By this slight attention to one case, the great object of the proposed rule is clearly and definitely laid before us. All poetry has a certain rhythm and certain accents. All music has a certain rhythm and certain accents. Now the object simply is, whenever we unite poetry with music, to effect a coincidence between these :-not to suffer the rhythm of the one to interfere with and contradict that of the other, nor the accent of one to fall upon an unaccented portion of the other. When this statement is made, there is no one who does not assent to its reasonableness, and who would not pronounce any practice opposite to this perfectly irrational and absurd,-destructive indeed of the main purpose for which music and verse are united. Yet such is our actual practice. We are continually having accent in the music when there is none in the verse, and accent in the verse when there is none in the tune; pauses also in the line when there are none corresponding in the music, and pauses in the music where there is no suspension of the sense. If one will give attention, he will detect these and similar incongruities every sabbath, which if we were not so familiarly accustomed to them, would be in a high degree distressing and offensive. Whoever will observe them, will be persuaded that he has discovered one of the causes which render our psalmody so little affecting. He will perceive one cause why there are so many songs, the singing of which always produces a thrill of emotion, while the most eloquent and touching psalms so often fall coldly and without effect upon the ears of the hearer. For where the sound contradicts the sentiment, and the train of thought or feeling is interrupted or opposed by false accent or ill-placed emphasis, it is impossible that the force or beauty of the sentiment should be so exhibited as to affect the heart. We could not endure a reader of poetry, who should thus violate propriety and play false with the sense; we should say that he destroyed the very soul of the piece. Yet this is done more or less in nearly every hymn that is sung-an abuse that would be insufferable, if we had not borne it from our cradles.

The regular verse in which our hymns are written is the iambic; consisting of syllables alternately accented; thus:

The heavens declare thy glory Lord.

This measure however admits of exceptions; the most frequent of which is the accent on the first syllable of the line instead of the second; thus :

Wide as the world is thy command,

If a minister were to read this and similar lines with an accent on the second syllable, or lines similar to that first quoted with an accent on the first; there is no congregation that would endure him. Yet in singing, nothing is more common than this vile sin against sense and taste; and it is the very sin which the proposed rule is designed to remedy.

The value of the principle may be illustrated again, in the case of pauses. In every line both of poetry and music, there is a natural pause--a short, scarcely perceptible stop, which seems to exist necessarily in the nature of things. In the random mode in which hymns and tunes are usually put together, there is always a chance that the musical and metrical cœsura will fall in different places; and this is in fact an evil of frequent occurrence, which, though it may not amount to an absolute disturbance, yet prevents that exactness and perfection which are necessary to bring out the full expression. Any one may see an example of this in the hymn we have quoted. The pause in the second line is a distinct and peculiar one, both in the tune, and in each verse of the hymn. How different would be the effect of these verses, if sung to a tune having the pause of the second line after the fourth instead of the fifth syllable. It is inattention to this circumstance which so often renders the first and third lines of Arlington, and the third of Arundel, so grating.

There are other pauses, both in verse and music. Some tunes pause at the close of each line. These are hardly suited to express an uninterrupted sense, and should be employed only for hymus whose lines close in a similar manner. Some tunes pause in some part of one of the lines, as Arundel and Carthage (C. M.) in the fourth line, and Costellow's Milan in the first, third, and seventh. Now if a verse have no corresponding pause, it is sadly marred by forcing it into such a tune; especially when, as sometimes must happen, you are compelled to divide an important word. Then in like manner there are pauses in the measure, and you equally ruin the effect by driving hurriedly over these with a tune that will not stop for the sense. Yet if every verse be not moulded on the same model, so as to create a similar pause in each, it is plain that this incongruity will inevitably exist; since the tune which is excellently fitted to express the sentiment of one stanza, will be, for that very reason, equally fitted to destroy the sense of another.

These are mere hints. I could enlarge and add to them, almost indefinitely, and strengthen their force by examples without number. I have said enough however, I trust, to show that the principle contended for is not only capable of vindication, but is an important one, the neglect of which has been cause of serious evils. If suitable occasion should offer, I may hereafter add to these remarks,

ARISTIDES,

MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS.

EXTRACTS FROM A LETTER ON UNIFORMITY IN RELIGION, BY ROBERT ROBINSON.

MAKE religion what you will; let it be speculation, let it be practice; make it faith, make it fancy; let it be reason, let it be passion; let it be what you will, Uniformity in it is not to be expected. Philosophy is a stranger to it, and christianity disowns it.

A philosopher holds that the system of the Universe is perfect; that the duty and glory of man is to follow, not force, nature ; that moral philosophy is nothing but a harmony of the world of spirit with the world of matter; that all the fine descriptions of virtue are nothing but essays on this conformity; thus he proves that moral evil is the production of natural evil, moral good the production of natural good. A philosopher would say to a legislator, as the poet to a man of taste,

To build, to plant, whatever you intend,
To rear the column, or the arch to bend,
"To swell the terrace, or to sink the grot,
In all, let NATURE never be forgot.

