660 On holding the Meetings of Charitable Societies in Churches. [Nov. them? Many persons are ready enough to call one man regenerate, and another unregenerate; to designate one class of society as spiritual," or "serious," and another as "worldly," with as little doubt or qualification as if they were gifted with the privilege of searching the heart. This way of judging appears to me to be very rash. I object to the principle itself; and I must confess that the usual mode of its application tends to increase my dislike of it. The proofs advanced of religious or irreligious character are often insufficient, and sometimes altogether unsound.

But, to say no more on this difficulty, permit me to observe, that the dread entertained by J. L. E. of associating with worldly-minded persons, as it is explained in his (or her) communication, has no foundation in the language of the New Testament, rightly understood. Excessive scrupulousness seems, on the contrary, to be discouraged. I refer to the wellknown passage, 1 Cor. v. 9-11. Again; 1 Cor. x. 27: " If any of them that believe not, bid you to a feast, and ye be disposed to go, whatsoever is set before you eat, asking no questions." In using his liberty, every man must be thoroughly persuaded in his own mind. Let him be guided by his own conscience, under a sense of his accountableness. He must not make his liberty a pretence for licentiousness, or the occasion of drawing a weak brother into sin. Of course I do not advocate the participation of any thing forbidden by the law of God. Here we are bound to follow the injunction of the Apostle, 2 Cor. vi. 17.

I cannot, however, but think that mistakes have been made in this matter; that some things, which are either harmless, or designed by a gracious God for the refreshment of his creatures, have been included in the class of forbidden fruit; whilst, at the same time, poisonous herbs are unconsciously used without fear. The excessive scrupulousness indulged by many religious persons is the source of great evil every way: it tends to increase divisions; it cuts off worldly men from the society of those who might improve them; it fosters spiritual pride; and it often blinds the eyes to the actual predominance of the world in the heart. Whilst persons are splitting hairs about visiting worldly-minded people, or partaking of what are called worldly amusements, they are often, I regret to say it, found to be acting, in main points, under the influence of inveterate worldliness. Straining at gnats is the very best preparation for swallowing camels.

R. W.

ON HOLDING THE MEETINGS OF CHARITABLE SOCIETIES IN CHURCHES.

For the Christian Observer.

CAN any of the readers of the Christian Observer inform me what is the real state of the law as respects the meetings of religious and charitable societies in churches? A professional opinion of Dr. Lushington has lately been traversing the newspapers, in which that learned Civilian states that the meetings of Bible or Missionary Societies in churches are illegal, unless held by the express permission of the Ordinary. I do not doubt that this opinion is correct; and I think it were better that no such assemblies were convened in consecrated buildings, and much less meetings of a direct secular character-such as ordinary vestries, which are frequently attended with debate and confusion-for a place dedicated to the worship of God should be, as far as possible, exempted from every association which might draw down the soul of the worshipper from the highest elevation of heavenly-mindedness and communion with God. And in this view much to be lamented are the various notices which are often protruded in the time of

Divine Service-such as those respecting poor and church rates, statute duty on the roads, and other matters; some of them prescribed by Acts of Parliament, and therefore not to be avoided till the authority that imposed them sees fit to abate the nuisance; but others not so imposed, and which might therefore be prevented by the vigilance of the clergy. The whole of this subject deserves serious attention; for nothing can be more incongruous than the mixture of such affairs of ordinary business with the solemn worship of the Lord of the Sabbath.

But the particular case to which I refer, is that of religious charitable societies, which, if illegal, as Dr. Lushington says, in some instances, must be so in all others of a similar kind. Why then, I would ask, should meetings in churches of the Society for promoting Christian Knowledge, or the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel, be allowed, and those of the Bible Society or the Church Missionary Society be prohibited? I contend for neither; but both ought to be placed upon the same footing. A printed notice at this moment lies before me, stating that a meeting of the Birmingham Auxiliary of the two Societies first mentioned would be held last month at a parish church in that town, and that Sir Robert Peel would take the chair upon the occasion, after a sermon by the Rev. W. Hook, Prebendary of Lincoln. The notice is signed "Charles Craven, Secretary," and is very explicit in stating that "the meeting will take place in the body of the church" (so marked in Italics); though, more properly speaking, it was in the chancel, the chairman and the speakers being stationed within the communion rail, and a vast assembly mounting the pews and benches and pillars to get within sight or hearing of the proceedings. To the copy of the advertising circular sent round to the clergy is added, "The Committee request you will have the goodness to give notice of the meeting in your church on Sunday next:" but as it is not stated that this direction was by the authority of the Ordinary, it is a palpable breach of the laws of the Church, as expressed in the Rubric after the Nicene Creed. But if it be lawful for Mr. Hook, Mr. Craven, Sir Robert Peel, and the Birmingham District Committee, to enact a meeting of these two societies in a church, without even professing to have applied for episcopal sanction, what becomes either of the Rubric or of Dr. Lushington's professional opinion? or are law and canonical discipline mere matters of mock authority, to be enforced in one case and dispensed with in others as suits any man's taste or convenience? It will surely not be contended that the above names and the above societies make that lawful which would be unlawful in the case of a Bible or Church Missionary Society, or of an Infirmary, or Savings' Bank, or Provident Club.

