gives a short statement of the rise of the "Free Church:" while the Church of England is disposed of in less than half that space. Episcopacy, too, is spoken of as "an evil," which arose in the Primitive Church. We think also that we see evidences that different hands have been engaged. In the Article on "Miracles," it is maintained that a miracle per se does not prove the Divine origin of a doctrine, and therefore the moral character of the doctrine must also be scrutinized. On the other hand, in that on the "Plagues of Egypt," it is assumed that no real miracle can come except from God; and an extract from Professor Bush is given to shew that the Magicians were only jugglers. Under the head "Supremacy-Oath of," we are referred to the Article "Oath;" but on perusing the latter, we find nothing in relation to this particular test. On the whole, however, so far as we are entitled to speak of so large a quantity of compressed matter without perusing it throughout, we think the book interesting and able. But the reader must bear in mind, that its own point of view is eminently Presbyterian, though it frequently seeks to give two sides of a question with a laudable desire of impartiality. And we are compelled to remonstrate strongly against one feature-the hyper-Calvinism which constantly appears. Let us not be misunderstood. We are not speaking of such doctrines as Individual Election or Final Perseverance. We allude to passages like the following:

"The question as to the extent of the Atonement has, in various periods of the history of the Christian Church, been a subject of keen and exciting controversy. The Arminians maintain, that in the design and intention of the Father, the blood of Christ was shed for all mankind, so that He so far satisfied the Divine Justice as to render it consistent with the honour of God to enter into lower terms with them than before; and that the salvation of all is now possible, upon the condition of their faith, repentance, and sincere obedience. This view of the atonement has been often revived since it was publicly repudiated in 1618 by the Synod of Dort; and even in our own days the controversy has been awakened in quarters where better things might have been expected. The form, however, which the heretical doctrine has assumed is no longer that of gross Arminianism, but rather the more modified form of Hopkinsianism, as it is termed in America-a form which maintains that Christ died for all men, while it asserts also the doctrine of particular election." (Art. "Atonement.")

By such views the Author thinks "the federal character of Christ's mediation is completely lost sight of, and the whole transactions of the Covenant are rendered nugatory."

Such a charge of heresy is surely as intolerant as the language of any Anglican High Churchman; especially when it is considered how small a portion even of Evangelical Christendom would adopt the views of the writer. We have no wish to undertake the championship of Arminianism; but we protest against the harsh language in which the Author speaks of what he calls by the singularly inharmonious name of Hopkinsianism. It is stigmatised for simply asserting that Christ died for all Of course the Catechism and other formularies of the

men.

English Church, which state this view explicitly, must come in for like condemnation.

The question however, after all, is what the Scriptures say on the subject. And we think that such passages as John iii. 16. 17; 2 Peter ii. 1; 1 Tim. ii. 4; 1 John v. 10, and many others, taken in their natural sense, are clear, and hardly to be mistaken. We do not see how men are to be condemned for not believing a Record which, relatively to them, was never true. Then, is there any reason requiring that the literal sense of such texts should be explained away? We are not aware that the advocates of particular Redemption rely much on any other passages as directly contradicting the natural meaning of those just quoted. But they consider that such apparent meaning must be modified in order to harmonize with certain inferences, which are logically to be drawn from what we read in other places concerning the Divine counsels. But we greatly doubt the propriety of these apparently logical inferences on the subject of these thoughts which are not as our thoughts; for as the heaven is higher than the earth, so are His thoughts higher than our thoughts. If a man "will exchange the safe circle of religion and practical reason (we are citing the impressive words of Coleridge) for the shifting sand-wastes and mirages of speculative theology; if, instead of seeking after the marks of Election in himself, he undertakes to determine the ground and origin, the possibility and mode of Election itself in relation to God; in this case... we can only regret that the inquirer had not been better instructed in the nature, the bounds, the true purposes and proper objects of his intellectual faculties, and that he had not previously asked himself by what appropriate sense or organ of knowledge he hoped to secure an insight into a nature which was neither an object of his senses, nor a part of his self-consciousness." (Aids to Reflection, Aphorism 2, "On that which is indeed spiritual religion.")

