Jews mingled Grecian literature with their own theology? Was not Tarsus, no mean city, in some degree the rival of Alexandria, of similar pursuits, with schools and philosophers alike distinguished, and equally affording a settlement and freedom to the Jews? That the two cities resembled each other in their literature and schools may be inferred from a passage in Strabo, who, ch. xiv. 12, affirms that the citizens of both cities were exceedingly devoted to literature and philosophy; and again, that Rome was full of literary men (piλoλóywv) from Tarsus and Alexandria. That St. Paul was a Jew, born at Tarsus, liberally educated, and therefore familiar with Hellenistic literature like that of Philo, is an argument of no small weight in favour of the Pauline origin of the epistle.

Let us, therefore, connect the internal with the historical evidence. The author was well versed in the learning both of the Hellenistic and of the Hebrew Jews; like St. Paul, a scholar, from Tarsus, who completed his studies at the feet of Gamaliel. He was not an original witness of the miracles of our Lord; like St. Paul, the Apostle, born out of due time. He must have been influenced by a feeling of intense interest in the spiritual welfare of Israel; like St. Paul, who could wish himself accursed from Christ for his brethren, according to the flesh. He addresses the Hebrews in the tone and spirit of Apostolic authority, and yet nowhere assumes the name of an Apostle; like St. Paul, the Apostle of the Gentiles, who magnified that office. His style and manner are ardent, unequal, impetuous, argumentative, involved, full of parentheses; producing long digressions, founded sometimes upon a single

word, sustaining his points by proofs from the Septuagint, and abounding in illustrations from the Old Testament history; like St. Paul everywhere. He had been a prisoner in Palestine for the gospel-certainly, if the true reading be, " ye had compassion on my bouds"-probably, if it be "on the prisoners," which seems a more delicate allusion to himself; like St. Paul in Cæsarea. He wrote the epistle from Italy," the Italians salute you," and had been removed there from Palestine, as implied in the words, "I hope shortly to be restored to you;" like St. Paul, when, on appeal, he was sent from Tarsus to the tribunal of Cæsar. He was the companion of Timothy, and called him brother, as did St. Paul. He had received Timothy, or, at the very least, expected him in Italy; "know that our brother Timothy has departed, or possibly set out on his journey ;" like Paul, who from Rome had written, " do thy diligence to come before winter." He seems to intimate some superintendence and direction of the travels of the Evangelist, "with whom, if he come shortly, I will see you," implying the selection of a fellow-traveller, which could have been expressed by none other than St. Paul.

To whom, we ask, do so many circumstances point, as to him who has the vast majority of the suffrages of antiquity? The writer of the epistle was assuredly no obscure or inconsiderable person. He addressed from Italy, with the voice of authority, a whole community in Palestine. Yet no name survives, except that of Paul, to which the incidents are applicable. To him nothing in the epistle is inappropriate. The more we examine the evidence, the stronger become our convictions that the epistle is

the production of none other than St. Paul-that it was written at the close of his confinement at Rome-that it is the last, the most elaborate, the most eloquent, the most instructive, the crowning piece of the very chief of the Apostles.

A Narrative of the Visit to the American Churches by the Deputation from the Congregational Union of England and Wales, by Andrew Reed, D.D. and James Matheson, D.D. 2 vols. 8vo. Jackson and Walford.

(Concluded from p. 57. )

OUR extracts from the descriptive and chiefly literary portions of this work have been numerous and of unusual length; and we have been thus liberal in such quotations for two reasons, first, that our readers might be able to form their own judgment of the manner in which these interesting volumes have been executed; and, secondly, that we might furnish the most convincing evidence of the malignity which has branded their writers with ignorance and illiteracy. The passages, and many others of equal beauty may be found in almost every page, speak for themselves, and we may safely challenge the Quarterly, the British, and even the flaunting Fraser, in point of authorship, to compete with them. Now we are upon the subject, and before we enter upon the topics of main consideration promised in our last, we may as well clear away a few of the more specious misrepresentations with which the reputation of Dr. Reed has especially been assailed. It is true Dr. Reed needs not our advocacy. He is far above the creeping things which have lately raised a hiss at his expense. But the slanderer deserves exposure and chastisement, and,

though a hireling, to be visited with summary justice, if not on his own account, yet for the sake of the mitred shadows which were seen flitting to and fro in the distance, whilst he was doing the work of darkness. That Fraser should on a sudden have betaken himself to the consideration of ecclesiastical subjects would surprise us, did we not know that he is a staunch supporter of Tory politics, and that his party are just now under very serious alarm about the loaves and fishes of the church, which they have monopolized too long to relinquish without a desperate struggle.

