diffusion of music is greater upon the whole, though some of those exhibitions which have raised it to its high and palmy state, are not likely to continue to receive the patronage by which they have reached their elevation. But so eccentric is the operation of the force applied to art, and so inconstant is fashion, that we shall not venture to predict the future destinies of music. It is enough that we see an almost universal delight derived from its enjoyments— that we see charities aided, talent encouraged, money circulated, the public amused, private society enlivened, and manners refined by its diversified employment and its various gratifications.

The following paper has been transmitted to us by a gentleman whose abilities have long rendered him the admiration of the professional world, and the delight of all who have had the gratification of witnessing the demonstration of his powers. The sentiments it conveys are those of good taste, not less than of a pious mind.

That species of vocal composition denominated glees, in the skilful construction of which graceful melody and sound harmony ought to be blended, is very generally and deservedly admired and encouraged in our country. It is divided into two branches, the serious and the chearful glee. Serious glee is a term somewhat paradoxical, but the accepted meaning of it appears to be, that sort of musical piece in three, four, five, or six parts, the words of which have either a moral, descriptive, or pathetic character, distinguished from such as have chiefly hilarity or festivity for their principal subject.

It must indeed be acknowledged that a majority of the latter kind have seldom either elegance, wit, or sentiment to recommend the poetry, this being (too frequently) a farrago of trite Bacchanalian vulgarity.

The adage, “de gustibus non est disputandum," is peculiarly applicable to mixed societies, and as serious and chearful glees are both equally in request at public musical parties, and since good music ought always to be the basis of both, monotony would be inevitable without an interchange of style, and disgust rather than gratification would be the most probable result.

As this paper is not designed for a dissertation on the respective merits of glees in general, but to direct attention to one glee in particular, I proceed towards that individual point.

We may safely assert, (as a moral axiom) that no vocal composition of any description, wherein the words have a tendency to excite and recommend impious ideas, ought to be tolerated in any society where religion is properly respected."

Now there is a composition of this unhappy sort, which I think will, upon a fair consideration of it, subject the author of the words but too justly to the charge of gross impiety.

To render the subject intelligible, some previous explanation is necessary.

The sacrifice of the mass seems (at first mention) to have no affinity to glees of any sort, and surely was never so intended. However it is, in the present instance, one cause of the following animadversions, (all which, I am conscientiously persuaded, are justly deserved,) upon a very mischievous prostitution of the "concord of sweet sounds."

In the famous creed of Pope Pius we read the following article :

"I profess that in the mass is offered to God a proper and propitiatory sacrifice for the living and the dead; and that in the sacrament of the altar are contained the real body and blood, together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and that there is a real conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the body, and of the whole of the wine into the blood, which conversion the Catholic Church calls Transubstantiation."

Every one who has been present throughout the celebration of mass, must have observed that remarkable ceremony, the elevation of the host and chalice, (i. e. of the wafer, and of the cup in which the sacramental wine is contained); both of which the priest lifts above his head immediately after he has pronounced the words of consecration, that the congregation may see and adore what were the elements of bread and wine, now believed to be miraculously converted into the Saviour of mankind.

Near the conclusion of the mass the priest receives the consecrated elements; after which he recites the following prayer : "Corpus tuum Domine quod sumpsi, et sanguis quem potavi, adhereant visceribus meis ; et præsta ut in me non remaneat ulla scelerum macula, quem tam pura et sancta refecerunt sacramenta."*

We now pass on immediately to the matter in question.

