« ForrigeFortsett »
tence to a created being, would not even give his name, JEHOVAH, to another. This affords a complete proof that the appellation JEHOVAH is appropriated exclusively to the Deity, “ Thou whose name alone is Jehovah.” Psal. lxxxiii. 18. “Who is GOD save Jehovah?"-2 Sam. xxii. 32. Substituting, in like manner, the true translation, Jehovah, instead of the term, "the Lord," printed in the English version in capitals, we learn, from the Prophet Isaiah, that the Saviour CARIST was denominated JEHOVAH of Hosts, “ Holy, holy, holy, is JEHOVAH of Hosts; the whole earth is full of his glory.” St. John the Evangelist applies these words to our REDEEMER,—“These things said Esaias, when he saw his glory, and spake of bim." John xii. 41.
· Now to the visible JEHOVAH, who appeared to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, and the select men of Israel, altars were built, sacrifices offered, and prayers addressed. He was adored as the Lord God of Israel--the Almighty. The visible JEHOVAH was obviously not God the FATHER; for speaking directly of the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, St. John says, “ No man hath seen God at any time.” 1 John iv. 12. Yet the same inspired writer, in the most unequivocal language, denominates “ THE WORD," (i. e. the Saviour,) God, and informs us that he had seen Him. · And St. Paul makes use of the following remark- . able expressions :-" And, without controversy, great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.” 1 Tim. iii. 16. The Rev. H.-Montgomery need not be at all afraid of being defeated, if he should undertake to defend his openly avowed belief in the omnipresence of the Saviour, against Erasmus. Christ himself, when visible in Judea, said: “ And no man hath ascended into heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man who is in heaven.” John iii. 13. Here it is evident, that he was at one and the same time in heaven and on earth. He also promised, as Mr. Montgomery very truly observed, that when two or three are gathered together in His name, there will He be in the midst of them. Now in the same instant multitudes of his people are gathered together in his name around this habitable globe, and the case is no doubt the same in the church triumphant in heaven. With all these He will certainly be present at once in the fulfilment of his solemn promise.
I conclude, that since - The WORD," is omnipresent+ since He is acknowledged in Holy Writ to be Almighty since He is admitted to be the CREATOR of all created beings, and is omniscient, as I formerly proved-since, in short, He was adored by the Patriarchs, the Prophets, the Hebrew Church, and the Apostles, He ought to be addressed and invoked as God by every Christian in the universe.
I am, Şir,
Your ob’dt. serv’t.
mmmmmmmmmmmento HISTORY OF THE METRICAL VERSION OF THE PSALMS USED
IN THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH.
(Concluded from page 132.)
TO THE EDITOR OF THE ORTHODOX PRESBYTERIAN. SIR,
The version of the Psalms now used by the Church of Scotland, and by all the other Presbyterian Churches that have branched off from this parent stem, was the production of Mr. Francis Rouse, an English gentleman, of whom your readers will doubtless expect a brief account. He was a native of Devonshire, and youngest son of Sir Anthony Rouse, Knt. He was educated at Oxford, where he took the degree of B. A. in 1591. He early appeared as an author in opposition of the Arminian doctrines and high church principles of some of the more popular of the court divines, and in 1627, then an active and prominent member of Parliament, he, before the House of Commons, impeached Dr. Manwaring, a celebrated partizan of Arch, bishop Laud, of maintaining principles subversive of religion and civil government, and procured his conviction and punishment. As the Parliament was not suffered to meet during the subsequent twelve years, Mr. Rouse employed his leisure in preparing his version of the Book of Psalms. At the meeting of what was called the Long Parliament, in November, 1640, he was one of the repre. sentatives for the borough of Truro, in the County of Cornwall, and very soon re-appeared as the intrepid opponent of Laud and his party, and the zealous advocate of civil liberty. He now published his version of the
Psalms. When the Westminster Assembly of Divines met in the year 1643, Mr. Rouse was one of the lay as. sessors nominated to sit as members by the English Parliament. Though originally a Presbyterian, he joined the independent and republican party after the execution of the king. He was a member of the select parliament which Cromwell assembled in 1653, and was chosen its speaker. He was also one of Cromwell's council of state. In 1657, he was a made a member of his House of Peers, under the title of Lord Rouse; and about the same time Provost of Eton College. He died at Acton, near London, January 7th, 1659, and was buried at Eton. He was a learned and religious man, fearless in his opposition to error, and zealous for every thing which he conceived to be for the interest of the Gospel. During the latter years of his life, he enjoyed the high satisfaction of seeing his version of the Psalms in very general use in England; and of know. ing that it was universally adopted by the Church of Scotland, and that the pious and devout people of an entire kingdom were daily employing his strains both in their public and in their domestic worship. If he felt like the Editor of the “Cbristian Psalmist,” how pure and elevated must have been his delight! That eloquent writer and true poet thus speaks of himself:-“If he who pens these sentiments knows his own heart,—though it has deceived him too often to be trusted without jealousy, he would rather be the anonymous author of a few hymns, which should thus become an imperishable inheritance to the people of God, than bequeath another epic poem to the world, which should rank his name with Homer, Virgil, and our greater Milton.""
