1 There are some expressions in their notice which have nothing to do with the present controversy, but by which many of their readers may be liable to be deceived. They speak of men as 'beings who transgress and suffer only of their free choice ;' and as not being subject to any necessity which destroys or impairs their entire liberty.' It is their business, certainly not mine, to reconcile these expressions with the statements respecting the nature and condition of man, which I have adduced from Calvinistic authorities. The fact is, that the conductors of the Spectator have indulged in rather a licentious use of the freedom, which some modern defenders of the doctrine of Philosophical Necessity have assumed, of employing certain terms in a technical and deceptive sense, wholly foreign from their popular acceptation. When for instance, it is said that the actions of men are free, nothing more is meant, than that man has the natural power to act conformably to his volitions, that is, if he wills to exert his body or his mind, he is able to do it; there is no compulsion exercised upon him to prevent it. But it is maintained at the same time, that every act of his will is necessarily determined to be what it is, by his own nature and the constitution of things which God has appointed. With regard to the implied proposition, that men transgress, and suffer only of their free choice,' the conductors of the Spectator have asserted what neither the doctrines of their professed creed, (if they claim to be Calvinists,) nor the language of their professed philosophy (if they think themselves necessarians) will either warrant or excuse. 6 What Calvin thought of the language which has been used by modern necessarians, may be learnt from an honest passage, which I am about to quote. With regard to the particular expression just noticed, it will be perceived, as before, that the conductors of the Spectator contradict his authority; and that there is no contradiction between Calvin and myself. The object of the second chapter of the second book of his Institutes, as stated in its title, is, as I have said, to prove, that man in his present state is despoiled of freedom of will; and subjected to a miserable slavery.' He quotes and opposes the opinions of different writers, who thought that freedom of will, might in one sense or another be ascribed to man, and finally mentions that of Peter Lombard. Lombard he says, 'decides that our will is free, not because we are equally able to do or to think what is good or what is evil; but only because we are free from compulsion (coactione soluti sumus ;) which liberty may exist, notwithstanding we are corrupted, and are slaves of sin, and can do nothing but sin." Upon this Calvin immediately remarks: According to this, man will be said to possess freedom of will, NOT BECAUSE HE HAS A FREE CHOICE EQUALLY OF GOOD AND EVIL, but because he does evil conformably to his will and not by compulsion. This is very true; but what purpose was to be answered by giving so proud a title to a thing of so little importance? An admirable kind of liberty indeed, if man be under no compulsion to serve sin, but is yet such a willing slave, that his will is held bound by the fetters of sin. I abominate disputes about words, by which the Church is disturbed without any good result; but I think we ought religiously to avoid those words which appear to express an absurdity; especially on a subject respecting which there are pernicious errors. For how many are there, I pray, who when they hear freedom of will ascribed to man, do not immediately conceive of him, as master of his own mind and will, so as to be able to direct himself to either side, [either good or evil?] But, it may be said, that this danger will be removed, if the common people are carefully informed of the sense in which the term is used. This is not true; the human mind is of itself so prone to false opinions, that it will more readily imbibe error from a single word, than truth from a long discourse.' Such was the opinion of Calvin concerning that abuse of language to which modern necessarians have resorted; and so far was he from thinking with the conductors of the Spectator, that men 'transgress, and suffer only of their free choice.' In relation to this subject, the conductors of the Spectator bring forward a single passage from the Westminster Confession, a's follows: 'God hath indued the will of man with that natural liberty, that it is neither forced, nor by any absolute necessity of nature determined to do good or evil.' If it had been their object to show what the Westminster Divines really believed respecting the nature of man, it would have been a little more to the purpose, to have quoted the next proposition but one to that given by them. 'Man by his fall into a state of sin hath wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation; so as a natural man being altogether averse from that good, and . dead in sin, is not able by his own strength to convert himself or to prepare himself thereunto.' It must be an affair, I think, of some deliberation and difficulty for them to reconcile the meaning which they wish their readers to receive from the first proposition, with what is so broadly and explicitly stated in the last. The opinion which the 6 Westminster divines intended to express respecting the natural liberty of the will,' was, I presume, the same which Calvin has quoted from Lombard. The controversy between the conductors of the Spectator and myself is now, I suspect, at an end. The point at issue, it will be recollected is, whether in the passage originally quoted from me