Abbey, by one of his own servants, his lordship ordered him to marry her, under pain of his highest displeasure. This is, indeed, one of the most unequivocal traces we have yet found of Lord Byron's respect for female virtue; but, if this servant knew of his master's own laxity and licentiousness, he could hardly have allowed him much credit for his motives in issuing the command. Among the fairer aspects of Lord Byron's character, should be placed his testimony to the misery and unprofitableness of vicious courses; for his reflections on this subject, if they produced no permanently good effect upon his own mind, neverthe less displayed the force of truth, and the upbraidings of conscience, and may afford a salutary warning to others. "I sought," said he to Captain Medwin," to distract my mind from a sense of her desolation and my own solitude, by plunging into a vortex that was any thing but pleasure. When one gets into a mill stream, it is difficult to swim against it, and keep out of the wheels. The consequences of being carried down by it would furnish an excellent lesson for youth. You are too old to profit by it. But who ever profited by the experience of others, or his own?"-How then could Lord Byron's own experience prove "a lesson to youth?" He continues "When you read my memoirs, you will learn the evils, moral and physical, of true dissipation. I assure you my life is very entertaining and very instructive." Happily for Happily for the world, these "entertaining memoirs" have been committed to the flames; otherwise we should perhaps have had some new supplement to the Confessions of Rousseau, or an addition to the number of those voluptuous narratives which disgrace French authorship, and operate, like a moral blight and mildew, on the imagination of the young. What Cowper says, and justly, of the mass of novels, is still more applicable to such works as these: "O that a word had power, and could command, Far, far away these flesh flies from the land." We have, then, in the late Lord Byron another signal witness to the miseries of a life of vice and dissipation. Like the gay and witty Lord Chesterfield, he had been behind the scenes: he had "smelt the tallow candles," and seen that collection of filth, rubbish, and trumpery, which is concealed from the eyes of the uninitiated spectator by the pomp and gaiety of the external show. But, alas! did not he too, like Lord Chesterfield, "resolve to sleep in the carriage during the remainder of his journey?" When, upon one occasion, Mr. Dallas recommended to him the study of Christianity, as "the only refuge for fallen man," his reply was, that "he would have nothing to do with the subject." “We should all,” he added, "go down together. Let us eat and drink, for to-morrow we die." It is with no feelings of proud self-complacency, far less of malignant satisfaction, (this would be horrible,) that the true Christian contemplates traits of character such as these. When, as here, he observes them in an individual animated with the mens divinior of genius, and gifted with powers and advantages that might have qualified him for the most extensive usefulness, he is affected with lively emotions of sorrow and regret, and mourns over the desolation of so much grandeur, like the musing traveller, standing by the time-worn temple of Balbec, or amidst the ruins of Palmyra. The reflections of Lord Byron respecting a life of dissipation may prove a source of much useful instruction even to those who have been happily preserved from such a life, and whose characters are established for moral decorum, if not for Christian virtue and consistency. They should be led to feel more. deeply the gratitude due to God for those circumstances, and that course of education which have operated, through his grace, as a salutary restraint upon their conduct. If they have escaped the rocks and quicksands themselves, they should still learn to reflect, deeply and tenderly, on the situation of those under their authority, who are but just embarking on the voyage of life, or who, from the want of early culture, are less armed against its perils. Let them look well to their children and domestics. Let them govern their households with that union of prudence and piety which will be most likely to ensure success. Let them study the dispositions of their offspring, and apply, not the harshest, but the wisest, remedies to their faults, and particularly in the case of such as may betray early symptoms of superior abilities, and of what frequently attends them-ar dent feelings and strong passions. Such a temperament requires often the nicest and most careful management; and many such characters have been ruined through a want of sufficient openness and encouragement on the part of the parent, leading the child to a confidential disclosure of his errors, before they become so great as to drive him either into open profligacy or hypocritical concealment. If even good men would but dedicate half of that time, which they are apt to bestow on comparative trifles, to study the dispositions and welfare of their children, what incalculable benefit might ensue! Even those who not only know, but in the main practise their duty, still feel the benefit of striking mementos, occurring from time to time, of the miseries of sinful courses. The late Lord Byron is one of these mementos; and, though the circumstances of his talents and genius place him out of the range of ordinary experience, it will be our own fault if we do not learn some lessons of true wisdom from his confessions of his folly. (To be continued.) Tothe Editorofthe Christian Observer. AMONG the plans for facilitating business, public and private, civil and ecclesiastical, which have been adopted with the most beneficial effects in modern days, it may, perhaps, excite surprise that no remedy has been proposed for the irregularities and inconveniences which arise from the moveable festivals. In our universities, in the church, in the courts of law, in parliament, in the public offices, and in innumerable details, in every department of life, an