at Bethel Church, Laurens District, S.C., August 2, 1841. Second Edition (Schenectady: I. Riggs, 1842), p. 24

Ridley Haim Herschell (1807-1864): “I have, in many cases, adopted the Scotch version of the Psalms in preference to all others, because, notwithstanding its frequent ‘uncouth rhymes’ and rugged metre, it retains the beautiful simplicity of the Hebrew original, much more than any other version.” —“Preface,” in Psalms and Hymns for Congregational Worship, Second Edition (London: J. Unwin, 1853), pp. vi-vii

James Hogg (1770-1835): “Perhaps you are engaged in correcting our ancient psalmody; but again I say, take care. These Psalms have an old watchman guarding over them here, who has had them all by heart since he was ten years of age; and what he wants in erudition and ability, he has in zeal to keep every innovator in due subordination.

“It is true, and no person will attempt to deny, that some of the verses are antiquated and plain. But that is one of their chief beauties; because these verses only occur where the original is equally unpoetical; and to have attempted to have made such verses grand, would only have been a caricature. But wherever the original is capable of it, how beautifully simple and sublime they are! . . .

“But turn to any thing pathetic, beautiful, or sublime in the whole psalmody, I care not where it be,—nay, let any person do it, however prejudiced, and say candidly, which is the most simply beautiful, and closest to the original. Remember there is a great deal lies in that; for is it not a glorious idea that we should be worshipping the same God, in the very same strains that were hymned to him by his chosen servants in the Tabernacle 3000 years ago? But in the modern English version I will defy any man to trace the same strain of thought that runs through the prose translation. In ours, they are literally the same. . . .

“[M]y veneration of our ancient psalmody is such, that to see an innovation in it would almost break my heart. The venerable Principal Baird sent me a special invitation to his house one evening, many years ago, and in his own name, and those of his brethren, presented a request to me to new versify a part of the Psalms. I answered, that he might as well propose to me to burn my Bible, or renounce my religion. The reverend father looked astonished, and asked an explanation. I said, ‘it was because these verses, modelled as they were now, had long, long been the penates of Scotland. Every peasant in Scotland had them by heart, and could repeat any part by day or by night, as suited his or her family’s circumstances. The shepherd recites them to his son on the lonely hill, the mother to the child in her bosom. They are the first springs of religion in the peasant’s soul, mingled with all his thoughts and acts of devotion through life, and hymned on the cradle of death; and to make any innovation there, would be with a reckless hand to puddle and freeze up the pure springs of religion in the hearts of the most virtuous and most devout part of our community. No, no, Dr Baird; for the love of God and your fellow-men, have no hand in such an experiment! Our country communities would be less shocked, and their religious rites less degenerated, by the introduction of the liturgy at once, than by a new psalmody. I will versify as much of the other parts of Scripture as you want or desire, but never shall I alter, or consent to the alteration of, a single verse of our old psalmody, for they are hallowed round the shepherd’s hearth.'” —“A Letter from Yarrow.—The Scottish Psalmody Defended,” in The Edinburgh Literary Journal; or, Weekly Register of Criticism and Belles Lettres, No. 70 (Saturday, March 13, 1830), pp. 162, 163

James Hogg (1806-1888): “True, there are plenty of uncouth rhymes, rugged, tuneless lines, and obsolete expressions, to be found in the present version. But what good taste does not admire its severe and manly simplicity, notwithstanding these insignificant defects? No words can be a vehicle for Divine praise, equal to the words of Scripture itself—the very words which the Spirit of inspiration has uttered. Even Sir Walter Scott saw, and has declared this. It is their closeness to the original which forms the strength and the excellence of our versified psalms. It may safely be pronounced impossible that the psalms can ever be done into rhyme with less departure from the very words of the prose translation, than the present version exhibits. . . . It would be easy to outdo the present version in smoothness of numbers, in refinement, and elegance of expression; but its affecting simplicity and likeness to the original, in which its value lies, would be overlaid and lost.” —“The Scottish Psalms,” in Hogg’s Instructor, Vol. 6 (1851—New Series), p. 296

Thomas Houston (1803-1882): “What we contend for in a metrical version of the psalms, to be used in the church’s worship, is, that it should express the utterances of inspiration, as near as possible, without addition or dilution. We do not maintain that our venerable Scottish version is perfect, though as a close translation and transcript of the original, it is vastly superior to any other metrical version of the psalms, with which we are acquainted. . . . Some of the most distinguished divines and scholars have declared the Scottish metre version to be an accurate rendering of the original, and to be eminently fitted for the purpose of public praise.” —Divine Psalms against Human Paraphrases and Hymns (Belfast: James Johnston, 1861), p. 15

Edward Irving (1792-1834): “If, instead of making collections of Hymns, many of them disgusting both to taste and feeling, and all of them beneath the mark of divine Psalmody, . . . if instead of making other editions of the Book of Psalms with improvements, if instead of multiplying paraphrases and translations, the churches would require of their ministers (what heretofore the ministers of their own accord were wont to do,) to preface upon the Psalms, or set forth their spiritual significations to the people, their prophetic anticipations, and their rich unction of heavenly poesy—that would be to do for the people every Sabbath, what Bishop Horne hath done for the church in this excellent book; then, from our old metrical versions of the Psalms, however bald, and especially from our Scottish version because of its very baldness, that is its want of what they call poetic diction, (but the simplest, truest diction is the most poetical,) we would anticipate infinitely more benefit to the spiritual life of the saints, and the conviction of the ungodly, than if you were to congregate a whole sanhedrim of poets, (as that name goes at present,) and requiring of them to work up the remnant of their wits into Psalms, and hymns, and spiritual songs. But there be a few poets of the ancient seed still extant in the land, and of these there are some who have shown themselves masters in the simple stanza of the old song, and who add thereto the faith and feeling of revealed religion, to whom we would recommend it as an object worthy of their muse, to give to us an improved metrical version of the Psalms, whose improvement should consist in not sacrificing the true expression of the original to mere poetical language, but in a close adherence to the words of the original, even a more close condensation of them than in the prose version, of which condensation our Scottish version contains many admirable examples.” —“Introductory Essay,” in George Horne, A Commentary on the Book of Psalms (Glasgow: Chalmers and Collins, 1825), 1:lxiv, lxv

Robert Jamieson (1802-1880): “[I]t was not till the 15th day of May of that year [1650] that it was publicly used in Glasgow, and has continued ever since to be the only metrical version of the Psalms authorised by the Church of Scotland. Notwithstanding the many zealous attempts that, at different periods, have been made to supplant it by one more in accordance with the niceties of modern taste and language, no complete translation has ever been accomplished which could stand a comparison with the ancient version, in respect to the many peculiar qualities which a psalter requires to combine. Indeed, it is very questionable whether the introduction of these modern refinements would not be made at an expense that would be ever afterwards regretted by every friend to true and spiritual religion. That there are uncouth, quaint, and obsolete expressions, rough and inharmonious lines, and rhymes that most indifferently correspond, are features in this metrical version too palpable and prominent to be concealed or denied. But these blemishes are trivial, and sink into insignificance, when compared with the manifold excellencies that distinguish it,—its fidelity to the original,—the simple structure of its versification, and the extraordinary closeness with which it approaches to the style of the prose translation, thus enabling the worshipper to employ in his devotional strains, the very words which the Spirit indited. This is a quality of pre-eminent importance, too highly appreciated by every pious mind, to be lightly exposed to the hazard of disappearing amid the refinements of a modernized dress, and the extreme rareness with which this scriptural simplicity has been caught by the many successive adventurers on this field of poetical experiment, conveys an emphatic lesson of admonition—to beware of innovating upon a version which has been so singularly successful because so eminently fitted for awakening devotional sentiment. Let any one compare the Psalms in this authorised version with any of the Hebrew melodies, which have come from the pen of Scott, Byron, Moore, or even of Montgomery, and others who breathe a more pious spirit, and he will at once perceive, that, whatever graces of elegant diction and melodious numbers the latter may possess, as a species of sacred and devotional poetry, they appear cold and insipid in comparison of the fervid spirit, pathos, and charming simplicity of our Church’s version. The truth is, it was composed in an age when religion was flourishing in great vigour, and by men who had drunk deep

