292 LIFE AND CORRESrOXDENCE OF THE {}7^9 



fell on this happy idea, a happy one I must myself call it; al- 

 though I am aware that in so far as it makes selections of verses 

 from Psalms instead of selections of Psalms from the Psalter — 

 which it does in the case of about one-third of the Psalms selected 

 — it is open, to a certain, though far inferior degree, to the objec- 

 tions made to the Psalter as given in the Proposed Book. No 

 doubt some beautiful Psalms are not in the selections. But the 

 Psalms of the regular Psalter for many days are free from objec- 

 tion. So the omission of certain verses in certain Psalms — except 

 that brevity was sought for — may be called, as it has been called, 

 capricious; the verses omitted being in themselves as appropriate 

 nearly or quite as others left. But brevity was one object of the 

 Selections. The seventh and eighth Selections were suggested 

 by Bishop White. Certainly — with all that may be suggested 

 against them — the Selections are distinguished by great beauty. 

 The choice and the arrangement are indicative alike of a knowl- 

 edge of the Psalter and of rich and exquisite taste. I have al- 

 ready expressed my great surprise that the clergy so seldom use 

 these selections — which if they object to any omission of any 

 verse in any Psalm they can still do, for some of the selections are 

 of Psalms in their entirety; but on the contrary, with a dull for- 

 mality, worthy of the compilers of an almanac, stick doggedly to 

 "days of the month," and force upon their parishioners as " Psalms 

 of David " compositions some of which are not David's Psalms at 

 all ; and others of which, whether so or not, are certainly incom- 

 prehensible to the common readers, even when understood — 

 which they are not always — by the minister. I find no fault with 

 the clergy; but only with their forcing upon mixed congregations 

 certain Psalms which they should never make a mixed congrega- 

 tion read anywhere but in their own closets, and with the com- 

 mentaries of Bishop Home and the more ponderous and partner- 

 ship volumes of Drs. Neale and Littledale as expositions. 



I am not disposed to institute any comparisons between the 

 Proposed Book and the Book of Common Prayer as now in use 

 in the United States. In some particular respects I prefer, and I 

 think that churchmen in this day generally would prefer, Avhat we 

 find in the former book. In its abbreviation of the beautiful, 

 tender and sublime conclusion of the Bencdictus (St. Luke ii. 68) 

 I think the Convention of 1789 made a great mistake. What can 



