17. "Conversation with men of genius is another means of improving our natural taste. It is impossible for a man of the greatest parts, to consider any thing in its whole extent. Every man, beside general observations upon an author, forms some that are peculiar to his own way of thinking. So that conversation will naturally furnish us with hints which we did not attend to, and make us enjoy other men's parts and reflections as well as our own." Besides, if we converse freely with men of taste, and incite them to "open the window in their breast," we may learn to correct whatever is yet amiss in our taste, as well as to supply whatever we or they perceive to be still wanting: all which may be directed to that glorious end, The pleasing all men, for their good, unto edification.

THOUGHTS ON THE POWER OF MUSIC.

1. BY the Power of Music, I mean, its power to affect the hearers; to raise various passions in the human mind. Of this we have very surprising accounts in ancient history. We are told the ancient Greek musicians in particular, were able to excite whatever passions they pleased to inspire love or hate, joy or sorrow, hope or fear, courage, fury, or despair: yea, to raise these one after another, and to vary the passion, just according to the variation of the music.

2. But how is this to be accounted for? No such effects attend the modern music: although it is confessed on all hands, that our instruments excel theirs beyond all degrees of comparison. What was their lyre, their instruments of seven or ten strings, compared to our violin? What were any of their pipes, to our hautboy or German flute? What all of them put together, all that were in use two or three thousand years ago, to our organ? How is it then, that with this inconceivable advantage, the modern music has less power than the ancient?

3. Some have given a very short answer to this, cutting the knot which they could not untie. They have doubted, or affected to doubt the fact: perhaps have even denied it. But no sensible man will do this, unless he be utterly blinded by prejudice. For it would be denying the faith of all history: seeing no fact is better authenticated. None is delivered down to us by more unquestionable testimony; such as fully satisfies in all other cases. We have, therefore, no more reason to doubt of the power of Timotheus' music, than that of Alexander's arms and we may deny his taking Persepolis, as well as his burning it through that sudden rage, which was excited in him by that musician. And the various effects which were successively wrought in his mind, (so beautifully described by Dryden, in his Ode on Cecilia's-day,) are astonishing instances of the power of a single harp, to transport, as it were, the mind out of itself.

4. Nay, we read of an instance, even in modern history, of the

power of music not inferior to this. A musician being brought to the king of Denmark, and asked, whether he could excite any passion, answered in the affirmative, and was commanded to make the trial upon the King himself. Presently the monarch was all in tears; and upon the musician's changing his mood, he was quickly roused into such fury, that snatching a sword from one of his assistant's hands, (for they had purposely removed his own) he immediately killed him, and would have killed all in the room, had he not been forcibly withheld.

5. This alone removes all the incredibility of what is related concerning the ancient music. But why is it that modern music, in general, has no such effect on the hearers? The grand reason seems to be no other than this: the whole nature and design of music is altered. The ancient composers studied melody alone: the due arrangement of single notes and it was by melody alone, that they wrought such wonderful effects. And as this music was directly calculated to move the passions, so they designed it for this very end. But the modern composers study harmony, which in the present sense of the word is quite another thing, namely, a contrast of various notes, opposite to, and yet blended with each other, wherein they,

"Now high, now low, pursue the resonant fugue."

Dr. Gregory says, this harmony has been known in the world little more than two hundred years. Be that as it may, ever since it was introduced, ever since counterpoint has been invented, as it has altered the grand design of music, so it has well nigh destroyed its effects.

6. Some indeed have imagined, and attempted to prove, that the ancients were acquainted with this. It seems, there needs but one single argument to demonstrate the contrary. We have many capital pieces of ancient music, that are now in the hands of the curious. Dr. Pepusch, who was well versed in the music of antiquity, (perhaps the best of any man in Europe,) showed me several large Greek folios which contained many of their musical compositions. Now is there, or is there not, any counterpoint in these? The learned know, there is no such thing. There is not the least trace of it to be found it is all melody, and no harmony.

7. And as the nature of music is thus changed, so is likewise the design of it. Our composers do not aim at moving the passions, but at quite another thing: at varying and contrasting the notes a thousand different ways. What has counterpoint to do with the passions? It is applied to a quite different faculty of the mind: not to our joy, or hope, or fear; but merely to the ear, to the imagination, or internal sense. And the pleasure it gives is not upon this principle; not by raising any passion whatever. It no more affects the passions, than the judgment: both the one and the other lie quite out of its province.

Need we any other, and can we have any stronger proof of

this, than those modern overtures, voluntaries, or concertos, which consist altogether of artificial sounds, without any words at all? What have any of the passions to do with these? What has judg-ment, reason, common sense? Just nothing at all. All these are utterly excluded, by delicate, unmeaning sound!

9. In this respect the modern music has no connexion with common sense, any more than with the passions. In another it is glaringly, undeniably contrary to common sense: namely, in allowing, nay, appointing different words, to be sung by different persons at the same time! What can be more shocking to a man of understanding than this? Pray which of those sentences am I to attend to? I can attend to only one sentence at once: and I hear three or four at one and the same instant! And, to complete the matter, this astonishing jargon has found a place even in the worship of God! It runs through (O pity! O shame!) the greatest part even of our Church music! It is found even in the finest of our anthems, and in the most solemn parts of our public worship! Let any impartial, any unprejudiced person say, whether there can be a more direct mockery of God!

