that time, and so far as we know to the present day, prose hymns or 'canticles,' made up chiefly or entirely of portions of the Scriptures, have been recited or chanted in the services of the French Protestant church. เ congregations, and especially the older part of them, are in fact excluded. The first English metrical version of the Psalms that was used generally in public worship, has had a reputation or notoriety which disarms further criticism; the old version,' as it is called, of Sternhold and Hopkins, being still proverbially cited for clumsy measure and uncouth rhymes, and their names as a synonym for bad poets. Thomas Sternhold, like the French poet Marot, was connected with the court, having the favor of Henry VIII, and esteemed in his day for ingenuity and piety. The thirty seven versions from his hand were first published and dedicated to Edward VI, in 1549, about which time he is supposed to have died. John Hopkins, a clergyman, was a still larger contributor, and rather more in esteem, having versified fifty eight of the Psalms.* Though these two writers have received the honor and the contempt bestowed on the collection that bears their names, more than a third of the work was made up by several other contributors. Some of the versions-that of the 119th Psalm is one-bear the initials of William Whittingham,† who was well known among the Puritan divines of that day; and Thomas Norton, of some note as a dramatist, added twenty seven or twenty eight versions. The whole work was first printed at the end of the Prayer-book in 1562. Hopkins is understood to have revised and improved Sternhold's ver The example having been set on the continent, this infectious frenzy of sacred song,' says Warton,' soon reached England at the very critical point of time, when it had just embraced the Reformation."* The English church had secured an English liturgy under Edward VI, and now the most thoroughly reformed party in that church, for the same reason that governed Protestants abroad, were favorable to the new mode of singing. As soon as metrical versions of the Psalms could be had, they came rapidly into use in parish churches, as a part of the public worship, not supplanting the prose forms hitherto sung, but supplying additional forms. It does not appear that the Puritans at that period attempted to abolish entirely the chanting of the Psalms in prose, nor would the papal or half reformed party have allowed such an innovation. On the other hand the latter party could not withstand, however they might have disliked it, the introduction of metrical singing. There was a growing jealousy among Protestants generally against choral performances in the worship of God, as usurping the part of the people them selves; and metrical singing was adopted the more readily, because the mass of a congregation could bear a part in the plain and familiar tunes first employed. Among their descendants, however, in many pla- tained seven of Hopkins's versions added ces, frequent and hasty innovations have made metrical singing itself a merely choral exercise, from which *The book before us says however, that as early as the beginning of the 13th century, metrical legends and paraphrases from the Scriptures, in French verse, became somewhat common in England.'Vol. 1, p. 44. *Holland says the edition of 1551 con to Sternhold's and Whittingham's edition, at Geneva in 1556, seven more by himself, -these fourteen making the fifty one which have all by mistake sometimes been attributed to Sternhold.' Vol. 1, p. 110. One of the translators of the Geneva Bible, and afterwards Dean of Durham. He is said to have paraphrased the commandments as still added to the Psalms in some editions, and also the song of Simeon and the Lord's prayer. เ sions, and his own and those of his coadjutors have undergone similar changes from other hands. The writers could hardly have expected for their work the extensive and long continued approbation which it has in fact received. The critics who disparage it most-and such persons generally have paid the least attention to the whole subject-can not question its popularity, which they must account for as they are able. The question has been warmly mooted whether it was ever introduced into the English established church, by lawful authority,' or really, as the title-page affirms, 'allowed to be sung in all churches; but if it 'never received any royal approbation, or parliamentary sanction,' there is no doubt of the fact that it was allowed, since it was used in the parish churches every where without being in fact forbidden or discountenanced, and this was all the allowance necessary. Its popularity provoked imitation and competition, but it held its place without a rival for nearly a century; prevailed in the church of England fifty years longer; and is even to this day used in several English congregations, and vindicated by some writers as preferable to every other version for the purposes of public worship. With the exception of the two stanzas on the 9th and 10th verses of the 18th Psalm, beginning, 'The Lord descended from above,' which are now in most compilations, and will never be sur passed, there is perhaps nothing in ** *Dr. Christopher Tye, organist to King Edward VI,' says Holland, executed and published in 1553, "The Actes of the Apostles, translated into English metre-wyth notes to eche chapter, to synge, and also to play upon the lute, very necessary for studentes after their studye to fyle their wyttes," &c.' One of the lines has often been printed thus,-On cherubim and seraphim,' -a change which, as Dr. Allen observes in the preface to his collection, is not warranted by any thing that we read of seraphs in the Bible. the whole work which could satisfy an intelligent and unprejudiced congregation in our times; yet having been the language of Christian devotion in so many sanctuaries nearly three centuries-longer than our received version of the Bible has been used-it has now a singular claim at least to our interest and veneration. The New England version, to which we have