still more questionable whether, by the introduction of such strictures, be they right or wrong, he has not damaged his main object.

The objections made, in pp. 77-79, against certain passages in various hymns, as being "inaccurate," or ungrammatical, we may take leave to say, would better have been spared. Inasmuch as, on his own admission, they "are trivial blemishes," (?) and "similar errors (?) are found in the best writers of the day" in which the hymns were written, either the very pardonable amount of those "blemishes," supposing them to be correctly designated, should have been allowed to secure for them the indulgence of a candid and generous oblivion, or—and much rather-the sanction which he admits that they may claim from the usus loquendi of the day, as exhibited in " some of the best writers," should have been allowed as a sufficient plea for their being considered as having been brought into the predicament of now appearing to be "inaccurate," simply by ex-post-facto laws and usages of composition to which the writers of that day, of course, owed no submission, and by which, whatever be the modern authority under which they have been set forth and established, it is not strictly fair or reasonable that the compositions of those writers should be tested. In bar of the judgment which the author of the "Wesleyan Hymnology" has pronounced in the pages above referred to, it may be stated, that, in all the cases in which he complains of "the use of the imperfect tense of certain verbs instead of the participle, or of the participle instead of the imperfect tense," he contravenes the authority of our great English grammarian and lexicographer, by whom the words begun, took, rose, undertook, forsook, are stated to be the imperfect tenses, as well as the (past) participles, of the verbs to which they respectively belong.* Instead, therefore, of designating the words in question as "expressions and modes of speech which in Mr. Wesley's days were scarcely known or allowed to be inaccurate, but which are now universally condemned and avoided by good writers and speakers," it would have been better that the author of the " Hymnology" should have said that they were not absolutely inaccurate, according to the leading grammatical and lexicographical authorities of the day in which the hymns were composed, and that they have now the appearance of being inaccurate, simply because, by a change which is continually operating upon living languages, they have become nearly, or, some of them it may be, wholly, obsolete. Some of them only; for the words took and forsook are sanctioned as forms of the past participle by the modern authority of Walker.t

An objection, on the score of inaccuracy, is also made to the following couplet, from hymn 226 :

"With thy loved name, rocks, hills, and seas,

And heaven's high palace rings ;'

and it is said, "the verb ought unquestionably to be plural, ring." But it was once, if it be not still, a rule of English grammar, that "sometimes, after an enumeration of particulars thus connected, (by one or more copulative conjunctions,) the verb follows in the singular number, and is understood as applied to each of the preceding terms; as, 'The glorious inhabitants of these sacred palaces, where nothing but light and blessed immortality, no shadow of matter for tears, discontentments, griefs, and uncomfortable

* English Grammar prefixed to Johnson's Dictionary.

+ See Walker's Dictionary.

6

passions to work upon; but all joy, tranquillity, and peace, even for ever and ever doth dwell.' (Hooker, B. I. 4.) Sand, and salt, and a mass of iron, is easier to bear, than a man without understanding.' (Ecclus. xxii. 15.)" And, in the instance in question, the apparent anomaly might perhaps be justified on the ground that "earth, rocks, and seas, and heaven's high palace" may have been regarded, in the mind of the writer, as a distributive periphrasis for the earthly and heavenly universe. The objection made against the couplet,―

، The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost,

Is ready, with their shining host;"

that "to use a singular verb and then a plural pronoun in the same line, and with precisely the same reference, is certainly indefensible," is sufficiently answered and refuted by the fact, that the construction in this couplet is simply an imitation of the construction purposely used (as theologians have well argued) to indicate an important scriptural doctrine, both in the Hebrew Scriptures and in the corresponding English version. Thus, in some instances,† we have in the Hebrew a singular verb and then a plural pronominal affix or prefix or both, and in the English a singular verb with one plural pronoun or more in the same line and with precisely the same reference;" and in other instances we have a singular verb and a plural pronoun or a plural adjective used both in the Hebrew and the English in exactly the same manner.

66

One may further be excused for the expression of a still more serious demur to the following passage in the Preface to the work in question. "There are many passages," says the author, "which require to be qualified and guarded; many expressions which, if not so qualified and guarded, may be grossly misunderstood, and may lead to highly pernicious sentiments. Truth and error sometimes lie in close contiguity; and if that which is substantially correct and true be expressed in the strong and glowing language of poetry,-such poetry, especially, as that of Charles Wesley, it may bear very great resemblance to that which is inaccurate and false. Moreover, many hymns and passages which may be very advantageously read in the closet, or in seasons of retirement and solitude, are wholly unfit for public worship; and, if introduced into large and promiscuous assemblies, will be likely to do more harm than good. Perhaps it would not be hazarding much to assert, that the better any collection of hymns is, the more need is there that it should be accompanied by explanations, advices, and cautions. For if that which is truly excellent once become an auxiliary to error, its very excellence will make it the more extensively and the more permanently injurious." Is it really so? Then may it not be a matter worthy of inquiry, whether Mr. Wesley did not commit a somewhat serious mistake in admitting "hymns" and passages," designated as above, into his Collection, and whether the Conference ought not to take into serious consideration the best means of its correction. The author of the "Wesleyan Hymnology" expresses a hope that his work will supply, in some degree, the deficiency which has hitherto existed; and it may be readily admitted, that the hope thus modestly

* Bishop Lowth's "Short Introduction to English Grammar."