10. But to return. Is it strange, that modern music does not answer the end it is not designed for? And which it is in nowise calculated for? It is not possible it should. Had Timotheus "pursued the resonant fugue," his music would have been quite harmless. It would have affected Alexander no more than Bucephalus : the finest city then in the world had not been destroyed: but

Persepolis stares, Cyrique arx alla maneres.

11. It is true, the modern music has been sometimes observed to have as powerful an effect as the ancient so that frequently single persons, and sometimes numerous assemblies have been seen in a flood of tears. But when was this? Generally, if not always, when a fine solo was sung: when "the sound has been an echo to the sense:" when the music has been extremely simple and inartificial, the composer having attended to melody not harmony. Then, and then only, the natural power of music to move the passions has appeared. This music was calculated for that end, and effectually answered it.

12. Upon this ground it is, that so many persons are so much affected by Scotch or Irish airs. They are composed, not according to art, but nature: they are simple in the highest degree. There is no harmony, according to the present sense of the word, therein; but there is much melody. And this is not only heard, but felt by all those who retain their native taste: whose taste is not biassed, (I might say, corrupted,) by attending to counterpoint and complicated music. It is this, it is counterpoint, it is harmony (so called) which destroys the power of our music. And if ever this should be banished from our composition, if ever we should return to the simplicity and melody of the ancients, then the effects of our music will be as surprising as any that were wrought by theirs; yea, perhaps they

will be as much greater, as modern instruments are more excellent than those of the ancients.

INVERNESS, June 9, 1779.

THOUGHTS UPON JACOB BEHMEN.

I HAVE considered the Memoirs of Jacob Behmen, of which I will speak very freely.

I believe he was a good man. But I see nothing extraordinary cither in his life or in his death. I have known many, both men and women, who were far more exemplary in their lives, and far more honoured of God in their deaths.

I allow he wrote many truths; but none that would have appeared at all extraordinary, had he thrown aside his hard words, and used plain and common language.

What some seem most to admire in his writings, is what I most object to: I mean his philosophy, and his phraseology. really his own and they are quite new

wrong.

These are therefore they are quite

I totally object to his blending religion with philosophy; and as vain a philosophy as ever existed: crude, indigested, supported neither by Scripture nor reason; nor any thing but his own ipse dixit.

I grant, Mr. Law, by taking immense pains, has licked it into some shape. And he has made it hang tolerably together. But still it admits of no manner of proof.

And all he writes concerning religion is what very many have said before him, and in a far better manner.

To his whole scheme I object,

1. The whole foundation of it is wrong: the very attempt to explain religion, which is the most simple thing in the world, by an abstruse, complicated, philosophical theory, is the most absurd thing that can be conceived.

Either St. Paul Mr. Law supposes

I pray, consider, but one argument against it. and St. John knew this theory, or they did not. they did not know it; but that Jacob knew more than they both. I verily think, this needs no confutation. Let him believe it that can. But if they did know it, how did they dare to conceal any part of the counsel of God?

Upon the theory itself, I shall only repeat a very little of what I observed in my printed Letter to Mr. Law, p. 8, &c.

"All that can be conceived," (says Mr. Law, quoting from Jacob,) "is God, or Nature, or Creature."

Is Nature created or not created? It must be one or the other;

for there is no medium. If not created, it is God. If created, is it not a creature? How then can there be three, God, Nature, and Creature? Since Nature must coincide either with God or Creature.

"Nature is in itself a hungry, wrathful, fire of life. Nature is and can be only a Desire. Desire is the very Being of Nature." "Nature is only a Desire, because it is for the sake of something else! Nature is only a Torment: because it cannot help itself to what it wants."

Shame to human understanding! That any man should fall in love with such stark staring nonsense as this!

"Nature, as well as God, is antecedent to all Creature.

There is an eternal Nature, as universal and as unlimited as God." Is then Nature God! Or, are there two Eternal, Universal, Infinite Beings? "Nothing is before Eternal Nature, but God." Nothing but! Is any thing before that which is Eternal?

"Nature, and Darkness, and Self, are but three different expressions for one and the same thing. Nature has all Evil and no Evil in it."

"Nature has seven chief properties, and can have neither more nor less, because it is a Birth from the Deity in Nature." (Is Nature a Birth from the Deity in Nature? Is not this a flat contradiction ?) "For God is triune, and Nature is triune:" (Nature triune! Prove it who can.) "And hence arise properties, three and three :" Why not four and four? "And that which brings three and three into union, is another property." Sublime jargon!

"The three first properties of Nature are the whole essence of that Desire, which is, and is called Nature." A part of its properties are the whole essence of it! Flat contradiction again!

"The three first properties of Nature are, Attraction, Resistance, and Whirling. In these three Properties of the Desire, you see the reason of the three great laws of matter and motion."

How does it appear, that these are any of the properties of Nature, if you mean by Nature any thing distinct from matter? And how are they properties of desire?

"The fourth property is fire: the fifth, the form of light and love" (what is the form of love? And are light and love the same thing?) "The sixth, sound or understanding," (the same thing doubtless!) "The seventh, a life of triumphing joy." Is then a life of triumphing joy, "that which brings the three and three properties into union ?" If so, how is it "the result of that union ?""

Once more. "Attraction is an incessant working of three contrary properties, drawing, resisting, and whirling." That is, in plain terms, "drawing is incessant drawing, resistance, and whirling."

Such is the philosophy which Jacob received by immediate inspiration! (to mention only the first principles of it.) And by which he is to explain all religion, and the whole Revelation of God!

I. As to his divinity, I object, first, to the very design of explaining religion by any philosophy whatever. The Scripture gives us