Immagini della pagina
PDF
ePub

tee and the Editors of the Book Concern, for their joint examination and revision; and having been approved by them, it was presented to the Bishops "for a final review," which they gave to it. and then cordially recommended the new book to the patronage and adoption of the Church.

The above is a very brief and inadequate detail of the manner in which "the fifth revision" of the Hymn Book was accomplished; from which I infer that it was not the work of any single pair of hands, nor, indeed, entirely of the seven pairs of the whole Committee, but the joint production of the Hymn-Book Committee, the Book Committee, the Editors of the Book Concern, and the Bishops of the Church. And it can no more, with propriety, be designated as the sole work of Dr. Floy than the new " Hymnal" can be characterized as the individual production of Dr. Wentworth or Dr. Rice; the relation of these gentlemen to the Committee of fifteen being similar to that of Dr. Floy and Mr. West to the former and smaller Committee of seven.

More than thirty years have elapsed since the publication of the Hymn Book of 1849, a longer period than the Church has awarded to the use of any other of its hymnals, and an unequivocal testimony of its true merits; during which interval five of the seven brethren who composed the Committee have taken their departure from earth, leaving only Dr. Merrick and myself to tell the story of " the fifth revision." But as Dr. M. was not present at the second and third sessions of the Committee, it seems eminently proper that the writer should give to the Church and the world this correction of the dubious statement of the reviewer of the new Hymnal. David Creamer.

Baltimork, December 7, 1859.

Dr. Witeatley's Reply.

Rev. Dr. Wijedoj*: Mr. Creamer's communication calls in question a statement I never made, namely, that Dr. Floy was the sofo author of the fifth revision. It does not affect the statement that Dr. Floy was the principal factor of that production. The authorities for that statement are as follows: 1. Dr. Floy's own hymn book, in the margin of which are entries in his own handwriting, stating that such and such alterations, etc., were made by his sole authority. 2. The statement of Rev. J. Longking, who was printer at the time, that Dr. Floy transposed hymns, altered meters, etc., while the book was passing through the press, and that he did this without the concurrent aid of the

After the adjournment of the General Conference the IlymnBook Committee at once entered earnestly upon their labors in the city of New York, where all their meetings were held, and Dr. Floy and Mr. West, who resided in that city, were appointed a subcommittee to act as secretaries. Their duties embraced whatever legitimately belonged to the revision and was matter of record, as. correspondence, (which was very extensive,) arrangement of the hymns chosen by the Committee according to an adopted plan, and correcting the proof-sheets of the work as they came from the press.

The Committee had three sessions, and nine meetings at each session, making twenty-seven meetings in all, in the course of which the old book was examined throughout three times, and a separate vote was taken upon every hymn before it was admitted into the revised version. There were six members, out of seven, present at every meeting of the Committee.

Besides the labor expended in committee, much more was accomplished by the members at their homes; and Dr. Floy probably traveled considerably in visiting various 'libraries in pursuit of his portion of the work. He thus spent several days in the library of the writer, at Baltimore, which were industriously devoted by both of us to the selection of hymns for the revised book ; where, twenty-nine years afterward, in 1877, Dr. Wontworth spent nearly two weeks in a similar employment with the writer and his son.

Professor Merrick, who attended only the first session of the Committee, comprising three days and nine sittings, compensated for his absence from the subsequent meetings by sending to the Committee at its second session a valuable manuscript criticism upon the whole book to be revised, which was carefully consulted both in committee and by the several members thereof. There were also similar criticisms forwarded to the Committee by outside parties, from which much useful information was derived.

The distant members of the Committee were in constant correspondence with the subcommittee or secretaries, and no new hymns, as in the case of the old ones, was allowed to be entered into the revised book until it had received the approval of a majority of the Committee. And it is but fair to assert that every member thereof has left his impress upon that work.

Within a year from their appointment, the Committee having completed their labors, in accordance with the directions of the General Conference, submitted their work to the Book CommitI

tee and the Editors of the Book Concern, for their joint examination and revision; and having been approved by them, it was presented to the Bishops "for a final review," which they gave to it. and then cordially recommended the new book to the patronage and adoption of the Church.

The above is a very brief and inadequate detail of the manner in which "the fifth revision " of the Hymn Book was accomplished: from which I infer that it was not the work of any single pair of hands, nor, indeed, entirely of the seven pairs of the whole Committee, but the joint production of the Hymn-Book Committee, the Book Committee, the Editors of the Book Concern, and the Bishops of the Church. And it can no more, with propriety, be designated as the sole work of Dr. Floy than the new " Hymnal " can be characterized as the individual production of Dr. Wentworth or Dr. Rice; the relation of these gentlemen to the Committee of fifteen being similar to that of Dr. Floy and Mr. West to the former and smaller Committee of seven.

More than thirty years have elapsed since the publication of the Hymn Book of 1849, a longer period than the Church has awarded to the use of any other of its hymnals, and an unequivocal testimony of its true merits; during which interval five of the seven brethren who composed the Committee have taken their departure from earth, leaving only Dr. Merrick and myself to toll the story of "the fifth revision." But as Dr. M. was not present at the second and third sessions of the Committee, it seems eminently proper that the writer should give to the Church and the world this correction of the dubious statement of the reviewer of the new Hymnal. David Creamer.

