direct support which the doctrine of the divinity of Jesus Christ derives from scripture. And if there be a defect in the direct support of the doctrine, of what value is that which is indirect?

REQUISITE QUALITIES OF A GOOD COLLECTION OF
PSALMS AND HYMNS FOR PUBLIC WORSHIP.

Mr. EDITOR,

THE annunciation of a new collection of Psalms and Hymns in your last number, and the recommendation of it to the immediate adoption of our religious societies, have induced me to offer the following remarks to those of your readers, who may interest themselves in the subject.

I have not yet had an opportunity for perusing the New-York Collection; but from the representations in the Disciple I am disposed to believe it superior to any other now in use; and should certainly rejoice to find it "a book of precisely the character we could desire;" calculated to promote in the highest degree the great design of sacred music. Such a book ought to meet a grateful reception; for hitherto it has been a great desideratum.

Frequent changes in the poetry of our churches are attended with serious inconveniences, and almost every change is obstructed by unreasonable objections. To render it expedient, therefore, to substitute any new collection for one that is already in use, the new one should not only be decidedly better than the old, but it should be the best which, within a reasonable time, could probably be produced by the combined exertions of piety, genius and taste. To decide correctly on this point, we must have clear apprehensions of the grand essentials of a good collection; of every thing necessary and every thing desirable; of the relative importance of each, and of the difficulties, or facilities of securing one of these properties without the sacrifice of another. The following properties, I conceive, should characterize every collection of hymns and psalms, intended for general use in the churches.

All the sentiments it contains should be just and true; for we must not "lie one to another;" still less to our God, and least of all in the solemn exercises of worship.

It should be free from all party sentiments and expressions, which might give unnecessary offence to any, whose edification and comfort we are required to consult.

It should abound in the most affecting thoughts, or those, which in their own nature are best suited to produce and cherish in the heart the various feelings comprised in genuine worship.

It should contain something appropriate to every important subject of practical religion, and to every interesting occasion, that is likely to occur; for one grand design of church music is to prepare the mind for the instructions of the pulpit, or to enforce them when given; and without appropriateness in the psalms and hymns this design must in a great measure fail. In order to this adaptation there must be the same unity in the subject of each particular psalm or hymn, which is required in a

sermon.

The style should be simple; excluding, as far as possible, uncommon words and phrases, and all such rhetorical figures as are likely to be unintelligible, and therefore unaffecting to the greater part of almost every assembly.

It should be distinguished by every poetical virtue and grace, that is not inconsistent with more important properties. It should not be mere prose, reduced to measure and rhyme; still less should it be incumbered with such expletives, as would not be admitted into the tamest prose.

There should be a considerable variety of measure; as the interest of the whole may in that way be increased.

There should, if possible, be a perfect uniformity in the structure of the several verses, intended to be sung together; an exact coincidence between the emphasis of one verse and those of every other; so that any tune, which is well suited to one verse, may not in point of rythm, or emphatic modulation, be unsuitable for any other.

If any doubt the importance of this uniformity, I would ask them, What is the use of music in our churches? Why do we not have our psalms and hymns read, and then dismiss them without further ceremony? Only one answer can be given, viz. That we wish to superadd the force of musical to the poetical expression, in order to strike the sentiment deeper into the hearts of the hearers. But how is this to be effected, without a coincidence between the musical and the poetical emphasis, which depends chiefly on the rythm? We do not promote the effect of one man's exertions by setting a more efficient man than he to counteract him. As little can contradictory emphasis in music contribute to the effect of poetical expression. Now in exact proportion to the want of uniformity in the several verses of a hymn, to be sung in the same tune, these counteractions must of course take place. Hence our feelings so often

stagnate in the swelling notes, employed on an a, a the, a to, or an as; and hence we are so frequently shocked in hearing the most important words, for instance, the name of God, of heaven, or hell, flitted over in half, and perhaps one quarter of the time, that is given to the most insignificant syllable in the verse. Is it not amazing, that we have so long endured such monstrous perversities in matters so interesting to piety and taste? That we should still compel the most accomplished choirs to sing with a disgusting cant, of which almost every one would be ashamed in reading? Very few of those who have composed or compiled hymns, appear to have paid any attention to this point. The question has not been, How are the several verses of this hymn to be expressed by music? but how do they read? Perhaps it may be thought, that the uniformity I am here recommending, would be incompatible with a sufficient variety. To this I would reply, that you may increase the varieties of metre and measure, as much as you please. You may make one hymn as different from another, as you please. You may make the several lines of the same verse as different one from another, as you please. All that is desired, is, that the several verses of every hymn have such a degree of uniformity, as to render them capable of a good musical expression, without having tunes, equally numerous, and of the same length, which no common choir would be able to perform.

