The 1650 Psalter

The
True Psalmody;
or,
The Bible Psalms
The Church’s Only Manual of Praise.

Second Edition.

Philadelphia:
William S. Young, 1023 Race Street.
1859.

————

Chapter V.
Some Remarks upon the Scottish Version of the Psalms.

We have thus far kept before us but one definite proposition—the Psalms of scripture faithfully rendered, the Church’s sufficient and appointed manual of praise, to the exclusion of all uninspired hymns and songs. We have sought to establish and vindicate this proposition irrespective of every question regarding the merits of a particular version. And here we might leave the entire subject; for, we are persuaded, that if our proposition were generally admitted, there would be little controversy in reference to the particular version in which the Psalms should be sung: all would be resolved into the single inquiry—important at the same time—as to the claims of any version, or professed version, to be a true and accurate rendering of the words and sentiments of the inspired Psalmist. This could be quite readily and amicably settled, as it has been settled in other ages, and in other lands, to the entire satisfaction of the church and the people of God.

It is well known, however, that the controversy on the subject of Psalmody has, of later years, been largely complicated with that of the merits of the version, usually styled “the Scottish version.” Of this version, the advocates of the use of hymns have—many of them—allowed themselves to speak in terms expressive of everything but respect. They speak of it rather scornfully, as “Rouse,” or as “Rouse’s Psalms.” They criticise with the utmost severity, its rhythm, and its grammar; while, with some exceptions, they do notwithstanding, admit its fidelity to the original Hebrew. They seem, in a word—we refer still to the many, not to all—to view it as deserving only of the most contemptuous treatment, and assert that it holds its place in the esteem and love of the Psalm-singing churches merely through the power of prejudices imbibed by early education and long usage. Hence, we feel ourselves warranted, if not obliged, to append, as we now propose to do, a few remarks upon this particular version. And,

1. It cannot, with a due regard to scriptural truth, and a proper reverence for a faithful translation of the word of God, be styled “Rouse,” or “Rouse’s Psalms,” nor even in absolute terms “Rouse’s version.” True, indeed, this version is mainly due to the labours of an eminent scholar and gentleman of that name, a member of the Assembly of Divines at Westminster. But it is also true—that the version as it came from his hands was subjected to the most careful scrutiny, first in England, by the Assembly of Divines, in the year 1645.* They made amendments. It was then transmitted to Scotland, and again examined and revised with the utmost care. Aiton, in his Life of Alexander Henderson, refers to this version of the Psalms as follows: “The version of the Psalms by Roos (Rouse) was intended not only for the Church of Scotland, but also for that of England, during the general prevalence of Presbyterianism. After all pains in England had been bestowed upon the Psalms, they were sent down to Scotland in portions for further consideration. The Church of Scotland appointed John Adamson to revise the first forty Psalms, Thomas Crawford the second forty, John Row the third, and John Nevey the last thirty Psalms. The committee were enjoined not only to observe what needed amendments, but also to set down their own method of correcting. It was recommended to them to make use of the travails (i.e., labours) of Rowallin, Zachary Boyd, or any other on that subject, but especially of the then existing Paraphrase (version) so that whatever could be found better in any of these works might be adopted. The version thus purified by the Scottish committee was sent to all the Presbyteries of the Church, who transmitted their observations to the original committee. These reported their labours on the remarks from the Presbyteries to the Commission of the Assembly for Public Affairs. After the Commission had revised the whole, they were sent to the Provincial Synods, and through them again transmitted to the Presbyteries: and after their further consideration, the version, thus fully prepared, was sent up to the General Assembly.” The version so prepared was then “allowed by the authority of the General Assembly of the Kirk of Scotland, and appointed to be sung in congregations and families” (1649): and thus it was finally adopted, superseding, by its acknowledged merits, the versions previously in use both in Scotland and England. Hence, this translation is not absolutely “Rouse’s.” It has received the imprimatur, after amendment, of the most learned Assembly, perhaps, ever convened on earth, and of another—the Scottish Assembly—not much inferior.

Now, we have an English Bible; a translation from the original Hebrew and Greek, made by forty-seven learned men of the English Universities, who divided themselves into six companies for the purpose.† They had been called together by King James I. Did we know, as we do not, the name of the particular individual who prepared the first draught of the Book of Proverbs, what would be thought of the spirit of the professing Christian man, who would indulge, habitually, in speaking of the book of Proverbs, not as the Proverbs of Solomon, but as “Bilson’s Proverbs,” or “Smith’s Proverbs:”‡ or even as “Bilson’s version,” or “Smith’s version?” Would this be tolerated as decent, or becoming? We think not. How do a large part of the religious community now, regard the contemptuous flings sometimes made at our English Bible, as “King James’ Bible?” Luther translated the Bible into the German tongue: what would be thought of the man who would constantly speak with contempt of the German Bible, as if it were not God’s Bible, but “Luther’s?” And yet none of these translations were subjected to such scrutiny of competent authority and learning, as this version, which grave men permit themselves scornfully to speak of in no other terms than “Rouse’s Psalms,” or at best, “Rouse’s version:” sometimes asking whether Dr. Watts had not as good a right to make Psalms as Rouse.

