to be found too many whose rank, fortune, or other peculiar circumstances, rendered them tenfold more criminal than the general mob of spectators. It is such persons who perpetuate and extend these atrocities, which but for their purse and countenance might be easily and promptly checked.-My next remark refers to the guilt and disgrace which attach to our police for not preventing the recurrence of such scenes. The day, the hour, the site were known to thousands

and tens of thousands of persons from London to Bristol; and, for any thing I know to the contrary, throughout the kingdom; and yet no effectual hindrance was opposed by the magistracy, and no person called to account for being a sharer in the transaction. Surely the laws, if duly enforced, would be found strong enough to prevent such exhibitions; and if they are not, it is fully time they were strengthened. C.

Words of Psalmody in the Church of England. By the Rev. RANN KENNEDY, A. M. London. 1821. pp. 112. 2. A Charge delivered at the Primary Visitation of Herbert, Lord Bishop of Peterborough, in July 1820; with an Appendix, containing some Remarks on the modern Custom of Singing in our Churches unauthorized Psalms and Hymns. London. 1820. pp. 38. 3. An Inquiry into historical Facts relative to parochial Psal mody, in Reference to the Remarks of the Bishop of Peterborough. By J. GRAY. York. 1821. pp. 72. 4. A Selection of Psalms and Hymns for the Use of St. Paul's and St. James's, Sheffield. Shef field. 1819. pp. 382. 5. A new metrical Version of the Psalms of David, with an Appendix of select Psalms and Hymns, adapted to the Services of the Church. By the Rev. BASIL WOODD, A. M. London. 1821. pp. 343. 6. Psalms and Hymns adapted to the Service of the Church. By HENRY LOWE. London. pp. 531.

Psalms. By JAMES MONTGO-
MERY. London. 1822. pp.153.

"OF all the services of our church," says Bishop Porteus, "none appears to me to have sunk to so low an ebb, or so evidently to need reform, as our Parochial Psalmody." The evil of which the good bishop complains has long been felt; and every intelligent churchman will concur with that respected prelate in wishing to remove it. But with whom must this work of reformation commence ? And in what way is it to be accomplished? Are clergymen and congregations to be restricted to particular versions of the Psalms, or may they have recourse to any versions, according to their taste and judgment? Is it, moreover, lawful to introduce hymns; or are metrical compositions of all kinds, except literal versions of the Psalms, to be absolutely excluded? Mr. Gray and the bishop of Peterborough go chiefly into the subjects connected with these inquiries; while Mr. Kennedy, assuming for the basis of his selection, the old and new versions, dwells rather upon the music of Psalmody, and the rules and principles which are

to guide him in the selection itself. We shall endeavour to state the chief points of the question in such a way as to render it most plain and perspicuous.

1. What was the order of church music prescribed by our Establishment?

Mr. Gray, as he has stated in the introduction to his pamphlet, sent a paper on this subject to the Christian Observer, which was published in our Number for March 1818. By referring to that paper, it will appear that the only church music, sanctioned by primitive usage, adapted to the Psalms and Hymns of the rubric and Bible, and established by the laws of the realm, is the chanting of the pointed Psalter, and the singing of the Liturgical Hymns and of Anthems, as at present practised in cathedrals*. Our reformers, in the time of Henry VIII. and Edward VI.,contemplated, as it should seem, nothing beyond this system: the Book of Common Prayer, containing the authorized formularies of the Church of England, makes no recognition of metrical Psalms; and they come not within the scope of any Act of Uniformity. On the accession of Elizabeth, church music was placed on the same footing as in the reign of Edward VI.

2. Metrical Psalms were introduced," after the Geneva fashiont," by the Reformers who, having fled from the Marian Persecution, returned to England in the reign of Elizabeth.