Of Siloa’s brook that flowed,
Fast by the oracles of God,—

men whose holy desire in the composition of that psalter, was to touch the heart of the worshippers, not to entertain their fancy, or delight their ears with the enticing words of man’s wisdom, and whose correct judgment led them to study that simplicity of language, which, while it presented no gaudy or meretricious ornaments to divert the imagination, would render that most interesting part of divine worship, which consists in vocal praise, accessible to people of every rank and every age.” —“Some Account of the Metrical Version of the Psalms,” in The Scottish Christian Herald, Vol. 2—Second Series (1840), p. 786

John Black Johnston (1802-1882): “The Scottish Version of the Book of Psalms . . . Here is a translation sanctioned, not by a committee of civilians, called by Royal prerogative, but by one of the most evangelical and venerable of all the Assemblies that have convened in all Christendom for two and a quarter centuries. Here is a translation of one of the books of the Bible, prepared and sanctioned by the Church of Scotland in the days of her learning, her power, her glory. Rutherford, Henderson, Gillespie, Baillie, Douglass, were there. ‘There were giants in those days.’ The most evangelical churches of Protestantism have, ever since those golden days, used this translation. Some of the best scholars of the last two centuries have recognized this translation as worthy of a place among the versions of the books of the Bible.” —Psalmody. An Examination of Authority for Making Uninspired Songs, and for Using Them in the Formal Worship of God (St. Clairsville, Ohio: John Stuart, 1871), pp. 112, 113

Douglas Floyd Kelly (b. 1943): “I lived for some four years in Scotland, and regularly attended a church where the Scottish metrical Psalms were sung. Experiencing such praise has deeply shaped my inner life for the better all the years since then.” —“The Puritan Regulative Principle and Contemporary Worship,” in J. Ligon Duncan, III, ed., The Westminster Confession into the 21st Century (Fearn, Scotland: Mentor, 2004), 2:96, 97

John Ker (1819-1886): “If it has been loved, it has been much criticized—condemned as uncouth and Galilean in speech, faulty in measure and rhyme, and affording little scope for musical variety from its monotonous versification. It is easy to seem to substantiate this through some quotations passed from hand to hand by people who do not know it, or who judge by that rule that smoothness is better than strength, and correct rhyme superior to scriptural fidelity. At the same time it would be foolish to deny that it has not a few imperfections. The want of variety in its measures is a defect; its rhymes, made in an age of vigorous manhood, fighting for great issues, rebel often against modern sweetness; and the handling of its syllables, to bring them under musical law, requires sometimes patient and loving skill. But when all this is admitted, we can claim that no version has ever been made which adheres so closely to the Scripture. It proceeds on the principle of giving every thought in the original, and nothing more; and in this it has succeeded to an extent which is marvellous, and which can be realized only by one who has tested it through careful comparison. It meets with some stones of stumbling, and suffers some dislocation of words, by adhering to the line laid down; but there is abundant compensation in the life and energy, the picturesqueness and colour, which it preserves by close contact with the old Hebrew soil. The thought stands out clear, distinct, forceful, not wrapped up in wordy paraphrases where David himself would have had difficulty in recognising his meaning, or liquefied into weak sentimentalisms from which his manly nature, to take no higher view, would have turned away ashamed. This too may be said, that those portions which the heart feels it needs in its sorrowful hours, over which it leans and pours in its deep musings, or from the summits of which it mounts as on eagle’s wings in its moments of joy, have a tenderness, a quaint beauty, a majesty in their form peculiar to that age of the English language in which they were framed.” —The Psalms in History and Biography (Edinburgh: Andrew Elliot, 1886), pp. 207, 208

David Laing (1793-1878): “That this Version of the Psalms should have remained so long in use must be mainly attributed to the great care that was bestowed by many learned divines to render it at once a simple and faithful paraphrase of the original text. To a modern critic it will no doubt appear destitute of poetical sentiment or felicity of expression. Fidelity, however, was the great object aimed at, and mere elegance was sacrificed to a close adherence to the original.” —The Letters and Journals of Robert Baillie (Edinburgh: Robert Ogle, 1842), 3:549

John Lamont (fl. 1649-1671): “1650.—A new translation of the Psalms of David, in meter, first corrected by the Assembly of Divines in England, both afterward revised by the Gener[al] Assemb[ly] of this kingdom and their commissioners, was appointed to be practised in all the kirks of the kingdom; the former discharged. This translation is more near the original Hebrew than the former, as also, the whole Psalms are translated into common tunes, (whereas, in the former, there were many proper tunes); there be proper tunes also in this translation, but withal there is adjoined common tunes with them. This translation was practised, the 2 of June 1650, at Largo church in the Presbytery of St Andrews, as also through the rest of that presbytery, and appointed, with all diligence, to be put in practise through the rest of the presbyteries of the kingdom.” —The Diary of Mr John Lamont of Newton. 1649-1671 (Edinburgh: James Clarke & Co., 1830), pp. 18, 19

John Dunmore Lang (1799-1878): “The Scot[t]ish version—the one authorized by the Westminster Assembly—is, of all the versions of the psalms in the English language, the truest to the original; having been formed directly from the Hebrew, without the intervention of a prose translation. It is hallowed, moreover, in the estimation of the Scot[t]ish people, from having been used by their persecuted forefathers in the days of the Covenant, and from having often afforded sweet consolation to many of these sons and daughters of affliction under the tyranny of the Stuarts. And it doubtless contains many passages, the beauty and simplicity of which would be but ill exchanged for the more ambitious ornaments of modern rhyme.” —Specimens of an Improved Metrical Translation of the Psalms of David, intended for the use of the Presbyterian Church in Australia and New Zealand. With a preliminary dissertation, and notes, critical and explanatory (Philadelphia: Adam Waldie, 1840).

James Reid Lawson (1820-1891): “Granting that there are a few obsolete words, and, occasionally, a little roughness of versification, it is, nevertheless, a good version. It is the best that has yet been issued. Its literality, which renders it so offensive to some people of a peculiarly refined taste, is, in reality, its chief excellence. It is not a paraphrase, but a literal metrical translation. It is as true to the original text as the learning and piety of some of the best and most learned men that ever lived could make it. . . . It bears the seal of the most learned and venerable assembly of uninspired men that ever sat on earth—the Westminster Assembly. It bears the seal of the whole Church of Scotland, in her purest and best days, led on by such men as Henderson, Baillie, Gillespie, and others who would not suffer by a comparison with the most gifted of those who may be now disposed to undervalue their learning, their theology, and their labours.” —The Songs of Zion: The Only Authorized Manual of Praise (Saint John, N.B.: R. A. H. Morrow, 1879), pp. 27, 28, 30

Robin Alan Leaver (b. 1939): “The first Scottish metrical psalter of 1564 encompassed a variety of different metres, all of which required appropriate psalm tunes. Those tunes in uncommon metres, as opposed to the common metres of CM, SM, and LM, were generally variants of the French-Genevan tunes. It was these tunes that were considered difficult for ordinary lay folk to sing . . . The solution was to create a psalter that made use of fewer metres. Therefore, following the example of the Bay Psalm Book (1640)—as well as taking over verbatim a significant number of its lines—the Psalms of the second Scottish psalter of 1650 were mostly in CM. . . .