Give a philosopher a farm, and injoin him to cultivate it like a philosopher, he will study the soil, the situation, the seasons, and so on, and having comprehended what his farm is capable of, he will improve it accordingly. In the same manner he directs his garden, and every plant in it, never expecting to gather grapes of thorns, nor figs of thistles. What would he,yea, what would the unphilosophized farmers say of an act for the uniformity of husbandry? An act of Uniformity, say the honest rustics, what's that? What's that! Why, you must grow nothing but wheat. How! say they, some of our lands are too light, they will produce none; we can grow rye there indeed; we have some even not worth ploughing for rye; however, they will serve for a sheep walk, or at worst for a rabbit-warren. Thus Nature teaches men to reason, and thus they reason right.

Go a step farther. Make this philosopher a tutor, and commit to his tuition a company of youths; he will no more think of uniforming these young gentlemen, than of teaching his horse to fly, or his parrot to swim. Their geniuses differ, says he, and I must diversify their educations; Nature has formed this for

elocution, and that for action. And should the blind fondness of parents complain, his answer is ready, What was I, that I could withstand God? In short, place such a man in what disinterested sphere you will, and his principles guide his practiceexcept indeed he should be chosen to represent a county; then probably, not having the fear of philosophy before his eyes, he might vote for an Act of Uniformity.

A law that requires uniformity, either requires men to be of the same sentiments, or to practise the same ceremonies. Now if it should appear that the first is impossible, the last will fall of itself. For then the question will be, Ought two men who confessedly differ in sentiment, to profess that they agree? Ought an honest man to be one thing, and appear another? Heaven forbid that any should maintain so dangerous a thesis!

You are a man of extensive knowledge, you know the ancient and modern creeds; you remember that Harry the eighth enjoined all preachers to instruct the people to believe the whole Bible, the three creeds, the Apostle's, Nicene, and Athanasian, and to interpret all things according to them. You know that in Edward the sixth's reign, TWO AND FORTY ARTICLES, drawn up by Cranmer and Ridley, were thought necessary to be published, for the avoiding diversity of opinions, and establishing consent touching true religion. In the beginning of Elizabeth's reign, you know, ELEVEN articles were 'set out by order of both Archbishops, Metropolitans, and the rest of the Bishops, for the unity of Doctrine to be taught and holden of all Parsons, Vicars and Curates; as well in testification of their common consent in the said doctrine, to the stopping of the mouths of them that go about to slander the ministers of the church for diversity of judgment,' &c. Two years after, all the former were reviewed, and the whole bible, the three creeds, the two and forty articies, and the eleven articles, were collected into one aggregate sum, and made THIRTY-NINE. Subscription to these has been essential ever since, which subscription is an argument (as his Majesty's declaration says) that all clergymen agree in the true. usual, literal meaning of the said articles.

Whatever be the true meaning of these articles, it is not only certain that Clergymen explain, and consequently believe, them in different and even contrary senses; but it is also credible that no thirty-nine articles can be invented by the wit of man, which thirty-nine men can exactly agree in. It is not obstinacy, it is necessity.

Suppose the thirty-nine articles to contain a given number of ideas, and for argument's sake, suppose that number to be fifty.

Suppose the capacities of men to differ, as they undoubtedly do, and one man's intelligence to be able to comprehend fifty, a' second's five hundred, and a third's but five and twenty. The first may subscribe these fifty points of doctrine, but who can confine the genius of the second? Or who can expand the capacity of the last? In minds capable of different operations, no number of points of doctrine can possibly be fixed on as a standard for all, for fix on what number soever you will, there will always be too many for the capacities of some, and for others too few. If this be the case who can establish an uniformity of sentiment? What earthly power can say, 'We will not endure any varying or departing in the least degree??

After all, what is unformity good for? Is it essential to salvation? Is it essential to real piety in this life? Does it make a subject more loyal to his prince? A husband more faithful, or a parent more tender? Can't a man be honest and just in his dealings without knowing any thing about St. Athanasius? Nay, has not this act produced more sophistry and cruelty than any other act of parliament, from the reformation to this day? Not secular but spiritual severity, not the sophistry of the bar but the sophistry of the church.

Did the great Supreme govern his empire by an act of uniformity, men might be damned for believing too little, seraphs degraded for believing too much. The creed of the inhabitants of Saturn might be established, and theirs that dwelt in the Moon only tolerated. In such a case, what a fine field of controversial glory would open to the divines of these two provinces of the kingdom, on the Origin of Evil? Almighty Father, can a blind belief please thee? Can thy creatures believe what they cannot perceive the evidence of? Can all understand the evidence of the same number of truths? Formed with different organs, educated in different prejudices, dost thou require the same services? Art thou indeed the hard master who reapest where thou hast not sowed? Far from all thy subjects be such a thought!

Conclude then, worthy Sir, that if God be a rock and his work perfect, if variety be the characteristic of all his works, an attempt to establish uniformity is reversing and destroying all the creator's glory. To attempt an uniformity of colour, sound, taste, smell, would be a fine undertaking; but what, pray, will you call an attempt to establish an uniformity of thought?