and conscience for the one, and of reason and Scripture for the other, it is most reasonable for us to conclude that, however insurmountable the difficulties are which we encounter in all attempts to reconcile the two facts with each other, they are nevertheless perfectly reconcileable in the all-perfect intuition of that Divine Being whom we justly clothe with every gracious and benignant attribute, and where administration must be founded as certainly on the purest equity and righteousness as an absolute omniscience and omnipotence. As an ultimate fact, our safest course is to make no attempt to grapple with it, because the matter obviously lies beyond the sphere of our present powers; but, as a practical question, it is only with that side of it which has respect to the imputability of man's actions that we have to do. And in relation to it, it ought to be enough for us to know, that, whatever limits may be imposed on man's free agency, we are not more perfectly conscious of our own existence than of our freedom of choice between good and evil, right or wrong doing, on all living and actual occasions of exercising the moral functions of our being. Our notions of moral action and responsibility are, we say, as intuitive and direct as anything about us; and our moral distinctions, or knowledge of the moral quality of our actions, is as prompt as are our attendant emotions. If, therefore, we cannot enlighten unbelief on this point to the extent of its demands, we may at least leave it without excuse before the direct and simple operation upon the conscience of this consciousness, that, by the essential constitution of our nature, we readily distinguish an element of moral freedom in our actions; or, in other words, allow ourselves to be the creatures of moral law and its sanctions. And, as regards ourselves, who are seeking, in simplicity of heart, for the truth, we may well be content, in humble deference to the clear and explicit declarations of God's word, to believe that "known unto God from the beginning are all his works;" and that it never will be imputed to us for blame hereafter, that, in the speculations of our earthly life, we failed to resolve a question surpassing the powers of our present minds, a question which, perhaps, we may not be able to solve even from the higher and more advantageous point of view, in relation to many other things which now perplex us, of a perfected moral nature. There may be, BY REV. HENRY BROMLEY. ADMIRABLE as I consider the object of the Essex and Herts Benevolent Society to be, and cordially as I enter into its support, I have long been of opinion, that the same amount, if annually expended in assisting ministers to pay the annual premium necessary for insuring their lives, or securing a widow's annuity from some one of the numerous companies now in existence, and legally established, would secure to the widows a nearly equal amount of income, on which they would have a legal claim, and exempt them from the unpleasant necessity of detailing before a public meeting their entire independent resources. I have been induced to make some inquiries and calculations on the subject, the result of which is as follows: An ordinary life insurance does not appear eligible first, because the object is not to secure bona fide capital, but to preserve a widow from want during her life, and some temporary aid for children; and, second, the sum for which a life must be insured, to secure from the mere interest enough for this purpose, would require a higher annual premium than in most cases could be forthcoming. There is an admirable institution, entitled, "The London Annuity Society for the Widows of Members," whose office is near Blackfriars-bridge; but this would not be eligible, because it makes no provision for children in case there is no widow, and because no annuity can be secured under £25 (called one policy), or between that and £50 (a double policy). There is, however, another society, entitled, "The Protestant Union for the Benefit of the Widows and Children of Protestant Ministers of all Denominations: established in 1798" It has, therefore, existed almost fifty years, quite long enough to put its stability to a thorough test; and it has continued to prosper, so that its last Report is of a decidedly favourable and gratifying character. I am quite of opinion, that if the Benevolent Society had assisted ministers in connecting themselves with this institution, they would have been doing the widows and children far more essential service than on the present plan. If this can be made to appear, the question will then arise, if advantageous for the past why not for the future ?-and if so, could any steps be taken gradually, and as quickly as may be, to bring about such an object? For one most important object of the Benevolent Society the Protestant Union makes no provision-viz., assisting ministers themselves when aged or afflicted, so as to be disabled. For this, therefore, the Benevolent Society must still provide. The Protestant Union also makes no allowance for children, except where there is no widow. I think it would, therefore, be desirable that the widow should still be allowed to apply to the Society for occasional assistance for them if there be young children. As, however, the widow, on the plan I propose, would come in every case (unless on one contingency provided for in the Rules of the Society-viz., where the minister shall die before he has paid in, by annual premiums, an amount equal to four years' widow's annuity: see Rule XX.) into the full amount of annuity at once, it is not likely that nearly so much would be required from the Benevolent Society for the children as on the present plan. To make the matter, however, the stronger in support of my general proposition, I have, in the calculations which follow, reckoned about the same sum as required for this object in past years. By reference to the Reports of the Essex and Herts Benevolent Society, from 1828 to 1842 inclusive (fifteen years), I have arrived, by full calculation, at the following resulta: The average income (exclusive of all ladies' subscriptions, twenty-eight in number, but twenty-three of which were, in 1829, to meet a large deficiency) has been £523 3s. 14d. per annum. The average for incidental expenses has been £22 15s. 8d. per annum. In that period the sum of £325 5s. has been voted to aged or afflicted ministers, making an average of £21 13s. 8d. per annum. In the same time the sum of £905 has been voted to the children of deceased ministers, ayeraging £60 68. 