Any correspondent who will explain the exact state of the law, and the duty of the members of the Church of England, in regard to the above question, will much oblige one who desires and endeavours to be

A CONSISTENT CHURCHMAN.

QUERY ON JOHN XIII. 31, 32.

To the Editor of the Christian Observer.

WILL any of your readers explain the bearing of that remarkable passage John xiii. 31, 32, especially the clause "God shall also glorify him in himself?" It never occurred to me to hear the passage commented upon in a sermon; nor do I even recollect hearing it ever quoted in the pulpit. "Therefore, when he was gone out, Jesus said, Now is the Son of man glorified, and God is glorified in him. If God be glorified in him, God shall also glorify him in himself, and shall straightway glorify him."

A.

CONTEMPORARY CRITICISMS UPON, THE WRITINGS
OF COWPER.

To the Editor of the Christian Observer.

In lately perusing the account of Cowper's life in your pages, I was reminded of the singularly contradictory remarks of the periodical critics upon his early writings. One or two specimens of them, as well as a few remarks of his friend Mr. Greatheed upon his literary history, may be acceptable to your readers, as an appendix to your analysis of his life and character.

Speaking of his first volume of poems, Mr. Greatheed says:

Exhibiting such a versatility of high poetical talent as this volume does, in the pathetic and sublime, in the grave and humourous, as perhaps has scarcely ever been displayed by any individual; and treating the most sacred subjects with the eloquence of a prophet and the simplicity of an evangelist; why was the immediate success of this first volume below its extraordinary merit? Such a neglect is confessed by his amiable biographer [Hayley], who, whilst he acknowledges the powerful claims of Cowper to instant admiration and applause, apologizes for the inattention of the public, by saying, ' He hazarded some sentiments in his first volume which were likely to obstruct its immediate success in the world. I allude to the eulogy of Whitefield, whom Foote had taught the nation to deride as a mischievous fanatic; and a censure in which he had indulged himself against Mr. Charles Wesley, for allowing sacred music to form a part of his occupation on a Sunday evening.' But this apology is hardly sufficient, as a cause, to account for the effect. The former passage was little noticed; and the latter allusion, if true, was by no means generally understood.

'The first volume, in consequence of being published by Mr. Newton, was chiefly known among religious people; who, it must be confessed, discerned and loudly acknowledged its excellence: and the ignorance and prejudice respecting religion which notoriously prevailed in the literary world, suffice to account for its limited circulation. His compositions, in general, are also, perhaps, less adapted to strike at first view, than to delight increasingly at every repeated perusal. He seldom aims at ornament; and his versification, particularly in the principal pieces of this volume, is sometimes uncouth, if not careless. The mode, likewise, in which his poems were published, was not attractive; an awkward, plain, ill-printed octavo of poems, by a person of whom the literary world knew nothing, might easily escape notice, or meet with contempt. Mr. Cowper had no great connexions that would use means to make him known, having been insulated from the world for many years: and as he wrote solely for the relief of his own mind, without expectation of the fame he afterwards acquired, or even ambition of it; so his style, at that time, was certainly inferior to that which he afterwards attained by practice and labour. The Reviewers, too, did not unite to do him justice. In the Critical Review of his first volume it was said, ' He is not possessed of any superior abilities or powers of genius, requisite to so arduous an undertaking: his verses are, in general, weak and languid, and have neither novelty, spirit, or animation, to recommend them; that mediocrity so severely condemned by Horace (Non dü non homines, &c.) pervades the whole; and whilst the author avoids every thing that is ridiculous or contemptible, he never rises to any thing that we can commend or admire. He says what is incontrovertible, and what has already been said over and over, with much gravity; but says nothing new, sprightly, or entertaining; travelling on in a plain, level, flat road, with great composure, almost through the whole long and rather

tedious volume, which is little better than a dull sermon on Truth,' &c. Even when quoting the fervid paragraph on Hope, they observe, All this is very true; but there needs no ghost, nor author, nor poet, to tell us what we knew before, unless he could tell it us in a new and better manner.' (Critical Rev. vol. liii. p. 287.)"

So much for these sagacious censors, whom we shall have further occasion to notice by-and-bye. It is with very different feelings that we quote from the Monthly Review for October in the same year (1782), the following judgment of Mr. Cowper's first publication, the justice of which has since received universal confirmation. Mr. Cowper himself understood that the late excellent Dr. Johnson was the writer; the latter having, probably, sent this paper to the Monthly Review, with which he had no stated connexion, for the purpose of counteracting the effects of the former illiberal criticism.

