“Att the monthly meeting of the church, upon the 25th day of the first month, called March, [1657].
“It was agreed by the church, that they doe put in practice the ordinance of singinge, in the publiq upon the forenoone and afternoone on the Lord’s daies, and that it be betweene praier and sermon; and also it was agreed that the New England translation of the Psallmes be made use of by the church, at their times of breaking of bread: and it was agreed that the next Lord’s day seventh-night be the day to enter upon the work of singinge in publiq.”
The metrical version of the Psalms, alluded to in the above extract, was published in 1640. The pilgrim fathers, “though they blessed God for the religious endeavours of those who translated the Psalms into the metre usually annexed at the end of the Bible,” yet observed in that translation so many variations, not only from the text, but from the very sense of the Psalmist, that “it was an offence unto them.” Each of their chief divines took a portion to translate, and the whole was afterwards revised by Mr. Henry Dunster, President of Harvard College. They claimed the merit of a close adherence to the Hebrew, but were conscious that their versification was, by no means, free from imperfections. “We have respected,” said they, “rather a plain translation, than to smooth our verses with the sweetness of any paraphrase. We have attended conscience rather than elegance, fidelity rather than ingenuity; that so we may sing in Zion the Lord’s songs of praise, according unto his own will, until he bid us enter into our Master’s joy, to sing eternal hallelujahs.” [133]
Whatever might be the comparative claims of a version of the Psalms composed two hundred years ago, it would grate upon ears accustomed to the more majestic flow of modern poetry. It has been the privilege—the almost exclusive privilege of nonconformity, to have derived the benefit of progressing refinement, and to have retained poetry as the permanent handmaid of devotion, while in the national churches the uncouth doggerel of the sixteenth century is still cherished as a thing which it were sacrilege to touch.
The Independents never introduced into their assemblies that unbounded liberty of teaching, which had been the mark and the bane of the Brownist churches. [134] But they desired, under the prudent, constant, and salutary superintendence of a ministry invested, if not with more extensive powers, with a more commanding moral influence, to retain the advantages of an open discussion of topics connected with their religious system and spiritual prosperity. The following extracts from the church book, show that something of this kind was attempted at Beccles. The reader will regret, that no account of the questions discussed, or of the manner in which they were treated, has been preserved.
“It was likewise” (at the meeting, held 25th March, 1657) further “agreed, that upon the next monthly meeting, the church doe take in considerac’on ye bretherens’ prophesying, [135] or speaking to a question.”
“At a meetinge of the church upon the 3rd day of the month, com’only called June, 1657, it was agreed upon and condesended unto, that two of these bretheren hereunder written be appoynted in ther order to speake unto the questions wch shall be hereafter p’pounded, to be answered in our publiq church meeteinges; and our pastour or Mr. Clearke, one of them, be desired constantly to conclude the meetinge:
| Edmond Artis & John Morse. | Francis Haylocke & Richard Heasell. |
| Edmond Nevill & Robert Horne. | Wm. Cutlove & Richard Shildrake.” |
Then follows:
“The order of bretheren to find ther questions wch they are desired to acquaynt eyther our present pastor with, or or brother Mr. Clearke, to this end yt upon the conclusion of eyther days of these exercises, the question next to be spoken unto may be p’pounded unto the bretheren, who are desired to stay a little space, every meetinge, after the rest of the company who attend these meeteinges beside the church have withdrawen themselves, to the end yt they may know wt & whose question is next in order to be considered; and that one of them be desired to give out the question.
“Brother Thomas Onge,” &c. &c. [eleven other names.]
“It was likewise further agreed upon yt after the next meeteinge of this nature be p’formed upon the second day of the weeke, publiq notyse be given at yt meeting that from thenceforth it is intended yt the exercise of this nature shall be kept in the usual place, upon the 3rd day of the week, to begin at the houres of two of the clocke in the afternoone in sum’er tyme, & at one in the winter.”
Sept. 20th, 1658, occurs the following:
“At a meetinge then of the church, beinge occasioned by a letter sent from diverse churches touchinge a generall meetinge of the severall Congregationall churches at London, by ther pastors or others, bretheren, at the Savoye, upon the 29th of September next, it was agreed by the church that our pastour, Mr. Ottie, should goe to that meeteinge on the behalf of this church, and yt ye charge of the jorneye should be mutually borne by the bretheren of the socyetye.”