400 Origin of Drawing for King and Queen on Twelfth Day. (June 1, in the East, been regarded as the most 66 were In the beginning of Genesis (iii. 7) it is stated, in our common version, that our first parents formed garments by sewing together the leaves of the fig-tree; an operation requiring implements and skill, neither of which they could possess. Now the original Hebrew term tafru is still preserved in the Maltese dafru, signifying they intertwined or interwove; a species of manufacture perfectly suitable to the condition of the first of human beings, in the commencement of their Existence as common mortals. (To be continued.) TWELFTH DAY. C.U. The origin of the practice of drawing for king and queen over the twelfth cake. on this day is involved in obscurity, like that of many other customs of apparently greater moment. Some trace it to a play of the Roman children, who drew beans at the end of the Saturnalia for the same purpose; and this classical origin is countenanced by the amusement having prevailed in our universities, where the decision was made by beans found in the cake. Others imagine in it a faint resemblance of the offerings made to the newborn Saviour by the Magi, or wise men of the East, of gold, frankincense, and myrrh; and this opinion seems probable, as at the ceremony performed in this country annually on this day the monarch either personally or by his chamberlain makes a similar offering. The old calendars notice that on the vigil of this day kings were elected by beans, and the day was called the festival of kings. In the time of King Alfred the twelve days after the nativity of our Saviour were declared to be festivals. The festivities of Twelfth day are still kept up at Rome, in France, and in Spain. The day is called the Feast of Kings. τῶν δ ̓ ἄλλων ἀρετῆ ποιεῦ φίλον ὅστις ἀριστούν Πράεσι δ'έικε λόγοις, ἔργοισί τ' ἐπαφελίμοισι. PYTHAG. in Aur. Carm. MR. EDITOR, THE writer of an article on improving the condition of the poor, in your Maga zine for February has ventured to subjoin a remark to the prejudice of an institution which many of his clerical bre thren consider as the glory and boast of the British nation. The remark is, "That the warm friends of the esta blished church and of its interests, cannot but regret when any of their brethren connect themselves with the sectaries for the sake of advantages which it is presumed are equally attainable within the pale of the established church." Such a remark I believe every candid and liberal mind will deem worthy of animadversion. It may be true in fact, though not verbally correct, that "An excellent Bible Society exists already in the bosom of the establishment--the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge-in connection with which a beneall his fortune in the distribution of biperson may, if he pleases, exhaust volent bles and testaments." But those " advantages," supposed to be " equally attainable in connection with this latter association," can only be of a local, partial, and very limited description. How ever venerable and useful this society may be in the opinion of a pious churchman, it is regarded by much more than half the christian world as instituted for promoting heresy, schism, sectarian principles,-tending to destroy the unity of Christ's HOLY CATHOLIC CHURCH upon earth! And since it is formed exclusively of those who are "warm friends of the established church and its interests," who render all its exertions subservient to their own views and seati ments, how small a part of the PROTESTANT Communion can be expected to give it their patronage, and contribute to the funds of such an institution? Besides, the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge is far from being universally patronised within the pale of the established church, especially since it has adopted and given its aid in disseninating the unscriptural and Pelagian notions of Bishop Tomline on the subject of regeneration. A society of this kind is therefore chiefly calculated for usefulness in the particular con munion See two recent publications by the Rev. John Scott, vicar of North Ferriby; and the Rev. Mr. Biddulph, minister of St. James's, Bristol. 1816.] On a Remark respecting the British & Foreign Bible Society. 401 to which it belongs. And as for its operations abroad, the state of its finances will necessarily render them less extensive than its worthy members could wish. But the British and Foreign Bible Society, being formed on different principles, and embracing but one object, which equally meets the desires and prayers of all true christians, is calculated to unite and combine the energies of all to obtain universal support-and, by the princely sum annually placed at the disposal of its committee, to diffuse the light of truth wherever there are eyes to behold it. In answer, then, to the question: "Why should a conscientious clergyman or layman of the Church of England join the Bible Society?" every liberal, pious, and zealous christian will undoubtedly say: Let it be done to shew that the members of our communion are "ready to every good work"--that we are sincere in praying that the Lord's " way may be known upon earth," and his "saving health among all nations;" until he shall " bring into the way of truth such as have erred and are deceived"and that, when the most effectual means of attaining the object of our prayers are presented, we are as much inclined as any other body of Christians to counter nance and support them. By thus acting in concert with other denominations for the common good of mankind, the established clergy will have an opportunity of exemplifying the spirit of their Divine Master of displaying the virtues by which they are distinguished; and by this means, in all probability, they will conciliate the affections of many who have separated from their communion in consequence of some unfavourable impression that has been made on their minds, and induce them to return into the bosom of the church. At any rate, it is certain, that by standing aloof, and discovering a jealous, illiberal, and uncharitable temper, they will only injure the cause they profess to espouse and strenuously maintain. CLERICUS, however, is unwilling that any of his brethren should “connect themselves with the sectaries."