66

New Church mottoes are an unseemly imitation of the Rowland Hill mottoes, and the Anti-Corn Law League mottoes. "Thank Rowland Hill for this!" might be tolerated as a current memorial of a great public good done by Mr. Hill, but not one step more, I think. The League" went beyond it, and fell into quackery; I am not quite sure that our use of mottoes does not savour of profanity. At all events, it is bad manners and wretched taste, and can scarcely be harmonized with any enlightened view of the courtesy due to our neighbour, or the reverence due to holy truths. I have no doubt that the use of mottoes of this kind will pass away before the better judgment of the Church, and therefore that your correspondent Observer, will not be annoyed with them much longer.

I agree with the same correspondent in his remarks about the name Emanuel. No sane man would name his child "God with us;" but if he would not call him so in his own language, why should he do it in another? Nor, as matter of propriety, do I see a vast difference between "God-with-us Smith," and "God-with-us College," and therefore I incline to think that reflection on the meaning of the term Emanuel, or Immanuel, will lead to its use only as a title of the Lord Himself,

I agree also with Observer in his dislike of an organ voluntary in the midst of divine service. We do not go to church to hear an organ played, however well it may be played. If it be played even with consummate skill, every hearer will interpret the meaning of the voluntary according to his own musical taste, and it may therefore be concluded that the feelings of the player will not find their counterpart in those of his hearers except in a very few instances, to say nothing of the primary difficulty of believing that any sounds, not accompanied by words, can be acceptable worship. I do not wish to be severe, but truth compels me to say, that I cannot imagine that any one can impose upon himself the belief, that his first object in the voluntary is the worship of God. Disguise it as he may, his first thought is about playing the organ, and his second, what the hearers will think of it. Such mighty geniuses as Mozart might pour their devotions into unconstrained harmonies, as into a natural language, and with all heaven before their imagination, join its innumerable host in praising Him that sitteth on the throne, the heart meantime being filled with ardent love, or changed by the swift consciousness of sin, to a sadness ejaculating sighs of penitence, mingled with hopes of mercy, in accordance with a strain subdued to solemn whispering reeds, or slowly cheerful flutes;

but even such a master would fail of making the whole service a one. How admirably would he exalt the conscious worship of mysteries, and robes, and tapers, and incense, and tinkling bells, and solemn prostrations, and the lifting up of the host, and an unknown tongue! The organist and the priest would harmonize. Speech without meaning would be fitly echoed by sound without speech, and awful ceremonies, which subdue reason through the eyes, would be well supported by an enchantment of the ears, which should lull the mind to sleep, and make the slavery of intellect a delicious unconsciousness of thought. Worship is thus resolved into mere sensation, and religion becomes a syren who tempts with illusive pleasures. She offers ease and delight, instead of the labour of investigating the divine law, and the pains of spiritual self-examination. The soul is emasculated by her charms, and loses, in the dreamy sensualities of piety, all relish for the severer but eternal beauties of intelligence and use. Is this a "reasonable service"? Is this the homage of man's understanding to the Divine Wisdom? Is there here any fulfilment of the words-" Then opened He their understandings, that they might understand the Scriptures"? For my part I am inclined to say that when divine service is once commenced, the less instrumentation the better. While the congregation is entering the church, the organ may, perhaps beneficially, dispose the mind to solemnity, and separate, as with a barrier of holy melody, the states and thoughts of this world only, from those which become the more immediate presence of God; but as soon as the minister begins to speak, we enter upon a higher state than mere sound can reach, and we ought not to be content with less than the spiritual melody of truth, and the harmony of corresponding love. Sensations which dispose the soul to worship, should be succeeded by worship itself; but worship consists of ideas joined with affections; we shall therefore be cautious how we take away its rational distinction, lest, when ideas are gone, affection itself should be "without form and void." The operation of regenerative power is by truth, and if that formative principle be absent, who shall say what spirit will brood upon the chaos of emotion? The safe course is to keep under the protection of truth, and to worship always with the understanding, making melody with our hearts. Perhaps it may be allowable to suggest that the proper business of an organ, during worship, is to accompany and support the singing of the people. It is not to be chief, but second, and therefore a judicious organist will the power of the organ in proportion to the vocal power. If possible, the instrument should seem to sustain and blend the voices without