8d. per annum. The sum voted to the widows of deceased ministers In 1828 averaged £27 6 8 each This posing the wife in each case to be three years younger, an annuity of £25 per annum (subject to a temporary and limited reduction should the minister die within a given time) might have been secured to the widow of each minister for the total sum of £399 6s. 8d. per annum. £25, judging from the past progress of the Protestant Union, would, if the minister had not died unusually early, have been in all probability increased by bonuses to £30 or £35, and on this she would have had a legal claim, whatever her other resources. If there were no widow (subject to a reduction in the case before supposed) the children would be entitled as under If One, to a sum equal to 4 years annuity, 6 7 8 Two, Three, Four, whatever the age of such children; which sum the father might, by will, leave all to one child or divide among them as he pleased. To secure this for his widow or children, all each minister would have to pay, insuring at thirty-five, and his wife three years younger, would be £6 4s. 94d., and a bonâ fide insurance, without any appeal to charity or benevolence. In the Benevolent Society he has himself to pay a life subscription of £10 10s., or one guinea annually, and then to take care that £3 per annum more is forthcoming from his people or somewhere, or else he can derive no benefit, and, after all, himself, or widow and children, must come to sue for an act of benevolence, disclose their whole resources; and possibly be, after all, in a position not thought to require any, or, at least, but a very moderate grant. From the following it will appear that the average income of the Benevolent Society would have enabled it to have done all it has for the children of ministers, and aged ministers themselves, and to have secured a £25 annuity for every widow at the average age supposed: Annual income £523 3 14 Grants to ministers 21 13 8 1842 This will make the average grant to each widow through the fifteen years £25 4s. 9d. None, it is to be remembered, having ever been above £30, but some as low as £10.-N.B. The above calculations are not, in every case, worked to an exact fraction; but where this is not the case, the benefit is always in favour of the Benevolent Society. I find, by the Report for 1842, that there are sixty-four ministers belonging to the Benevolent Society, whose widows or children are liable to become claimants. This number, from a reference to one or two other years, I conclude to be two or three above an average; but we will calculate sixty-four as the average. Supposing the average age of these ministers on joining the Society to have been thirty-five (which I should think a high average), and sup Insurance of 64 annuities of £25 Balance A balance nearly enough to have doubled all the grants to aged ministers. Another important aspect of the case is this -On the plan of the Benevolent Society, if a minister leaves the two counties before he has been a member fifteen years, he has his life subscription with interest returned; but as all claim on the Society then of course ends, his widow and family are left without any provision. Suppose him going to a county in which no similar Society exists, he must then, even if he applies to the Protestant Union, or elsewhere, insure his life, being, perhaps, some ten or twelve years older, at a considerably advanced annual premium. Or if he should, during those years, have been the subject of any serious illness, it may so have affected his constitution as to make him ineligible for acceptance in any safe office, and then his widow and family must be left quite unprovided for. This painful contingency might be avoided, if having, while in Essex or Herts, connected, through the Benevolent Society, with the Protestant Union; that connection would still continue, provided he could in any way raise the small annual payment required, which most probably, in nine cases out of ten, would be the case. A permanent advantage, wherever he might go, being thus secured by his previous connection with the Benevolent Society in the lower rate of annual premium, it might not be felt needful to return to him his life subscription, or, at all events, not all, and no interest. The above calculations very strongly impress me with the conclusion, that the Benevolent Society would have been employing its funds much, very much more for the benefit of the parties it proves to aid, had its object been 1. To assist aged or disabled ministers. 2. To aid ministers in paying the annual premium in the Protestant Union, for securing to their widows an annuity of £10, £15, £20, £25, or £30, (for an insurance may be effected for any amount not exceeding £50.) 3. To grant, under certain restrictions, additional temporary assistance to the widow when left with a numerous family depending on her. The question then returns, if this would have been so advantageous for the past, would it not be for the future ?