The glee alluded to is that popular one (in Latin), beginning "Poculum elevatum;" a masterly composition of the late justly celebrated Dr. Arne, a professed Romanist, and moreover organist of one of the Roman Catholic ambassador's chapels: it will

* Let thy body, O Lord, which I have received, and thy blood which I have drunk, cleave to my bowels; and grant that no stain of wickedness may remain in me, whom sacraments so pure and holy have refreshed.

presently appear that he was a scoffer at the religion he professed; for the exordium of the glee (" Poculum elevatum") cannot be mistaken, as being directly applicable to the elevation of the chalice; and this action constantly accompanies the commencing intonation by the singer, who is on this occasion denominated the high priest.*

The melody set to these two words is a chant (nearly the same as that used at the beginning of the Vespers, to the words "Deus in adjutorium meum intende”), and the concomitant voices (personating the inferior clergy) respond in another chaunt, consisting of plain counterpoint, in four parts.

Two solos follow (chaunted by the pontifex) with appropriate responses, before the latter of which he drinks the contents of this mock chalice; and the assistants (all of whom are provided with wine in their chalices), do the same. †

In the latter solo he chaunts, "Hoc est bonum in visceribus meis," using herein the identical words in the mass, whence there remains "no loop to hang a doubt on," of the author's sarcastic intention.

The present question depends not in any degree upon this other question: whether the doctrine of transubstantiation be true or false whether such a change actually follows from the right acceptation of the words "Hoc est corpus meum;" or whether the doctrine ought to be reckoned among the other manifold corruptions of Christianity? Whether the elements of bread and wine are (by the words of consecration) really transmuted, or remain exactly what they were before-a round wafer of fine paste, and a measure of the juice of the grape? the true question is, whether the sentiments expressed in the glee under examination, be not an intentional and premeditated burlesque of the holy sacrament, and therefore to be reprobated as an anti-Christian abomination.

* This mischievous mimicry of the mass (in barbarous Latin) is known to have been contrived expressly for the diversion of that moral society formerly denominated (par excellence) "The Hell-fire Club," and which consisted of a mixture of noblemen, musicians, and wits. The last, a class of personages very rarely to be met with among the two former.

Having previously chaunted these words, "Hoc est bonum in visceribus tuis et nos consequimur laudes tuas."

"This is good in thy bowels, and we are closely following thy commenda

tion thereof."

The commemoration of the last supper has ever been regarded by Christians as the most solemn and efficacious of all sacred ordinances: All churches and sects (Quakers excepted, and perhaps Unitarians) concur in profound reverence of the institution. I ask, then, ought a jocular or ludicrous allusion to any part of it to be tolerated by Christians of any denomination? It may be said that the reformed churches of Luther and Calvin disclaim all belief of virtue or efficacy in the mass as a propitiatory sacrifice, alleging it to be an idolatrous innovation, repugnant to the doctrine and practice of the primitive ages-and therefore that opposition to it in any form is defensible and harmless: to this it is answeredthat however the original institution of Jesus Christ concerning the Eucharist, may have been deformed and corrupted by superstitious additions, still as the ordinance itself is admitted by Christians to be the most sacred and awful of solemnities, any attempt to vilify or ridicule a rite of so much value and importance justly provokes the heaviest censure, and demands the most unsparing severity.

The exalted estimation of this sacrament in the church of England, is evident from her 18th article [Of the Lord's supper].

"The supper of the Lord is not only a sign of the love that Christians ought to have among themselves one to another, but rather is a sacrament of our redemption by Christ's death, insomuch that to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith receive the same. The bread which we break is a partaking of the body of Christ-of likewise the cup of blessing is a partaking of the blood of Christ."

The following quotation from the church catechism is also in point :

Ques.-Why was the sacrament of the Lord's supper ordained? Answ.-For the continual remembrance of the sacrifice of the death of Christ, and of the benefits which we receive thereby.

Ques. What is the outward part or sign of the Lord's supper? Answ.-Bread and wine, which the Lord hath commanded to be

received.

Ques.-What is the inward part or thing signified ?

Answ.-The body and blood of Christ, which are verily and indeed taken and received by the faithful in the Lord's supper. Ques.-What are the benefits whereof we are partakers thereby? VOL. VII, NO. xxvi.-June, 1825.

Ee