Again it may be said, such uniformity could not be attained without a frequent sacrifice of sentiment, or poetical grace. To this I answer, that from an extensive attention to the subject, I believe that one half of the irregularities, that appear in our sacred poetry, are perfectly gratuitous. The only reason, why they were not excluded, was, that the authors never thought of such a thing. They had no tune in their mind; no model. In this respect they wrote at random. And a great part of the remaining irregularities might, with a moderate degree of labour, have been avoided, and that without any sacrifice of sentiment or poetry; for in general we may find many different ways of expressing the same thought. If, however, a perfect uniformity would not in all cases be possible, or expedient, that is no reason, why it should not be generally attempted; and we may further contend, that the sacrifice of a mere poetical grace, which the musical expression required by the correspondent parts of the hymn, would either annihilate or convert into a positive blemish, is not to be much regarded.

It would be impossible to combine in full perfection all the qualities named above. Some of them will be limited by others; and most of them by the imperfections of language. If the New

York collection is found to have united them in an eminent degree, and especially if it has been formed with due regard to the last, the writer of this article will be among the first to thank the author for his production; and particularly as he will thus be released from all further labour in a like design, in which he has already made some progress, and for which he had intended in due time to lay his poetical friends under contribution.

MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS.

DR. MAYHEW.

WE called the attention of our readers to the character and works of Dr. Mayhew in our last number. We extract the following additional notice from an Historical Sermon delivered in the West Church, Boston, Dec. 31, 1820, by Rev. Charles Lowell, successor of Dr. Mayhew.

"The successor of Mr. Hooper was Mayhew, a name which cannot be pronounced without emotion by any friend to civil liberty, or the right of private judgment in matters of religion. He was truly a great man, second to none in his profession whom our country has ever produced. This opinion is not formed from hearsay, from tradition, which is often entirely false, and still oftener exaggerated. His writings remain with us, and they bear the marks of an uncommonly clear and vigorous mind. They sometimes, indeed, partake much of the warmth of his constitutional temperament, and there is a vein of satire, in which, for the sake of his opponents, we might wish he had not indulged, but they are full of thought, of sound sense, and cogent argument. His warmth too, is without passion, and his satire without bitterness. His natural disposition was open and generous, and, like every honest man who feels the importance of what he utters, he delivered his opinions with frankness and energy. The friends who knew him best have described him, not only as endowed with sin'gular greatness of mind and fortitude of spirit,' but with 'softness and benevolence of temper,' as most amiable in 'all the relations of life,' as exceeding in acts of liberality ' and kindness,' as 'a man of real piety and true devotion, 'an upright, sincere disciple of Jesus Christ.'

"Like the puritans, and the ministers of the congregational churches in this place at the present day, he renounced all attachment to human systems, reserving for himself, as he allowed to others, the liberty of forming his opinions and his practice from the word of God. He was not an advocate for the sentiments of Luther, or Calvin, but for primitive christianity, a zealous contender for the faith once delivered to the saints, not receiving the doctrines of grace as taught at the reformation, but the doctrines of grace as revealed in the Holy Scriptures."

What follows is a note to the above passage. "Dr. Mayhew was born in 1720. He was the son of the Rev. Experience Mayhew, who, though he possessed uncommon powers of mind, and might have ranked among the first worthies of New England,' devoted a long life to the service of God among the Indians on Martha's Vineyard. His son early discovered proofs of genius, and an uncommon strength of mind. His productions in prose and verse, whilst yet an undergraduate at the college, were supposed to be the productions of mature age.

He died of a nervous fever, occasioned by great fatigue in returning from an ecclesiastical council at Rutland, in the month of July. During his last illness, he enjoyed but for a short time the use of his reason. One circumstance, however, which I have from unquestionable authority, will evince the state of his mind when he had the power to exercise it. When all hope of his recovery was gone, the late Dr. Cooper said to him, Tell me, dear sir, if you retain the sentiments which you have taught, and what are your views?' With firmness, though with difficulty, he said, taking him affectionately by the hand, I hold fast mine integrity, and it shall not depart from me.'

6

The last letter written by Dr. Mayhew was on the day be. fore his departure for Rutland. It discovers the solicitude he felt for his country, and suggests the plan of a correspondence or "communion" among the colonies, which was afterwards adopted, and conduced much to the happy result of their struggle for independence. The letter was addressed to James Otis, Esq.

It is by no means honourable to our community, that the writings of this great and good man are out of print, and sinking fast into oblivion. "No American author," says the interesting biographer above quoted, "ever obtained a higher reputation. He would have done honour to any country by his character and by his writings." Many of his productions were