-Here it cannot be improper to remind him that such invidious names were once liberally be stowed on the advocates of the Reformation in our own country; and perhaps he may find it of some use to consider how far he can be justified in casting the same kind of odium on those religious bodies, who merely follow the example of his own church in her separaNEW MONTHLY MAG.-No. 29, tion from the Romish communion. In such a case it must be admitted that if one body of christians would be justified in taking the Bible as their only rule of faith and practice, and in acting according to their own interpretation of its doctrines and precepts, the same privileges must remain to every other who see reason, from conscientious motives, to embrace it. Let christians of all deno minations, then, learn to cultivate a ca tholic spirit. They have but "one Lord," and are accountable to no other in things purely spiritual. Why, then, should they not agree to differ where they cannot think alike-unite with each other for the common good-" love as brethren,--and so fulfil the law of Christ?" But CLERICUS imagines that the "sec taries" in the Bible Society are" his enemies"-" declared and real enemies." Some of the clergy, however, will be able to distinguish between those who conscientiously separate from the communion, and those who are decided enemies of our religious establishment. The late Rev. Mr. Lambert, a venerable minister of the Independent denomination in Hull, after avowing himself a Dissenter, solemnly declared in a popular assembly that so long as the majority of his countrymen preferred the established worship, he would not have it laid aside, if he could do it by holding up his finger. And if "sectaries," apprehending the constitution and order of the Church of England to be unscriptural, were generally " its professed and real enemies," it certainly cannot follow that they are the enemies of the clergy, so as to render it dangerous for them to unite with such persons in works of piety and usefulness! If any assurance they can give to the contrary might tend to remove the scruples and allay the fears of CLERICUS, something of this kind shall be done by way of conclusion. In the place where I now reside there is an old society of these "sectaries," calling themselves "Protestant Dissenters of the Independent Denomination." They have lately printed a concise statement of their religious opinions, with a view to remove any misconception that might arise in the public mind. From this pamphlet I shall transcribe the following passage: "There are in the established church many things of which we cordially approve. Such are the leading sentiments contained in her appointed forms of divine service, and especially the principal part of her Articles and Homilies; though VOL. V. 3 F 402 On the Paintings in St. Andrew's Hall, Norwich. we cannot approve either the use of the former in public worship, or that subscription which in some cases is required to the latter. We entertain a kind of veneration for the very names of those reformers who purged her from some of the most noxious errors of popery; though we can neither look upon them sas infallible, nor adore as perfect what they appear to have regarded as imperfect, and needing further reformation. We highly respect the character and applaud the zeal and usefulness apparent in some of her ministers. We esteem them as our brethren in Christ, wishing them success in the general cause of religion, and rejoicing when sinners are converted through their instrumentality. While we state our sentiments, therefore, or assign our reasons for dissent, we are desirous of doing it in the spirit of love with becoming respect for those who differ from us-and without giving just cause of offence to any." Haverfordwest. MR. EDITOR, J. B. YOUR correspondent the Amateur, who furnishes you with extracts from his portfolio, has, in your number for March, (page 132,) grossly slandered the paintings in St. Andrew's Hall, Norwich, by saying, that" Thos. Burdwell was the artist who painted those wretched productions called portraits in that hall.” Now so far is this from being true, that out of more than forty pictures which grace the walls of that noble building, three only appear to have been painted by Bardwell. An artist of the name of Heins painted many of them; and several were done by Catton and others; which, though perhaps not possessing first-rate excellence, yet are far from contemptible. But, Sir, this hall inay boast of some portraits, by modern artists of the first rank, that would not disgrace any gallery in the kingdom; which I suspect your friend the Amateur never saw or seeing, could not appreciate their merit-or he would certainly have excepted them from his merciless sentence of" wretched productions," for amongst them is a very fine picture of the late Lord Suffield (when Sir Harbord Harbord), by GAINSBOROUGH; there are three pictures, too, by OPIE, one of which in particular is perhaps as fine a portrait as he or any other master ever painted; there are also three or four pictures by Sir WM. BEECHEY, one of which is a portrait of the late gallant Lord Nelson, and is esteemed a good [June 1, likeness of him. HUBNER painted a very fine picture of the late Mr. Windham; and LAWRENCE of one of our present representatives, Charles Harvey, esq.; and THOMPSON, a pupil of Opie's, painted our other representative, Wm. Smith, esq. Such names, I trust, will sufficiently wipe away the unfounded calumny aimed at our St. Andrew's Hall Gallery of Paintings