The 1650 Psalter

A Short History of the Westminster Assembly

By
W[illiam] Beveridge, M.A.

Edinburgh
T. & T. Clark, 38 George Street
1904

Pp. 99-103

80. Before we pass to the labours of the Westminster Assembly on their Confession of Faith and Catechisms, some reference must be made to the work of the Assembly on the PSALTER. 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. The history of the metrical version of the Psalms may be said to date from the reign of Edward VI., and is associated with the honoured name of Thomas Sternhold, who died in 1549. In England the version of Sternhold ran through many editions, augmented and supplemented by Hopkins, Keith, and others, until in 1696 it was superseded by the version of Tate and Brady. In Scotland, Sternhold’s version was also made the basis of further development. The Scottish Liturgy was first printed at Geneva in 1556; and in it there are only fifty-one Psalms; but in the edition of 1565 the whole of the Psalms are found, the version being practically that of Sternhold as supplemented by Hopkins and others. This was the old Scottish Psalter, and for eighty-five years it continued to be the version used in Scotland. King James’ version of 1631 in no way interfered with the place of the old Psalter, and in the revulsion of feeling in 1637 the version of King James suffered along with the ill-fated Liturgy of Charles I. and Laud.

81. The question of a Psalm-book was obviously one which the Westminster Assembly might profitably consider. Accordingly we find that on November 20th, 1643, the House of Commons passed the resolution, “That the Assembly of Divines be desired to give their advice, whether it may not be useful and profitable to the Church that the Psalms set forth by Mr. Rous be permitted to be publicly sung, the same being read before singing until the Books be more generally dispersed.” From Lightfoot’s Journal we find that this order was handed in on November 22nd, and the work committed to the three committees, each of them taking fifty Psalms (p. 60). This metrical version by Francis Rous had been published in 1643. Rouse himself was born at Halton, Cornwall, in 1579. In the Long Parliament he was a very prominent member, and in the Westminster Assembly he was one of the lay Commissioners, honoured by all. Baillie, who had great delight in his friendship, describes him as “an olde, most honest member of the House of Commons.” He died in 1658. Rous’s version was not the only one before the country at the time. There was a version by the well-known Zachary Boyd; one, unpublished, by Sir William Mure of Rowallan; and one by a certain William Barton, which he himself brought to the front, and which the House of Lords for some reason or other took warmly to.

82. On September 12th, 1645, the Minutes of the Assembly declare as follows: “The Assembly doth humbly advise and desire that those Psalms set forth by Mr. Rouse, with such alterations as are made by the committee of the Assembly appointed to review it, may be profitably sung in churches, as being useful and profitable to the Church” (p. 131). On November 14th, 1645, the version, as altered and amended, was presented to the House of Commons, who took the version into consideration. On April 15th, 1646, the House of Commons ordered the book to be printed, and to be sung “in all churches and chapels within the kingdom of England, Dominion of Wales, and town of Berwick-upon-Tweed.” Unfortunately, the House of Lords had not as yet signified their approval of this version. They desired to support the claims of Barton, and on October 7th, 1645, they referred the version to the Assembly. The Assembly replied on 14th November, stating that they highly approved of “the very good and commendable pains which Mr. Barton had taken with his metaphrase,” but that they really saw no reason why it should be preferred to Rous’s version. In March, the Lords again approached the Assembly to ask whether those who wished to use them could not use Barton’s Psalms as well as other translations. The Assembly, in reply (April 25th, 1646), appealed to the good sense of the House of Lords, pointing out what a hindrance and distraction to edification it would be if more than one translation were in use at the same time. Ultimately the House of Lords yielded on the point.

83. The General Assembly of Scotland, through its Commissioners, had been deeply interested in the preparation of a Psalter. But before adopting Rous’s version the Assembly determined on a closer acquaintance with it, especially in view of the fact that they had already an honoured Psalm-book, besides the competing versions of Zachary Boyd and Sir William Mure of Rowallan. However, the Scottish Church did not receive the Psalm-book until February 1647. On the 23rd day of that month the Commissioners wrote to Edinburgh as follows: “We now send you the new edition of the Paraphrase of the Psalms as it was approved by the Assembly here and by yourselves, the animadversions which you sent us being taken in their proper places.” The Commissioners added that “one Psalm-book in the three kingdoms will be a considerable part of Uniformity, if it can be fully agreed upon both there and here.” The Commissioners of the Scottish General Assembly had some difficulty in getting copies sufficient to send down to their Presbyteries. This difficulty was at last overcome; but on 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.