before referred as published at Cambridge in 1640, probably took the place of every other in the infant American colonies, and was adopted also to some extent in England. Baxter speaks of it as used among others by the nonconformists, and Prince says he found it was by some eminent congregations preferred to all others, in their public worship, even down to 1717,' when he last left that part of the British kingdom.' In its original form, or as revised by Prince, we suppose it to have been used generally in New England, though not entirely excluding the old version, till Dr. Watts' possess. ed the land.' Next came Rouse's version. The Westminster Assembly of divines, having amended and approved the Psalms as published by Francis Rouse, which the House of Commons had recommended to their consideration, that version was printed in 1645 (about four years after its first publication) by authority of both Houses of Parliament, and recommended to general acceptance.' The author was a man of some note in his day, a member of Parliament, and afterwards of Cromwell's council.* It did not supplant * Holland has an amusing note of him. The Rev. John Ward, of Stratford on Avon, who died about 1680, records in one of his Common Place Books, lately published, the following anecdote of Rouse :-Mr. Dodd told me this storie; the business of tithes in the Protector's time, being once hotly agitated in the Council, Mr. Rouse stood upp, and bespoke them thus: "Gentlemen," says the old version of Sternhold and Hopkins in England, but was gen. erally adopted in Scotland. In the latter country, so far as we can learn, the old version had been used from the time of its publication, and partial metrical versions were in use even before that time. The kirk has always been cautious and conservative, even to excess, on this subject, and would not yield at all, as we have noticed, to King James's interference in behalf of his own book. Rouse's version, however, was part of a Calvinistic and Presbyterian movement, and having been formally adopted, has continued in use not only in the establishment, but in various dissenting churches of Scotland to this day. As altered from Rouse's original publication, it is better known as the Scotch version, and is generally supposed to have the merit of scrupulous fidelity to the original beyond any other. The Scotch churches in this country once clung to it, and we suppose most of them do now, as tenaciously as the 'auld kirk,' scarcely consenting to sing any thing but what they called David's Psalms.* hee, "I'll tell you a storie; being travelling in Germany, my boot in a place being torn, I staid to have it mended, and there came to me a very ingenious man and mended itt; I staying the Lord's day in that place, saw one who came upp to preach, who was very like the man that mended my boot; I enquired and found hee. Itt grieved mee much. They told me they had tithes formerly; but now being taken away, the minister was fain to take any employment on him to get a living.' I heard the storie, turned the Protector, and he presently cried out, "well, they shall never mend shoes while I live." it was *The late Dr. Mason admired the Scotch version above all other Psalms or Hymns. He is said to have refused on some occasion to preach in another church besides his own unless they would sing from it. We have heard that he even pronounced it not only the best translation but admirable poetry-yet this is scarcely credible. Sir Walter Scott's commendations may be accounted for partly by his antiquarianism and nationality. The new version as it is called, or that of Tate and Brady,was first published complete, and with the royal authority,' in 1698. Nahum Tate was afterwards poet laureate to Queen Anne, though, like his predecessor in that office, Shadwell, better known to us as among the victims of such satirists as Dryden and Pope, than as being of their brotherhood. Nicholas Brady, like his coadjutor, of Irish birth, was reckoned a poet too, as well as a doctor in divinity. Their respective shares in the work are not now distinguishable. The version soon came into extensive and permanent use in the English parish churches, where it continues to be printed along with the Prayer-book, as it is also in the Episcopal churches of this country." We are not aware how far Sternhold and Hopkins still keep their ground in the English establishment. As might have been expected, the new version was not introduced without dissent and opposition from the more prejudiced adherents of the old. And it is amusing now to see what objections such men as Bishop Beveridge feit on the score of what they would have called their taste, when they * In American Prayer-books, portions were subsequently omitted, which made the enumeration of the pieces different from that of the original Psalms; and of late the constituted authority' has more judiciously numbered the pieces retained as selections,' complained of new phrases' and 'romantic expressions' in Tate and Brady, who repel modern readers rather by the baldness of their style. The same versifiers have been handled severely enough too, but for very different qualities, by later critics, among whom is Montgomery, who admits however that their version of the 139th Psalm is admirable. On that Psalm, as our readers may see, Dr. Watts borrowed from them some of the finest lines in his version, acknowledging the indebtedness in his note. Their versions of the 100th Psalm, begining With one consent,' &c. and of the 34th, Through all the changing scenes,' &c. are generally admired and sung, and most of the late compilations include other selections from their versions. If they make no figure among British poets, yet the place they still maintain in so many Christian congregations, claims for them considerable poetical merit, and an honorable name. Dr. John Patrick, a brother of the bishop and commentator of that name, published a version of the Psalms, part in 1679 and the whole in 1715, which deserve to be named here as at that time not only in good esteem, but adopted by some of