invited to assist. The following is the form of invitation which is issued upon that occasion :

"C'est avec la plus profonde douleur que Monsieur A. B. et ses enfans vous font part de la mort de son fils et de leur père. C. B. décédé le 12 Septembre, 1836, ágé de 33 ans, muni des secours de notre sainte religion.

Le service funèbre et l'enterrement auront lieu à l'église paroissiale de cette ville, lundi 26 du dit mois, à 11 heures du matin ; veuillez les honorer de votre présence, et vous souvenir de l'âme du défunt dans vos prières.

R. I. P.

La première des 30 messes se dira dans la dite église mercredi 28 Septembre, 1836, à 10 heures du matin.”

In the conduct of an ordinary funeral there is nothing remarkable. Mourning coaches are not used, but the body is carried in an open hearse or car; job coaches or char-à-bancs, are provided for the mourners and attendants. In some cases the procession is headed and flanked by persons bearing lighted tapers; and huge wax tapers burn upon the altars, and along the aisles, in greater or less profusion, according to the liberality of the deceased in behalf of the Church. The coffin being placed on a raised platform in front of the altar, the priests, habited in their funeral vests, proceed with the Office des Morts; and the mass concluded, the curé approaches the corpse, removes the pall, and signs the cross upon the coffin with one of the branches of a silver crucifix. Having paced thrice round the body, and sprinkled it with holy water, the procession again moves toward the cemetery, leaving behind them a crowd of the faithful, who continue to pray with all their might for the soul of the deceased, in consideration of the alms which have been doled out to secure their services.

From this digression, it is time to return to the church of NôtreDame. Among the pictorial decorations, there are two which deserves especial attention, at the bottom of either aisle respectively. One is an Adoration of the Magi, by G. Seghers, of which there is a copy on a very reduced scale, by the artist himself, in the cathedral. Both the composition and the colouring are exquisite, and have been considered as scarcely inferior to Rubens. The companion picture is an Adoration of the Shepherds, by Crayer, bearing the date of 1667. There are some few other paintings of considerable merit; of which the more remarkable are a Virgin and Child with Saints, and a Crucifixion, both in the manner of Van Dyke; a Nativity in the style of Holbein's school; St. Anthony of Padua, by Vanderberghe; St. Dominic, and a Flight in Egypt, by Maes; an Assumption, painted in 1680, by Bernard; and a Last Supper, by Pombus, whose name it bears, with the date of 1562.

The great object of attraction in this church, however, is a piece of sculpture in white marble, representing the Virgin and Child, and said to be the work of Michael Angelo. It is indeed a beautiful specimen of the art. The tenderness of expression in the countenance of the Virgin Mother, the smiling innocence of the infant Jesus, and the perfect symmetry and graceful position of the whole group cannot fail to arrest the attention, even of those who do not profess to be connois

seurs. The hands of the two figures are particularly admired; and the draperies are arranged with such an easy elegance, as to have raised an opinion in some persons that the artist was Canova. It is said to have been found on board a Genoese vessel, which was taken by a Dutch privateer, and to have been bought, for a trifling sum, by a merchant of Bruges, who presented it to the church of Nôtre-Dame. During the French usurpation, it was removed to Paris, but it was restored to its former situation in the year 1814. Horace Walpole is reported to have offered 30,000 florins for it; but, to the credit of the people of Bruges, the offer was rejected. Behind the high altar there is another Virgin and Child, which is also beautifully executed in white marble. This has likewise been attributed to Michael Angelo; though it is regarded as greatly inferior to the other, it is unquestionably a performance of a very high stamp.

In a chapel adjoining the sacristy are the superb mausoleums of Charles-le-Téméraire, and his daughter, the Grand Duchess Maria of Burgundy. The exquisite workmanship of these tombs, the historical importance which attaches to them, and the affectionate reverence with which the Flemings still cherish the memory of the youthful Mary, render them objects of peculiar attention. They formerly stood in the choir, in front of the high-altar, but in 1810 the Emperor Napoleon gave the sum of 10,000 francs to fit up a chapel for their reception. After the most diligent research, it has been found impossible to discover the name of the artist who erected the more ancient of the two, which was raised to the memory of Maria of Burgundy, immediately after her demise, towards the end of the fifteenth century. In 1558, Philip II. of Spain, gave orders for the construction of another, in every respect similar to that of the archduchess, for which he paid above 14,000 florins.