For the proof of this fact, we again refer to the paper on Psalmody, in our Number for March 1818. The new method of singing soon became popular; and Elizabeth, who well knew when to urge her own plans, and when to give way to the feelings and wishes of her people, found it expedient to connive at the change. In her Injunctions to the Clergy, in the year 1559, after directing that "there be a modest and distinct

*See Gray's Inquiry, p. 68.
+ Strype.

song used in all parts of the Common Prayers of the Church," it is added, "Yet, nevertheless, for the comforting of such as delight in music, it may be permitted, that in the beginning*, or in the end of Common Prayer, either at morning or evening, there may be sung a hymn, or such like song, to the praise of Almighty Godt." From the indefinite nature of the expression, it is not quite certain, whether the phrase, "hymn or such like song," is meant to indicate metrical Psalmody. We are inclined to think with Mr. Gray, that it was a concession to metrical Psalms : especially as they were introduced in that very year, and used precisely in the way specified in this injunction. In proof of this fact, Mr. Gray cites the following extracts from Strype's Annals.

"1559, September, my diary observes, that on the day of this month of September began the new morning prayer at Saint Antholin's, London; the Psalm was sung after the Geneva fabell beginning to ring at five; when a shion, all the congregation, men, women, and boys, singing together.'

"1559-60, March the 3d, Grindal, the new bishop of London, preached at St. Paul's Cross in his rocket and chimere; the mayor and aldermen pre

Yet this

Not only this Injunction, but the very title-page of the old version, clearly authorize the commencement of Divine Service with singing. custom has, in some quarters, been treated as a grievous innovation; so much so that we understand the present bishop of Lincoln, when bishop of Exe

ter, obliged his clergy, in those cases, where service was opened with a Psalm, to discontinue the practice, demanding by what authority they ventured to introduce singing at the commencement of the prayers. Were it not for the irresponsible power of punishment with which our prelates are armed, his lord

ship surely would have been reminded

by some of his clergy, that the metrical

Psalms were expressly "set forth, and allowed to be sung in all churches of all the people together, before and after morning and evening prayer."

+ See Christian Observer, March 1818.

sent, and a great auditory. And after sermon, a Psalm was sung (which was the common practice of the reformed churches abroad,) wherein the people also joined their voices.'

1559-60, March the 17th, Mr. Veron, a Frenchman by birth, preached at St. Paul's Cross before the mayor and aldermen ; and after sermon was done, they sung all in common a Psalm in metre, as it seems now was frequently done; the custom having been brought in from abroad by the exiles.'

"The following extract from a let ter addressed by Bishop Jewell to Peter Martyr, dated March 5th, 1560, confirms the fact recorded by Strype. A change now appears more visible among the people, which nothing promotes more than the inviting them to sing Psalms. This was begun in one church in London, and did soon spread itself not only through the city, but in the neighbouring places. Sometimes at Paul's Cross there will be six thousand people singing together. Bishop Bur net observes, that the Psalms translated into metre were much sung by all who loved the Reformation; and it was a sign by which men's affections to that work were measured whether they used to sing these or not."-Gray on Psalmody, pp. 18-20.

3. And this brings us down to the introduction of the old version. The principal contributors to this work were, Thomas Sternhold, John Hopkins, and William Whyttingham, the celebrated Dean of Durham, and Calvin's chief favourite, from whom Whyttingham received ordination. So zealous was this Dean to innovate upon the establish ed rules of antiquity, and " to clothe our whole Liturgy in the garb of Geneva," that he added to his other metrical feats the extraordinary versification of the three creeds, the Ten Commandments, the Song of the Three Children, &c. &c. In 1562, the entire version of the Psalter was published by John Day: and it gradually made its way into our churches. Concerning the authority which belongs to this version there are very different opinions. The bishop of Peterborough argues thus:

• Warton.

