was to be learned; and poets, like other handicraftsmen, were made by the dozen. Those who withstood this prevailing degeneracy-who were heterodox enough to suppose that poetry was something better than a strange kind of measured prosewere oppressed by nearly the whole critical talent of the age. Yet wherefore? Why should one style be permitted so despotically to extinguish all others? We own that we should be grieved to behold that style which Pope perfected, die out from the language; let it maintain its legitimate place, admired for its peculiar excellences ! But let it no longer arrogate to itself unrighteous dominion as THE ONLY poetry it has rivals, and those rivals are of more than equal worth.

To return to Mr. Caldwell. We find in his book a passage quoted from Sir Walter Scott, to the effect that Lord Byron was the first poet, since Dryden, of "transcendant talents." This decision we must be allowed to consider sufficiently dubious. Byron's versification exhibited an utter contempt of principle: and as for his matter, scarce one of his poems, despite his pretension to something which looks like philosophy, will admit of a logical analysis. Take Don Juan! Is not this poem, in a philosophical view, a mleancholy failure? It ridicules the sentimentality of vice, but only by insinuating that all sentiment is vice concealed; it exposes pretended virtue, but only by insinuating that all virtue is pretended. If its author meant to prove that vice, though sentimental, is still vice, and that pretended virtue is not real, then such an obvious truism needed not his exemplification; if he meant to argue, that, because vice sometimes disguises itself beneath the cloak of sentimentality, therefore all sentiment is merely vice refined of its grosser and more disgusting attributes-that, because some virtue is pretended, therefore all virtue is simulated then the evident non-sequence was as disgraceful to his head, as the pernicious doctrine to his heart. Byron stated that he wished to explode the "hollow conventionalisms" of society; but what had he to substitute in their stead? His whole argument involves a contradiction. Having skimmed some of the froth and scum from the surface, he triumphantly exhibits these, to demonstrate that no purification is going on beneath! And whence derive the "conventionalisms" condemned, their authority? They are observed because the general feeling of society is in favour of morality and virtue, not because men delight in being hypocrites. And wherefore should they be weakened and held up to contempt? Because we cannot make all men virtuous, shall we therefore repeal decorum? Because men are naturally ashamed of vice and wish to hide it even from themselves, shall we therefore oblige them to glory in it? Such are the conclusions which Lord Byron's vehement attack on the decencies of life would seem to establish, if it establish aught. But we acquit him! We believe that he knew not what he meant himself. The world was Lord Byron's deity; ay, that world which he satirised! His sarcasms, equally with those of Lara, were but "the stinging of a heart the world had stung." Yet how impotent the retaliation! In his page we seek vainly for any example of that heroism which, through faith feeling itself strong to do and to dare, towers superior to the tyranny of circumstances, and in suffering finds its noblest triumph: the sullen, moody submission of the exasperated slave, succumbing, yet hating himself for not resisting-this is the constantly recurring portrait which he presents with reiterated elaboration. How often, when contemplating these gloomy pictures of mysterious crime, linked with misery which prides itself on its own desolation-of that terrific despair which rivets the memory on one object, compels the man to live but for one agonising thought-have we exclaimed, "Would that this man could pray!" The remorse which Byron depicts is not the remorse of men, but of fiends. It is hopeless, and it is malignant: it gloats over its anguish with frantic fondness, and exults that it cannot repent. We repeat, such remorse is not the remorse of men-the breasts in which it resides have ceased to be human. Admirably as Mr. Caldwell has in general selected his extracts, there are some few for whose insertion we cannot account. For instance (p. 259), there is a bombastic speech from the Mourning Bride, which ought certainly to have been omitted. Again :

"Is it, at last, then so? Is she then dead?

What, dead at last-quite-quite--for ever dead?"