“The 1650 psalter became the primary source for congregational song in the Church of Scotland for approaching three hundred years. Although there were calls for its revision or replacement from time to time, it survived into the twentieth century.” —Robin A. Leaver, ed., A Communion Sunday in Scotland ca. 1780: Liturgies and Sermons (Lanham, Md.: Scarecrow Press, 2010), p. 25

Tayler Lewis (1802-1877): “Reference is had to the old Scotch Psalmody, still used by some churches in this country, as it is by all the Presbyterian churches in Scotland. It does not deserve the unworthy treatment it has received from some who have styled it ‘religious doggerel.’ We are compelled to say this when we think of the strong Christianity—strong to act and strong to suffer—which has been nourished by that intensely scriptural style of devotional song which ignorance and prejudice are so much inclined to undervalue. . . . With all its seeming uncouthness, the translation it gave was most trustworthy. It was the Scripture itself on which the expounder was commenting. . . . Here there is no redundancy. Here every word is pure, every word is true, every word has a divine significance. . . . In this old Scotch version there are doubtless not a few unmusical lines. Its frequent division of ti-on into syllables, its quaint and sometimes inadmissible inversions may excite our surprise, or even make us smile; but they are very far from justifying that epithet which has so basely been applied to it. It still challenges respect for its substantial Hebrew strength, its exhibition of the grand Hebrew thought, and as a medium of that Biblical form of praise for which no other can be an adequate substitute.” —“The Old Scotch Psalmody,” in Evangelical Repository and United Presbyterian Worker, First Series, Vol. 55—Fourth Series, Vol. 5; No. 12 (May, 1879), pp. 545-547

Robert Murray M’Cheyne (1813-1843): “The metrical version of the Psalms should be read or sung through at least once in the year. It is truly an admirable translation from the Hebrew, and is frequently more correct than the prose version.” —Andrew Bonar, ed., Memoir and Remains of the Rev. Robert Murray M’Cheyne (Dundee: William Middleton, 1845), p. 574

Charles Greig McCrie (1836-1910): “The great pains taken by the Scottish revisionist to render the English version more simple and more faithful to the original, with the numerous alterations which this resulted in, can only be estimated by one who compares the contents of the London edition of 1646 with those of the Edinburgh one of 1650, psalm by psalm. Taking a general view, there are cases in which the rendering of the former is unaltered in the latter; there are others in which the variations are the result of mere substitution or transposition of words; and some besides in which the alteration is not merely verbal, but extends to both matter and form. . . .

“Leaving out of view variations in orthography, that version ‘approved’ by the Westminster Synod, ‘allowed’ by the General Assembly, and ‘appointed’ to be sung in churches, has remained unaltered for wellnigh two centuries and a half. Whatever has been done during that time by the Presbyterians of Scotland in the way of adding to the psalmody Spiritual Songs, Paraphrases, and Hymns, ‘The Psalms of David in Metre’ have retained their place as furnishing the staple of praise in that particular rendering furnished by the Scottish revisionists of the Englishman’s labours. The forecast of [Robert] Baillie has thus been strikingly verified so far as the northern kingdom is concerned—‘These lines are likely to go up to God from many millions of tongues for many generations.'” —The Public Worship of Presbyterian Scotland Historically Treated (Edinburgh: William Blackwood and Sons, 1892), pp. 220-222

William Edward McCulloch (1869-1952): “It is impossible to estimate the influence which the Scottish Version has wielded upon the spiritual destinies of mankind. Through generation after generation it was woven into the very life of the Scottish people. It furnished them their home-songs and their battle-songs, and was their mainstay through their long and terrible struggle for civil and religious liberty. It was not confined to Scotland, but was adopted by the Presbyterians of England and America, and became their song-book for a century. Thus far-reaching in its grasp upon the minds and hearts of men, it stimulated the intellect, put stamina into the moral fiber, and created a virile type of Christian character which the passing of many generations has not worn out. He who believes in the eternity of influence will not look with light regard upon the Scottish Psalter.” —“Psalm Versification,” in John McNaugher, ed., The Psalms in Worship: A Series of Convention Papers bearing upon the Place of the Psalms in the Worship of the Church (Pittsburgh: The United Presbyterian Board of Publication, 1907), pp. 424, 425

David MacDill (1790-1870): “The authorized version [of the Psalms] . . . is so weighty and powerful, and withal, so economical, in its words, that every small blemish which may attach to it in a literary point of view, cannot be removed without seriously impairing its sublimity, beauty and force. How would ‘Paradise Lost’ suffer, if some writer of fastidious taste should undertake to accommodate every word and every line in it, to what is called the present state of the English language!” —“Proposed Amendments to the Scottish Metrical Version of the Psalms” (review), in United Presbyterian and Evangelical Guardian, Old Series, Vol. 22—New Series, Vol. 5; No. 6 (October, 1851), p. 256

David M’Laren (1839-1904): “Our version reflects with singular fidelity and wonderfully little amplification or licence the sense of the Psalms as they stand in our English Bibles.” —The Book of Psalms in Metre: According to the Version Approved by the Church of Scotland: Revised by David M’Laren (Edinburgh: David Douglas, 1883), p. vi

Donald Campbell McLaren (1794-1882): “There is another unpretending collection, well spoken of where it is well known; and once, in better times, more used, and better used, than it now is. It is called ‘the Old Psalms,’ ‘David’s Psalms,’ ‘the scripture Psalms,’ ‘Rouse’s version,’ and is sometimes designated by well-meaning persons ignorantly, and by ill-meaning persons sneeringly, in ways unbecoming, and occasionally profane. It has been commended by many great and good men: but it contains in itself its best recommendation, for this collection is, almost word for word, in English answerable to what the authentical collection is in Hebrew. Is not this therefore a purely scriptural psalmody, recognizing the perfection and validity of all which the Lord did by inspired men, not only in making the Psalms, but also in making a collection of them? . . . The metrical version of the psalms, already referred to, preserves much of the peculiar form of Hebrew poetry, and expresses with signal force and simplicity, the sense of the original. In view of its great faithfulness as a translation, its versification is good. If it can be amended in the latter respect, without injury to it in the former respect, let it be done. Taking it as it is, it is the best collection of poems and contains the best poetry, in the English language, that is, the best for religious worship and for immortal souls.” —The Psalms of Holy Scripture, the Only Songs of Zion (Geneva, N.Y.: Ira Merrell, 1840), pp. 6, 10, 11

Gilbert McMaster (1778-1854): “Years were by them employed in comparing it with the original Hebrew, and in attempting to carry as much as possible of the spirit of the primitive composition, into the translation. And, the man of literature and taste, who shall carefully examine the subject, it is believed, will admit, that they admirably succeeded. Like the version of the bible, this of the psalms, is not remarkable for elegance of diction; but it is remarkably literal. To present the book of Psalms in its native simplicity, beauties, and force, was the aim of the Westminster divines, as well as of the Assembly at Edinburgh. To the man of God, to the child of grace, and man of legitimate taste, these characteristics must be a recommendation. . . . We ought, indeed, to select the best. We believe that used in the Church of Scotland, in the Associate and Reformed Presbyterian Churches, is the best; we do not say it is perfect; it is susceptible of improvement, as the version of our Bible is; but we have none better; we have no other one so good. If the genius of the original; the language of the Spirit of God; simplicity of diction; energy of thought; striking imagery; and transforming sentiment, be recommendations, it is believed this translation has them, in a degree, to which no other one, in verse, in our language can lay claim.” —An Apology for the Book of Psalms, in Five Letters (Ballston-Spa: U. F. Doubleday, 1818), pp. 57, 58, 76