"The old version of the Psalms, by Sternhold, Hopkins, and others, has. likewise the sanction of royal authority. It is true, that no act of the king in council, as far as I know, is now on record, by which they were formally allowed at the introduction of them, which was in the reign of Edward the Sixth. But if the royal permission has not been expressed in that way, it has in another. In every Prayer-book which contains the oid version, it is declared to be set forth and allowed to be sung in all churches;' but it could not be so allowed except by the king. And the permission of the king is signified by the very act of printing them with the Prayer-book by the king's printer, and his continuing to do so time immemorial without contradiction. The royal permission is further signified by the order of the king in council with respect to the new version. By that order the new version is allowed and permitted to be used in all such churches, chapels, and congregations, as shall think fit to receive the same.' This order implies therefore, that such congregations as did not think fit to receive the same, might retain the old version. The old version therefore has the sanction or permission of royal authority, as well as the new."-Bishop of Peterborough's Charge, p. 36.

The reasons assigned by the bishop for his opinion, appear to be three. We will notice each in its order.

First, The title-page of the old version assumes the fact of an allowance. "In every Prayer-book which contains the old version, it is declared to be set forth and allowed to be sung in all churches; but it could not be so allowed, except by the king."

Suppose the identity of this titlepage to be established from the first, what is the conclusion? Why, simply, that the version was allowed: that is, churches, chapels, and congregations might either use it or not at their pleasure.

By what king was it even allowed? Not surely by Edward VI. for it did not appear till after his death.

Mr. Gray informs us, that this version was not introduced, as here erroneously stated, in the reign of Edward VI, but in that of Elizabeth in 15 62.

An attempt was made in Parliament during that reign to procure the insertion of Sternhold's fifty-one Psalms, as part of the Liturgy established by the second and third of King Edward VI.; but the question was carried in the negative. "It could not be so allowed," observes the bishop, "except by the king." This remark assumes the fact of an allowance: but what says the evidence of former times? and what is the recorded opinion of those who have examined the question?

"Heylin states, that these Psalms were by little and little brought into the church; permitted, rather than allow ed, to be sung, before and after sermons, afterwards printed and bound up with the Common Prayer-book; and at last added by the Stationers at the end of the Bible. For, though it is expressed in the title page of these singing Psalms, that they were set forth, and allowed to be sung in ail churches before and after morning and evening prayer, and also before and after sermons, yet this allowance seems rather to have been a connivance than an approbation; no such allowance being any where found by such as have been most industrious and concerned in the search. At first it was pretended only that the said Psalms should be sung before and after morning and evening prayer, and before and after sermons, which shews they were not to be intermingled in the public Liturgy. But in some tract of time, as the Puritan faction grew in strength and confidence, they prevailed so far in most places, as to thrust the Te Deum, the Benedictus, the Magnificat, and the Nunc Dimittis, quite out of the church.' Collier, in his Ecclesiastial History, observes, When the Puritan faction grew up to strength and assurance, this metre made the antient hymns disrelished; and threw the Te Deum, the Magnificat, &c. out of the church in many places. Thus sometimes, things connived at at first, govern at last.' Again; speaking of the pretended allowance for this version, he says, Those who have searched with the utmost care and curiosity, could never discover any authority, either from the Crown or Convocation.' Mr. Masón, also, the late precentor of York, considers this al lowance to have been an assumption of

Sternhold or his printer, founded on the public exercise of metrical Psalmody in churches. Not to insist,' observes Mr. Warton, on the incompatibility of these metrical Psalms with the spirit of our style, it should be remembered, that Liturgy, and the barbarism of their they were never admitted into our church by lawful anthority. They were first introduced by the Puritans, and afterwards continued by connivance. But they never received any royal approbation or parliamentary sanction."" Gray on Psalmody, pp. 24-26.

Secondly, says the Bishop's Appendix," The permission of the king is signified by the very act of printing them with the Prayer-book by the king's printer, and his continuing to do so, time immemorial, without contradiction."

"This assertion," says Mr. Gray, " I do not find to be founded in fact. It is true the use of the old version is now so completely exploded, that it is not easy to meet with copies of it; but amongst those which I have seen, there is not one printed by the King's printer. A friend of mind has in his possession the following:

"The old version in folio, imprinted at London, by John Day. Cum gratia et privilegio Regiæ Majestatis. Anno 1578 :' bound up with an old translation of the Bible, imprinted at London, by Christopher Barker, Printer to the Queen's Majestie, 1582.