If these lines have any merit, it is that of word-setting; but where is the sentiment which alone could justify their transfer to Mr. Caldwell's pages? Thus detached— nay, mutilated-they had been better unquoted. We likewise notice that several passages are repeated two or three times, and very needlessly; as when they are given under their proper titles, and then re-inserted under the head "Miscellaneous." We could have wished for extracts from Wordsworth and Coleridge, but we have not discovered one; for a few more from Southey; and for decidedly less from Byron and Moore. Even from the authors Mr. Caldwell has used, we could point out some beautiful passages, which would have embellished his book, but which he has overlooked. Nevertheless, fully convinced of the great labour the compilation of such work must have cost, and remembering how slight are the sins of commission which we have detected, we shall not visit those of omission very severely.

IV. CORRESPONDENCE.

[The Editor begs it to be understood that he does not hold himself responsible for the opinions stated in this department of the Magazine.]

You will excuse my addressing this to my brother the Priest, for you know you can always retaliate by addressing your reply "to my brother the Presbyter." We will not either of us be ashamed of our appropriate designation; for yours, as a title of honour, is perpetually in your mouth: and though I am by no means willing to exchange our common views of Episcopalian Church government for those of the Presbyteries of the north, I shall be willing to recognise in my own case the name of Presbyter as the simple origin and equivalent of that by which I have designated you. You are not yet, I think, advanced so far backwards, if I may use such an Hibernicism, in relation to such a subject, without reflecting offensively on the faith of many of our fellow-subjects, as to see in the title which is ours, and which some of us seem disposed to be proud of, any implication of the meaning of a sacrificeras if the great Sacrifice, once for all consummated, needed repetition, or could without blasphemy be supposed capable of being repeated by the hands of mortals, even at that spot you love to denominate the holy altar. No; you have not yet forgotten that the name of Priest, so far from being borrowed, as some of our dissenting brethren say, from Pagan superstition or the Jewish ceremonial, has, for want of a better term in modern languages to express an office not actually existent among us, been transformed from the simple economy of the Christian faith to the typical dispensation of the Jews, and to the mysterious wanderings of Pagans beyond the traditions of their fathers. But let me beg you not to forget that the confusion has arisen in the minds of many; and that there are those who plume themselves on having an altar, and on having therewithal something to offer thereupon of a diviner nature than prayer and praise-even a victim. Be not highminded, but beware.

There are between us certain points of ritual discrepance, on which I have been desirous of addressing you. They arise, indeed, from a difference of sentiment

upon important points: but, as we certainly have in common the common feelings of our kind and the operations of a common reason, I do not despair of Error learning to thank Truth for teaching her to know herself. You will smile, and say, I am offering to become your convert. That was not quite my meaning. But we shall At any rate, if there be not something more in one of us than a simple error of the judgement, we shall not cease to esteem each other.

see.

Of the differences between us, there are two at the present moment that strike me more forcibly than the rest. They regard your weekly use of the Offertory, and your refusal of our burial service to children baptised by ministers not of our communion. In this last innovation on a long, established usage, you and those with you have the finest feelings of human nature arrayed against you; in the other you are opposed by some of human nature's vilest-by the selfish reluctance to give, by the ostentatious fear of being outdone in giving, by the pride of wishing to seem to give unasked, and not upon the compulsion of exhortation or of custom; in a word, by all that mingled race of base excuses and self-extenuations which go to verify the homely apopthegm, "Touch a man's pocket, and you touch the man's self."

any.