by the Amateur; and I think I need hardly request the early insertion of these remarks in your magazine as an act of justice, and which will oblige Norwich, April 26. NORVICENSIS. MR. EDITOR, AS piety is the summit of the virtues, and prayer is one of the things most essential to piety, nothing can be more important than clearly to know in what the essence and perfection of it consists, and whence it is imparted to the soul. For this purpose, therefore, I shall present your readers with the conceptions of the most eminent philosophers of the Platonic sect on prayer, as they appear to me to be unequalled for their profundity, sanctity, and sublimity. In the first place, then, Porphyry observes, that prayer especially pertains to worthy meu, because it is a conjunc tion with a divine nature. But the similar loves to be united to the similar; and a worthy man is most similar to the gods. Since those also that cultivate virtue are inclosed in body as in a prison, they ought to pray to the gods that they may depart from hence. Besides, as we are like children torn from our parents, it is proper to pray that we may return to the gods as to our true parents; and be cause those who do not think it requisite to pray, and convert themselves to more excellent natures, are like those that are deprived of their fathers and mothers. To which we may add, that as we are a part of the universe, it is fit that we should be in want of it: for a conversion to the whole imparts safety to every thing. Whether, therefore, you possess virtue, it is proper for you to invoke that which causally comprehendst the whole of virtue. For that which is all-good will also be the cause to you of that good * Vid. Procl. in Tim. p. 64. + The word used by Porphyry here is προειληφος, which always signifies in Platonic writings causal comprehension, or the eccult and indistinct prior to the actual and sépa rate subsistence of things. After this manner numbers subsist causally in the monad, or unity. 1816.] Mr. Taylor on the Notions of the Platonists respecting Prayer. 403 which it is fit for you to possess. Or whether you explore some corporeal good, there is a power in the world which connectedly contains every body. It is necessary, therefore, that the perfect should thence be derived to the parts of the universe. Thus far Porphyry. Let us in the next place attend to the conceptions of Iamblichus on this subject, whom every genuine Platonist will acknowledge to have been justly surnamed the Divine. As prayers, through which sacred rites receive their perfect consummation and vigour, constitute a great part of sacrifice, and as they are of general utility to religion, and produce an indissoluble communion between the divinities and their priests, it is necessary that we should mention a few things concerning their various species and wonderful effects. For prayer is of itself a thing worthy to be known, and gives greater perfection to the science concerning the gods. I say, therefore, that the first species of prayer is collective, producing a contact with divinity, and subsisting as the leader and light of knowledge: but the second is the bond of consent and communion with the gods, exciting them to a copious communication of their benefits prior to the energy of speech, and perfecting the whole of our operations previous to our intellectual conceptions. The third, and most perfect species of prayer, is the seal of ineffable union with the divinities, in whom it establishes all the power and authority of prayer; and thus causes the soul to repose in the gods as in a divine and never-failing port. But from these three boundaries, in which all the divine measures are contained, suppliant adoration not only conciliates to us the friendship of the gods, but supernally extends to us three fruits, being as it were three Hesperian apples of gold. The first pertains to illumination; the second to a communion of operation; but through the energy of the third we receive a perfect plenitude of divine fire. And sometimes, indeed, supplication precedes; like a forerunner preparing the way before the sacrifice appears: but sometimes it intercedes as a mediator, and sometimes accomplishes the end of sacrificing. No operation, however, in sacred concerns, can succeed without the intervention of prayer. Lastly, the continual exercise of prayer nourishes the vigour of our intellect, De Myst., sect. 5, cap. 26. and renders the receptacles of the soul far more capacious for the communications of the gods. It likewise is the divine key, which opens to men the penetralia of the gods, accustoms us to the splendid rivers of supernal light, in a short time perfects our inmost recesses, and disposes them for the ineffable embrace and contact of the gods, and does not desist till it raises us to the summit of all. It likewise gradually and silently draws upwards the manners of our soul, by divesting them of every thing foreign from a divine nature, and clothes us with the perfections of the gods. Besides this, it produces an indissoluble communion and friendship with divinity, nourishes a divine love, and inflames the divine part of the soul. Whatever is of an opposing and contrary nature in the soul it expiates and purifies, expels whatever is prone to generation, and retains any thing of the dregs of mortality in its etherial and splendid spirit, perfects a good hope and faith concerning the reception of divine light, and, in one word, renders those by whom it is employed the familiars and domestics of the gods. If such then are the advantages of prayer, and such its connexion with sacrifice, does it not appear from hence, that the end of sacrifice is conjunction with the demiurgus of the world?