me.

the oriole, the cat-bird and the song-sparrow, besides the many birds with which we are familiar in England -all are his friends, and he is their protector. How sweetly, like Selborne, or gentle and genial Owen, does he write: "If they will not come near enough to me (as most of them will), I bring them down with an opera-glass—a much better weapon than a gun. I would not, if I could, convert them from their pretty pagan ways. The only one I sometimes have savage doubts about is the red squirrel. I think he oölogizes. I know be eats cherries and that he gnaws off the small end of pears to get at the seeds. He steals the corn from under the noses of my poultry. But what would you have? He will come down upon the limb of the tree I am lying under until he is within a yard of Can I sign his death-warrant who has tolerated me about his grounds so long? Not I. Let them steal. and welcome. I am sure I should, had I had the same bringing up and the same temptation. As for the birds, I do not believe there is one of them but does more good than harm; and of how many featherless bipeds can this be said?" "Elia" himself never beat this in delicacy. Winter" is conceived in a similar spirit. Milton," a recreative review of Professor Masson's ponderous and irrelevant performance, reminds us a little of Macaulay's famous gibbeting of poor Montgomery, the poet; and indeed this baiting of a would-be humorist by Lowell, a real one, is very pleasant sport, and readable withal. "Dryden" and "Dante" are careful and elaborate studies of the age as well as of the men; but it is easy to see that Mr. Lowell's heart is as much in Dante as it is out of Dryden. "Keats" is an affectionate tribute. Mr. Lowell finds very little new to say about Wordsworth or Spenser, but his "Chaucer" is very careful and sympathetic. The essay on Witchcraft is, oddly enough, the least interesting to us -perhaps because it is evidently the least congenial to the writer. The essay on Pope is as much under-friendly as Thackeray's "Pope" is over-friendly.

66

66

We regret to have no space for comment on the suggestive notice of "President Lincoln," full of personal insight and true American patriotism. But what we must call the attack on Carlyle and the panegyric on Emerson must serve to wind up our critical reflections for the present.

Carlyle and Emerson are most dissimilar: alike in this only, that each has performed the same office for different types of mind in the same century; both have taught men to think for themselvesCarlyle by his analysis of the external, Emerson by his analysis of the internal world. The one deals with matter in its effect on mind, the other with mind in its effect on matter. He who is taught by Emerson is seldom found at the feet of Carlyle; and it is strange but true that the readers of Carlyle have often an antipathy for Emerson's style, and most Emersonians detest Carlyle.

The key of Mr. Lowell's view of Carlyle is to be found, of course,

in Carlyle's devotion, and Mr. Lowell's aversion, to the majesty of physical force. Carlyle is the despot, Mr. Lowell the republican, and from his hostile camp he examines the peculiarities of the Sturm and Drang" school, and separates between the early and the late Carlyle with a firmness of touch and a plainness of speech which we in England are still afraid to use towards the venerable sage of Chelsea. "In the earlier part of his literary career Mr. Carlyle was the denouncer of sham, the preacher-up of sincerity, manliness, and of a living faith. He had intense convictions, and he made disciples. If not a profound thinker, he felt profoundly." He is represented as a man who hoped great things of humanity; then, later on, grew impatient when disappointed, and ended by hoping nothing of human nature except what could be got out of it by incessant driving and thrashing. "His latest theory of divine government seems to be the cudgel." He is the "volunteer laureate of the rod." The world for him "is created and directed by a divine Dr. Busby." It would be difficult for Mr. Carlyle's admirers to rebut this charge, but some of them might point to the obvious fact that the divine government, as we see it to be, has this severe, compulsory, and inexorable side to it. It is the government of the rod, though not of the rod only. Men are compelled and punished into the paths of rectitude and virtue by what we call the laws of nature. Our God is a divine despot, and the human despot, when good and wise, is a reflection of at least one side of a divine character. What Mr. Carlyle scorns and leaves out is the possibility of that free, slow development of the individual which is to make him a moral agent in the great scheme-the willing and joyful servitor of the divine despot. Because man will not do right, he must be compelled; that is pure Carlylese. But because to do right is in accordance with his own happiness as well as being the will of the heavenly despot, therefore his tender training as a free agent to do right freely, and not the " 'dumb-driven-cattle theory," should be the special and patient care of his earthly ruler-and this, in Mr. Lowell's opinion, of course, is a thing better done by a republican than by a monarchial or imperial form of government.