"The following are in York Minster Library :

"2. The old version in folio, without a Prayer-book-London, printed for the Company of Stationers, 1618.

"3. The old version-London, printed by T. P. for the Company of Stationers, 1635: bound up with a Prayerbook, printed at London, by Robert Barker, Printer to the King's most Excellent Majesty, and by the assignes of John Bill.

"4. The old version-London, printed by Stephen Gilbert, for the Company of Stationers, 1716: bound up with a Prayer-book, printed at Oxford, by John Baskett, Printer to the King's most Excellent Majesty.

"At Messrs. Todds', booksellers, in York,

"5. The old version-London, print. ed by J. Hepinstall for the Company of Stationers, 1704: bound up with a

Prayer-book, printed by Charles Bill, and the executrix of Thomas Newcomb, deceased, Printers to the Queen's most Excellent Majesty.

"I am in possession of the following: "6. The old version,' printed at the

Theatre, Oxford, and are to be sold by Peter Parker, at the Leg and Star, over against the Royal Exchange, in Cornhill, London, 1685:' bound up with a Prayer book, imprinted at London, by Bonham Norton, and John Bill, Printers to the King's most Excellent Majesty.

"7. The old version, printed by Wm. Pearson for the Company of Stationers, 1732: bound up with a Prayer-book, printed at London, by the assignes of his Majesty's Printer, and of Hy. Mills, deceased.

"At Mr. Wolstenholme's, bookseller, in York,

"8. The same edition of the old version: bound up with a Prayer-book, printed at London, by John Baskett, Printer to the King's most Excellent Majesty.

"Bishop Marsh asserts, that the prac tice of printing by the King's Printer has continued time immemorial with. out contradiction.' Surely, if so, the proof would be easy. But, until it be produced, I cannot admit the fact."Gray on Psalmody, pp. 27-29.

Suppose, however, the assertion to be correct, what does it prove? Nothing more, in the absence of other proof, than politic conni

vance.

With regard to the third reason mentioned by the bishop at the conclusion of the paragraph, Mr. Gray justly remarks,

"This is a very subtle mode of proving the point; but it will scarcely satisfy any one who weighs the evidence on the other side. It has been already shewn in the first section, that the king can do no more than allow and permit a version; and the discretion whether to receive it or not, rests with congregations. This is all that the allowance' of the new version expresses and implies. To suppose that the king intended to sanction the old version by the very act of permitting a new one, is more ingenious than probable."-Gray on Psalmody, p. 29.

It appears therefore, that the only presumption for any royal allow

ance in behalf of the old version, rests upon long and widely admitted usage: whether this presumption be of any value, when opposed by the testimony of Heylin, Collier, for himself. It is certainly curious, &c., every person must determine that in the only case in which we have any evidence of an appeal to authority in behalf of any part of the old version, the proposal was negatived*.

4. But although the old version carries with it no evidence of authority, several versions and varieties of metrical Psalmody have at different intervals been honoured by the royal sanction.

"A version of the nine first Psalms, by Dodd, was privileged by James I. in 1603.

"King James himself composed a version of the Psalms, which was recommended, as well as allowed, by his suc

"This royal license also contains the following clause :- And we doe for us our heirs and successors chardge and commaunde, that noe Englishe Psalme Booke in meeter, aloane, or with anie other booke or bookes, be hereafter bounde up, nor anie such booke bounde upp hereafter, be uttered, sould or put to sale, unles the said book intitled the "Hymnes and Songes of the Church" be incerted and bound up in due place with the same booke or bookes.' It also gives power to the said George Wither, his heirs, and assigns, with a constable or other public officer, to 'take and seize anie Englishe Psalme Booke in meeter, alone, or with any other booke or bookes, which shall be

It is not undeserving of remark, that Mr. Kennedy states the version of Sternhold and Hopkins to have been at first introduced" by sufferance," (p. 36.) although he afterwards speaks of it as an authorized version.

1