There is yet another object of curiosity in the church of Nôtre-Dame, which must not be passed without notice. In the north wall of the choir is a small closet, or pew, of carved oak, in the Gothic style, which formerly communicated with the family mansion of the powerful family of Gruthuyse. With this family Edward IV. took refuge during his exile in Flanders. Beneath this Tribune, as it is called, is an ancient oratory; and in front are the arms of Gruthuyse, encircled by a collar of the order of the Golden Cross, with the motto, Plus est en vous. On the opposite side is the family vault; but the tomb which covers it was destroyed in the year 1797.

THE ORGAN.

NOTHING, perhaps, affords a more striking illustration of the maxim, E parvis principiis res magnæ proveniunt, than the history of the organ. Though its origin is involved in the utmost obscurity, it is unquestionably of very high antiquity. The earliest form in which it seems to have been known as an instrument of sonorous power, was that of the clepsydra, or hydraulic organ, of which the invention is attributed by Athenaus and others to Ctesibius, a celebrated mechanician of Alexandria, who flourished about 120 years before Christ. Tertullian,

however, who describes it as comprehending in itself every instrument of music, and composed of an army of pipes, assigns the honour of the discovery to Archimedes. Claudian attests its powerful effects with enthusiasm; and Petronius Arbiter and Severus speak of the adaptation of its notes to animate the combatants in the circus and the actors on the stage.

It is certain, however, that the origin of the organ dates much earlier than the age of Ctesibius or Archimedes; and may perhaps be traced, in its primitive form at least, to the simple pipe of reeds, of which the god Pan is said to have been the inventor. (Virg. Eclog.) Pan primus calamos cera conjungere plures instituit. The number of reeds of which this instrument was composed is undetermined. Virgil speaks of one which had seven pipes of unequal length; Theocritus, of one which had nine. In attributing its invention to Pan, it may fairly be supposed that its origin was regarded as divine; and it is a curious coincidence that in every part of the globe it has existed, nay, still exists, in the rude form of its primitive simplicity. Heard alike in Arcadia and Boeotia, it has been immortalized by poets of every age from Homer downward; and even the very names by which it is called bear a striking resemblance in various languages. It is the kalam of the Arabs; the kaλapos of the Greeks; the calamus of the Latins; and the chalumeau of France. By what progressive stages it has passed from the simple peasant pipe into the majestic organ, is a question which it is impossible to determine. From the time of Pindar, there is ascertained to have existed an instrument which that poet calls a manyheaded instrument, composed of several pipes, whereof a portion were metallic; but the successive steps by which it assumed this form, as well as its subsequent developments, cannot now be traced. The invention of that noble instrument which now peals in our churches, is due to no individual; it did not result from the fortuitous discovery or patient study of a single mechanician. Like the architecture of our cathedrals, the organ of our cathedrals is a collective invention; and there is as much truth as poetry in the observation of Chateaubriand, that Christianity invented the organ. There is a passage in Augustine, from which it appears that the appellation was given to an instrument of large dimensions, and inflated by bellows, in the fourth century.

Without proceeding further into this inquiry, it may be interesting to throw together a few chronological memoranda relative to the first introduction of the organ into churches. The earliest account, on which the authenticity is established, is that of the erection of an organ in the church of St. Cornelius, at Compiégne, in France. This instrument was a present to King Pepin, from Constantine Copronymus, in the year 757. In 826, Louis-le-Debonnaire ordered an organ for the cathedral of Aix-la-Chapelle, which was built by a Venetian, named George. Pope John VIII. in 872, wrote to Anno, Bishop of Friezing, in Bavaria, requesting him to send an organ to Rome, and with it a person competent to perform thereon, and to keep it in repair. But the more general use of the organ in churches dates from the end of the tenth, or the commencement of the eleventh century. At that period, it had been adopted in the churches and convents of Italy, Germany, France, England, and indeed throughout almost the

whole of Europe. In the mean time, great improvements had been made, both in the power and the construction of the instrument. Alphage, Bishop of Winchester, erected an organ, in the year 1001, which contained 30 bellows, requiring 70 men to put them in motion, and pass the air into its 400 pipes.

It remains, therefore, to From this epoch, the history of the Organ becomes more immediately connected with that of music in general. observe only, that chanting in churches, as a settled institution, was nearly contemporary with the introduction of the organ in 787. Though included in the reform of Ambrose, in the fourth, and in that of Gregory, in the sixth century, it was not fully established till the year 757.

