voice is exercised for private, social, or public devotion. The violoncello subserves the high treat of a quartetto or quintetto party,-the guitar relieves the ornamental graces of a flowing voice,-the blast of the bugle recalls sportive associations, the flute runs abreast with the flying finger of the piano,-and glees harmonize with the feelings of some jovial party of young men, who are inclined, rather to welcome reckless hilarity, than moralize with old Herbert:

"When youth is frank and free,

And calls for music, while his veins do swell,
All day exchanging mirth and breath

In company:

That music summons to the knell,

Which shall befriend him at the house of death!"'

pp. 402-404.

We have taken this fair opportunity of annexing to a notice of Mr. Latrobe's volume, a recommendation-hardly neededof the musical publications mentioned at the head of this article. The first volume of Mr. Jowett's "Musa Solitaria" was reviewed in this Journal with well deserved commendation soon after its appearance; and if we have too long delayed to thank him for the second, it has not been owing to our deeming it of inferior merit or interest. It has, indeed, charmed many a solitary half-hour, and heightened the enjoyments of our family circle. Though neither adapted nor designed for congregational psalmody, these graceful compositions are admirably suited to the devotional service of a domestic choir; and the delicacy and sweetness of the melody will be best expressed by the piano-forte. The words are selected from Watts, Herbert, Montgomery, Bishop Heber, Hon. G. T. Noel, Josiah Conder, and other contributors to the Songs of Zion. Montgomery is evidently, as he deserves to be, a favourite with the Composer: no one better understands what the matter of psalmody ought to be, and his melodious versification almost sets itself to music. One word of criticism. The most original and beautiful composition of this series (No. xlv.) has for its subject, 'words altered from Herbert -altered, indeed, most barbarously, in utter violation of the character of the original, and with a verse of common-place doggrel tacked to it. We are surprised that Mr. Jowett's good taste permitted him to give these words a place in his volume: they could not have inspired the music. No. xliii. is a very singular melody, startling us with the first note; and a peculiarity of accent runs through it, that will not at first be understood; but there is a wild and solemn charm in the air which fascinates the imagination, and the oftener it is played, the more it will please. Till we heard it performed by Samuel Wesley, we must confess, we very imperfectly understood the Composer's idea. No. lxii. has great merit from its

perfect combination of simplicity and elegance: it is an air in a minor key, most happily relieved by a graceful repetition of the leading idea in the major. Nos. lxiii, lxiv, lxvi, and lxvii, are also deserving of being particularized for their varied beauty. The Author of these sacred melodies has endeavoured, by promoting the gratification of an innocent taste', 'to render that taste 'subservient to devotion'; and his success will, we doubt not, ensure his ample and just reward.

Of the "Lyra Sacra", we need say little. Parts I to III, were noticed in the former series of our Journal, and we regret to find that with Part IV. the work concludes. We had hoped that Mr. Jowett would meet with sufficient encouragement to induce him to prosecute his labours much further. The selection is, upon the whole, excellent. We cannot refrain, however, from expressing the wish that some other piece had been given instead of The Nicene Creed' in the present Part. We agree with Mr. Latrobe, that the English Reformers would hardly have proposed a Confession of faith to be sung with instruments and voice, had they been free to follow their own judgement; and the matter of this Creed is wholly unsuitable to musical recitation. We grudge exceedingly the space which this composition occupies. Upon the whole, however, this volume will form an admirable companion to Mr. Latrobe's Selections from the great Composers of France and Italy.

Mr. Pettet's volume consists of two parts. The first part consists of original psalm tunes by the Editor and his professional friends, Linley, Shield, and other well-known composers, attached to select portions of Tate and Brady's Version of the Psalms. Among them will be found some very pleasing compositions adapted for parochial psalmody. The second part consists of miscellaneous hymns composed in a style better 'adapted for performance in the chamber than in the church'; and some anthems conclude the volume. Among the contributors to this portion of the collection, occur the attractive names of Dr. Crotch, Shield, Attwood, Bishop, S. Wesley, Linley, C. S. Evans, Novello, Calcott, Holder, C. Smith, Horsley, and Goss,-who have generously contributed their assistance to enrich this musical Album. These names will speak for themselves. Were we to specify the pieces which have particularly delighted us, we should mention the anthem for three voices, 'I will love Thee, O Lord', by C. S. Evans, the Collect by Horsley (p. 124), the Hymn by Novello (p. 80), and an extremely elegant air by J. B. Cramer (p. 46). The full anthems by Dr. Crotch and S. Wesley, we have not had the pleasure of hearing adequately performed. The volume has been published for some time, and ought to have received earlier notice; but, to many of our readers, it may yet be new. Musical publications

scarcely come within our proper province; and on this account only we have suffered a work to remain so long unnoticed in our pages, from which we have derived much gratification, and for which we beg to render to the Editor our tardy but most cordial thanks. By promoting, to any extent, the sale of these publications, we should consider ourselves as doing quite as much service to the purchasers, as to the authors; and most happy shall we feel, should our desultory and hurried remarks lead, in any quarter, to a more just appreciation and a more sedulous cultivation of the music of the Church.'

Art. II. A Discourse on the Authenticity and Divine Origin of the Old Testament, with Notes and Illustrations; translated from the French of J. E. Cellérier. By the Rev. John Reynell Wreford. 12mo. pp. 286. Price 8s. London, 1830.