+"God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness." (Gen. i. 26.) "The Lord said, Let us go down, and there (let us) confound their language," (Gen. xi. 6, 7.)

+ Gen. iii. 22; Joshua xxiv. 19.

expressed is not altogether an unreasonable one. But when it is considered that the "explanations, advices, and cautions" which he has suggested will be seen by comparatively few of those who use the Hymn-Book, and that even if they were incorporated in the book they would still fail of reaching the multitude of those who only hear the hymns as they are given out by Ministers and others who conduct our devotional services, it will be seen that the case will be very inadequately met by any cautionary and explanatory comments that may be either separately published, or inserted in the Hymn-Book; and it may possibly become a question whether hymns and passages of hymns, so fraught with danger, according to our author's judgment, ought not forthwith to be greatly amended, or entirely expunged. Under this view of the case, which, though it may not at once occur to his own mind, will probably present itself with considerable force to many of his readers, one may offer the expression of a respectful and earnest hope that the esteemed author of the "Hymnology" may see reason to regret that he should have ventured on so broad and sweeping a statement as that now under notice, and will so modify it in all future editions of the work, as to relieve the original compiler of the Hymn-Book, and the Conference, from the very critical position in which his observations, in their present form, appear to place them.

The passage in the Preface thus specially remarked upon might not, perhaps, have been particularly noticed, but that the opinion which it expresses is afterwards exemplified and affirmed in some of the criticisms which are given, in the course of the volume, on particular hymns. Thus, speaking of Hymn 48, after "allowing that the poetry is beautiful and excellent in a high degree," he says, "There are, notwithstanding, expressions which cannot be justified ;" and of Hymn 158 he observes, "Some of the expressions in this hymn are so strong, that it is doubtful whether they can on any ground be justified." In the same strain, remarking on verse 7 of hymn 504,—

"Grant this, and then from all below
Insensibly remove;

Our souls their change shall scarcely know,
Made perfect first in love,"-

he asks, “With what propriety can we say, 'Our souls their change shall
scarcely know?' The change from time to eternity, from a state of proba-
tion to a state of retribution, from that which is transient and uncertain to
that which is fixed and eternal, from the toils and sorrows of earth to the
glories and enjoyments of the heavenly world, must be so vast, so amazing,
so much beyond all our previous experience, so far above our most san-
guine hopes, as to carry with it the fullest conviction of its reality and
importance. In all these respects there will unquestionably be a great and
most blessed change." All this is true enough; but does it decide abso-
lutely, as our author supposes it to do, against the "propriety" of using
this stanza? He has elsewhere shown considerable tact and ingenuity in
pleading for the doctrinal orthodoxy and the poetical justice of certain bold
and-it may
be to some-difficult passages; and had he only exercised his
talent in the same direction, in his criticism on the passages which have
been last referred to, there is no reason to doubt but that he would have
been equally successful. In other instances he is not unwilling to admit
the license of poetical hyperbole; and, taking the matter on that ground, the
vindication of the stanza above given would have been quite as easy, and as
just, as that of certain other passages, the theological and literary credit of
3 A

VOL. I.-FOURTH SERIES.

which he has so properly maintained. Or, if afraid of giving too broad and general a sanction to hyperbole, he might have found some apology for the expression, "Our souls their change shall scarcely know," in the fact that it is simply and strictly in accordance with the previous prayer, that God may "insensibly remove" us; and so the fault, if any fault there be, is not in that expression of joyous anticipation against which our author has recorded so decisive an exception, but in the antecedent petition, of which it assumes the accomplishment. Or, which would have been still better, he might very safely have left the stanza under the protection of the other stanzas which immediately surround it, and by which it is very sufficiently guarded from the risk of doing any such mischief to the reader or the worshipper as that which our author would appear to apprehend.

ALEPH.

REMARKS ON A CERTAIN PASSAGE IN MR. STAMP'S MEMOIR OF THE REV. CHARLES ATMORE.

(To the Editor of the Wesleyan-Methodist Magazine.)