Now, after this admission, I cannot in fairness but take the matter of the Offertory first. And yet, in your own case, this is perhaps a point of uncalled-for courtesy, since you will say that you have not found this strong array of worldly enemies against you; but that, thanks to Him who not only searcheth, but swayeth the hearts you find your people willing in the day of the Lord. You would excuse me, then, from thinking myself bound, by my admission, to lay first before you any objections to the revival, or the manner of revival, at this day, of the Weekly Offertory; a practice which, you will say, I have conceded to be strongly opposed to the enemies whom we all of us, laity and clergy, have to oppose. In justice to myself, then, we must take this matter first. But, first of all, I must still further grant that the letter of the Rubric seems with you; which expressly states, that "on the Sundays, and other holy days, if there is no communion, shall be said all that is appointed at the communion until the end of the general prayer for the whole state of Christ's Church militant here on earth," together with one or more of the Collects, and the Blessing. Have you, then, the Offertory service read, and the collection made on the other holy days, when there is no communion? If not, why not? Will you say, there is not necessarily a collection to be made whenever the Offertory is read? Nay, the Rubric is express, that "the deacons, churchwardens, or other fit person appointed, shall receive the alms and other devotions," if any will give Be the congregation large or small, rich or poor, it is never to be assumed that none will give, neither when there is a communion nor when there is none. None is to be supposed unwilling to give; none is to be enforced to give; none is to be so far expected to give, as that it shall be made appear that his approach to the communion of the Lord's Table depends, or ought to depend, upon his giving, or upon his giving thus in the presence of the congregation. And thus, in accordance with the ninth sentence of the Offertory, the Rubric simply states that persons shall "receive" the alms-not that they shall ask them, either by word or action. Neither was the word chosen at random. It is substituted for another. The old Rubric has been altered, which commanded that persons should "gather" the devotions. Thus, the present Rubric does not appear to sanction the practice of gathering the alms from pew to pew; of presenting the plate to each person as he enters the chancel; or to each person kneeling in the chancel. The spirit of the Rubric, as well as its letter, seems best complied with by the plate or plates being held at the entrance of the chancel-screen, or, where that has been taken away, at the chancel-rails, that every one may give or not give, as he thinks most proper: in the same manner as when a collection is made after a charity sermon at the church doors. But, if there be no communion, did the Rubric contemplate that the alms should be received during the Offertory at the church-doors? Certainly not. It contemplated the congregation remaining till the final blessing. Yet some, where the Offertory is revived, have made a point of leaving the doubtless, pass the plate without an alms. no communion? Was it intended that, at

church as it began. And these would, What is to be done, then, in the case of the beginning of the Offertory, the con

gregation should leave their places and assemble in the chancel-as appears intended when the communion is administered-and that they should there remain till the service was concluded? This seems most natural. But this would not be likely to be done. And this there is no Rubric to enjoin. If, then, according to the Rubric, the Offertory is to be read when there is no communion, any forthcoming alms are to be received also: if to be received, to be received, probably, in the same way as before communion, and in the same place; the place being the chancels-and the mode, a holding, and not a presenting, of the alms-plate or basin. In this view of the matter, any disposed and able to give would have to leave their places in the nave and go up to the chancel. This seems to me the only way in which the Offertory can be revived, in accordance with the spirit and letter of the Rubric. But this would not, at least till after some time, answer the charitable ends for which you desire its revival. Would you, then, revive it in this mode? Perhaps you will say, you must revive it; the Rubric leaves you no choice. Then the Rubric leaves you no choice as to doing it on all the holy days; and the Rubric leaves you no choice as to whether you will attempt a receiving of alms with the reading of the Offertory sentences. And thus in this, as in many other points, if we observe not the Rubric perfectly, neither do you; and if, as your ultras assert, the non-observance of the Rubric involves the crime of perjury, I see not how any of you can escape the guilt in some point or another. And then the apostolic reasoning as to the Mosaic Law applies equally to the Rubric, if you will exalt it to the aspect of a rule-one, whole, and undivided, undivisible, and holy. "He who transgresseth in one point is guilty of all."

With regard to the consecration of the Lord's day in particular by almsgiving, you will, perhaps, take refuge in the text of St. Paul's 1st Epistle to the Corinthians, xvi. 2: "On the first day of the week let every one lay by him in store as God hath prospered him." Shall I say I am sorry your asylum cannot open wider to receive you. The original wap lavry is, you will observe, at least as strong as our translation, "by him." And neither seem to recommend an open contribution weekly to a public fund; though I confess the reason given, "that there be no gatherings when I come," seems to bear out that meaning: and, from the etymology of the unusual word loyal, one would expect the translation is correct. But let us grant it bears upon the point in question, and that each man's treasure of charity was weekly deposited with the one appointed treasurer for all, the president or primate, according to Justin Martyr; you are then, I think, bound by the apostolic example to specify distinctly beforehand the particular channel in which this stream of Christian liberality is to flow. Paul's example, as well as good policy, demands this; for it was distinctly understood in Corinth that the collection would be for the poor saints of Jerusalem, impoverished as they were by confiscations, and those excommunications which cut off the means whereby many of them lived.