-and if so, would it not, at all events, be worth consideration, whether such a change might not be effected? The mere fact of its requiring a great change in the constitution and rules of the Society, should not deter from entertaining the question, provided there appears an end sufficiently beneficial to justify the measure. Were I a beneficiary member of the Society, I should exceedingly rejoice in such a change of plan, and so I cannot but think would all the ministers belonging to it. That there would be some difficulty in effecting the alteration I am fully aware; but I am disposed to think these might not prove insuperable, though I have felt it useless to think much on this point, unless there were a disposition on the part of the Society to entertain the question. 1 All I would take the liberty of suggesting is this: If the Treasurer and Secretary of the Society deem this calculation sufficiently important to deserve the attention of the Committee, perhaps it might be laid before them at their next meeting. In the interim, if any of them who live conveniently could be allowed to see it, they might then be able more satisfactorily to express an opinion in Committee. Provided the Committee should deem the subject worthy the notice of a general meeting, would it not facilitate discussion if a circular, with an outline of the proposal, were sent to the beneficiary members, requesting them to communicate with their friends (or the circular might be more general) preparatory to the next anniversary. If anything were then to be done, perhaps the appointment of a Sub-committee, who should be authorised, if they judged it expedient, to take the opinion of some able actuary on the subject, would be the most satisfactory. P.S. Since writing the foregoing paper, I have found a note I had from Rev. J. Hunt, the Secretary of the Protestant Union, which I had mislaid. The following extracts from it greatly strengthen the plan advocated here; and tend to show, that, in many cases, an annuity of £20 would be sufficient to insure in the first instance: "Three of our members died last year leaving no widows; the children of each became entitled to £320." "Two have died this year leaving widows. They insured some years ago for an annuity of £25; each of these widows will receive £40 per annum, not as a charity, but as a legal right. The widow of another who insured for £16, will receive £25; and of another who insured for £20, will receive £32." REV. J. J. WAITE AND SACRED MUSIC. SIR, Mr. Waite's great and well-earned popularity renders his opinions on sacred music very influential; and it is, therefore, very necessary that any error that may be supposed to be promulgated by him should be examined. I cannot but think that on one point he has expressed an opinion, not only wrong in itself, but likely to be very injurious, especially in its influence on those whose musical powers are moderate. All music was formerly sung in unison; the singers all singing the same notes (in different octaves); all following the leader, as many country congregations do now, very much to their own edification and satisfaction. In time it was found that tunes might be so constructed, that several might be sung harmoniously at the same time by different individuals or groups; and it was found that this combination of tunes added much to the richness and beauty of the music. Music so arranged is said to be "harmonized," and the several tunes are called "harmonies" or "parts." One of these-usually, but not necessarily that, assigned to the higher female voices*-predominates over the others, and is called the "air" or "melody," the other parts being termed " accompaniments;" so completely has harmonized music superseded unison music, that many persons would consider the singing a piece of music in unison by bodies of singers, not only meagre and unpleasant, but absolutely wrong. It will be at once obvious, that this kind of music requires, to produce its proper and full effect, a certain proportion in the strength of the voices taking the different parts; for if any of the parts should become unduly predominant, the effect of the music will be evidently injured; and if the prominent part should happen to be one of the accompaniments, the whole character may be altered. For partsinging we must then have a properly selected body of singers-in other words, A CHOIR. These few words will enable the non-musical reader to understand what Mr. Waite means, when he says, that "no male voices should sing the melody or air;" that part being, in our modern tunes, arranged for ladies, and the parts for male voices being accompaniments. This dictum will be at once echoed by all musical persons; and, in a merely musical point of view, is perfectly correct. Nevertheless, I cannot but think that it indicates some little oblivion of the true nature of psalmody; and that, as applied to public worship, it is wrong in principle and injurious in tendency. For there are some previous questions very In the older Church Music the leading melody was sung by male voices, and is so written. needful to be considered by those who look upon psalmody, not as a mere musical display, but as a religious exercise. Such questions as these: Whether this harmonized music be (as the dictum evidently assumes) the right, and the only right, form of music for Divine worship? Whether we can secure in our congregations the proportions of voices needful for its due performance? Whether we may expect that general diffusion of musical skill, which will enable the mass of the people to take their proper parts? Whether, till that happy time comes, those who cannot do so are to be debarred the privilege of offering their songs of praise to God? On these points I hope I may be permitted to make a few remarks. 