The ideas and principles conceived by the once editors and publishers of the volume whose richly bestraught merits I champion, and whose solemn rights I plead, (in the year 1871), was to place in society at once, all electrified, au premier coup canonized (armed at all points), a work which should at a moment be complete in law; self-contained and academically referable to the stringent junctures of an ecclesiastical, a national, and a polyphonetic tribunal:  a work which should loyally attract the acclaim of co-existing literary hymnals, and ever would, it was reverently hoped—­a sentiment which I, for one, favourably concur in—­remain, the key-symbol of the Reformed, Anglican faith, with its near, true, and ever new ally—­a note as high, silvery and jurisprudential; purified domestic co-partnership!

To further substantiate and enhance my devoutly expressed remarks, I confidently state that the compilation of “Hymns Ancient and Modern” was not originally in fact the outcome of an individual movement, or yet of a moment.  At periods diverse, and at stages various, it matured its conditional purpose by repeated acts of regeneration and reform, by keeping generally within the radius of a stereotyped policy of pruning and paring; which consolidated by degrees and swept it on to the confines and the platform of its national respectability.

Be it even tacitly acknowledged, in surveying the genesis of Hymnology that the function of revision has once been, a fact, applied to the “Hymns Ancient and Modern” since the appearance of “The Hymnary,” in my estimation under a less searching eye than that which all impartially discriminated and directed, at one and at one time only, the laying together and the consolidating of the “particles predelix” of this frankincense offering of the National Church; a work of classic intent and aesthetic outcome.  Personal labour designed it purposely for the hearts of men, but not for their faces; a character which, Christian-like, it inseparably wears, like French martial music.

Herein exemplified to noble British hearts is a bulwark that at once completely puts to rout no inconsiderable amount of the mildew mould of “Hymns Ancient and Modern,” while never so much as tarnishing or jeopardizing the aroma of its native asceticism.

Interested bibliophiles may peruse pleasantly the trenchant remarks launched by the editors, (of the work upheld) literary and musical; and examine for their predilection by turning its pages the analytical merit of its composer’s names; all serious-minded men; capable lamp-bearers in the wide arcana of classic music.

Stoical people do not know the wealth of chaste language stored up within the covers of “The Hymnary.”  A rare musician-poet is needed to resolve its pulpy flavour and discipline to the polemics of common life; whilst one, a connoisseur, would readily congratulate the sanguine, sensible, and all-seeing management, as regards to authors of words, indices of composers, indices of metres, metronome marks, which heralds and places it, in respect of completeness, ahead of all contemporaneous editions.