The version of Mr. Rouse was introduced to the notice of the Westminster Assembly of Divines, in the month of November, 1643, by a message from the House of Commons, requesting that it might be taken into consideration with a view to its adoption in public worship. The Scottish Commissioners opposed the motion, till the opinion of the General Assembly of their church should be ascertained. Accordingly in May, 1644, they thus informed their brethren of their proceedings in this matter: “There was also presented to the Assembly a new paraphrase of the Psalms in English metre, which was well liked and commended by some of the members of the Assembly. But beèause we conceived that one Psalm.
Book, in all the three kingdoms, was a point of uniformity much to be desired, we took the boldness (although we had no such express and particular commission) to oppose the present allowing thereof, till the Kirk of Scotland should be acquainted with it; and therefore have we now sent an essay thereof in some Psalms.”
The General Assembly having empowered them to sanction the preparation of the rew. Psalm-Book, the Westminster Divines accordingly entered on the work, but they appear to have prosecuted it very tardily. We learn from Baillie that, early in 1646, they had unapi. mously agreed to omit the Doxologies which had hitherto been sung both in the Scottish and English Churches at the end of each psalm as they are in the latter church, to the present day. " About the conclusion of the Psalms we had no debate with them, (the Independent party.) Without scruple both Independents and all-sang it, so far as I know, where it was printed at the end of two or three psalms. But in the new translation of the Psalms, resolving to keep punctually to the original text; without any addition, we and they were content to omit that; whereupon we saw both the Popish and Prelatical party did so much doat as to put it to the end of most of their lessons and all their psalms.” As the new psalms were revised in the Assembly, they were forwarded to Scotland for the animadversions of a committee of that church pre. .viously appointed to examine them. In June, 1645, Baillie thus writes from London to Lord Lauderdale, then
Mr. Rouse's psalms. They would be sent to Edinburgh to the committee for the psalms. Mr. Andrew Ker will deliver them. When your lordship goes thither, you would stir up that committee to diligence; for now the want of the psalms will, lie upon them alone; for if once their animadversions were come up, I believe the book would quickly be printed and practised here. I know how lazy soever and tediously longsome they be here, yet that they will be impatient of any long delay, there in this work." His exhortations to diligence appear to have been so far effectual, that, in the month of November following, he states that the psalms were perfected by the Westmin. ster Assembly, and at press; and he describes them as “without all doubt the best that ever yet were extant." The Parliament, however, were very dilatory in giving
their final sanction to the book. For this delay, Baillie, in December, 1646, accounts in the following manner : “The translation of the psalms is passed long ago in the Assembly; yet it sticks in the Houses. The Commons passed their order long ago; but the Lords joined not, being solicited by divers of the Assembly and of the Ministers of London, who love better the more poetical paraphrase of their colleague, Mr. Burton. The too great accuracy of some in the Assembly, sticking too hard to the original text, made the last edition more concise and obscure than the former. With this the commission of our church was not so well pleased; but we have got all those obscurities helped; so I think it shall pass.” € Having been at length approved by the English Parliament, as well as by the Westminster Divines, the General Assembly in Scotland now resolved seriously and delibe. rately to examine the whole version, previous to its receiving their sanction. Accordingly at the Assembly which met at Edinburgh, in 1647, the following overture on the subject was passed :-“The General Assembly having considered the report of the committee concerning the paraphrase of the Psalms sent from England, and finding that it is very necessary that the said paraphrase be yet revised, therefore doth appoint Master John Adamson ( Principal of the College of Edinburgh) to examine the first forty psalms; Master Thomas Crawford (Professor of Humanity and Mathematics in the College of Edinburgh) the second forty; Master John Row (Principal of the King's College, Aberdeen) the third forty; and Master John Nevey (Minister of Newmills, Ayrshire) the last thirty psalms of that paraphrase: And in their examination they shall not only observe what they think needs to be amended, but also to set down their own essay for correcting thereof; and for this purpose, recommends to them to make use of the travels (labours) of Rowallan, Master Zachary Boyd, or of any other on that subject, but especially of our own para. *pbrase, that what they find better in any of these works may be chosen.". At the General Assembly in the fol. lowing year, the animadversions of these Ministers were transmitted to Presbyteries, who were to enter on the examination of the book without delay, and report to the standing commission of the church. At length, at the ' next Assembly which met at Edinburgh, in July, 1649, the work was found to be in such an advanced state, that