Baltimore, December 1, 1859.

Dr. Wheatley's Keply.

Rev. Dr. Wuedon: Mr. Creamer's communication calls in question a statement I never made, namely, that Dr. Floy was the lio/e author of the fifth revision. It does not affect the statement that Dr. Floy was the principal factor of that production. The authorities for that statement are as follows: 1. Dr. Floy's own hymn book, in the margin of which are entries in his own handwriting, stating that such and such alterations, etc., were made by his sole authority. 2. The statement of Rev. J. Longking, who was printer at the time, that Dr. Floy transposed hymns, altered meters, etc., while the book was passing through the press, and that he did this without the concurrent aid of the or'rapid it may be, must operate in the way of a geometrical ratio. The same causes which double a population of one thousand will double a population of one thousand millions. For example: a given rate of increase between 1790 and 1800 added only 1,200,000 to the white population of this country ; between 1830 and 1S40 the same rate of increase added 3,600,000. Our population was more than doubled between 1790 and 1820 ; it was again more than doubled between 1820 and 1850. But the former doubling added less than five millions to our numbers, while the latter one added over ten millions; and the next doublmg, in 1SS0, will have added considerably more than twenty millions. Inevitably then, if the population increase at all, it must increase in the way of a geometrical progression—that is, as the numbers 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, etc.

But the means of subsistence, at best, cannot possibly be made to increase faster than in an arithmetical ratio—that is, as the numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, etc. The surface of the earth affords only a limited extent of ground, and this is of various degrees of fertility, large portions of it being hardly cultivable at all. By putting more ground in cultivation and improving the modes of ag- ■ riculture, it is conceivable that, within twenty-five years, the quantity of food should be doubled. But it is not conceivable that more than this should be accomplished ; that is, that the second twenty-five years should make a larger addition to the existing stock than was obtained during the former period. Hence, under the most favorable supposition that can be made, beginning with an annual product equal to one million bushels of wheat, at the end of the first quarter of a century this might be raised to two millions, at the end of the second quarter to three millions, and at the close of the third period to four millions.—Pp. 448, 449.

Adoption Of The Doctrine And Its Results.

The inferences from this theory were logically of the most inhumane character. If the increase of life was the great dan ger, all humanitarianism was essentially criminal. Charity was a folly. Vaccination was the enemy, and Bmall-pox the benefactor. Marriage and fecundity were crimes against the public welfare. These conclusions were, of course, welcome to the English aristocracy, both as refuting the revolutionary doctrines and ;is relieving them of all responsibility for the miseries of the lower classes. Political economy was, down to a late period, based on Malthusianism. "These opinions led to the enactment, in 1834, of the New Poor Law, the avowed purpose of which was to prevent what is called 'outdoor relief,' and to collect the destitute and starving in union work-houses, where, as in jails, the separation of the sexes, the lowness of the diet, and the general severity of the regimen, should be a terror to the evil-doers who had presumed to burden society with their superfluous progeny. If the crime was not literally theirs, it was at any rate their parents' fault, and the sins of the fathers must be visited upon the children in order to deter others from like offenses. 'Go to the work-house, or starve,' was henceforth to be the answer to all applicants for parochial relief; and the reader of Dickens need not be reminded that many of them preferred the latter alternative."—P. 450.

Its Practical Refutation.

As Malthusianism is a signal instance showing how a dogma may demoralize a people, so its refutation, brought about by its effects, shows how a fact may demolish a dogma.

But the triumph of Malthusianism lasted only for about half a century, and its decline and fall have been even more rapid than its rise. The tide turned about the time of the famine in Ireland in 1846-47, and the consequent fearful exodus from that unhappy island, which, in less than ten years, deprived it of full one fourth of its population. In 1845 the number of persons in that country was estimated at 8,295,000, and they were increasing with considerable rapidity. In 1851 the population was only 6,574,278; and in i871 it was less than five and one half millions, being a diminution of nearly thirty-five per cent. The Malthusians themselves were appalled at such a result. For. the evil did not stop with the immediate diminution of numbers ; as usual, in such cases, it was chiefly those who were in the flower of life, the healthy and the strong, who emigrated, leaving behind them the aged, the feeble, and the diseased. .Hence the people at home deteriorated in vitality and working power even in a higher ratio than their decrease in numbers. At the same period there was also a great emigration, though by no means to an equivalent extent, from England, and especially from Scotland, where the great land-owners had acted on Malthusian principles by depopulating their vast estates, unrooting the cottages over their tenants' heads, and thus compelling them to ship themselves beyond sea. Then came the great trials of the Crimean war and the Indian mutiny, with the attendant difficulty of recruiting the army, so that the country awoke to a knowledge of the sad truth thai, in banishing their people, they were drying up the sources of thenproductive power and their military strength.—Pp. 451, 452.

Tkue Laws Of FECUNDrrr. The discussion brings out some interesting conclusions in regard to the true principles of population. The first prominent

« IndietroContinua »