2. In view of the facts which we have just presented, 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. Hence,

3. Between this version and Dr. Watts’ “Imitations,” for example, there can be no comparison on the score of fidelity. Dr. Watts did not profess to render the Psalms into English verse: his design was, and so declared, to make Psalms, taking the Scripture as a kind of basis. Hence, he never called his work a “version;” he says “he imitated” the Psalms of David, “in the language of the New Testament.” How he has performed his work, Dr. Cooper has thus shown: “He (Dr. Watts) expressly says, in his preface, ‘It must be acknowledged that there are a thousand lines in it (the Psalms of David), which were not made for the church in our days to assume as its own.’ Of course they have been omitted. Where, then, is the imitation of these thousand lines? He further tells us that he ‘has entirely omitted several whole psalms, and large pieces of many others;’ where is the imitation of these psalms? But has he left them out as unfit to be used in the worship of God? No; had he merely done this, our feelings would have been far less shocked. He has given the whole one hundred and fifty ‘Psalms of David, in metre,’ though several whole psalms, and large pieces of many others have been entirely omitted, according to his express declaration. Let us look, for instance, at the 109th psalm. The original, as we have it in our prose and in our metrical translation, contains thirty-six verses; that of Dr. Watts contains six verses, and there is not an idea in the one to be found in the other, unless it be in the address in the first line, ‘God of my praise.’ The psalm, as it comes from God, is taken up with a fearful description of the awful doom of his implacable enemies, and is applied in the New Testament to Judas. The subject of Dr. Watts’ imitation—of Dr. Watts’ ‘version,’ is ‘Love to enemies from the example of Christ.’ Can there possibly be a greater perversion of language than to call this a version of the 109th psalm? and yet they charge the friends of an inspired psalmody with excluding Dr. Watts’ ‘rich and beautiful version of the Psalms from the sanctuary.’ What would he think if the Apocryphal psalm, in the Septuagint version of the psalms of David, were published to the world, and used in the worship of God as one of the psalms of David, and shall he think it ‘strange’ that we are unwilling to admit into the sanctuary, as a version of the psalms of David, psalms which, in the language of the pious Romaine, ‘are so far from the mind of the Spirit, that I am sure if David were to read them, he would not know any one of them to be his?’ How could we regard with feelings of complacency their introduction into the sanctuary, as a version, believing, as we do, with Professor Alexander of Princeton, that they are ‘all intended to be used in public worship;’ and believing, also, with the same author, that ‘the arrangement of the Psalms was the work of Ezra, the inspired collector and redacteur of the canon.’ No, we cannot so regard their introduction. We must continue to protest against it, however strange our opposition may appear to the admirers of what they call ‘Dr. Watts’ rich and beautiful version of the psalms.’”§

4. We do not, however, claim perfection for the Scottish version of the Psalms. We are well aware that its rhymes are frequently defective, that it contains some obsolete words, and that its rhythm is sometimes at fault. This is only saying what all acknowledge respecting our English Bible—that it is susceptible of amendment. But like that Bible, the work of amendment will need to be gone about very cautiously, lest the fidelity of the words and the vigour of the style be impaired in the process.

But is this version so rude as is often asserted? Is it justly and necessarily offensive to a cultivated Christian taste? We say, without hesitation, it is not. We have ample evidence that it is not; for it has commended itself to not a few of the best minds for its evident faithfulness, its fullness, its nervous energy, and even for its highly lyric character of style. Nor do we go back to the days of the Westminster Assembly for our proofs. We find them in the fact that this version is now used, or has been, even in these late days, with satisfaction by men whom the world knows well as singularly accomplished—such men, for example, as are now, or others who lately were, the ornaments of the Scottish and Irish Presbyterian Churches: to say nothing of many in the Psalm-singing churches in this country. We have other testimonies. The eminently accomplished and pious author of the “Life of Faith”—Romaine—thus replied to some who thought it strange that he should use the version of Sternhold and Hopkins. “They wonder I would make use of this version, which they think is poor, flat stuff, the poetry is miserable, and the language low and base. To which I answer, they had a scrupulous regard for the very words of scripture, and to these they adhered closely and strictly; so much as to render the versification not equal to Mr. Pope. I grant it is not always smooth; it is only here and there brilliant. But what is a thousand times more valuable, it is generally the sentiment of the Holy Spirit. That is very rarely lost. And this should silence every objection—it is the word of God. Moreover the version comes nearer to the original than any I have ever seen, except the Scotch, of which I have made use, 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 the rhyme, but what of that? Here is every thing great and noble, although not in Dr. Watts’ way or style. It is not like his fine sound and florid verse; as good old Mr. Hall used to call it, Watts’ jingle. I do not match those psalms with what is now admired in poetry; although time was when no less a man than the Rev. T. Bradbury, in his sober judgment, thought so meanly of Watts’ hymns as commonly to term them Watts’ whymns. And indeed compared to the Scripture, they are like a little taper to the sun: as for his psalms, these are so far from the mind of the Spirit, that I am sure if David was to read them, he would not know any one of them to be his.”ǁ M‘Cheyne, himself a poet, says, “The metrical version of the Psalms should be read or sung through, at least once a year. It is truly an admirable translation from the Hebrew, and is frequently more correct than the prose version.” Even Sir Walter Scott, no mean authority in matters of taste and poetry, says, “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. 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.” Rufus Choate of Boston is, at all events, a man of taste. He has said: “An uncommon pith and gnarled vigour of sentiment lies in that old version: I prefer it to Watts.”

It were well, indeed, could the fidelity of this version, be combined with a more entire exemption from the minor faults which attach to it. But, in the mean time, we would, with myriads of the saints of God, prefer to have the word of God as the matter of our praise, rather than the most flowing and smooth of mere human utterances.

NOTES:

* Neal’s History of the Puritans, vol. i. p. 388. London, 1837.
† Neal’s History, vol. i. p. 454.
‡ To these men the publishing of the translation was committed. We use their names for illustration merely.
§ What Drs. Breckenridge and Junkin think of Watts’ “Imitations” we have already seen.
ǁ This same Romaine wanted words to describe what he thought of those who supposed they could make “better Psalms than those of the Bible.”