When we add, that the immediate context of these words is a panegyric on the manner in which the subject is treated in Leighton on St. Peter, they will hardly be ascribed to an undue leaning to Arminianism. Indeed, within the compass of a few lines, we find Coleridge affirming that "the doctrine of Election is in itself a necessary inference from an undeniable fact-necessary at least for all who hold that the best of men are what they are through the grace of God;"-but this is the practical view of the subject, and is widely different from that theorizing on the Divine counsels which we venture to deprecate. Is it not, in truth, one great object of the Incarnation to exhibit, under a human, and therefore comprehensible, form, that love and compassion which, viewed as attributes of the Infinite and Unchangeable One, are not conceivable by us without difficulty and intellectual embarrassment? And if so, is it not contravening this purpose if we weaken the force of our Lord's words in John xii. 47, or when weeping over Jerusalem, CHRIST. OBSERV. No. 210.

3 H

in order to harmonize them with deductions drawn, in obedience to a supposed logical necessity, from what is elsewhere said of Eternal Decrees? Is it not, in fact, to fall into an error akin to that which is somewhere reprehended (we think) by Paley or Bishop Butler-the error of allowing what we do know to be affected and influenced by what we do not know,—our knowledge by our ignorance?

Hymn Tunes, sung in the Church of the United Brethren, first collected by the Rev. C. I. La Trobe. A new and enlarged Edition, with an Introduction, by P. La Trobe. Mallalieu: Hat

ton Garden.

In the present instance, we have been induced to wander from our somewhat inharmonious path, partly by the unusual excellence of the volume before us, and partly by the ingenious and able "Introduction" to it. The family of which the Author is a member, seems to constitute an orchestra in itself—a great nest of singing birds-father and sons being all under the same inspiration. The present Work, by the son, is little more than an echo of the voice of the father; an Essay, and a set of airs and harmonies, designed to commend the family art to the too often deaf and dumb multitude around them. As we have stopped to notice the volume, we shall take the opportunity of offering a few general remarks as to the state of Psalmody in the land.

It is, then, a gratifying circumstance to all lovers of ecclesiastical music in this country, that for some years there has been a growing taste for Church tunes of a sound and devotional character. This is seen in the readiness with which the better class of organists, when liberty is given them, cast aside the more light and frivolous melodies, and prefer to adopt the good old Church Chorale, with all its gravity and solemnity. The TuneBooks, also, which have been published of late years such as those of Messrs. Haversal, Best, and Dr. Maurice-have confined themselves wholly to the more chaste and ecclesiastical style of Tune; making free use of the German Collections, and bringing forth many an old Chorale covered with the dust of centuries, to the exclusion of such melodies as formed the staple manufacture of Tune-Books fifty years ago. Church Music, in common with Church Architecture-may, we add, with Church menhave all felt the influence of the age, and are, we think, decidedly improving.

Of such Collections, "The Moravian Tune-Book" may perhaps claim precedence, not only as being first in the field, but also as embracing a wider range of choral harmonies. It was origi

nally compiled and published about sixty years ago, by the late Rev. C. I. La Trobe, and has since passed through two or three editions. The germ of it is to be found in the Choral-Buch of the Brethren's Congregations in Germany. The present edition, by the Rev. P. La Trobe, son of the compiler, beside other improvements, has, as we have said, a Preface, in which is contained much curious and interesting information relative to the progress of Church Psalmody on the Continent and in this country since the Reformation. A larger and more varied number of excellent Tunes is introduced than in any Church Selection, owing to the wider range of metres in the Moravian HymnBook; for, while in our Church we have confined ourselves to the ordinary measures, the United Brethren, from their first establishment in this country, partly to preserve an unity of worship with their brethren in other lands, have sought to retain their original Tunes, by the translation or composition of Hymns of suitable metres. As the German language is much more pliant than the English, and has a capability of verbal combinations as well as of feminine terminations, which the English does not possess, the difficulty in the way of translation was necessarily great; and when it is borne in mind that many of the original translators were themselves Germans, imperfectly acquainted with the English tongue, we need not wonder if the attempt was sometimes made at a serious sacrifice of ordinary attributes of poetic composition. Still, this effort of theirs preserved their Tunes; and thus they are enabled to introduce some of the most magnificent German Chorales, which are not admissible into our English Collections without mutilation.