almanack is often absolutely necessary, before a single step can be safely taken. We must "follow still the changes of the moon," and cannot tell, till we accurately consult that presiding luminary, what we are to do in the church or the counting-house, in the senate or the college, in the forum or the jail. The prisoner computes the chances of a longer or shorter confinement, the senator of his recess from public duties, the parish officer of the termination of his labours, the divine the collection of his annual offerings, the school-boy, the clerk, the academic, the dates of their business and repose, from a fluctuating æra never two successive years the same. Might not these inconveniences be obviated without any offence to religion or the most cautious spirit of ecclesiastical discipline? Why might not Easter day, "on which all the rest depend," be legislatively determined to fall on a fixed Sunday in the month, towards the close of March, or the beginning of April, within the present prescribed limits. The intention and utility of this joyful festival, in which we commemorate an event most interesting to every Christian, would not be in the least disturbed by making it a fixed instead of a moveable observance. Easter would still be Easter, as to all its religious and other uses, whether it began a few days sooner or later; and the convenience of having the exact day fixed and invariable would be very great in the arrange ments of business, which are often seriously disturbed by the present irregularities. The clerical and legal professions, in particular, would find great advantages from such a provision; and the only persons who would suffer by it would be the almanack makers, whose commodity of "terms and returns" would thus be rendered useless to society. I am not aware that any objection of weight can be brought against the proposed change. It may, indeed, be urged that the day ought to be the real anniversary of the event which it is intended to commemorate; and it must be confessed, that a devout and reverential feeling of mind is often excited by such solemn observances, which will, in many cases, be the more lively in proportion as the circumstances of the commemoration partake of a greater degree of verisimilitude. Perfect accuracy in these matters is, however, out of the question: no Protestant, for example, supposes that the 25th of December is the precise anniversary of the Incarnation, or feels his commemoration of that event to be the less profitable, on account of this ambiguity. And with regard to the celebration of Easter, every reader of history is aware how little can be boasted of uniformity or precision. The whole detail, on this point, would be too long for the purpose of the present paper; but a brief mention of a few circumstances may not be improper, with a view to inform the general reader, how little the fear of change is to be dreaded in an affair, the whole history of which has been change from beginning to end. Even in the first ages of Christianity, there arose great disputes between the churches of Asia and other churches, respecting the day on which Easter ought to be celebrated. The Asiatic churches kept their Easter on the precise day, (whether it happened to be the Lord's day or not,) on which the Jews celebrated their passover, namely, the 14th of the month Nisan, which month began at the new moon next to the vernal equinox. Other churches, especially those of the West, kept their Easter on the Sunday following the Jewish passover. Both sides pleaded apostolical tradition; the Asiatics professing to follow the example of St. John, the others that of St. Peter and St. Paul. The dispute at length became so violent that Constantine thought it necessary to interfere, and procured some canons to be passed by the council of Nice, decreeing, that the 21st of March was to be accounted the vernal equinox; the full moon happening upon, or next after, that day, the full moon of Nisan; the Lord's day next after that full moon, Easter day; or, if the full moon happened on a Sunday, then the Sunday after. The fathers of the next century ordered the moon's age to be calculated by Meton's cycle of the moon, and this cycle was accordingly placed in the calendar. But this cycle of nineteen years, being an hour and a half too long, in the course of time the accumulated error had amounted to about five days: besides which, there was also a solar error, the Julian year exceeding the real one by about eleven minutes; so that the equinoxes had become eleven or twelve days too forward from the time of the Nicene council. Hence, the first full moon after the 21st of March, was not always the first full moon after the vernal equinox; so that those who observed the Nicene canon in the letter, were, in fact, deviating from its express intention. The whole church was, however, very strict in adhering to this erroneous formula; and so tender was it of the authority of the fathers, that astronomy and the plainest matter of fact were sacrificed to it; and dire woes had betided the heretic who should have thought he saw a new or full moon in the heavens, when the Nicene canon declared the contrary. The council of Chalcedon, held about 200 years after the Nicene, issued a formula, grounded on the orthodox Nicene doctrine, though at war both with the sun and the moon, and declared that, whosoever celebrated Easter on any other day than that prescribed should be accounted a heretic, and punished accordingly. This formula was religiously observed for about 534 years, till Pope Gregory XIII., in the year 1582, brought back the vernal equinox to the 21st of March; and, in the year 1752, a similar reform was made in the Church-of-England calendar, by an Act of Parliament prescribing that the 3d day of September, of that year, should be entitled the 14th; thereby suppressing eleven days. These, however, are but a part of the vicissitudes of this celebrated festival; the rules for finding which have been repeatedly changed, and have never yet been reduced to astronomical accuracy. Cycles on cycles have been, from