But when the political partizan, who is so much at home in the Memorabilia Bacchanalia, who flings his unseemly jests at Noah and Moses, and talks lightly of the Scriptures, tells anecdotes of a drunken Welsh Rector, "than whom a better man did not live,” who apologizes for drunkenness in a priest "gifted with feelings of the best nature, and who commends the Bishop of St. Asaph for giving this drunkard, without any evidence of penitence or reformation, a good living; when this avowed patron of profligacy assumes the garb of sanctity, sees prurience in the most innocent allusions to female fashions and manners in the narrative of a Christian minister distinguished for his moral purity; complains that the said narrative is sadly deficient in "spiritual addresses to the conscience," speaks piously about the self-denial of apostles, their "spiritual taste," loathing "sensualities," meaning thereby only the daily infirmities of taking wholesome food and necessary repose; when such a partizan, such a profligate, presents

* See Fraser's Magazine for November, 1835, page 536.

himself before the public in a character so novel, grotesque, and strange, our first impulse is to exclaim, Is Saul also among the prophets! But a little nearer inspection convinces us that the change is only in the outward man, that it consists not even in a momentary fit of enthusiasm, caught at the prophetic altar, but that it is neither more nor less than an ostentatious garb put on for the occasion, borrowed from the wardrobe of hypocrisy, to be replaced as soon as the actor has performed his part. When nearly forty pages are employed for no other purpose than to decry a work by vilifying its authors, what are we to think of the honesty of the declaration which affirms, in reference to these very individuals, " our only coucern, we can truly say, is for the character and credit of the unfortunate persons now set up for exposure.' Credat Judæus? Does finished hypocrisy usually wear so thin a veil as this? Who but the calumniator has pronounced these persons unfortunate, and who but he has set them up for exposure? Happily for them, even his own pages exhibit a complete refutation of his slanders. Like the fabled serpent, he supplies at once the poison and the antidote.

This paramount, nay, this all absorbing concern for the character and credit of one of the writers of the Narrative, the Reviewer has displayed in over charged statements, in exaggerating facts, and thus converting them into falsehoods, and in conveying to his readers impressions of a most unfavourable nature, and which he knows are totally at variance with all the circumstances from which

* Fraser's Magazine for November, 1835, page 275,

We

he professes to derive them. do not remember, in all that we have read or heard of literary malevolence, to have met with a more shameless perversion of an author's meaning, with a view to fix a charge of baseness upon his character, than is to be found by the frequent introduction from Dr. Reed's narrative of the following passage in this libel, which the courtesy of Toryism dignifies with the name of a Review.

66

It

However, the country was all new, and mostly pretty, and as you know, I can make much of a little good scenery when there is not a great deal to be had."* is not possible to mistake the meaning of the writer, who thus discloses a pleasing trait in his character, namely, that of a disposition to look on the bright side of things, and to enjoy nature, even where she promises the least gratification. Will it be believed that the spiritual Fraser, who calmly commits his injured and truth-loving church "to her covenant God," and who sickens us with his newly-adopted cant, which il accords with his more natural infidel flippancy and blasphemy, will it be believed that this made-up saint should so far forget his part, even during the acting, as to let out the malignity of the fiend by charging upon Dr. Reed, not in one, but in more than half a dozen instances, an innate love of falsehood, for its own sake, and that he should found all this upon the innocent sentence we have quoted; yet it is even so, nor is this all. In page 467, in the October Magazine, the most revolting account is given of the alleged contents of these volumes. It is affirmed that a large propor tion of the work is occupied "with

* Narrative, vol. i. p. 93.

vulgar sensualities;" and after indulging in a strain of abuse worthy of himself and of his cause, he has the impudence to exclaim, "But what will spiritual Christians say to this? Short womenParisian dresses-a mincing tread -jokes about minor theatres meat prepared with butter and the frying-pan,' why what does our pious Deputy mean?" Those portions of this sentence intended to be very piquant are given in italics. And now, let not only "spiritual Christians," but men of common integrity, take up this narrative of Dr. Reed, and sift it with a scrutiny exceeding even the rigour of justice, and then let them report the result-will they admit that it contains a single phrase which can justify the impression which this calumniator has endeavoured to convey? No, they will indignantly class him where henceforth we shall leave him, among "hominum genus audacissimum, mendacissimum avidissimum." Two or three imputations, however, as they have come from other quarters as well as from Fraser's Magazine, and as their tendency, if unexplained and uncontradicted, would be injurious to the Deputation and their Narrative, we shall briefly notice.