John West MacMeeken (1823/4-1880): “The Psalms had always possessed a firm hold of the religious heart of the people of Scotland, and, as thus rendered, that hold was certainly not relaxed but manifestly intensified. One of the reasons—if not the chief reason—why the earlier versions were not altogether satisfactory to Scotchmen, was that the translation was not sufficiently literal—sufficiently ‘plain and agreeable to the text.’ And the fact that this version of 1650 is a translation almost as close to the original, as literal and expressive, as the prose, constitutes its strength and excellence, and invests it with a special charm to the Scottish mind. Stern veneration for the pure Word of God has always been a marked characteristic of Scottish Christians, who contemplate with something akin to horror the idea of addition thereto, or detraction therefrom. They have long cherished the conviction that no words can be a vehicle of divine praise equal to the words of Scripture itself; and though the stiffness of Scottish prejudice is proverbially unbending, in this aspect of it we cannot condemn them. The caricaturist may find much in these old Psalms with which to humour his unworthy genius. The fastidious hypercritic may be dissatisfied with some expressions, plain, blunt, and uncouth, and rhymes rough and rugged. But these defects, if defects they be, are surely not of such magnitude as to crush out the admiration which its severe and manly simplicity is so well fitted to excite. A poet might easily produce a version of certain passages of greater poetic beauty, smoother in numbers, more perfect in refinement, and more elegant in expression, but he would overlay and bury out of sight the plain simplicity and truthfulness to the original, in which their beauty and value lie; and he would find a very great many which, for exquisite sublimity and thrilling pathos, it would test the capabilities of his muse to equal, not to say surpass.” —History of the Scottish Metrical Psalms (Glasgow: M‘Culloch & Co., 1872), pp. 53, 54

Many Puritans (Thomas Manton, John Owen, William Jenkyn, Thomas Watson, Thomas Lye, Matthew Poole, Matthew Mead, Thomas Doolittle, Thomas Vincent, Nathanael Vincent, William Carslake, James Janeway, Richard Mayo, et al.): “The translation which is now put into thy hands cometh nearest to the Original of any that we have seen, and runneth with such a fluent sweetness, that we thought fit to recommend it to thy Christian acceptance; Some of us having used it already, with great comfort and satisfaction.” —“To the Reader,” in The Psalms of David in Meeter (London: Company of Stationers, 1673)

William Marshall (ca. 1740-1802): “We shall not say that it is the most elegant in respect of the style, yet it is acknowledged to excel in what is far more momentous, viz. in expressing the mind of the Spirit. . . . And while our religious ancestors discovered about this a flaming zeal for purity of worship, they proceeded with the greatest regularity, and deliberation. . . . The uncommon pains that were taken by these venerable reformers, in the introduction of this version into the churches, must set in a stronger light the evil of a precipitant exclusion of it.” —The Propriety of Singing the Psalms of David in New Testament Worship (Philadelphia: R. Aitken, 1773), pp. 37, 38, 40

James Mearns (1855-1922): “As issued in 1650 the version may be called rude, but its associations have endeared it to the Scottish heart, and its faithfulness, vigour and terseness cannot be denied. These qualities become manifest when it is compared with other versions which, when faithful, have been failures, and when successful have been so expanded and adapted as to have ceased to be faithful.” —“Scottish Hymnody,” in John Julian, ed., A Dictionary of Hymnology (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1892), p. 1023

William Roy Mohon (b. 1944): “[T]he Scottish Psalter is not a metrical version of the Authorised Version. It is an English metrical version, subsequently revised in Scotland and dependent upon the original Hebrew. . . . The genuinely British Psalter now known as the Scottish Metrical Version is a reliable translation which has not taken liberties with the text to secure metrical arrangement. Linguistic, exegetical and theological considerations have not been ignored.” —“Make His Praise Glorious: A Defence of the Book of Psalms as the God given Manual of Praise in response to ‘The Praises of God in Psalms, Hymns & Spiritual Songs’ by Dr. Kenneth Dix” (1999), pp. 34, 37

William Allan Neilson (1869-1946): “Such is the history of a book which has been an intimate part of the life of Scotland for over two centuries and three quarters. Generation after generation its rhymes and rhythms, often awkward but endeared by long association, have imprinted themselves on the ear and memory of every Presbyterian Scot. They were sung by the Covenanters when the horsemen of Claverhouse rode them down at their conventicles on the Galloway moors. They have been sung on thousands of Saturday nights like the cotter’s described by Burns. They have been sung Sabbath after Sabbath in the country kirks where were reared so many of the lads who have carried the Scottish stamp to the ends of the earth. . . . The exigencies of a simple meter may do violence to the greater lyrics among the Psalms; on the other hand it is also true that some of those that are stiff to the tongue in the English Psalter are run off with enviable ease in the Scottish Psalter.” —“The Scottish Psalter,” in Margaret B. Crook, ed., The Bible and Its Literary Associations (New York, Cincinnati, Chicago: The Abingdon Press, [1937]), pp. 337, 339

David Norton (b. 1946): “Rous’s version was carefully examined and corrected under the auspices of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, and became the official Scottish Psalter, enjoying a high reputation for accuracy but a mixed one for poetic quality.” —A History of the English Bible as Literature (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000), p. 121

Millar Patrick (1868-1951): “None the less, the publication of the new Psalter in 1650 was unquestionably a great public boon. Apart from other difficulties that made a new version desirable, the number of metres employed in the earlier one made the use of many of the Psalms impossible when musical knowledge declined. The people needed simplicity in the verse as well as in the music, and while to us the excessive use of Common Metre in the new version seems a thing to regret, not least because it banished from use the most splendid of the Reformation melodies, there can be no doubt that one of its chief attractions to those for whose use it was first intended was its large use of the ballad-metre familiar in their traditional songs. The Psalms in that simple metre were easy to memorize, and it became possible to draw upon a wider range of portions because the tunes used were few and suitable to the great majority of them. Probably for that reason the new Psalter passed straight into the affections of the common people. It was a godsend, coming just then, when the Killing Times were not far distant; for when the sufferings of those bitter times arrived, it had won its place in the people’s hearts, and its lines were so deeply imprinted upon their memories that it is always the language thus given them for the expression of their emotions, which in the great hours we find upon their lips.” —Four Centuries of Scottish Psalmody (London: Oxford University Press, 1949), pp. 114, 115

John Taylor Pressly (1795-1870): “This version is now used, for the simple reason, that it is decidedly the best we have. It is framed upon the principle, of a translation of the original as literal as the laws of versification will allow.” —An Address to the Student of the Theological Seminary, of the Associate Reformed Synod of the West, at the Opening of the Session, Fifth December, 1836. Second Edition (Pittsburgh: William Allinder, 1837), p. 12

“The Associate Reformed Church makes use of the version adopted by the church of Scotland, in the year 1649, on the principle, that when ‘diligently compared with the original text,’ by men who were very competent to decide, it was found to be ‘more plain, smooth and agreeable to the text, than any heretofore;’ and what is commonly called, ‘Rouse’s version.’ . . . The one system of songs, then, the reader will observe, we receive, because it was prepared and adopted on the principle of a translation of the songs of inspiration, and is the most correct poetical translation which has yet been prepared.” —Review of Ralston’s Inquiry into the Propriety of using an Evangelical Psalmody in the Worship of God. Second Edition (Allegheny: John B. Kennedy, 1848), pp. 178, 179

