Set Made you evermore to last, Princes, judges of the earth, You his saints resound his praise; And united to his grace. Yet spirited and manly as the lyrics of Sandys frequently are, they have scarcely ever found their way into our selections. We suspect for this reason, that in his most flowing pieces, the time is not kept with that regularity, or marked with that precision, which is requisite for verses intended to be sung by untaught voices to a simple air. In homely phrase, they would hardly go to any tune. Translations now multiply upon us. All ranks and orders appear smitten with the love of sacred song-learned prelates and dignitaries of the established church-Bishop Hall, who only translated ten psalms, Bishop King who gave a version of the whole; and Patrick, the brother of the commentator; fiery Puritans, as Francis Rouse, whose version was recommended by the Assembly of Divines, but of whom Butler sarcastically remarks, that when Rouse stood forth for his trial, Robin Wisdom (the coadjutor of Sternhold and Hopkins) was found the better poet,' and George Wither, whose politics and polemics turned to vinegar the sweet vein of poetry of which his youth gave promise; courtiers, as Sir John Denham; and retired country clergymen, as George Herbert, Herbert, among whose works versions of some few of the psalms What wonders there the man grown old did! and others, who have not even attained that melancholy celebrity, Miles Smyth, Richard Goodridge, William Barton, Samuel Woodford. But what is called the New Version, requires further notice, if not for its merits, yet as having been received into the church by royal authority. Nahum Tate is described in the preface to a volume of select psalms in verse, (London, 1810,) from which we have derived some useful information, as so extremely modest, that he was never able to make his fortune, or to raise himself above necessity.' For a modest man, Tate seems to have taken rather a singular measure of his own abilities, in those of his literary undertakings with which we are acquainted-an improvement of King Lear, a continuation of Absalom and Achitophel, and a translation of the psalms. Nicholas Brady, his coadjutor, does not appear to have entertained a much more humble estimate of his own abilities, for he, undaunted by Dryden's success, published a translation of the Eneid, which, (says Johnson,) when dragged into the world, did not live long enough to cry. Yet the candid critic who shall have taken the pains to compare the different versions, will entertain no contemptible opinion of Tate and Brady. This version will furnish more stanzas, adapted to the purpose of parochial psalmody, if not excellent, yet unobjectionable, than any with which we are acquainted. The 19th and 189th are extremely well done, at least would require but trifling alterations. But as those stanzas which we should quote, would probably be most familiar to our readers, we abstain from any further illustration. Passing by the elegant paraphrases of Addison, we arrive at the name of Dr. Watts. It is the most ungracious and unwelcome part of our present task to speak unfavourably of the well-meant contributions of good men to the cause of Christian piety, especially where they are still popular with a large class of the community. We do not object to Watts, that his psalms are not literal versions, which he did not intend them to be, but we cannot help suspecting, that the attachment of the better educated among the dissenters to this, which is, we believe, generally their hymn book, partakes of that feeling from which many pious members of the Church adhere to old Sternhold and Hopkins. Watts was was an excellent man, a strong reasoner, of undoubted piety, and, perhaps a rarer virtue, of true Christian charity, but in our opinion, he laboured under an irreparable deficiency for the task he undertook-he was no poet. He had a great command of scriptural language, and an extraordinary facility of versification, but his piety may induce us to make excuses for his poetry, his poetry will do little to excite dormant piety. Yet if we are dissatisfied with the rude, homely, and unequal strains of Watts, we have still less taste for the trim and smoothdressed stanzas into which Merrick has softened down all the daring, the grandeur, the lyric luxuriance of the Hebrew poets. The best writers of the last age were sometimes perhaps too liberal of words in proportion to their thoughts, but then their words were rich and musical; Merrick is as tame as he is diffuse. If it be the first merit of a translator to give the spirit and character of his original, it would be difficult to find a stronger contrast than the languid, equable, and monotonous elegance of Merrick presents to the startling images and glowing words of the Hebrew lyrists. Are we then to acquiesce in the discouraging sentence pronounced by a competent authority, the poet Mason: a literal version of the psalms may boldly be asserted impracticable'? We confess we have no great expectation, that these chartered libertines' will ever submit to the shackles of English metre ; and fear, therefore, that no poetical translation is likely to compete with that, which, in some passages, is almost rhythmical, the version in our prayer books. Our only hope, and that vague and remote, is, in greater attention to the genius of Hebrew poetry, which, since the days of our earlier translators, has been so beautifully developed by Lowth and Michaelis. Will not English poetry endure something like the parallelism of the Hebrews? or will that antithetical balance of line against line, or stanza against stanza, and the constant recurrence of the same or equivalent terms, in the same part of the sentence, offend hopelessly our fastidious ears? If the construction of our native English' would reject the Hebrew collocation of its words, would not the occasional harshness or intricacy be compensated by the more faithful representation of the spirit and character of the original? We think, that if the two qualifications, a decided poetical talent and Hebrew scholarship were to meet in some gifted individual, it might be worth while to venture the experiment. At present, however, the only alternative seems to be, either leaving the subject in its very unsatisfactory actual state, or putting forth a selection under ecclesiastical authority, or at least recommendation. Should this second course be adopted, we pre sume sume to submit the following principles on which such a selection should be formed-principles which, in most respects, would be equally applicable to a collection of hymns. 