Mr. Lowell, though he weeps over the prophet of Chelsea, is generously alive to his literary greatness: "With all deductions, Carlyle remains the profoundest critic and the most dramatic imagination of modern times." And again: "As a purifier of the sources whence our intellectual inspiration is drawn, his influence has been second only to that of Wordsworth-if even to his." There is something much more living and personal about Mr. Lowell's account of Emerson: that great magician, who seems to dispense so naturally with the definite props of rule and doctrine so essential to most men, because he is so inseparably wedded to the eternal harmonies as never to feel any of them external to himself-that sweet and lofty prophet, who, with piercing yet indulgent eye, above all

pain, yet pitying all distress, tells us what we know, and gives us the possession of ourselves-that equable temperament, that cloudless serenity whose calm is infectious, and whose deep peace puts everything into proportion; though, personally, Mr. Lowell prefers a temple (unlike those vast Mexican mysteries of architecture), with a door left for the god to come in-yet he knows that the root of the matter is in Emerson, who is never out of the presence of the "Oversoul, and whose one temple is the round world and the over-arching heaven. To be conformable to eternal law is to be religious-to be natural on the plane of a high and pure nature-to be radiant with the original righteousness which draws the love and reverence of humankind and makes life adorable, instead of forever struggling with the nightmare of original_sin. This, if anything, is to be prophetic. This, in spite of what Emerson calls the "dear old devil," is the witness to the world that "God has breathed into man's nostrils the breath of life, and man has become a living soul." "What an antiseptic is a pure life!" exclaims one who has watched and reverenced Emerson from boyhood. "At sixty-five, he had that privilege of soul which abolishes the calendar, and presents him to us always the unwonted contemporary of his own prime. We who have known him so long, wonder at the tenacity with which he maintains himself in the outposts of youth." The brief essay before us is little more than a warm tribute to Mr. Emerson as a lecturer. We are told that he is still an unfailing "draw in America, but we are told something else that he is a consummate master of the lecture-art. Will our eminent men ever, as a rule, think it worth while to acquire this art ?-Not so long as £10 is considered an adequate fee for the best lecture, whilst £50 or £100 is willingly given for the best song. The old country is far behind the new in its estimation of high-class scientific and literary merit. Platform lecturing is an art like any other; and England will never get good lecturers till she pays for them. Pray, what sort of fiddling can you get for nothing? Lowell's essay on Emerson iswhat I hope these two papers on Lowell will prove to be-a way of referring readers to the fountain head, more than an analysis of the waters that flow from it. Personally, like so many others, to Emerson I owe my freedom and emancipation from those stocks of prejudice and those pillories of public opinion which make so many sit in the world of thought like frightened criminals, unable or afraid to stir. When I was at college I exchanged four handsome volumes of Montaigne for one volume of Emerson's Essays. I have never regretted my bargain; and, when I open my well-worn copy, I still find the Pantheon and the Forest Primeval alike instinct with the great Oversoul, and vocal with the music of God.

I think I can do no better than close this brief estimate of James Russell Lowell-his literary performance, together with such flashes of personality as leap forth spontaneously from its many

sided facets—with these words of his great friend and master, words fitly applicable to the few men who have measured their own time with temperate eyes-the few workers who have made their own country better and greater-"the few souls that have made our souls wiser:" "The world is his who can see through its pretensions. The day is always his who works in it with serenity and great aims. The unstable estimates of men crowd to him whose mind is filled with a truth, as the heaped waves of the Atlantic follow the moon."-H. R. HAWEIS, in The Gentleman's Magazine.