Hugh Scott Pyper (b. 1955): “What struck me as more distinctive, and particularly Scottish, was that an established part of my education from the age of six or seven was to learn by heart metrical psalms and paraphrases. These were culled from the Scottish Psalter of 1650, still printed in the back of Bibles sold in Scotland. These strange transpositions of Hebrew poetry into rhymes and rhythms related to ballad meters, sung to foursquare but often ruggedly powerful melodies, are deeply imbedded in the cultural memory of any Scot my age or older.” —“The Bible as a Children’s Book: The Metrical Psalms and The Gammage Cup,” in Fiona C. Black, ed., The Recycled Bible: Autobiography, Culture, and the Space Between (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2006), p. 144

Philip Rainey (b. 1967): “The most important point about our Psalter is its faithfulness to the original Scripture. Unlike modern Psalters the S.M.V. is not a paraphrase, but a translation. . . . The preservation of the force of the Hebrew is the outstanding feature of our Psalter and the reason why we should prefer it above all others.” —“The Scottish Metrical Version of the Psalms 1650” (James Begg Society)

Malcolm Campbell Ramsay (1890-1973): “Thus this Psalter got its final shape from devoted godly scholars who were fine Hebraists. When first published it bore this title: ‘The Psalms of David in metre; newly translated and diligently compared with the Original Text and former Translations; more plain, smooth and agreeable to the Text than any heretofore.’ This title should be noted carefully. It speaks of this Psalter as a new translation and ‘more agreeable to the original text’ than other metrical versions. . . .

“When we consider the numerous revisions made, the amount of consecrated labour involved and the qualifications of those who engaged in this work—their scholarly attainments, their deep love for the Word of God—we need not wonder that the Scottish Metrical Version in itself bears testimony to the fine Christian character of those who contributed to the production of such a version. . . .

“It is well known that a poetical translation of poem or song generally expresses more accurately the spirit of the original. For example, other things being equal, a poetical rendering of the Iliad more vividly reflects the thoughts in the original than a prose version does. Therefore the Scottish Metrical Version is a preferable type of translation, for it captures the atmosphere and feeling of the original, in a way not possible in a prose translation.” —Psalms Only: Objections Answered (Sydney: Presbyterian Church of Eastern Australia, 1971), pp. 32-34

Robert Reid (1781-1844): “The translators or versifyers of the system of psalmody usually called ‘Rouse’s version of David’s Psalms,’ evidently did not consider ease and elegance of diction, or smoothness of sound, to be an object of much importance. Their grand design was to give the sense and sentiments of the inspired Psalms. They acted on the very contrary principle to that of Dr. W[atts].” —Doctor Watts’ Preface to the Psalms of David, Imitated in the Language of the New Testament; and to his Hymns and Spiritual Songs. With Observations and Remarks (Xenia, Ohio: James B. Gardiner, 1826), p. 31

Thomas Ridgley (1667?-1734): “The versions which, I think, come nearest to the original, are the New-England and the Scotch; the latter of which, I think, much preferable to the former; inasmuch as the sentences are not so transposed in this, as in the other, and the lines are much more smooth and pleasant to be read. I should be very glad to see a version more perfect, that comes as near the sense of the original, and excels it in the beauty or elegancy of stile.” —A Body of Divinity: Wherein the Doctrines of the Christian Religion are Explained and Defended. Being the Substance of Several Lectures on the Assembly’s Larger Catechism (London: Daniel Midwinter, 1733), 2:358

William Robertson (1820-1864): “Rouse’s revised Psalter was judicially adopted as the authorised version of the Church of Scotland by the Commission of Assembly on November 23, 1649, and they directed that it alone should be used for public worship in Scotland after the 1st May following; and on January 8, 1650, the estates of the kingdom ratified and confirmed the deliverance of the Commission, and enacted accordingly. From that May-day these Psalms have been the cherished manual of divine praise in Scotland; they have gone up to heaven in the melodies that are heard in the abodes of the righteous; they have stirred zeal, and kindled patriotism in the day of oppression; they have gathered into one the voices of mighty multitudes, like the sound of many waters; they have been associated with the earliest lessons of piety, and the last utterances of devotion; they have been carried and kept like the ark of God, by the exile and the wanderer: they have, when the Word of the Lord was rare and precious, cheered the faint and dying soldier on his lonely bed; they have been endeared to Scotchmen by the chequered experience of many generations, by the noble treasures of national tradition, by the sunny recollections of prosperity and peace, and by the golden memories of adversity.” —“Psalmody. No. X,” in The Edinburgh Christian Magazine, Vol. 9, No. 4 (July, 1857), pp. 121, 122

“The two metrical versions best known in Great Britain are Rouse’s revised version, and Tate and Brady’s. The first is universally known in Scotland, and the second extensively used in England. The peculiar qualities of these translations indicate the diversities of national genius and temperament. The English version is characterised by sentimentality—the Scottish by intellectual severity. The one is musical and smooth, the other is often harsh—the one is discursive and often neglectful of the original, the other endeavours to follow it with scrupulous sternness—the one is pretty and languishing, after the style of stanzas for a lady’s album, the other is bold and stately like the voice of an old prophet. . . . [I]n Scotland, where there has been an avowed abhorrence of prescribed forms, the manual of praise has been carefully compiled, and is fixed, exclusive, and unalterable as the laws of the Medes and Persians. The restriction has been productive of immense and unsuspected good.” —“Psalmody. No. XI,” in The Edinburgh Christian Magazine, Vol. 10, No. 1 (April, 1858), pp. 22, 23

Philip Robinson (b. 1946): “The Scottish Metrical Psalter of 1650 commands an iconic cultural significance within the Ulster-Scots tradition, and it has been treasured with intense religious affection for hundreds of years. This is particularly true for the rural Presbyterian heartlands of Antrim and Down that had been settled by Lowland Scots in the early 1600s (and which today remain the ‘core’ Ulster-Scots speaking regions). . . . Apart from the Bible, no other publication was, for 300 years, to hold such a central and significant position in Ulster-Scots popular culture.” —“Ulster-Scots Psalmody: A Consideration,” in Études Irlandaises: Ulster-Scots in Northern Ireland Today: Language, Culture, Community (Paris, 2013), pp. 75, 81

William Romaine (1714-1795): “Moreover the version [Sternhold and Hopkins] comes nearer to the original than any I have ever seen, except the Scotch, which I have made use of, when it appeared to me better expressed than the English. You may find fault with the manner of ekeing out a verse for the sake of rhyme; but what of that? Here is every thing great, and noble, and divine, although not in Dr. Watts’s way or stile.” —An Essay on Psalmody, in Works of the Late Reverend William Romaine (London: T. Chapman, 1796), 8:493

William Peebles Rorison (1826-1907): “The translation given in the Current Version of the Hebrew Text is very correct. Many passages of great beauty adorn its pages. Rough and unpolished expressions occur here and there, but the spiritual meaning conveyed, and the sacred associations connected with them, make up for defects in outward form.” —“The Story of the Scottish Metrical Psalter” (1909), p. 7

William Row (1614-1698): “But surely now, in anno 1650, we have through the rich blessing of God upon the long travails of many faithful and painful brethren expert in the Hebrew and poesy, the most exact, near, and smooth paraphrase of the Psalms (a part of the intended uniformity) that ever the Christian world did afford.” —The Historie of the Kirk of Scotland. Part II. Containing a Supplement of the Historie of the Kirk, M.DC.XXXVII.–M.DC.XXXIX. By John Row, Principal of King’s College, Aberdeen. Additional Illustrations of the Historie. By William Row, Minister at Ceres (Edinburgh: Maitland Club, 1842), p. 493