1st. The pieces included in the selection should be odes addressed to the Supreme Being, or commemorative of his mercies and attributes. They should not be taken from the didactic, rarely perhaps, if ever, from the elegiac poems, contained in the book of psalms. The first psalm, for example, which is supposed to have been prefixed to the collection by Ezra, is an extremely elegant didactic poem, but its tone and spirit are much better adapted to the pulpit than to the singing gallery. The greater part of the 119th psalm, not to instance others, comes under this description. We sing, as that sonorous gentleman who announces what we are to sing, duly informs us, to the praise and glory of God; but ethic rules, however beautiful, and religious admonitions, however forcible and true, appear misplaced in this part of our service. 2dly. They should be general or congregational; they should consist of expressions fairly and reasonably applicable to every individual in the assembly. We address the Universal Father, the Universal Redeemer, the Universal Spirit. We address in public and in common with a multitude of our fellowcreatures. Our language, therefore, can only comprehend our common benefits and blessings. Our private and peculiar feelings of gratitude or consolation must be reserved for our private devotions. Even in the rapid course of the public service, the pious mind may individualise and appropriate the general mercies of God, but this must take place within; he must not expect the common thanksgiving to adapt itself to his peculiar circumstances or state; to abound in allusions which are appropriate to him, but foreign to a great part of the congregation. On this point, the practice of the Jewish church may assist the Christian. Those unrivalled poems, in which David expresses his awful contrition for his particular crime; or where he gives thanks for some particular instance of God's goodness in rescuing him from his rebellious son, or his traitorous subjects, did not, it should seem, enter into the public service. Select, for example, the 42d psalm, which is admitted into most collections, and certainly is inferior to few in poetic and devotional excellence. But by losing its connexion with the circumstances under which it was composed; by being transferred from David lamenting his exile from the Holy City, and the local presence of his God, how much of its beauty is likewise lost! The following stanza is rarely omitted. God of my strength, how long shall I Like one forgotten mourn, Forlorn, forsaken and expos'd VOL. XXXVIII. NO. LXXV. How How exquisitely appropriate to the king, hunted on the mountains by his rebellious son!-how soothing, perhaps, without doing much violence to its expressions, to some unhappy Christian in the hour of distress and solitude; how utterly inappropriate, on common occasions, to a whole Christian assembly! We should not be so rigid as to proscribe the first person singular, more especially as the self-identification of every individual worshipper with the general address is in every way desirable; but it would be a fair test of the fitness of any hymn or psalm, to examine whether it would not be incongruous and improper if expressed in the first person plural, 3dly. The selections should be Christian both in spirit and in tenor. It cannot be denied, that in every one of our common versions, passages perpetually occur, which appeal to angry, hostile, and uncharitable passions. It is unreasonable to suppose, that, in the fervour and animation with which the hymn ought to be taken up, the general mass of worshippers will pause in order to exalt and spiritualize their devotions to a purer and more evangelic sense. The obvious meaning is that which will lay hold of the affections, or the affections will suffer in the cold and dispiriting process of correction. If we change,' says Bishop Horne, 'the imperative for the future, and read not "let them be confounded," &c., but, they shall be confounded, &c., of which the Hebrew is equally capable'-if we consider that our spiritual enemies, the world, the devil, and the flesh, ought only to be intended; if we call to mind, that only the foes of God and his church are thus denounced, all these expressions are warrantable. This may or may not be good theology; but the practical question is, whether any, except the most pious and enlightened, will have these considerations perpetually present to their thoughts; and whether there is not great danger in laying such a temptation in the way of those passions which are apt enough to allege scriptural authority, and pervert the word of God for their justification. They should be Christian likewise in It is in vain to assert that, the law having a shadow of good things to come, a spiritual and evangelic sense lurks within all the language of the inspired psalmists. Theologically considered, this is highly questionable; practically the acknowledgment that the sense is latent, appears decisive. The frequent use of some of the typical expressions in the New Testament; their perpetual application in the general system of Christian teaching will doubtless authorise the more obvious terms, as in fact they naturally suggest the secondary rather than the primary meaning, as, for instance, Sion that of the church, God's people, the Christian world.* But the moment we enter more into detail their tenor. admit The perpetual adoption of the metaphor of the shepherd and his sheep, in the language |