"The Reviewer says, What Pope has remarked of women, may, by a very applicable parody, be said of the general run of modern poets-most poets have no character at all;-being, for the chief part, only echoes of those who have sung before them...... This, however, is not the case with Mr. Cowper; he is a poet, sui generis; for as his notes are peculiar to himself, he classes not with any known species of bards that have preceded him his style of composition, as well as his modes of thinking, are entirely his own. The ideas with which his mind seems to have been either endowed by nature, or to have been enriched by learning and reflection, as they lie in no regular order, so are they promiscuously brought forth as they accidentally present themselves. Mr. Cowper's predominant turn of mind, though serious and devotional, is, at the same time, drily humorous and sarcastic. Hence his very religion has a smile that is arch, and his sallies of humour an air that is religious; and yet, motley as is the mixture, it is so contrived as to be neither ridiculous nor disgusting. His versification is almost as singular as the materials upon which it is employed. Anxious only to give each image its due prominence and relief, he has wasted no unnecessary attention on grace or embellishment: his language, therefore, though neither strikingly harmonious nor elegant, is plain, forcible, and expressive.' (Monthly Rev. vol. lxvii. p. 262.) "

When the second volume of Mr. Cowper's Works appeared, the Monthly Critic (which could not then be Johnson, as he was recently deceased) gave a still more honourable testimony to the talents of our bard, whose fame was now rapidly spreading and increasing.

"The author,' says this Reviewer, is always moral, yet never dull ; and though he often expands an image, yet he never weakens its force. If the same thought occurs, he gives it a new form; and is copious, without being tiresome. He frequently entertains by his comic humour; and still oftener awakens more serious and more tender sentiments, by useful and by pathetic representation, by descriptions that soothe and melt the heart, and by reflections which carry their alarm to the conscience, and rouse and terrify guilt in its closest retreats. The poet writes under the strong impression of Christian and moral truths; and we feel him to be in earnest, when he pleads their cause, and deplores the neglect that is shewn them by some, and the insults that are offered them by others: conviction gives force to imagination; and the poet dips his pen in the stream that religion hath opened in his own bosom.

"Mr. Cowper possesses strong powers of ridicule; and nature formed him for a satirist of the first order. He sees Folly under every disguise ; and knows how to raise a laugh at her expense, either by grave humour or more sportive raillery. He is alive to every feeling of compassion, and spares none that violate the laws of humanity. His benevolence is as ex

tensive as the creation; and though the particular impressions which religion hath made on his mind, and the general corruption of the times, have thrown a shade of melancholy (it will be called spleen by some persons) over his writings, yet we always behold an amiable and generous principle shining through the cloud, and struggling to overcome the evils which it deplores.' (Monthly Rev. vol. lxxiv. pp. 416, 417.)"

The conductor of the Critical Review had evidently, when Mr. Cowper published his second volume, perceived the deporable error which had, three years before, disgraced that work. Accordingly, without the slightest reference to a piece of criticism which he doubtless wished to be consigned to oblivion, he proceeds to speak thus of the Task, alluding to Lady Austen's influence in the accomplishment of that work:

"In the name of the public we pay our acknowledgments to this lady, as the primary cause of a publication which-though not free from defects— for originality of thought, strength of argument, and poignancy of satire, we speak in general, is superior to any that has lately fallen into our hands. We here meet with no affected prettiness of style, no glaring epithets, which modern writers so industriously accumulate; and, reversing Homer's exhibition of his hero in rags, convey the image of a beggar clothed in 'purple and fine linen.'

"The reflections he makes, naturally arise from the objects which present themselves to his view; and the scenery is depicted in chaste and exact colouring. We meet with no meretricious ornaments; no superfluity of epithets and crowded figures, which often throw an indistinct glare over modern poetic landscapes, instead of representing their objects in a clear and proper light.

"It is but justice to observe, before we conclude our review of this poem, that the religious and moral reflections with which it abounds, though sometimes the diction is not sufficiently elevated, in general possesses the acuteness and depth of Young, and are often expressed with the energy of Shakspeare." (Crit. Rev. vol. lx. pp. 251-256.)

MILNER ON THE MONTANISTS.

To the Editor of the Christian Observer.

PERMIT me to remind those of your readers who feel interested in the discussion on the character of the Montanists, of the remarks of that pious and judicious historian, Joseph Milner, respecting them. If Milner, as well as the whole stream of antiquity, is right, Mr. Wesley was quite mistaken in supposing that Montanus was persecuted, not for his faults, but his virtues; not for what was erroneous or superstitious in his notions, but what was spiritually minded and worthy of respect. The following is Milner's statement. His concluding remarks are of peculiar importance at the present moment, from their application to recent circumstances."The church was internally shaken and much disfigured by the heresy of Montanus. This is the account of it given by Apollinaris of Hierapolis, who took pains to confute it. Being lately at Ancyra, in Galatia, I found the church throughout filled, not with prophets, as they call them, but with false prophets; where, with the help of the Lord, I disputed in the church for many days against them, so that the church rejoiced and was confirmed in the truth, the adversaries were vexed and murmured. The original of them was this: There is a village in Mysia, a region of Phrygia, called Ardaba, where we are told that Montanus, a late convert in the time of Gratus proconsul of Asia, elated with ambition, gave ad