I presume the meaning of this proverbial maxim to be, that "most of the joys, as of the griefs of the human breast, can be known only by individual consciousness, and in a certain degree and sense are incommunicable."* The remark holds good of the bitterness of the heart occasioned by afflictions that come not within our controlby some which strike upon our tenderest domestic and social feelings; it applies to parental disappointments, however they be produced: to abused friendship, to violated confidence, to the sense of personal guilt, the upbraidings of the soul, the pains of remorse, and a man's just and complete dissatisfaction with himself. On the other hand, the gladness of the heart, like its sorrow, can be but imperfectly estimated and shared by strangers. We may class our joys as we class our griefs, under two general divisions: those which affect our outward circumstances, and those which have their origin and their cause, as well as their seat, in the mind itself. Some are effects of our sympathy with our fellow men, on their external and honourable prosperity; some, again, belong to happy and highly rewarded parents. There are joys, too, experienced by the wise and good, on beholding the gradual, however apparently slow advances of knowledge, truth, and virtue, and of the numerous blessings in their train, and on anticipating their perfect and everlasting triumph. Among the joys which have a direct reference to our own circumstances and internal state, those of an approving conscience, of genuine penitence, of devotion, benevolence, and religious faith and hope, claim the first rank; and with these, as with all which I have enumerated, the world cannot interfere; in their particular modifications, they are the exclusive property of the individual possessor. It is a long but useful train of thought to which the aphorism conducts us. Studious of brevity, let me invite every reader to accept and pursue these reflections as illustrative of the fact, that

"The heart knoweth its own bitterness:
And with its joy no man intermeddleth."

N.

The French Genevan translation, in one of its latest editions, if not its last [1805], is here singularly concise yet familiar, modern and paraphrastical [Personne ne sent mieux que nous-memes l'amertume de nos chagrins, et la douceur de nos plaisirs.] In a preceding impression, it has been more successful, [Le cœur de chacun connoit l'amertume de son ame, et un autre n'est point mele dans sa joie.] 1747.

Dialogues on Religion.-No. 4.

(Concluded from page 354.)

T. You are strangely fond of contradiction; whatever other objections have been raised against instrumental music, I never heard it questioned that the organ had a powerful effect in elevating the devotional feelings. I must, once more, invoke Milton and his angels to my assistance,

"Then crown'd again; their golden harps they take,
and with preamble sweet

Of charming symphony, they introduce

Their sacred song, and waken raptures high:
No voice exempt; no voice but well could join
Melodious part, such concord is in heaven.'

A. Ay; here you have preludes and symphonies. I hope you do not justify them in Church music. Your amateurs, and those who wish to be thought so, will always talk in your strain. But these are not to be appealed to on religious subjects. I would rather consult the multitude. All parts of public worship, as well as preaching, should be adapted to the apprehension and feelings of the poor; and I am sure, they would decide in my favour. As for your musical people, those who are regularly and scientifically instructed, are altogether taken up with the composition and execution; some in admiring and others in finding fault. One discord will derange all their devotional feelings, perhaps set them a cursing: and those who are not capable of criticism, attend to the performance, particularly the anthem, as to any other musical entertainment. I question whether you yourself ever felt as St. Austin did on such occasions;-" Whenever," says he, "it happens, that I am more affected by the music than the sense, I feel that I have committed a sin, and would rather not hear the singer."

T. I cannot say that I ever did; and I should hope for pardon, if my wandering thoughts took no worse a course. I do not know, how they could be better employed. Can any thing be more pure and holy, or more conducive to heavenly contemplation than a church filled with celestial harmony?

A. These are fine words, and would sound well at a concert or oratorio. But do you really think, that you may introduce into Christian worship, whatever you please,

provided it be innocent and elegant as you say, or even calculated to excite devout feelings?

T. Why not? Is not this a principal end of Christian worship?

A. Because this would open a door for every kind and degree of superstition. If we may engraft on the Gospel, every mode of worship that we think innocent, elegant, and conducive to devotion, every one may innovate as far as he thinks right; and no one wishes for greater liberty than that. This principle would warrant most of the superstitions of Popery; for few of them are immoral in their own nature. I am told that High Mass is a very elegant and imposing exhibition; and in general, the formalities of the Church of Rome are calculated to excite pious emotions; at least their advocates and votaries think so, and that is enough on your scheme. You are partial to music; but, why should the other fine arts be excluded? Why should not the lovers of painting and statuary be gratified? perhaps an altar-piece or a crucifix, a Madonna or a tutelar saint, are better adapted to excite devout love, than an organ; and would unquestionably be felt by a vastly greater proportion of the people. They may also be resorted to at all times, and alone as well as in public. They would present themselves to the mind, when piously disposed in secret; and might reproach the sinner in the very moment of temptation. Are we to gratify the ears, and reprobate the devotion of the other senses; or are all the senses, in their turn, to get the better of reason, Scripture, and common sense? Such notions would have justified the Jewish converts in adhering to the Mosaical rites, and the Gentiles in retaining their idolatrous music and dancing: but the great care, and most difficult task of the Apostles, was to prevent both of these abuses.