THE

HE Pentateuch, or the five books of Moses, may be considered as the basis of the Old Testament, which is replete with references and allusions to the facts included in its narratives, and to the ordinances and rites comprised in its legislative enactments. It is at once the History and Statutebook of the Hebrews, and the depository of the principles accredited by the Jews as the faith of the nation. No one can read the devotional or the prophetical books of the Bible, or peruse its historical relations, without being convinced of the prior existence of the Pentateuch, and of the influence which it has exerted on all the subsequent compositions of the sacred writers, who constantly appeal to its authority, and maintain the obligation of the laws which it promulgated. The whole structure of the Jewish religion requires the acknowledgement of the Pentateuch as the foundation on which it rests. In what age, then, did the Pentateuch first make its appearance, and who was the writer of it? To satisfy these inquiries, is the object of the Author of the work before us. As one of the Theological Professors of the Church of Geneva, the task was assigned to him, of delivering the discourse with which it is usual to commence the course of Historical Lectures in elucidation of the facts of the Sacred Scriptures, which the Genevan Church has continued since the period of the Reformation. The Discourse itself is brief, extending through only the first fifty pages, and the Notes and Illustrations make up the principal contents of the volume. These include the several subjects which the Author had slightly noticed in his oral address, or which occurred to him subsequently to its delivery, as necessary or useful in establishing his views of the Old Testament. Professor Cellérier has formed his work on a popular model.

His pages are entirely free from the affectation of learning; and readers who are not scholars, will find their way through the whole of them, without stumbling upon any formidable array of strange letters, or being impeded by any niceties of critical dissertation. Intelligent readers will assign to the Author, the merit due to a writer who, avoiding every unnecessary display of his learning, knows the uses to which it may be applied, and, without formally assuming the character of a controvertist, renders his labours to the cause of truth in such manner as to expose the temerity and the folly of its opponents. He has produced a brief, but sufficient defence of the early books of the Jewish Canon, which, as they are the most important, have been the most frequently assailed by unbelievers.

In the proofs and presumptions which the Author adduces in his discussion of the question relative to the Authenticity of the books of the Pentateuch, we could not expect to find novel arguments or testimonies before unknown. The industry of preceding writers has enabled them to collect, or their sagacity has suggested to them, whatever of fact or argument can be considered as related to the subject. The Professor has selected his evidences with caution; and in his reasonings from them, he forcibly urges the various proofs which they furnish in support of his positions. Whatever may be said in reference to the first of the five books, (in respect to which the Author accords, in part, with Eichhorn,) the last four are replete with internal evidence that they were written at the very time when the civil and religious polity, of which they are the code, was first formed. They cannot certainly belong to a prior period, and nothing would be more unreasonable than to assign to them a later date. Instances might be cited, of laws being committed to writing long after their first promulgation; but the peculiarities of the Mosaic legislation take it out of parallel or comparison with them. The history is blended with the legislation; many of the laws which are inscribed in these books, were ordained on occasions noticed in the history; the narrative is in some cases illustrated by the laws; and in others, the laws are explained by the record of the transactions; and no other evidence is wanted to prove the contemporaneous origin of both, than that which the books themselves supply. The conclusion is evident, that, if the Jewish legislation and the books of the Pentateuch were produced in the same age, Moses was the writer. Jewish testimony forbids our assenting to any other proposition; and every hypothesis which has been framed in support of other assumptions, is at once evinced to be untenable, by the contradictions and absurdities which it pre

sents.

That there are passages in the Pentateuch on which objec

tions may be grounded against the conclusion that Moses was the writer, cannot safely be denied; but no candid or competent critic will refuse to admit, that these can be accounted for without calling in question the genuineness of the document. The difficulties created by such passages, may all be satisfactorily obviated or explained. It must, however, be confessed, that the methods which have been employed to meet the cavils of objectors, or to clear up the real difficulties, have not always been of the most judicious kind, and have perplexed, rather than aided the argument. Nothing can be more injurious to the reputation of the Jewish Lawgiver, than the superstitious inventions of the Rabbies, intended by them as means of accounting for the apparent discrepancies in the Pentateuch. The notion of an oral law, to correct the errors, or to supply the defects of the written law, is a most preposterous contrivance, which, were it admitted as a true one, would not answer the purpose intended. It has, however, been faithfully copied by the Romish Church, which has also its Talmud, its traditions of paramount authority, to sanction and enforce human devices, when Divine precepts would guide the mind in a direction the reverse of antichristian observances. But in neither case is the authority of the inspired writers supported by these unhallowed schemes. Nor can any objections be more frivolous, than many of those which the Author of the Critical History of the Old Testament has advanced against the ascribing of the Pentateuch to Moses. His notion, too, that there existed among the Hebrews, as a regulation of the Jewish Lawgiver, a class of public writers, who were designated prophets, and whose office it was to collect and preserve the memorials of transactions relating to the national history, is nothing better than a supposition. The passage to which he refers in Josephus contra Apionem, affords no ground for the assumption. It is not reasonable to suppose, that, if these public scribes had been instituted by Moses, the Pentateuch would have been entirely silent as to their appointment. The administration of justice was too onerous an employment for the Israelitish leader; and it became necessary to select persons on whom a part of the judicial functions should be devolved. Their appointment, the circumstances in which it originated, and their specific duties, are described in the Pentateuch; and if the public writers whom R. Simon conceives to have existed, had really been constituted by Moses for the purpose which the hypothesis assigns to them, the institution of their office would have had a place in the record of the Mosaic legislation. Moses, he thinks, was the author of the statutes and ordinances, which he committed to writing, but it was left to the public scribes to register the national transactions. The perusal of the books is sufficient to