A PLAIN STATEMENT OF DR. HAMPDEN'S CASE. SIR,-Finding that, notwithstanding the publicity of Dr. Hampden's case, some still there are totally ignorant of the whole matter, who yet fancy themselves qualified to speak and decide thereon, upon the strength of a few perverted particulars, picked up from party journals; you must permit me, for the benefit of such, to request insertion of the following plain and simple statement, which, without entering into any discussion of the Doctor's theological opinions, may serve merely as a durable record of the facts which occurred, while leaving to others the free exercise of their judgment as to the fitness or unfitness of the author of "Observations on Dissent," and the advocate of the sentiments there advanced, for any office connected with that branch of the Catholic Church established in England.

Long, then, before the time now spoken of, the Doctor's Bampton Lectures awakened, in the minds of some, doubts, or rather more than doubts, as to the soundness of the preacher's faith, so that, although they were, through the inattention of the then Vice-Chancellor, permitted to pass current, they escaped not without a loud and powerful rebuke from a pamphlet in reply.

Of the two offices he has since enjoyed, the chair of Moral Philosophy, and headship of St. Mary Hall, it will be sufficient to state, that the electors to the former are five in number, two of whom were distinctly hostile to his appointment; the latter is not in the gift of the University. It is maintained, however, that the University still held him as one of her faithful sons, because no public censure or disapprobation appeared during this interim, nor was his Doctor's Degree refused: that is, whatever might have been the opinion of those who thought it worth while to speculate on the notions of an individual unknown to them, and enjoying no official religious situation among them, and however strong or decided might have been their conclusions; because they were reluctant to undertake the painful task of bringing them publicly forward, or to resort to the most unusual and extraordinary experiment of acting on them, by denying the Doctor his degree, therefore as not openly accused as guilty, he must have been unanimously Hardly Oxford logic this, Mr. Editor, and honoured as innocent. hardly consistent with fact, when we find that immediately it is proposed to invest him with the situation of a teacher of the very divinity

wherein he was suspected, men's mouths were forcibly opened, and what charity had covered, a sense of duty proclaimed aloud. Accordingly, on learning the intention of government to nominate him to the divinity chair, a petition was sent up to be presented, through the Archbishop, to His Majesty, deprecating any such movement. This was shown to Lord Melbourne, as the speediest and most courteous mode of facilitating its design: his lordship talked, stalked, and at length bowed his right reverend visitor away, and instantly hurried to obtain the ratification of the appointment before the petition could be presented, or the objections known to his sovereign.

A meeting next being held at Oxford on these subjects, Dr. H. not only, contrary to the advice of his friends, attended it, claiming his right to do so as "head of a house," but actually voted in his own favour!

When at length the University again bestirred herself, the Doctor addressed the Duke of Wellington as Chancellor, denying that "being a lay corporation" she had any power to censure religious doctrines, be they what they might, and requesting his interference to prevent a convocation assembling thereon. Whether this was done as a forlorn hope, or, as was supposed, in order to strengthen the absurd report of the Doctor and his friends, that the whole was a mere party concern, by gaining an opponent in the head of the Tory party, I leave to others to decide-it signifies not. I cannot, however, quit this portion of the subject, without observing on the vain effort made to represent that Dr. H. was objected to simply as the nominee of the Whig, or Radical, Lord Melbourne.

The University is too constitutional to raise a needless quarrel with the powers that be, by whomsoever represented, and not quite idiotic enough to oppose an appointment, simply because it came from the only quarter, from whence, according to custom, it could come at all; consequently she did not do so, nor did she attempt it. She admitted the professor to his new dignity directly, but she could not secure to him the confidence of her body, seeing he had lost it; nor could she turn round, and at the dictation of a man who is reported since himself to have pronounced the Doctor's divinity of rather an unusual character, complacently eat up her own words and sentiments, and declare the same person at one moment orthodox, and fit to be entrusted with the instruction of candidates for ordination, whose own doctrinal views she has the moment before condemned; nor could she forget her character as a defender of the Catholic faith, so far as to afford to what she conceived to be the growing heresy of antiscriptural rationalism a shelter and home within the exclusive precincts of orthodoxy. All then that remained, and what she really did, was, to express her disapprobation of the new professor's theology, by depriving him of a privilege herself had formerly attached to his office, until she had better reason to be satisfied with him than she then had.

I need not tell you how immense was the majority who shared her feelings: how overwhelming, when the proctors exercised their unaccustomed right of preventing the result from being durably recorded, or how large, when no longer checked by a technical recurrence to forms, no longer by the suicidal interference of such ill-judging friends kept