SUBSCRIPTION.*

Ir is with some hesitation that I re-enter on a subject which I thought I had fully dispatched some fifteen years ago. But it has occurred to me that, looking at some of the observations which have been made on subscription during the last six months, it might be desirable to remove the whole question from the somewhat personal and controversial aspect under which it has presented itself, and to carry it back to a wider ground, which will at once serve as an illustration and as an argument for the course which commended itself at the time of which I spoke.

It is right to say that in what follows I do not touch on the question how far it is right or expedient for the Church to control the opinions of its individual members. That is a matter for the authorities to determine in each particular instance. The Duke of Argyll made some pertinent remarks on this subject a few months ago in speaking of the Church of Scotland.

But the question of subscription is much more simple. It is an expedient that could hardly be adopted in other matters. No one promises beforehand to obey the statutes of the realm. When they are put in force against him he feels bound to obey or to resist, as the case may be; but his conscience is not entangled by any preliminary declaration of his adherence to them. No one subscribes beforehand to the contents of the Bible or to the excellence of the versions of King James or of the University printing presses. It is enough that we accept them for their intrinsic merit. In this respect I have always agreed with Bishop Burnet: "Churches and societies

are much better secured by laws than by subscription. It is a much more reasonable as a more easy mode of government."

The proposition which I maintain is that subscription to any doc

*Address read at Sion College, Dec. 7, 1880.

ument is always misleading, always futile; and that it has been proved to be so on the most colossal scale by the historical precedent to which I am now about to refer. This was to a great extent remedied some fourteen years ago; but if it needs to be remedied yet further, that remedy should be at once applied.

In the year 1841 there took place the greatest uprising against the letter of the Anglican formularies that has ever been known before or since. In that year there appeared a celebrated tract which gave expression to a large amount of feeling prevailing at that time amongst the clergy of the Church of England, in which the Thirtynine Articles were, as it were, taken to pieces, and one by one dissected and disemboweled before the eyes of an astonished public. The belief lown to that time had been that, whatever else the Articles might be, they were a declaration unmistakable against the Church of Rome. They were the declaration which, in the great struggle of the Reformation, the Church of England, like the other Protestant churches, adopted as a means of expressing its own deliberate conviction. They partook of the same character as all the Protestant Confessions, except that so far as the Protestant churches were divided into two sections, the Confession of Augsburg and the Scandinavian Confessions represented the Lutheran; the Helvetic Confession, the Heidelberg Catechism, the Westminster Confession and the Thirty-nine Articles represented the Reformed. It was therefore a reasonable conviction that in this document, if in any, was to be found a safeguard against the principles of the Church of Rome. A few of the Articles, such as those from Article I to Article V, were directed against the ancient heresies of the early centuries; a few others, such as part of Articles XXXVII, XXXVIII and XXXIX were directed against the revolutionary tendencies of the extreme Anabaptists; but the remaining thirty were devoted to the setting forth of what were believed to be the points on which the Protestant churches had with much labor and pain broken free from the great Church of the West. This was the bulwark which was supposed to be contained in the Articles; and it was securely fenced in, as it was thought, by a series of subscriptions which prevented at every point the intrusion of the opposite opinion. There was first a subscription from all undergraduates of Oxford above the age of twelve years, which was expressed by signature without any precise form of words. There was further added in 1603 a subscription to the Royal Supremacy, to the Book of Common Prayer and to the Thirty-nine Articles, expressed in these words: "I do willingly and from my heart subscribe to the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion of the United Church of England and Ireland, and to the three articles of the 36th canon, and to all things that are contained in them."

The three articles of the canon were as follows: "1. That the Queen's Majesty, under God, is the only supreme governor of this realin and of all other Her Highness's dominions and countries, as