We have no clear evidence that compositions answering to our Psalm Tune existed before the times of Wickliffe and Huss. We have specimens of hymnology of the fourth century; but that Hymns, such as those of Prudentius, were sung by congregations to solemn and systematic melodies, we have no proof. It is a question whether the Tune ascribed to S. Ambrose be his, at least in its present form. It may have been modulated at a later period from a chant. It is probable that the singing of Psalms and Hymns and Spiritual Songs in primitive times, partook rather of the character of the irregular and wild chanting now in use in the East, and of which a judgment may be formed in this country by the usage of the Jews in their synagogues. From the time when the Chorale was invented or adopted in the 14th century, three different classes of Church Tunes are noted by the Author of the Preface to the Moravian Tune-Book; the Bohemian-of the School of Huss, the Lutheran, and the Reformed.

The first is of a grave and solemn character, simple alike in melody and harmony. Some few Tunes of this class are retained in the Moravian Collection, and are venerable from their age and the associations connected with them, independent of their musical merit.

The Lutheran is the richest both in quantity and quality. Luther found many a congenial spirit around him, who cheerfully united with him in rendering music subservient to higher purposes. "Within a century and a half, no fewer than 2000 Chorales are known to have been composed, chiefly by the cantors of the parish churches, many of whom must have been possessed of considerable knowledge and skill in music." Thus Rome complained that "Luther had done them more mischief by his songs than by his sermons." (pp. 12, 13.)

The Reformed class of Tunes was of the French school, Calvin having commissioned Claude Gondimel and Louis Bourgeois to compose and compile a Collection; which Collection has, in a great measure, retained its hold in the Reformed Church to the present day. The Tunes are noted for their regularity and precision, but they want the fire and feeling of those of the Lutheran school.

The Foreign Tunes borrowed by our English Reformers were chiefly of the schools of France and Switzerland, of which the Old Hundredth Psalm Tune is a specimen-heavy, solemn, and stately.

Of genuine English compositions, there is a greater abundance of Chants than Psalm Tunes. The latter are almost wholly confined to the common measures, which naturally cramped the composers. Yet, if few, in consequence, rose to any high eminence, there are many rarely surpassed for sweetness of melody and pleasing combinations.

Although, as we have noticed, there is a decided general improvement in the choice of Tunes by our organists, it is a question how far the changes consequent upon it are popular. It not unfrequently happens that an organist overrides the taste of the people, who are apt to pronounce Tunes, of unquestionable excellence, dry, from not being able to enter into their character; while expressions of regret follow the expulsion of some of the lighter and less ecclesiastical compositions. The fact is, that no national improvement in musical taste can be expected unless the science be more thoroughly ingrained in the national mind. As long as music is so neglected as a branch not only of common but even of liberal education, we may look generally for either a bad taste, or no taste at all. The disadvantage under which music labours, compared with other arts, is well described in the Preface.

"In one important particular, its merit may be regarded as its misfortune. Because it is an original, not an imitative art; because the laws and principles which regulate its strains and movements are hidden from the multitude, while the representations in which it delights, and which are felt at times so powerfully even by the unskilled hearer, have reference to ideas and emotions rather than to visible objects and outward acts,-too many persons are ready to deny, that there is anything like a real standard of musical excellence. The principle which would be ridiculed and summarily rejected, if applied to the so-called sister arts of Painting and Poetry, seems to be readily admitted by not a few, in regard to Music,-an art based upon a science, the principles