harmony, which is used for a certain effect in the theatre, is often very properly selected to produce a similar effect in the church, so that it would seem impossible, in those instances at least, that there should be any essential difference in the design or character of the music of the two places.

'It may possibly shock some minds to learn that many of the best and simplest psalm tunes, which they are accustomed to hear with reverence on the Sabbath, and to join in as a part of the sacred duty of the day, are portions of operas. It is, nevertheless, strictly and literally true; and if their consciences would suffer them to go to the theatre, I doubt not they would consider it a ludicrous absurdity, at least, to join the performers, under pretence of increasing the effect, either upon their own minds, or those of others. If amateurs of music, they would be seen with excited feelings and strained attention listening to every sweet note, and fearing to disturb, by too loud a breath, the effect upon their minds. If it be said that this is merely the result of art which we admire, that the skill of the performer is what strikes us, I admit that it sometimes is so, but I ask if this be the only effect ever produced on us. Are not the feelings affected, emotions excited, and even passions roused by music? Is not an effect sometimes produced similar to that which results from the successful exertions of a skilful orator? Surely it will not be denied. It has been acknowledged in all ages of the world. Mere admiration of skill falls far short of the true purpose and the frequent effect of music; it is a proof that the skill is not great enough; it needs the last finish, the power of concealment. If admiration and wonder at difficulties overcome, be the only effect of the best execution of the best music, it is an art not fit to be practised at church; but if the feelings may be touched, the heart warmed or elevated by tender or sublime strains of music, these effects must be produced upon the listeners at church, by the same means as they are upon the listeners at other places. It is not the performer, certainly not the unskilful, unpractised performer, who is most likely to feel the effect of music; but under the unhappy prevalence of the mistake that devotion is aided by singing one's self, how many have been taught to proclaim at church their own incapacity, and to deprive themselves and others of the gratification and benefit which might be derived from good music. There are many, probably the great majority of those who are not qualified by nature or education to utter musical

sounds, who are still acutely sensible of their power; and as I presume such persons constitute the greater part of those promiscuous assemblies which form our congregations, it is unfortunate for them that this error is so general. If they had been taught to listen to the music, instead of joining in it aloud, they would offend the ear of no one, and would sometimes have the opportunity of enjoying a pleasure which they are unable to give..

'I have heard it said, and I cheerfully acknowledge the truth of the remark, that the union of many voices in the same strain sometimes produces an effect far beyond that which could result from one or a very few, however charming or skilful. So well is this understood, that scientific composers have taken advantage of it to produce, in their choruses, some of the sublimest effects of which music is capable. But it must be remarked, that an accidental collection of persons, without previous instruction or skill, cannot perform the music in such a manner as to produce these effects either upon themselves or others. Singing is an art, requiring education and discipline, and can no more be attained without them, than valuable results can be reached in other arts by the ignorant and unskilful.

'Still I may be told that a mere collection of human voices, however untrained, produces its exciting effect, as in the boisterous repetition of a lively chorus to a song, or a loud and animated shout. I am far from denying it, and merely contend that the impressions made by such sounds are not the effect of music. Few things are more exciting than the loud shout of a multitude; but it is the mind actuating that multitude which operates on our minds; it is the feeling or purpose displayed which is sublime. There is, too, an effect produced upon us by mere noise, as by any other sign and emblem of power, which we often strive in vain to counteract. What, for instance, is more imposing than the thunder, the roar of a stormy ocean, of a vast cataract, or of a mighty whirlwind? But is this music? Do we endeavour by music to imitate these, or the still small voice in which God speaks to the heart not less than in the uproar of an agitated world? If it be desired to excite a rude merriment at church, or a mere agitation of the animal spirits, then let all the congregation shout aloud. But if a chastened cheerfulness, reverent love, and penitent sorrow be the proper sentiments to accompany our public worship, let

these feelings be produced by suitable strains of touching or animated music, performed by those who have the necessary gifts of nature and education. In this way they can be produced, and in no other. It is vain to say, as it often is said, that a few tunes sung by all the congregation, will produce the best effect of church music. A congregation is composed of those who have not the necessary qualifications for singing, as well as those who have. No reiteration can teach the former even a limited number of tunes, and the latter will inevitably become weary; for nothing is sooner or more thoroughly wearisome than the frequent repetition of the same musical strain.