But allow me to point out another article of difference between the stress laid upon this Offertory Rubric, when there is no communion, and the apostolic almsgiving referred to in this passage. It may readily be supposed these offerings were made at the communion; since, so late as the fourth century, Ambrose considered it a Christian's duty to offer and communicate every Lord's day. But the practice of daily communion continued also to the time of his contemporary, St. Augustine. Thus the public commemoration of the Lord's death occurred seven times more frequently than the public Offertory. And are you contented that the source should dow but once a quarter, or but once a month, and the stream be expected to run clear and full every week? But, believe me, it is very likely there is no time, since the Bridegroom personally left the Church to await anxiously his return; upon the practices of which we need be content to take our stand, without the exercise of private judgement in reference to the law and testimony. Even in Tertullian's time, the second century, the Offertory was not universally so frequent as once a week; but every Christian once a month, or when he would and could, laid by a moderate portion of his property to be spent in feeding the poor, or burying them-in maintaining the fatherless, the aged, the shipwrecked, or sufferers for Christ's sake. Long after him, both Cyprian and Augustine show how far from compulsory was the

offering at the Lord's table; when they plead with even the rich for drawing nigh without an oblation, and that under circumstances far different from those of our congregations—namely, while themselves sharing in others' oblations, yea, in the offerings of the poor. Now, where is the age which is the model of discipline-the century when piety and practice were so pure, that we should look back on it with such awe and reverence, as though it read the Scriptures clearer than we can do, or as though a life-giving Spirit abode without degeneracy in its fast-failing traditions, or as though there were going on a rapid developement of religion and light out of dormant germs of truth inertly treasured in the granary of Holy Writ?

But on this subject enough. Far be it from me to hint, that Christian charity, by giving weekly, would weary herself of giving. It were another kind of charity, if it did. I would not deny, that the oftener our hearts are opened the more readily they open; and the more readily to our brethren, the more readily to the Spirit that was in Christ. Well were it if it were more impressed upon the memories of ourselves and those around whom we are placed, that God's blessing rests on the fulfilment of the commandments of the Son of His love, and that Christian liberality impoverisheth not. I write not a syllable against this. I have been but writing of modes and of places, and of those Rubrics which you think to read so clearly; and have written at such length, that I must reserve what else remains to say upon the Burial Service. It is impossible to foresee whether we are to become more sundered from each other among the visible churches (a plurality of construction which will look to you like heresy), but I may hope we shall both be found to belong to the Invisible Church of Christ, and that in Him I may subscribe myself to you and to your brethren,

A FAITHFUL BROTHER.

ANCIENT CEREMONIES AND SUPERSTITIONS.

No. III.

To the Editor of the Christian's Monthly Magazine and Universal Review.

SIR,

In my first letter, I intimated an intention of confining my second communication to the origin of carrying offerings into the church, and of customs connected with the celebration of the Lord's supper. I meant, however, far beyond this, taking in all those ceremonies and superstitions which arose within the second century.

Proceeding to the third century, we find that age so fruitful in originating ceremonies and superstitions, that it becomes necessary to restrict my historical outline to those which contain the germ of Popish observances at the present day; while I shall, by way of introduction, just glance at others, which never survived the century that gave them birth.

In this century, various customs were introduced, both by Jewish and Pagan conve ts, answering to their respective superstitions. Those which were soon abandoned, appeared to be, the administration of the sacrament of the Lord's Supper to little children; its celebration in the evening; giving milk and honey to the baptised; requiring prayer to be offered in a standing position from Easter to Whitsuntide, from which arose the term stations; the giving the consecrated elements to women to be kept by them in their houses; the sending the bread and wine to the sick by the hands of children; the substitution of water for wine; prayers for the delay of the day of judgement; and many other superstitions equally absurd. (Cyp. Ser. 5. de Capsis, and Epist. at Coc. lib. ii., ep. 3; Tertul. lib. de Coronâ Militis.)

Passing over any further notice of these practices, I proceed with my sketch of those ceremonies (originating in the third century) which seem to be the foundation