time to time, framed; such as the cycle of eightyfour years, which continued to be used in the British churches long after its errors had been detected at Rome, and a new cycle invented, namely the Victorian cycle of 552 years, which was then decreed to be the right one, and tables were grounded upon it, which, however, were superseded, like their precursors, and so on through various other mutations and mistakes too tedious to be enumerated. After so many edicts and corrections, all in their turn duly and exclusively authorised, I trust that the charge of innovation will not be thought very weighty, in reference to the object of the present paper, Tothe Editorofthe Christian Observer. MANY strong and pointed remonstrances have appeared in your pages respecting the gross violation of the Sabbath-day by public conveyances, such as coaches, vans, waggons, barges, &c.? Are Christians justified in viewing this systematic breach of one of the most positive and minute of the Divine commandments, and of our own national laws, without offering united, vigorous, systematic, and public opposition to it? Unless immediate steps are taken to check the present extent of the crime, it will rapidly increase: the projected railroad companies, for example, will of course claim the right of being on a par with other carriers: no distinction will therefore be made by them between the Lord's day and other days; and as the country is intended to be intersected by new lines of roads, numerous parts through which no Sunday conveyances now regularly pass, will soon witness and partake in the crime. I would most earnestly inquire, Can nothing be done to put a stop to this great and rapidly increasing evil? SPES. REVIEW OF NEW PUBLICATIONS. Book of the Church. By ROBERT (Concluded from p. 46.) THE brevity with which Mr. Southey finds himself constrained to speak of CRHIST, OBSERV. No. 278. ecclesiastical matters not immediately connected with the Church of England, seems occasionally to give rise to incorrect representations; and the Waldenses, in particular, have much reason to complain of it. The name of that people stands in the running title of an early page of N the 11th chapter: and the reader will find that they are made responsible not only for the tenets which they actually maintained, but for principles asserted by other persons, with whom they concurred in little more than in hostility to the Romish superstitions. On what evidence is it affirmed concerning the Waldenses, that, "in their condemnation of the ceremonies of the church, they comprehended what was innocent and useful in the same proscription with what was superstitious and injurious;" that, "because the doctrine of merits was preposterous," theymaintained, in any reprehensible way, what Mr. Southey calls "the not less preposterous tenet that the best works of man are sinful in themselves;" and, because the clergy arrogated a monstrous power, that they were "for a levelling system, which, in its direction and certain consequences, extended from religious to political opinions"? That some of the sectaries who arose about this -period embraced doctrines which were highly fanatical, and conducted themselves in a manner very discreditable to religion, is unhappily a well-established fact: but can this charge be justly brought against the Waldenses? Their views upon the great doctrines of religion appear to have been generally such as were adopted at the Reformation, and their lives were remarkably conform able to the purity of their faith. To the Romish Church the very name of Waldenses must be superlatively odious and never, perhaps, were calumny and misrepresentation directed against any class of Christians with more unblushing boldness or more determined animosity. For the real character of that deeply injured people, we refer to Milner's Church History. As to the so-called preposterous tenet that the best works of man are - sinful in themselves, we have some doubt whether Mr. Southey has expressed himself very happily upon the subject; and have, indeed, a lurking suspicion that he has not given to this point the consideration more which it deserves. On looking back to a former page, where he delivers his sentiments on the controversy between Pelagius and Augustine, we find it stated, that, "through the British hierarchy, the reasonable opinion, that the actions of good men were meritorious in themselves, obtained:" and coupling that position with the remark just noticed, concerning the preposterousness of the tenet here ascribed to the Waldenses, we feel ourselves still more confirmed in the persuasion that Mr. Southey's views on these matters are by no means correct. Does he mean to contend that men possess of themselves any power to do that which is good and acceptable in the sight of God; or that either a just work or a holy desire can proceed from any other source than the influence of God's Holy Spirit? If so, whatever might be the errors of the Waldenses, he is directly at variance with the Church of England. The Eleventh and Thirteenth Articles are decisive as to her judgment upon this important subject: "We are accounted righteous before God only for the merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, by faith, and not for our works and deservings. Wherefore, that we are justified by faith only, is a most wholesome doctrine, and very full of comfort, as more largely is expressed in the homily of Justification*." "Works done before the grace of Christ and the inspiration of his Spirit, are not pleasant to God: forasmuch as they spring not of faith in Jesus Christ, neither do they make men meet to receive grace, or (as the school authors say) deserve grace of congruity; yea rather, for that they are not done as God hath commanded and willed them to be done, we doubt not but that they have the nature of sin." Now, so far as we find, these were in substance the very doctrines held by the Waldenses they taught the doctrine of can We recommend that homily to the attentive perusal of those who doubt the views of the Church of England on this subject. |