'It is occasionally a subject of complaint with those who wish to hear the voice of the whole congregation, that the music in our churches is becoming too scientific. I believe it is a complaint which no scientific musician would make of the best of it; but if there be any truth in the remarks I have offered, it is rather a subject of congratulation than complaint, and the sooner and the more attention is paid to a skilful and judicious manner of singing in all our churches, the better will it be both for those who can, and those who cannot sing themselves. Persons of musical taste are generally well pleased to listen to good music, if performed with tolerable judgment; and those who have not a cultivated ear will probably be suitably affected by it, if its impression be not prevented or destroyed by the dissonance of their own accompaniment. I am at a loss to imagine the origin of the notion that the mere sound of one's own voice can add strength to the emotions of the mind. Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth sometimes speaketh. An ejaculation or exclamation is a natural effect of strong emotion; but that the melancholy sounds produced by some who have a zeal for singing, but not according to knowledge, can aid their feelings of piety to God, or love to man, is beyond all belief. It is a custom which has prevailed in comparatively few places, and even in those where musical attainments are most common, as in some parts of Germany, whenever the singing in the church is performed by the whole congregation, it ceases to be music, and degenerates into noise. On the other hand, who has not heard of the beautiful and solemn effects which are produced in the Roman and English churches by the skilful performance of select and commonly small choirs? I would not imply that all the chanting and singing of their sometimes pompous services, is in good taste, or of a

devotional tendency; but some effects are produced of an elevating and touching kind, which can never be attained by the united efforts of a whole congregation. We have the opportunity of selecting what is good, and rejecting the bad in our own churches, and if the experience of ourselves and others be not lost upon us, we shall encourage the growth of musical taste, till, instead of a small number in each worshiping assembly, there will be a majority, or even, if it be possible, the whole, who may be able not merely to enjoy, but to produce good music. I have no fear that when this happy result shall be obtained, the whole congregation will join in the singing. No, they will then have learned that music is intended for the ear, and having selected those among them who are most competent, they will listen with warm hearts, or elevated affections to the strains in which the worship of God, and sympathy with his creatures, will be suitably expressed.'

We will only say of this letter, that we like its spirit, and are not insensible to the force of its reasoning. We must not take up the time of our readers by repeating the arguments which have been advanced on the other side; but will merely refer those who are interested in the question, to the Memoirs of a New England Village Choir, and to the articles in the Examiner to which we have already alluded.

ART. VI.-A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews. By MOSES STUART, Associate Professor of Sacred Literature in the Theological Seminary at Andover. 2 vols. 8vo. Andover. Flagg & Gould. 1827--8.

PROFESSOR Stuart, in the first volume of his Commentary, endeavours to prove, that the Epistle to the Hebrews was written by St Paul. We were not satisfied with his reasoning; and, in consequence, in our last series, were led to maintain our own opinions on the subject. We first examined the historical evidence, which seemed to us not only insufficient to prove that St Paul was the author of the work, but to be of such a character as to create a strong presumption that he was not. We next turned our attention to the Epistle itself, and

neglecting what seemed to us arguments of less weight, applied to it, a test, which seemed to admit of a near approach to certainty upon the question. We stated the fact, that certain words very familiar to St Paul, and such as it is equally probable that we should find in this Epistle, if written by him, as in his acknowledged writings, did not occur in the Epistle. Proceeding upon the principles of mathematical reasoning, we showed, that their not being found in this work, rendered it morally certain that St Paul was not its author. We next remarked on the great difference between the style and method of the Epistle and that of his writings; a difference, obvious to every intelligent reader of them in the original, or in a good translation; acknowledged by those Greek Fathers, who regarded the apostle as the author of the work; and concerning which there has been a general agreement of the learned in modern times. We next turned to a topic, in itself curious and interesting, and which has in its various bearings been very imperfectly explained,-the mystical interpretation of the Old Testament by the Jews. We showed that in his style of interpreting the Old Testament and reasoning from it, the writer to the Hebrews followed the fashion of his age; that he was distinguished as a mystical expositor and reasoner; and that in this particular there was a wide difference between him and St Paul.

The further prosecution of the subject was interrupted by the ill health of the writer. It is now proposed to resume it. The question respecting the authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews is not only one of much importance in itself and its consequences; but involves incidentally the discussion of some of the most interesting and important topics connected with the study of our religion. Among well informed and rational Christians, who feel the value of their faith, but who are not professed theologians, we believe there is an increasing thirst for correct information, which comparatively speaking has been very scantily supplied. It is one purpose of the present work to afford such information, according to the measure of our ability. We proceed to our subject.

The next objection to be adduced to the supposition of St Paul's being the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, may be thus stated;-It appears from the Epistle, that there was a wide difference between its author and St Paul in the general character of their minds, and particularly in the aspect under which