Sir Walter Scott (1771-1832): “The expression of the old metrical translation, though homely, is plain, forcible, and intelligible, and very often possesses a rude sort of majesty, which perhaps would be ill exchanged for mere elegance. Their antiquity is also a circumstance striking to the imagination, and possessing a corresponding influence upon the feelings. They are the very words and accents of our early reformers—sung by them in woe and gratitude, in the fields, in the churches, and on the scaffold. The parting with this very association of ideas is a serious loss to the cause of devotion, and scarce to be incurred without the certainty of corresponding advantages. . . . I have an old-fashioned taste in sacred as well as profane poetry: I cannot help preferring even Sternhold and Hopkins to Tate and Brady, and our own metrical version of the Psalms to both. I hope, therefore, they will be touched with a lenient hand.” —Quoted in The New Scots Magazine, Vol. 2, No. 11 (September 30, 1829), pp. 150, 151

“I have had some consideration about the renewal or re-translation of the Psalmody. I had peculiar views adverse to such an undertaking. . . . At any rate, the wiser class think that our fathers were holier and better men than we, and that to abandon their old hymns of devotion, in order to grace them with newer and more modish expression, would be a kind of sacrilege. Even the best informed, who think on the subject, must be of opinion that even the somewhat bald and rude language and versification of the Psalmody gives them an antique and venerable air, and their want of the popular graces of modish poetry shows they belong to a style where ornaments are not required. They contain, besides, the very words which were spoken and sung by the fathers of the Reformation, sometimes in the wilderness, sometimes in fetters, sometimes at the stake. If a Church possessed the vessels out of which the original Reformers partook of the Eucharist, it would be surely bad taste to melt them down and exchange them for more modern. No, no. Let them write hymns and paraphrases if they will, but let us have still ‘All people that on earth do dwell.'” —The Journal of Sir Walter Scott (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1890), 2:290, 291

“Mr. Lockhart tells us, in his affecting account of Sir Walter’s illness, that his love for the old metrical version of the Psalms continued unabated to the end. A story has been told, on the authority of the nurse in attendance, that on the morning of the day on which he died, viz., on the 21st Sept. 1832, he opened his eyes once more, quite conscious, and calmly asked her to read him a psalm. She proceeded to do so, when he gently interposed, saying, ‘No! no! the Scotch Psalms.’ After reading to him a little while, he expressed a wish to be moved nearer the window, through which he looked long and earnestly up and down the valley and towards the sky, and then on the woman’s face, saying: ‘I’ll know it all before night.‘” —The Journal of Sir Walter Scott (New York: Harper & Brothers), 2:291

“A Seceder” (Anonymous): “Compare the original text with the metre, and none can help but see that in many instances the metre translations excel the prose, for accuracy, and correctness according to the Hebrew. . . . Thus prepared, it was finally adopted by the General Assembly, A. D. 1649, as the most correct, smooth and literal translation of that part of the word of God ever before made. And we defy any Hebraist to point us out any translation, which is nearer to the original text, and which has an equal claim to [be] a version.” —Strictures on Psalmody, or a Review of a Paper in Favor of an Enlarged Psalmody, published by a Presbyterian, in the Millennial Trumpeter, of Nov., 1834 (Madisonville, Ten.: Henderson & Johnston, 1835), pp. 18, 31

Klaus Seybold (1936-2011): “The most influential English-language song-psalter was the Scots Metrical Psalter. After a number of attempts, the text was established in 1650, influenced among others by the work of Francis Rous. This psalter bore the presbyterian imprimatur: ‘Allowed by the authority of the General Assembly of the Kirk of Scotland, and appointed to be sung in congregations and families.’ For many years no other form of church music was permitted than the unaccompanied singing of these psalms. The texts are often very awkward, because of the constraints of producing a singable, yet strictly literal text of Scripture. Nevertheless, they were extremely popular, and their influence throughout the English-speaking world has been immense. In particular, the 23rd Psalm is better known in this version (‘The Lord’s my shepherd, I’ll not want,/ he makes me down to lie . . .’) than in any other.” —Introducing the Psalms (trans. of Die Psalmen, Eine Einführung by R. Graeme Dunphy; London: T&T Clark, 1990), pp. 226, 227

Robert Shiells (1825-1908): “The style and diction, which in the seventeenth century was accounted elegant and refined, does not greatly command the admiration of the present day. . . . Notwithstanding these blemishes, if the metrical Psalms are compared verse by verse with the prose translation, they will be found to read almost verbatim with it. Scholars assure us that they are equally faithful to the original language.” —“The Scottish Psalter. No. VI,” in The Wisconsin Presbyterian Review, Vol. 3 (1905), p. 113

David Silversides (b. 1953): “Like the Authorised Version, the Scottish Psalter reigned supreme for generations. These two productions date from a period when the Church, under the blessing of God, was in a strong condition spiritually, and relatively united, and both gained near universal acceptance.

“At present, when the Church is in a low and divided condition, the last thing that should be done is to attempt great enterprises of this sort. When the Church finds itself at a low ebb and in a fragmented state, as it is today, it is not the time to be trying to improve on what was the product of the Church when it was in a far better state. . . .

“This is not a time for novelty, but for holding on to what has been handed down to us from a better age of the Church’s history. We have, in the Scottish Psalter, a Psalm version that has been demonstrated to be accurate and easy to be sung by all. If the Bible version and the Psalter we have from better times are good, then we should leave them alone.

“Let us sing this accurate version of the Psalms. Let us memorise it and let us love this faithful translation of the Psalms, Hymns, and Spiritual Songs, breathed out by the Spirit of God. In this way may we indeed, by the blessing of God, be filled with the Spirit, and have the Word of Christ dwell within us richly.” —“The Development of the Scottish Psalter” (an address given at a public meeting arranged by the Inverness Branch of the Scottish Reformation Society, on 18 February 2002), pp. 9, 10

John Skellie (1807-1882): “Two and a half centuries have passed since the Bible, under the inspection of James I, was translated into English; and notwithstanding the changes in the language which have since occurred, this ancient and faithful translation satisfies all who do not wish to make scripture agree with their own preconceived opinions. The inspired Psalms were versified nearly fifty years afterwards, by a man of acknowledged talents; this version was reviewed, amended and approved by the most able and holy men of that age, and was ‘allowed by the authority of the Church of Scotland.’ A version was thus formed which must be considered equally finished and faithful with our translation of the Bible; while it is fifty years more modern.—Any anxiety then manifested for a new version of the Psalms, while satisfaction is expressed with our translation of the Bible, is inconsistent, and cannot therefore be supposed to take its rise from a desire of promoting nearer communion between the Church and her Head. If our translation of the Bible satisfies, so should our version of the Psalms, as the later the writing, the less antiquated its idioms, and the less the number of obsolete words. But if we observe the influence which these ancient forms of expression in our Psalmody have, we will find it good, rather than evil; they press home on the intelligent Christian the pleasing thought, that ages back, in the best days of the Reformation, his ancestors praised God in these inspired Psalms, and they passed over the Jordan of death with these ancient numbers sweetly dropping from their lips.—Again, they remove inspired Psalmody from our common every day language, and so keep it out of the mouths of the silly, who would otherwise trifle with that sacred book as they do with the hymns of Watts and the other shallow rhymes which are ever in their mouths. Again, they naturally lead the intelligent mind back to a period in the days of other years when the people of God entered into solemn covenant engagements to walk in the fear of the Lord, and afterwards sealed them with their blood. Would we be gainers to change such a version, for one which can only lead the mind to a man in a Western village writing psalms in poetry?” —“The Authorized Metrical Version of the Psalms,” in The Reformed Presbyterian, Vol. 9, No. 9 (November, 1845), p. 207