the churches. Baxter is quoted as say ing of him, in contrast with his Episcopal brother, that he hath with pious skill and seriousness turned into a new metre many of David's Psalms, and the advantage for holy affections and harmony hath so far reconciled the nonconformists, that diverse of them use his Psalms in their congregations.' His version is interesting too from the fact that Dr. Watts, in the notes appended to passages in his Psalms, acknowledges his own indebtedness to Dr. Patrick. We are now brought in this cursory review of metrical psalmody, to the time of Dr. Watts, whose Psalms, published in 1719, introduced changes and are leading to still other changes that need a more particular consideration. It is evident. that the successful versions we have noticed, have often suffered unjustly from inconsiderate and superficial criticism. Besides making allowance for the antique or obsolete appearance, which the lapse of time must give them in our eyes, and the severe test to which continual and indiscriminate popular use has exposed them, we must bear in mind their original design and the constraint under which they were written. Had they been put forth as sacred poems merely, or as original hymns, we might have tried them by a different standard; we should have said, they must be good English poetry, in manner as well as in matter, or they are nothing. But they were framed to meet a different demand-a want which ballads, sonnets, and essays, and even the choicest English lyrics, could not have supplied. We have observed the use of the Psalms in prose in public worship before the Reformation-how far they engrossed the office of Christian praise. No uninspired compositions would have been received or tolerated in their stead. The Protestants were not less intent than the Romanists, on retaining the same divine odes which the church had used from the beginning, and were even jealous of the prose hymns used with them in the Romish ritual and in the English liturgy. They only desired to have the same material in a metrical form, as well as in their vernacular tongue, for the more general use and greater convenience of worshiping assemblies. Hence the first thing they required in a version, was that it should be a translation of the inspired original, of the strictest sort, yet in metres capable of being sung by the people. If it could only be sung, the various points of lyric excellence and adaptation were esteemed secondary consider ations, which ought not to interfere at all with the most literal fidelity in the interpretation. Such an undertaking was more laborious and not less servile, than turning an existing translation. into metre. The meaning of a Psalm being first ascertained, it was to be expressed in the plainest English words, in stanzas half-rhymed at least, and lines of a given number of syllables, with or without regularity of accent, and with such inversions and elisions as might be necessary in order to convey neither more nor less than the inspired meaning in this form. When the versifier's work was done, it came into the hands of scholastic divines, to whom other poetry was a strange art, for revision and emendation. Thus Psalms were required to be "drawn into English metre." Now if any man thinks it possible to produce harmonious or even tolerable poetry by this process, let him try it; and the experiment made on a single Psalm, of the toil without the freedom of ordinary translation, will enable him to judge more fairly of the results in other cases where the whole book has been thus attempted.' Yet along with the attraction even of most imperfect rhythm and partial rhymes, the confidence felt in the older versions as David's Psalms, and not any merely human compositions, gave them a strong and lasting hold of devout minds. They were understood and sung in 'the great congregation,' by 'both young men and maidens, old men, and children.' They were the language of praise in the domestic worship of many a household, as in the Cotter's Saturday Night,' where the Scotch Psalms were opened with the big ha' Bible,' and sung in the sweetest far of Scotia's holy lays.' Once lodg ed in the memory, they were held fast as a form of sound words,' entering into devout meditations, and recurring with singular power in seasons of sorrow, or peril, or of deepened religious experience. And among persons of musical sensibility as well as devout habits, they had the peculiar advantage of furnishing sacred themes for favor. ite melodies, such as Old Hundred and Dundee, which are still in all the churches.' There have always been those who felt like Baxter the attractions of divine song, if they did not with his enthusiasm attempt a version of all the Psalms,* and could not recur to an incident so affecting as he relates. For myself,' he says, 'I confess that harmony and melody are the pleasure and elevation of my soul. I have made a Psalm of praise in the holy assembly the chief delightful exercise of my religion and of my life, and have helped to bear down all the objections which I have heard against church music, and against the 149th and 150th Psalms. It was not the least comfort that I had in the converse of my late dear wife, that our first in the morning, and last in bed at night, was a Psalm of praise, till the hearing of others interrupted it.' The introduction of Dr. Watts's Paraphrase or Imitation of the Psalms, must be reckoned a new era in the history of this subject. To him, no doubt, the church of God is more indebted than to any or all other uninspired poets; and to the end of time, whereever the English language shall be spoken, his sacred songs will have a chief place in the worship of Christian assemblies. The change which he proposed, and to a great extent effected, in the use of the Psalms and the discussion to which it gave rise, will be consider. ed more fully than our present limits allow, in another number of this journal. * A selection, somewhat altered from Baxter's versions, is in the new Connecticut Collection, 148th Psalm, 7th version. Psalm of Br., II, 95. |