in the Spectator, I have misstated the doctrines of Calvinism. The conductors of that work, I am convinced, are too honest to continue to urge a charge, which they find themselves wholly unable to support by any proof or any plausible pretence. They have in fact virtually abandoned it in their notice of my letter; since their remarks are principally founded upon a sentence of that letter; and not upon the paragraph originally objected to. To this very sentence, understood in its obvious sense, they clearly have nothing to object; and their reply is directed only against a most singular misapprehension which they have formed of its meaning. I do not intend to say, however, that they will not probably continue to write. They may complain once more of the harshness of my language; and bring forward new specimens of the propriety and decorum of their own by way of contrast. They will hardly charge me again with being wholly unacquainted with Calvinistic authorities; but they may express their admiration at my ignorance, in knowing so little of such a famous and valuable book, as Ridgeley's Body of Divinity. They may endeavour to establish the fact, that Calvin did not understand his own opinions; and really believed at heart, that man was free to choose between good and evil. They may run through the whole series of quibbles, which has been taught them in the necessarian school of Edwards. They may entirely change their ground and attempt to defend the doctrines which they have heretofore disowned. Or they may bring forward their own peculiar opinions, remote enough from Calvinism, it is very likely, though hardly, I suspect, more consistent or rational, and may accuse me of misrepresenting these; as if this were the question at issue, or as if in writing the paragraph of which their reviewer complained, I had ever thought or heard of the conductors of the Christian Spectator. But the original charge against me, I have no doubt, will be silently abandoned. I believe they will do every thing in their power to keep it out of sight, and to have it forgotten. It would be fairer, it is true, expressly to retract it. But this is more perhaps than can be reasonably expected from them; and they ought not to be defrauded of their due praise, if they should only pursue the course, I have supposed, and thus manifest their desire to withdraw it from public attention. ON THE CONNEXION BETWEEN SACRED POETRY AND SACRED MUSIC. FOR THE CHRISTIAN DISCIPLE. It In the Christian Disciple for March and April, 1821, was published a communication on the requisite qualities of a good collection of Psalms and Hymns for public worship. attracted some attention at the time, and has since been more than once referred to in the numbers of this work. To most of the suggestions therein made, I presume no objection has ever. been offered. Indeed they are too obviously just and important to admit of any. The remark, however, on which the writer dwelt longest, and to which he seemed to attach chief value, which in fact is substantially a novel proposition, has been spoken of as visionary, fanciful, and quaint, and apparently rejected without fair examination. The remark was this: 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 emphases of one verse and those of every other; so that every tune, which is well suited to one verse, may not in point of rhythm or emphatic modulation, be unsuitable for any other. Some have said that they do not understand this, and many perhaps may doubt the possibility of accomplishing the object here stated. In my view it appears perfectly intelligible and possible. I should not however have recalled attention to the subject, were it not that I have lately met with a Hymn in the Springfield Liberal Recorder, in which the principles of this writer are fully illustrated. It is a chaste and correct specimen of devotional poetry, and will gratify those who have no faith in the scheme on which it is built. Wisdom array'd the worlds on high- Nor do the heavens alone reveal Wisdom design'd my living frame- Prone, as we are, to go astray, Lord-thou art God-the only wise; What The plan quoted above is completely and successfully executed in this Hymn. Each stanza is cast in the same mould with every other. There is a correspondent accent, rhythm and emphasis in each. If you find a tune, the accent and rhythm of which correspond with those of any one of these verses, they will equally correspond with those of the other verses. has thus been done in this instance, is equally capable of being done in other instances. Whether it be possible so to vary the hymns now in use, that they shall be conformed to this rule, I do not pretend to determine; though I am persuaded that many of them would require few alterations, and those but slight, The improvement which would thus be introduced into the practice of psalmody, will be very apparent to any one, who will sing the hymn we have just quoted, in the tune for which it was written. He will be sensible of a correspondence between the sound and the sense, a united flow of melody and meaning, and consequently a smoothness, pleasure, and satisfaction which he rarely experiences throughout an equal number of connected stanzas. He will be more sensible of this if he will afterward try the same hymn in some other tune, in which the accents and pauses are differently arranged, as, Nantwich, or Eaton, or Sterling. He will perceive a disagreement, a collision, between the sentiment and its mode of recitation, which renders the whole awkward and embarrassing, very far from the easy and natural expression which was given to it in the first attempt. |