T. Your mentioning the Jews, reminds me of a convincing argument in favour of instrumental music, for it made an important part of the service of the Temple. The Psalms of David are an ample proof of this; and if we still admit the poetry into our worship, why should we exclude the music? The bands of singers too, amounting to nearly 300, and the titles of the Psalms, show what a share sacred music had in the thoughts of "the man after God's own heart." There is also a passage, somewhere in Chronicles, which ascribes the employment of instru

ments to the express command of God by his Prophets;* and gives a fine description of the religious concert.

A. This is very true of David; and no one should speak of him, in his capacity of Psalmist, without respect. He was a fine musician and poet, and (humanly speaking) owed his introduction at court, and consequently his ele vation to the throne, to his skill in these arts. Solomon,

too, was a magnificent prince, fond of the fine arts. Thus music gained a footing, but it made no part of the Mosaical Revelation; and though it had, the Ceremonial Law was abolished by the death of Christ, and carefully excluded from the Christian Church by the Apostles. An argument drawn from this practice, would equally, and even with more force, warrant the revival of the whole Ritual of the Jews, which was unquestionably of Divine appointment; and even of many practices, that were tolerated on account of the hardness of their hearts. Instru mental music was used only in the Temple, where the service was performed wholly by the Priests and Levites, without any participation on the part of the people, who stood at a great distance, without the inclosure, and were only witnesses of the sacrifices offered for the nation. It never obtained a footing in the Synagogue, from which the service and officers of the Church were borrowed; and if it had, that would be no warrant to us. Judaizing was the heresy that gave most trouble to the Apostles and apostolic fathers.

T. On the same principle, you might exclude psalmody; since neither was that practised in the Synagogue,

A. No: I only say, that if it were, it would have no authority with us. Congregational psalmody is à pure Christian ordinance, and to be regulated by apostolic precedents.

T. Give me leave to observe, that instruments were employed in worship before the delivery of the Law; and of course, had divine authority independent of it. In one of the Psalms, the Lord is said to have ordained psalms accompanied by the harp, timbrel, and psaltery, "for a testimony, when he went out through the land of Egypt."+ And Miriam the Prophetess and sister of Moses and Aaron, accompanied her song of triumph with a timbrel; and "all the women went out after her with timbrels and dances." As to the Synagogue, I must beg leave to set * 2 Chronicles xxix. 25. + Psalm lxxxi. 2. Exodus xv. 21.

you right. There is extant an Epistle, ascribed to S. Girolamo, in which a chorus of bagpipes are noticed as being employed in the Synagogue.

A. Very well. If I consent to the timbrels; you must admit dancing girls into your form of worship. They are of equal weight; or rather of none at all. Your authority from Girolamo and his bagpipes, is too ridiculous to deserve attention. Our Saviour and his Apostles were habituated to the Temple service; yet though they sung many hymns, they never resorted to instrumental music; and this was not owing to poverty, for their instruments were cheap, and portable.

T. Don't you think, that their attendance at the Temple gives a sanction to the practice?

A. No; for none of them were of the tribe of Levi; therefore, none_had any share in performing public worship; and our Lord made no opposition to Jewish corruptions, except when they interfered with moral duties, Such a reformation would have been impracticable, and even useless, since the whole was to be abrogated by his death. The primitive Church was composed of Jewish and Gentile converts, both of them accustomed to instrumental music in their devotions; but so abhorrent was it from their new religion, that they seem never to have thought of employing it, at least in the church. The Apostles had much trouble in preventing them from relapsing into their former practices in other respects; but never had occasion to prohibit the use of instruments.

T. I see we are breaking up new ground that I have not time for at present. The use of instruments by the Apostolic Churches, has admitted of much controversy.

A. True. It forms, however, a principal part of our subject. Will you have any objection to breakfast with me to-morrow? We may have occasion to dip into books. That will agree better with the breakfast table than with a peripatetic disputation. Perhaps, too, we may agree better there. It is certainly a little strange, that two such good friends should differ so much on every question that has arisen between us. Good day.