Frank Joseph Smith (b. 1954): “For more than three and a half centuries, the 1650 Scottish psalter has been an old familiar friend for Presbyterians worldwide. . . . [I]t is generally regarded as very accurate, in that the translation reflects the Hebrew text of Scripture.” —The Joy of Rediscovering God’s Hymnbook: How to Introduce the Psalter into Congregational Worship (Cumming, Georgia: Presbyterian Scholars Press, 2011), p. 19

William Robertson Smith (1846-1894): “Now in translation it is essential that this model should be kept in all its simplicity. Every artificial touch, every trace of modern taste, must be avoided. Let us in worship, at least, become as little children and throw ourselves with all simplicity into the pure and natural utterances of the Old Testament Church. A translation of the Psalms for devotional use must be, above all things, simple, even naïve. This great requisite our Scottish version has fully realized, and to have done so is merit that overweighs a hundred faults.” —“On the Translation and Use of the Psalms for the Public Worship of the Church” (1872), in The Expository Times, Vol. 16 (Oct. 1904-Sept. 1905), p. 65

William Sommerville (1800-1878): “Still, Rouse has so many friends, among the pious, the learned, and even among poets and musicians, that we run no risk of being hooted out of good company, for professing a strong partiality for his doggerel: and the man had better conceal his real name, who ventures to say, ‘Roos’s version never was one of the best.’ . . . When we are furnished with a better version than that of Rouse (which is barely among the things possible), we are prepared to accept it.” —The Exclusive Claims of David’s Psalms (Saint John, N. B.: Barnes & Company, 1855), p. 182

Jewel L. Spangler (b. 1961): “The American Presbyterian service seems usually to have begun with the singing of a psalm. Traditionally, Presbyterian congregations used the Scottish Psalter, which was a meticulous translation of the Psalms, reconfigured into a rhyming verse, though there is evidence that other hymnals were sometimes used.” —Virginians Reborn: Anglican Monopoly, Evangelical Dissent, and the Rise of the Baptists in the Late Eighteenth Century (Charlottesville and London: University of Virginia Press, 2008), p. 61

Andrew Stark (1790-1849): “[I]t 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. 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.” —The Psalms of David. Metrical Version of the Church of Scotland Defended (New York: Holman & Gray, 1850), pp. 6, 7

George Wauchope Stewart (1863-1942): “That uniformity after which the [Westminster] Assembly strove remained an unrealised ideal. But the Church of Scotland has no reason to complain of the fruits she has gathered from the movement; and the metrical version of the Psalms, which she owes to it, holds almost as warm a place in the affection of her sons as the Shorter Catechism. The Psalm-book was not adopted, however, in the form in which it came from the Westminster Assembly. It was subjected to further revision by a committee appointed by the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland. The Assembly finally approved of it in 1649, and in 1650 it became the recognised Psalm-book of the Church. From that day to the present it has held its place in the Church as the Authorised Version of the Psalter. Proposals have been made from time to time to revise it, but the wise conservatism of the Church has resisted any such attempt. There is a rugged strength and simple directness about the verse that is more effective than any polished diction. The metrical Psalms are dear to the heart of the Scot. They have been familiar to us from our childhood; to them cling many of the most stirring memories of our national religious life. Though they no longer form the sole text of our Church praise, they hold a worthy place in the service; and it will be a bad day for the music of the Church of Scotland when the metrical Psalms are excluded from her public worship.” —Music in the Church (London: A. & C. Black, 1914), p. 150

“The version which was finally adopted in place of the 1564 Psalter was by Francis Rous, Provost of Eton. It was approved by the Westminster Assembly, 1643-49, and, after revision and amendment, by the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland in 1649, and published in 1650. This is the version that is still in use amongst us. It can lay no claim to outstanding poetic merit. It were easy to criticise it for its many defects, its pedestrian style, its halting metres, its uncouth rhymes. But it has secured a warm place in the affections of the people, and we should be loath to change it for any other version that had more pretensions to poetic worth. Suggestions have been made from time to time to have a revision made; and the Presbyterian Church in Ireland has carried such a project through, the work having been done with very tender care. But in Scotland the proposal has met with no favour. . . . But while we welcome the introduction of hymns into our worship, we do well to be jealous of the preservation of the metrical Psalms. Words and music alike are very dear to us. . . . The metrical version that we use was made by an Englishman, and we cannot say anything with certainty as to the origin of the tunes. But words and tunes, wherever they have come from, we have now made them our own. They are among the most distinctive features of our Scottish Church worship, the most characteristically Scottish and at the same time the most musically effective. I would plead for their still being accorded a place of honour in our worship. They are dear to us by many hallowed associations. Rugged and uncouth though the metrical version sometimes be, it speaks home to the heart of the Scotsman with a potency that a chaster poetic style might fail to rival.” —Music in Church Worship: Being the Baird Lecture for 1926 (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1926), pp. 122, 123, 127, 128

John Telford (1851-1936): “When the Westminster Assembly met, in 1643, Parliament instructed it to prepare a Psalter for use in both kingdoms. This was done with much care. But the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland was not satisfied with the result. It therefore appointed four persons to make further revision. The book was published in 1650, and is to this day the one Psalter used by Presbyterian Scotland. Even though sometimes rude in style, its faithfulness, vigour and terseness cannot be denied. It is woven into the very fibre of the national religion.” —“Hymnology of the Christian Church,” in The Scottish Review (April, 1892), 19:388, 389

David Thompson (1806-1893): “Though we do not claim perfection for our version, any more than we do for the prose translation of the Bible in general, yet we believe it to be the best in our language, and therefore we consider ourselves bound to use it until we can obtain a better. Though Mr. Francis Rouse formed the basis of it, it was corrected and amended by the Westminster divines, was afterwards farther improved by the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, was for three years under the revision of her presbyteries, and being finally amended by a Commission of the Assembly, was published. It is not, we think, claiming too much for the Scottish metrical translation of the Psalms to say, that more talent and care have been employed in its preparation than have been employed in translating any other portion of the scriptures, whether in prose or metre.” —Songs to be Used in the Worship of God. Prepared under the Authority of the Associate Synod of North America (Philadelphia: William S. Young, 1848), p. 3

William King Tweedie (1803-1863): “A closing sentence may not be out of place respecting our metrical version, now so venerable for its age, and surrounded by so many endearing associations. That its versification is not seldom rugged—that it has little of the mellifluous flow of some modern hymns—is readily conceded. But, assuredly, what it lacks sometimes in smoothness it more than gains in a wonderfully close adherence to the very words of inspiration. It is, as it professes to be, a version of the Psalms, not a paraphrase. It bears internal marks of having been rendered directly from the Hebrew original. And in some places where the reading differs slightly from that of our prose version, the metrical one would seem to be the more exact of the two. It may be added, that the occasional ruggedness is only felt in reading the Psalms—in singing them it becomes a matter very unimportant.” —“Preface,” in The Psalms of David in Metre: According to the Version Approved by the Kirk of Scotland, and Appointed to be Used in Worship. With Introductory and Marginal Notes by the Late W. K. Tweedie, D.D. (London: T. Nelson and Sons, 1865), pp. v, vi