use

drawing any attention to itself; but this simple use of the organ is too refined and pure for ordinary musical talent, and therefore we scarcely ever hear it. The church might be the cave of Eolus, and all the winds let loose, such roaring, rolling, bellowing, trembling do we hear and feel, while women are screaming to be heard, and men are doing something in dumb shew, which, if you are very near one of them, may prove to be a hopeless bass, which grumbles into the general turmoil without adding perceptibly to the noise. Surely common sense will at length correct so wretched a practice, and the singing of words of penitence or praise will not be levelled by the hurly burly of sounds which mean nothing. Similar remarks, though of less severity, might be made upon shouting singers, who bawl as though they were in the market-place contesting for the office of town-crier. Their tones are full of themselves. They want to be heard, and they are heard, to the great annoyance of true musical taste and sound devotional feeling. A good singer knows that part-music is not a strife of power, but that all the parts should so mingle as to form a one, so that the melody should be the form of the harmony, and the harmony the fulness of the melody. If each part is sometimes made prominent by the composer, according to the rules of his art and the design of his genius, that will come out in a careful practice of the piece; but if some one or two persons singing the same part, will keep raving away from first to last in defiance of all taste, the design of the composer must be frustrated. A singer should endeavour not to be heard separately from the rest of the choir. When it is proper that his part should seize the ear and predominate, it will do so by the construction of the music itself, and then the other parts will naturally support him as he before supported them. I have no hesitation in saying, that only four voices of but moderate quality, if managed with true harmonic feeling, would fill a large church with the spirit of praise, and excite more intelligent emotion than a thousand ranting choristers struggling one against the other for the glory of being loudest. If the little quire were hardly audible at first, their sweet consorting tones would hush every other. A deep silence would seem to magnify their power, and, as the strain became known, the congregation would join in it softly and gradually, until they felt their harmony with their leaders, and sang without strain or rivalry, like them. What delicious hymning this would be! Where can we go and hear it? I fear, however, that you will think I exceed the limits which can with propriety be devoted to such a subject, and therefore withhold further observations.

I am, dear Sir, yours truly,

N. S. No. 78.-VOL. VII.

R

TACITUS.

REASON.

REASON is the distinguishing attribute of man. It elevates him above the beasts, and makes him man. It enables him to stand at the head of creation, and to command and rule the rest of created existence. Reason is man's strength. He is the most powerful of God's creatures, whose reason is the strongest and clearest. Physical power is very feeble compared with rational; and though the former often triumphs over the latter for a time, yet it is only when the conflict is very unequal; and even then, the defeat is not complete; for reason's right is never destroyed: it is but silenced, and, sooner or later, it will rise again and again, until it ultimately conquers. The existence of reason is, therefore, a guarantee to the world, that a day will come when right and justice will extend their sway over the affairs of mankind. Reason is, under Providence, man's guide and protector. By it he communicates with heaven and earth: it is the medium by which heaven descends and earth ascends; thus things heavenly and things earthly are conjoined to each other, and made harmonious. Reason is the means by which the light of heaven illustrates the natural perceptions of the mind. What, therefore, we see according to true reason, we behold in the light of the spiritual world. A man can only be spiritual in proportion as he is truly rational; and if a man is not rationally religious, he can scarcely be said to be religious at all. By true reason, we confirm spiritual truths, and appropriate and make them our These processes cannot be done without the proper exercise of this faculty; and if we think we are religious without reason, we shut our eyes and deceive ourselves, and fancy we possess something we never saw and never thought of!

own.

It is a great folly to be blindly religious. We could but be so if God had given no mental eyes. It would be quite as wise to put out our natural eyes, and consent to be led by others. Nay, it seems to be greater folly than even that; for that would be attended with but temporary results, but the other would be eternal in its consequences. Many, from a false humility, consider it wrong to think of a divine religion from human reason. It is true, we cannot think of infinite things infinitely; no one presumes that we can; neither is it required, in thinking of religion; for God has adapted religion, both in doctrine and practice, to the weaknesses and capabilities of human nature. Man has, therefore, no need of infinite thought to go up to God, for God has

come down to him. As He was made flesh and dwelt among us, so is His divine religion made manifest to our finite comprehension. Jesus Christ was an embodiment of His religion;-He continually appealed to the reason of His disciples ;;—“Hear and understand," was a common injunction with Him; he taught, too, the evil consequences of not having a reasonable view of the Word and religion. "When any one," says He, "Heareth the Word and understandeth it not, then cometh the wicked one, and casteth away that which was sown in his heart"! (Matt. xiii. 19.) This is a tremendous penalty of refusing to understand and see for ourselves. Christ, also, wherever and whenever He found persons unable to believe without seeing,-He benevolently accommodated His instruction and doings to their comprehension. When Thomas was incapable of believing the stupendous fact of the Lord's resurrection, the Lord showed Himself to him, and thus convinced his reason. Now, Christ's religion will be like Himself. It will teach the very same lessons that He taught; accommodate itself as He did; call reason into activity and use, as he was wont; and convince the doubter and sceptic by an appeal to their distinguishing

attribute.

Notwithstanding, there are some who believe reason and Scripture, and, consequently, theology, to be at variance! This opinion, most probably, arises from two sources; first, an abhorrence of the reason of the sceptic; and secondly, a secret misgiving that their own religion will not bear its searching investigation. But they should endeavour to distinguish between true, affirmative reason, and negative or sceptical reason; for there is as much difference in the nature and tendency of these two, as there is between heaven and hell. It would also be well if they were to bear in mind that our nature, at best, is but infirm, and, consequently, liable to err. It may be possible that, what we have been educated to call a “divine religion," may be, after all, but an erroneous view of it; and because we have not seen it as it is, may be why it will not square with enlightened reason.

All religion either is, or should be, derived from the Word, and some one's reason has been employed in deriving it from that source: that is to say, those who first promulgated the religions that are now professed generally, and which, they say, were derived from, and founded upon, the Scriptures, derived it according to what they considered the best dictates of their reason. Now, if reason thus fetched religion from its source, what impropriety can there be in using our reason to test whether another's reason has brought the right religion? We are all mortals alike; and since all creeds and doctrines are but some one's