Dr. Reed is accused of " making much of a little good scenery," in his account of the effect produced by his own preaching at a camp meeting near the Kappahannock. We have again turned to the Narrative for this account, and after reading it a third time, in conjunction with a statement from America, convinced that it is perfectly true in every iota, without the slightest degree of colouring, and that the event it describes was so remarkable in itself, and so important in its bearing upon the

Narrative, Vol. I. p. 282.

estimate which the Deputation had undertaken to form on the general subject of camp meetings, we feel that Dr. Reed was fully justified in publishing it; that in fact it was his imperative duty, and we believe that this alone determined him to lay a restraint upon his feelings, and, however reluctantly, to become the herald of his own fame. It is but justice to the statement made by him to give the other to which we have referred : it is extracted from an American newspaper of good repute, entitled the " Religious Herald."

"The Rev. Mr. Reed, a congregational minister from London, arrived on the ground on the fifth day of the meeting, and was invited to preach on the next day at eleven o'clock. The brethren were not without fears that his visit might be calculated to check the state of feeling that existed. Accustomed to the forms and etiquette of a large city, and unacquainted with the manners and feelings of a congregation like ours, it was feared that he would not enter into the design and spirit of the meeting. After considerable

persuasion, he consented to preach, and he had not proceeded far before every fear, on the part of the brethren, subsided. His text was in Acts iii. 19- When the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord;' and had be been present during the whole of the meeting, he could not have delivered a more appropriate discourse. His sermon was chaste, evangelical, pathetic, and powerful. Gradually growing in interest and pathos, its conclusion produced the most powerful effect I have ever witnessed of the kind. For about ten minutes the services were entirely suspended, and nothing but weeping heard from ministers and congregation. To the

church it was indeed a time of refreshing from the presence of the Lord' to the unconverted a time of solemn thought. On the next day, after a solemn and affecting interview with a few brethren in one of the tents, our venerable brother left us, carrying with him the Christian affection and the prayers of all present.'"

Arrogance has been imputed to Dr. Reed, on the ground that he gave himself out in the United States as the representative of all the churches in Great Britain, nay, he is even accused of imposing upon the President, General Jackson, under this assumed character. The charge is more seriously brought in the following terms: "The deputy, though sent from only a section of a sect, passes himself off, mendacious coxcomb that he is, as the representative of the Christian Churches of England!!! Is it possible that such a man can be believed? Most truly does he say of himself, you know I can make much of a little good scenery where there is not a great deal to be had.' The poor Americans, accordingly, not knowing their man, did believe him, and hence, imagining that Reed and Matheson were really what they uniformly said they were, our transatlantic dupes not only conferred divinity degrees upon these impostors, but passed the following resolution at a public meeting in New York: That the intercourse between the Churches in Great Britain and the United States, so auspiciously begun in the present year, is, in the judgment of this meeting, of high importance to the interests of vital piety in both countries.'

The spirit and tone of this para

• Fraser's Magazine, October, 1835,

page 472.

graph, as well as its palpable absurdity, can reflect disgrace only upon its author. The Americans must be greater simpletons than even the approving readers of Fraser's Magazine, to have been duped by two unknown and pretending foreign adventurers, who, without either credentials or character, could sit down at the table of the President, mix in the most distinguished circles, and receive at their departure, from the principal clergy and universities, the most marked and public testimonies of respect.

The people, the President, and the learned professors of the United States will no doubt feel the delicacy and the justice of this compliment, and pass it by with the contempt it deserves. The Deputation, this slanderer must have known, went over to America by invitation; the whole affair was matter of distinct arrangement between the churches of the two countries, and it was not possible, if deception had been intended, that it could have been practised. And where does the writer find even the shadow of an assertion in the two volumes of the Narrative which affords the least sanction to this illiberal and scandalous charge against one of the Deputies, that he was a mendacious coxcomb, and against both, that they were impostors? We have carefully gone through the whole work, and we cannot detect a sentence that even ingenious malice could torture into any thing like the assertion which the Reviewer professes to quote. Neither Reed nor Matheson any where falsifies, or goes beyond the simple affirmation contained in the title-page of their book, "that they were a Deputation from the Congregational Union of England and Wales." In deprecating the narrow spirit of secta