1. I do think it quite Utopian to expect that the time will ever come when the great mass of the people shall be able steadily and devoutly to sing in parts. There is, I believe, a large number of persons who are not naturally endowed with organs capable of appreciating and uttering those nice shades of sound upon which this art depends. This statement, I know, opposes an opinion promulgated by Mr. Hullah, and eagerly and hastily taken up by the musical world, that all have the capacity for learning to sing; and that defects in this power of appreciating sounds only arises from want of early education: but as we find great differences in the powers of the eye in different individuals,— differences which cannot be affected by education, so it is rational to attribute to original physical conformation much of the defect in the power of appreciating the finer sounds of music, which we constantly observe. Besides this, there will always be a large class in whom want of interest, want of early training, and the troubles and cares of this hard-pressed world of ours, will prevent the acquirement of this difficult art. (It is not unimportant to observe, that a music-class, such as Mr. Waites', is no test of the power of a congregation to execute part-music; for the voices sustaining the individual parts being grouped together, each part becomes, as it were, a unison to those singing it; it being easier to follow the voices immediately surrounding, than the more distant melody.) 2. But, even supposing the requisite skill to be secured, how can a good effect be depended on unless a proper proportion of voices for the different parts can be obtained ?-and how can this be managed? One minister attracts a large proportion of ladies, another is more attractive to gentlemen; and, in this latter case, it is quite possible that the air, which should always have some prominence, may be completely buried under the accompaniments, to the total destruction of the beauty of the music. This difference between the choir and the congregation has been rarely attended to by musical men. 3. Fully acknowledging, then, the musical superiority of part-singing, properly performed, I doubt whether its effect can be fully developed in miscellaneous and imperfectly-taught assemblages like our congregations. I do not think they will ever become immense choirs ; nor can I assent to the doctrine, which seems to be assumed in the dictum, that there is something wrong in principle in unison-singing. Even musically, it is not without advantages: it conveys more clearly the sense of the words used; and, unless the singers be very educated, has more massiveness, force, and flexibility. By the Puseyites-in musical matters a high authority-it is strongly advocated as the most efficient means of restoring to the church the habit of congregational singing. It is not intended, by these remarks on unison-singing, to advocate the disuse of harmonies, but only to combat the notion that there can be no good singing without them. 4. It has been the great fault of the composers and harmonisers of music, that, thinking more of the musical effect than of the religious object of psalmody, they have inconsiderately transferred to the mixed congregation the music of the concert-room-music, that is to say, prepared for accomplished and educated singers. This is a very serious error; and with reference to it, we may be allowed to alter a Scripture text, and say, "Man is not made for the music, but the music for man." We cannot in this case say, "Here is the music, there are the parts: let the ladies take this, the gentlemen that." We must rather say, "Here is a company of men met to perform a religious duty, desiring to offer praise to God; the music must be such as they can sing-sing all-sing easily.” To set before them part-music, and say, 66 This, or nothing," will not do here. Let these be in the music-room for skill and stimulus to study, but nothing to confuse or silence the timid or untaught. The music must be for the men; and if harmonized music cannot be so used, then harmonized music is not the thing for "the service of song in the house of the Lord.” 5. Lastly, What are they to do who feel that they cannot sing their proper part? Even if the great singing millenium is really coming, what shall the unskilful do in the meantime? I confess myself one of this large number-are we to be silent? or shall we still go on year after year, (as some of us have been doing,) painfully and laboriously, and with great distraction of mind, trying to avoid "polluting the air" (to quote a musical pun) with our deeper tones? I hope this is not Mr. Waites' work; but it is certainly the natural result of his principle. Convinced, after long trial, of my own incapacity to sing my proper part, I own that I feel some satisfaction in the conviction that Mr. Waite's dictum is untenable, and that I am not condemned to silence. As there are large numbers in the same condition, will you allow me to explain what appears to me to be the true principles of congregational church-music, and in what it differs from the choir- music advocated by Mr. Waite and others. 1. I would first notice the essential difference, too generally overlooked by musicians and musical persons, between the congregation and the choir or concert-room. The choir (whether sacred or secular) is a trained, selected, and balanced body of voices, whose object is not their own benefit, but the amusement or instruction, as the case may be, of their auditors; and whose primary aim is the production of good music. It is, therefore, a body of musical persons arranged on musical principles to produce a musical effect. The congregation is a body of Christian men meeting to do a Christian act; neither selected, nor trained, nor educated; seeking not the benefit or instruction of others, but of themselves; in whom, therefore, the great object is religious, not musical, and with whom musical effect, however desirable, is altogether secondary-their first and last object is to praise God. Not that good musical effect is unimportant, or effort to improve it wrong, if undertaken in a right method and with a right aim. There is, then, a vast and radical difference between the two things both in form, object, and plans. 