In the Magazine for June, some notice is taken of the Bill which Lord Sidmouth introduced to the House of Lords, May 9th, 1811. Mr. Stamp says, "Among his Lordship's friends who favoured the intolerant measure, we regret to enumerate the late William Wilberforce, Esq., M.P., who had been for some time deeply engaged in its preparation." (Page 534.) This observation is grounded on what is stated in the note on the following page, taken from the Life of Wilberforce, vol. iii., pp. 509-511. The note may be misunderstood. I read it thus::

William Wilberforce, Esq., M.P., writes Mr. Stephen, "that he (Lord Sidmouth) had a conference of an hour with Dr. Adam Clarke the day before; and he (Lord Sidmouth) seemed to think, and certainly would have made me (Mr. Wilberforce) believe, if I had not been prevented by what I knew of the world, and of parties, that he (Lord Sidmouth) had satisfied the Methodists (Dr. Clarke) that his Bill was harmless so far as they were concerned.” [This is true; for I heard him say as much to Dr. Clarke, at the bar of the House of Lords, on the said 9th of May, 1811, shaking hands with the Doctor at the same time; and Messrs. Butterworth and Allan had the greatest difficulty to convince Dr. Clarke that the measure was pregnant with the most ruinous consequences to our itinerancy, if it passed into a law.] "Have I told you," he asks Mr. Stephen, “that it is reported and credited that Lord Sidmouth said, I had been one of his Cabinet, and had instigated him to the measure ?" &c.

As this is still the opinion of many, I feel it a duty to lay before your readers the postscript to a letter addressed to the widow of the late Rev. Charles Wesley, which has been many years in my possession, and which I submit to your inspection. This letter is dated "Pyrton, Sept. 23d, 1811," and signed "W. Wilberforce."

"P.S. It is a little curious, and will probably surprise you to hear, that, owing to a gross mis-statement of what was at first an unintentional misconception, reports have been circulating very generally, which are not only not true, but the direct opposite to truth, that I was friendly to Lord Sidmouth's Bill, and that I was very hostile to the Methodists. I only mention these rumours, that, if you should happen to hear them, you may contradict them. I own I conceived that they had carried their falsehood

on their very front so palpably, as not to have obtained credit. But the fact is not so."

Knowing that it will afford the Editor much pleasure to set this matter in a right light, I request an early insertion of this communication. City-Road, June 3d, 1845. THOMAS MARRIOTT.

P.S. The Committee for the reduction of chapel-debts, appointed by Mr. Wesley in 1766, and referred to in the letters to Mr. Costerdine, which appear pp. 575-578, were,-John Collinson, William Briggs, Thomas Marriott, John Cheesement, Richard Kemp, Charles Greenwood, Samuel Petty, William Evans, Josiah Dornford, Thomas Day, M. S. Teulon, Thomas Ball, James Ward, John Butcher, William Ellis, John Redhall, John Duplex, and John Horton.

MARTYRDOM OF JEROME OF PRAGUE.*

THE menacing letter of the nobles of Bohemia produced a lively agitation in the Council, and at first held the Fathers irresolute as to the conduct they should have to observe towards Jerome of Prague, whom they still kept in irons, in the tower of St. Paul's cemetery.

Irritated at the contents of this letter, they would willingly have despatched Jerome to execution, but they were apprehensive that vengeance would follow the threat. They, therefore, first sought for a pretext to dispense with punishing him, and everything was employed to prevail on Jerome to abjure.t

He had for six months been pining away in chains; no severity had been spared him in his noisome dungeon, and his legs were already afflicted with incurable sores. It was hoped that sufferings of such duration and rigour would have depressed his soul, and subdued his courage. He was taken

out of prison, and summoned, under pain of being burned, to abjure his errors, and subscribe to the justice of John Huss's death.

Human weakness prevailed: Jerome was afraid, and signed a paper, by which he submitted himself to the Council, and approved of all its acts. This retractation of Jerome proves, by the very restrictions which it contains, how much it must have cost this unfortunate man to consent to it. He subscribed, it is true, to the condemnation of the articles of Wycliffe and John Huss; but he declared that he had no intention of bearing any prejudice to the holy truths which these two men had taught; and, as to Huss in particular, he avowed that he had loved him from his tenderest years, and that he had always been ready to defend him against every one on account of the mildness of his language, and the good instructions he

"The Reformers before the Reformation. The fifteenth Century. John Huss and the Council of Constance. By Emile de Bonnechose, Author of Histoire Française, Histoire Sacrée, Christophe Sanval, La Mort de Bailly, Prize-Poem awarded by the French Academy, &c. Translated from the French by Campbell Mackenzie, B.A., Trin. Coll., Dublin.” 12mo. Edinburgh. William Whyte and Co., 1844.

+ Concilii patres, viso ex novissimis Bohemorum litteris per Bohemos ex Hussi cineribus orto incendio, Hieronymum ad recantandum omnibus modis invitare, eoque fine e carcere in cœmeterio Sancti Pauli sito productum, Concilio sæpius sistere, ne novo statim fuso sanguine oleum denuo igni affunderent. (Msc. Helmst. ap. Von der Hardt, vol. ix., p. 497.)

Theobald., Bell. Hussit., cap. xx.