Isaac Vance (1834-1915): “I had intended not to speak at any of your meetings, and yet I deem it right to state that, in the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church of Ireland, in so far as I was able to observe, the men who found special fault with the Scottish metrical version of the Psalms were not, as after events clearly proved, particularly anxious to preserve their continued use in public worship. I remember those persons rehearsing their objections, perhaps not in exactly the same words, but in language of similar import, as I have heard repeated here this evening, as to faulty metre and obsolete and antiquated words and phrases. . . . I do not think that the revised version of the Presbyterian Church of Ireland is any marked improvement upon the Scottish version. I am persuaded it is not. I have not adopted it. . . . As to the alleged difficulty in reading properly some of the Psalms in the Scottish metrical version, I am persuaded that even these may be so read as not to jar on the sensitive ears of the educated who devoutly desire to unite in sincere worship to God.” —“Discussion” on “A Uniform Metrical Version of the Psalms,” in Psalm-Singers’ Conference, Held in the Y. M. C. A. Hall, Wellington Place, Belfast, on 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th August, 1902 (Belfast: Fountain Printing Works, 1903), pp. 321-323

John Walker (1768-1833): “It grieves me much to hear that F— is disturbing you with questions that minister strife rather than godly edifying. I well recollect how much comfort and food I had singing the Scotch version of the Psalms of David with you. I believe I checked your impatience for the new hymn-books, thinking that you are better off as you are. But really I should think myself ill employed fighting with any brethren, which should be used. While the Psalms are used, in the mind in which they were indited, they are a feast of marrow and fatness above all hymns that ever were composed by man. I smile at his objection to the version on the ground of taste. I should decisively object to the more poetical English version, or to Dr. Watts’s.” —William Burton, ed., Essays and Correspondence, Chiefly on Scriptural Subjects. By the Late John Walker (London: Longman, Orme, Brown, Green, & Longman’s, 1838), 2:408

John Walker (1787-1845): “[I]t cannot be denied that the body of Divines who approved of the translation of the Psalms of David were in no respect inferior to those forty-two who translated the scriptures by the appointment of King James. As a translation, therefore, it stands as high as any other part of the scriptures. . . . Should that be granted, which however has never been proved, that our present versification is not in every place agreeable to the original, will it therefore follow that we are entirely to depart from it, and in its stead to substitute hymns of human composure, or that which is nothing better, an Imitation?” —The Substance of a Sermon, Preached in Unity Congregation, May 4, 1815 (Cadiz, Ohio: Joseph W. White, 1817), p. 28

Malcolm H. Watts (b. 1946): “[I]t is claimed that a certain ‘freedom’ is needed to make a poetic translation of the Psalms. Now the fact of the matter is that when our forefathers endeavoured to produce a translation of the Psalms into English metre (the Psalter of 1650), they were meticulously careful to stay as close to the original as they could; and if at times their verse was less than elegant, it was only because they sought a literal rather than an aesthetically pleasing translation.” —God’s Hymnbook for the Christian Church: A response to Iain Murray’s The Psalter – The Only Hymnal? (Aberdeen?: James Begg Society, 2003), p. 19

George Williams (1845-1929): “The revisers submitted the result of their diligence to the General Assembly, and on the 15th May, 1650, ‘the new psalm-books were read and ordained to be sung through all the kingdom,’ and all others were ‘dischargit.’ MDCL.—a memorable date! Two hundred and fifty six years ago. Eight generations of Christian Scottish men and Scottish women uplifted and sustained by our Scottish psalms! 1650—What changes since then! Yet the syllables sung by our forefathers and foremothers two hundred and fifty years ago are still sung by us. Next to the Bible (in some respects even more than the Bible) the psalms in metre have penetrated our life and language as no other book has done, and our religious vocabulary has been bountifully enriched by it. . . . It is old, with the marks of age on it, and eight generations have lent an ear to its ‘grave, sweet melody.’ It behoves us to handle tenderly and reverently. . . . When David needed a sword, the priest informed him, ‘There’s the sword of Goliath; if thou wilt take it, thou mayest have it;’ to which the soldier remarked, ‘There is none like it; give it to me.’ So say we of the 2233 stanzas of our psalms in metre, ‘There is none like them.’ Let us have the psalms, without suggesting any disparagement of our hymns and paraphrases; let us have the psalms wherewith we may hold communion with our God—the message of our need and of our gratitude rising up to His throne above, the made and ready expression of our hopes and fears.” —The Scottish Psalms in Metre: An Address (Stirling: E. Mackay, 1906), pp. 10, 11, 26

James McLeod Willson (1809-1866): “We have doubts of the wisdom, at the present day, of any attempt to amend the metrical version of the Psalms of the Bible by any individual. It is extremely unlikely that even emendations could, under such circumstances, meet with general acceptance. Perhaps we might go further, and express a doubt of the propriety of these attempts. We know that the Church of Scotland, which is by no means an unsafe guide in such matters, revised the book which we now use with great care before authorizing its publication. On another point we have no difficulty in expressing an opinion, and we think we have a right to do it: it strikes us as altogether out of the usual course to take out a copy-right for works of this kind: merely making some verbal amendments in a standard manual of praise.” —“Notices of Books,” in The Covenanter (June 1850), 5:366

James Stewart Wilson (1833-1910): “From 1650 to this day, Scotsmen read, and learn, and sing, with more or less admiration and appreciation, in the family circle and in the house of God, in their days of gladness and in their seasons of distress, in the bustle of life, and in the awful presence of death, this venerable bequest of their forefathers. It is one of the very few bonds which, in the antiquity-despising Church of Scotland, link the present with the past; one of the few possessions through which the continuity of the church’s life, and the communion of saints in many churches and many lands, have been preserved.” —“The Story of the Scottish Metrical Version of the Psalms,” in The British and Foreign Evangelical Review, Vol. 28, No. 107 (January 1879), p. 65

Nicholas Thomas Wright (b. 1948): “The Scottish church developed a well-known set of metrical psalms, translating the whole book into poems that could then be sung to regular hymn tunes. Some of them have become the spiritual backbone for some great saints.” —The Case for the Psalms: Why They Are Essential (New York: HarperOne, 2013), p. 168

James Renwick Wright (1918-2009): “Has the Scottish Metrical Version had great influence on the lives and characters of men? Yes, and all for good. Lying close, as it does, to its Hebrew original, it has been used thousands of times to lead men to seek spiritual life, to enter into spiritual life, and to grow in grace, and in the knowledge of Jesus Christ, our Lord. What better influence could it have than that?” —“The Influence of the Scottish Metrical Psalter,” in The Scottish Metrical Psalter: Its Story and Influence. Addresses delivered on the three hundredth anniversary of its authorization by the Church of Scotland on 23rd November, 1649 (Belfast: Graham & Heslip, 1949), p. 32

Thomas Young (1843-1919): “[The Scottish Psalter’s] Intrinsic Merits.—These are acknowledged to be many and great. It got its final shape from pious and scholarly men who were Hebraists rather than poets. They knew and loved the Bible, and lived in an age when every jot and tittle of it were dear to the heart of all Scottish Protestants. Their chief aim was to make this version of the Psalms at once a simple and faithful paraphrase of the original text. In this aim, according to all subsequent testimony, they admirably succeeded. . . . Our Present Version, moreover, has proved its fitness by the length and strength of its vitality. No version has had so long an existence, if we except the French Psalter, and certainly none has made a home in so many lands. During more than two hundred and fifty years it has poured from the press in countless editions. It has remained all that time the one Common Psalm Book of Scotland. In England, Ireland, the British Colonies, and America, it has securely entrenched itself within the affections of Presbyterian worshippers, many of whom are justly impatient and disappointed with ministers who thrust it too much into the background by the introduction of modern hymns. Everywhere it has become sacred through its familiarity in childhood, manhood, and old age, as well as through its grand and pathetic associations with memorable events in history and biography.” —The Metrical Psalms and Paraphrases: A Short Sketch of their History with Biographical Notes of their Authors (London: A. & C. Black, 1909), pp. 101-103