-and the benefit of prayer is of the same extent with the good which is conferred by the fabricating causes of things on the race of mortals. Again, from hence, the elevating, perfective, and replenishing power of prayer appears; likewise how it becomes efficacious and uniting, and how it possesses a common bond imparted by the gods. And in the third and last place, it may easily be conceived from hence how prayer and sacrifice mutually corroborate and confer on each other a sacred and perfect power in divine concerns. As an excellent commentary on the preceding observations of Iamblichus, I shall in the next place present the reader with the following translation from Proclus on the Timaus of Plato. All beings are the progeny of the gods, by whom they are produced without a medium, and in whom they are firmly established: for the progression of things which perpetually subsist, and cohere from permanent causes, is not alone perfected by a certain continuity, but immediately subsists from the gods, from whence all things are generated, however distant they may be from the divinities. Page 64. 404 Mr. Taylor on the Notions of the Platonists respecting Prayer. [June 1, And this is no less true, even though asserted of matter itself; for a divine nature is not absent from any thing, but is equally present to all things: hence, though you consider the last of beings, in these also you will find divinity-for the one (i. e. the ineffable principle of things) is every where; and, in conse quence of its absolute dominion, every thing receives its nature and coherence from the gods. But as all things proceed, so likewise they are not separated from the gods, but radically abide in them, as the causes and sustainers of their existence; for where can they recede, since the gods primarily comprehend all things in their embrace?-for whatever is placed as separate from the gods has not any kind of subsistence, but all beings are contained by the gods, and reside in their natures after the manner of a circular comprehension. Hence, by a wonderful mode of subsistence, all things proceed, and yet are not, nor indeed can be, separated from the gods; for all generated natures, when torn from their parents, immediately recur to the wide-spreading immensity of non-being. But all things are after a manner established in the divine natures; and, in fine, they proceed in themselves, but abide in the gods. Since, however, in consequence of their progression, it is requisite that they should be converted, and return, and imitate the egress and conversion of the gods to their ineffable cause, that the natures thus disposed may again be contained by the gods, and the first unities, according to a perfective triad; they hence receive a certain secondary perfection, by which they may be able to convert themselves to the goodness of the gods; that after they Lave rooted their principles in the divinities, they may again by conversion abide in them, and form as it were a circle, which originates from and terminates in the gods. All things, therefore, both abide in and convert themselves to the gods; receiving this power from the divinities, together with twofold symbols, according to essence! the one, that they may abide there; but the other, that having proceeded, they may convert themselves to the sources of their being. And this we may easily contemplate, not only in souls, but also in inanimate natures; for what else ingenerates in these a sympathy with other powers but the symbols which they are allotted by nature, some of which contract a familiarity with this, and some with that, series of gods?—for nature supernally depending from the gods, and being distributed from their orders, impresses also in bodies the symbols of her familiarity with the divinities: in some, indeed, inserting solar symbols, but in others lunar, and in others again the occult characters of some other god. And these, indeed, convert themselves to the divinities; some as it were to the gods simply, but others as to particular gods; Nature thus perfecting her progeny according to different peculiarities of the gods. The demiurgus (or fabricator) of the universe, therefore, by a much greater priority, impressed these symbols in souls, by which they might be able to abide in themselves, and again convert themselves to the sources of their being; through the symbol of unity conferring on them stability, but through intellect affording them the power of conversion. And to this conversion prayer is of the greatest utility: for it conciliates the beneficence of the gods through those ineffable symbols which the Father of the Universe has disseminated in souls. It likewise unites those who pray with those to whom prayer is addressed; copulates the intellect of the gods with the words of those who pray; excites the will of those who perfectly comprehend in themselves good; and produces in us a firm persuasion that they will abundantly impart to us the beneficence which they contain. And lastly, it establishes in the gods whatever we possess. But to a perfect and true prayer there is required,' first, a knowledge of all the divine orders to which he who prays ap proaches; for no one will accede in a proper manner unless he intimately beholds their distinguishing properties; and hence it is that the Chaldean oracle admonishes, that a fiery intellection obtains the first order in sacred venération. But afterwards there is required a conformation of our life with that which is divine, and this accompanied with all purity, chastity, discipline, and order; for thus while we present ourselves to the gods, they will be excited to beneficence, and our souls will be subjected to theirs, and will participate the excellen cies of a divine nature. In the third place, a certain contact is necessary, from whence, with the more exalted part of the soul, we touch the divine essence, and verge to a union with its ineffable nature. But there is yet further required an accession and inhesion; for thus the Chaldean oracle calls it when it says, the mortal adhering to fire will possess e divine light; and hence we receive a |