2. If so, the music of the Christian sanctuary must be different in character from that of the choir or the concert-room; and the attempt to mould it on that basis, to convert our Christian congregations into giant choirs, must be not only futile but wrong. It is not merely that we are aiming too high, but that we are aiming in the wrong direction. The music of the choir is such music as may be sung by trained voices to auditors; the music of the congregation should be such as may be sung by all, trained or untrained. In the choir or concert-room, it is an impertinence for the auditor to attempt to join ; but in the congregation, it is just as wrong to produce music which the people cannot unite in. In the choir we expect musical effect; in the congregation, Christian and devout expression and feeling. 3. I would then look on the music of the sanctuary-congregational Christian psalmody -as a thing by itself; by no means a copy of the music of the concert-room, but a distinct branch of musical science, having its own laws, principles, characters, and objects; and these not wholly musical, but in a greater and higher degree religious also. And among these laws I would place the following: (1). That the music of the sanctuary should always be such as not only to permit, but to encourage all to join, whether taught or untaught; no amount of scientific accuracy or musical beauty can compensate a deficiency in congregational adaptation. (2). That there should, therefore, always be that decided prominence of the melody, which may enable strangers, or uneducated singers, pleasantly and easily to unite. (3). That, instead of teaching that they should not join here, we should make it understood that this is the proper place for the unlearned; that all who cannot sustain their proper part should feel that they have a home and refuge here. (4). That while the study of harmonies should be encouraged as a means of rendering the effect of our singing richer, it should be understood that they are not essential to good congregational singing; and that their use to such an extent as in the concert-room, or as to confuse strangers or untaught persons, is not desirable.* (5). And that the melody should be of such a character, and sung at such a pitch, that all may be able, without discomfort, to join in singing it. Most of our old church music is so arranged; and certainly a large proportion of the fine melodies which Mr. Waite's admirable taste has brought before the public, may be followed in unison with very little difficulty. I would sum the matter up by suggesting, that, instead of saying, "Let no male voice pol * One certainly, if not more, of our London congregations has carried the use of harmonies to such an extent, that no stranger can join in their worship. This is Mr. W.'s principle carried out, and is bad. VOL. VII. lute the air," our rule should be, "Let the air be such that no voice, male or female, high or low, can pollute it; such that no voice may be prevented joining in it." Then, throwing aside altogether as our model the choir or concert-room, let us invite all to "come in ;" and let us encourage all those who have been staggered by the feeling that they cannot sing rightly, be taught that there is nothing wrong, nothing violating the principles of Christian psalmody, in singing the air or melody. I have been very anxious to bring this matter forward, because I have reason to know that this mistake, as I deem it, is discouraging many persons who have been used to join in the me-lody, not deeming that there was anything wrong in so doing. Let such be comforted by feeling that they are not shut out from taking part in the service of song; and that the offering of their one talent will be equally acceptable to God with that of his five talents to whom five have been given. I remain, Sir, Your obedient servant, THE ORGAN CONTROVERSY. No. I. SIR,-In your January Number, I observe a communication from " Philhymnus," under the title, "Do Organs improve Psalmody?" Whilst with him I equally deplore the facts adduced in support of his "negative" view of the matter, I cannot so easily coincide with his conclusion. Everything which holds the rank of an "instrument" is liable to abuse as well as use; but no one will affirm that, on "that account," they ought to be entirely thrown aside. For my own part, I think Philhymnus's data exhibit only the "abuse" of the instrument in question-viz., the organ; inasmuch as they show that it has been, in the majority of cases, introduced, ab initio, in an inconsiderate and indiscriminate manner into both churches and chapels in this country; and that it has been there continued, without any explanation to the people of its purposes, or "preparation" of them, in order to render it essentially serviceable. It is this want of discrimination which I consider the "real evil" to be overcome; for such a "use" is an "abuse," and therefore an "evil." say, The evil being now, however, present with us, the most profitable method of acting in respect to it, is to devise means whereby it may be overcome; and to those who have organs in their places of worship, I would "Teach every member musical notation:'" a knowledge of it generally leads to a knowledge of many other very useful parts of a Christian's education (provided the end in attaining it is Christian); and, in the matter before us, it will lead the student to discover the true intention of the organ, the undeniable effect of which is (I speak of Christians) to render the soul more deeply susceptible of devotional feeling, and to keep the attention more closely riveted on the exercise of praise when therein engaged. To those who have no organs, I would recommend the same crusade against ignorance of " musical notation" amongst themselves; that being successful, they would be perfectly qualified for themselves to judge of G |