Since writing the above, the last edition (1826) of Professor Farrar's volume has fallen into our hands. We immediately examined it, in the expectation that the errors which we have noticed, would be corrected in it. But it appears, that although it had been used at Cambridge from 1820 to 1826, only one of the errors which we have pointed out, has been discovered.

ART. III.-A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews. In
two volumes. By MOSES STUART, Associate Professor of
Sacred Literature in the Theological Seminary at Andover.
Andover, 1827.

It is not without reason, that even in our enlightened days, as we are pleased constantly to call them, great importance should be attached to the claim of antiquity. To advance its long and continued existence as the sanction for a custom, is only another method of stating that the experience of ages has tested its utility and proved its wisdom. We are not ashamed to confess our veneration for old opinions, whilst at the same time we think with St. Cyprian, that "custom ought not to hinder that truth should prevail, for custom without truth is but agedness of error."

In this country, the glory of our career will depend upon the skill with which we may unite the wisdom of the past with the increasing knowledge of our own times. To adapt old and well-tried principles and forms to the new wants and changing fashions of society, should be the object and end of all innovation. In the search after this necessary and desirable adaptation, we should not, without judgment, follow the ancients, for "not because they went before us in time, therefore in wisdom, which being given alike to all ages, cannot be prepossessed by them," nor should we, still worse, be led astray by our own vanity, and abate as nuisances all customs which militate against our own untried opinions.

In the formation and regulation of our schools and colleges, we have ample scope for a fair trial of our skill at improvement.

We have commenced our literary course untrammelled by long venerated usages, disconnected from all political or religious bias, and assisted by the experience of a civilized and enlightened nation, engaged in the same pursuits, feeling the same wants, nay, speaking the very language which we inherit. We believe that the European sytems of education are not suited in all their details to our state of society; we believe that, in the course of ages, many abuses have become incorporated therein, which the enlightened men of that continent would rejoice to remedy. We see at this time in England, the liberal party engaged in the laborious and expensive design of rearing new establishments in London, to supply the deficiencies and get rid of the abuses of the old universities. With these advantages and this past and passing experience, there must be some defect in ourselves, some weak point in our national character, if we cannot so organize our literary institutions, as to enable them to meet the wants of the community and the improvements of the age in the nature and measure of instruction, as well as in the modes of training youth for the business of life.

The history of education, including the progress of literary institutions, would furnish materials not merely for an interesting essay, but for a most important book. We shall not attempt it here—it will be sufficient to point out one or two remarkable changes in American seminaries, suggested by the valuable work before us. The first colleges erected in this country, were designed exclusively for the education of Ministers of the Gospel. Our later institutions have been established upon a more enlarged plan, but we have not got what, in European phraseology, can be termed an University. Legal, medical and theological lectures are attached to several of our colleges, but the most distinguished institutions for the three learned professions, are all separate and exclusive. We have now sixteen medical colleges, many law schools, and at least twelve theological seminaries. The concentration of professional knowledge, and the increase of competent practical instructors in these institutions, is felt and acknowledged; all are doing good to their country and rising into reputation. The work at the head of our article, confines our remarks at this time to the theological establishments recently founded and growing up in the United States.

Most of these seminaries recommend themselves by their excellent arrangements for the promotion of liberal learning among clerical men. Without any disparagement to the clergy as a sacred body, we may be permitted to say, there has been VOL. III.-NO. 6.

40

a strong tendency-in former periods at least to a decline in learning and study among them, and we fear this is still the case in some parts of our country. Such a decline is very much to be deprecated, not only by the religious public, but by the whole community, for the clergy will always exert, for good or for evil, a powerful influence on society. Hence, we heartily congratulate ourselves and our countrymen on the bright prospect opened upon us by the establishment in the United States of so many theological schools.

The standard of clerical learning was high with the first settlers of New-England: they have left testimonies and monuments well known to the learned world. And, heretofore, in all parts of our country, divines have ranked among our most learned men. But if we examine the preparation required in many parts of the country for admission to the sacred office, even at the present day, we shall wonder rather at the learning than the ignorance of our clergy. Our theological seminaries are, we hope, well calculated to remedy the evils arising from this state of things, and are already producing a favourable change.

The seminary at Andover is one of the oldest in the United States, if not actually the first established upon an extensive plan. In the thorough course of study there pursued, theology is based on classical and biblical learning, and the students are led to form their opinions in matters of doctrine from a careful scriptural exegesis. The first year at this institution is devoted to the acquisition of the original languages of the Scriptures. During the second year, this learning is applied to the careful and critical investigation of the Bible. The third and last year is spent in rhetorical exercises, as preparatory to public speaking. Instead of blind subscription to a creed, nothing is required at Andover, save testimonials of a character suited to the holy profession the candidate would undertake. The professors set an example of the freedom and industry of research, which they inculcate on their pupils; the many able works which they have produced, have excited their students, even while in the seminary, to successful literary efforts.

The author of the work before us superintends in the most liberal and able manner, the fundamental portion of the course of study required at Andover, and by his valuable publications, (among which is an excellent Hebrew Grammar) has not only assisted and lightened the labours of theological students, but has given a powerful impulse to literary improvement among our clergy. When Professor Stuart began his career, the researches of the German critics had excited a general apprehension of danger to the cause of religion, and even of Christian

truth itself. Students in theology were cautioned not to meddle with writings infected with error and infidelity. But Professor Stuart fearlessly entered into the investigation of the positions of these German commentators, and has shown as the result of a bold, candid and honest examination, that their biblical and theological learning, so far from inculcating dangerous novelties, furnishes the clearest and strongest proofs of important truth. In the work before us, as in many of his former publications, he has made good and judicious use of their discoveries, not tamely following and retailing their opinions, but challenging their errors, and proving his own strength, by meeting them on their own ground, and opposing them with their own weapons.

The genuineness and authority of our sacred books, their origin and history deserve the attentive examination at least of those who profess to instruct us out of the oracles of truth.They at least should be able to give satisfactory reasons for founding their doctrinal systems on these records. No one of the books of the New Testament has been the subject of so much doubt and dispute, especially as to its origin, as the Epistle to the Hebrews; nay, its very direction or title is not a little contested. Professor Stuart, in the work before us, has patiently and candidly investigated all the doubts which envelope this epistle, and has given an interest and an animation to his various inquiries, which no general reader can expect. Above all, he has herein set a noble example of the purity and gentleness which becomes the biblical critic. Not a censorious expression, not an unkind remark, not one uncharitable imputation on the feelings or motives of his aatagonists will be found in his pages. No work can be more free from every thing like the odium theologicum as it has been termed.

Professor Stuart exhibits to his readers the questions involved in his Commentary upon the Epistle to the Hebrews in the following words :

"No part of the New Testament has occasioned so much difference of opinion, and given rise to so much literary discussion among critics, as the Epistle to the Hebrews. The principal reason of this seems to be, that this epistle does not exhibit, either in the beginning of it or elsewhere, any express evidence of having been addressed to any particular church, nor any designation of the author's name.". "Every topic which its literary history could suggest has been the subject of animated discussion. It has been disputed whether it is an Epistle, an Essay, or a Homily; whether it was written by Paul, Apollos, Barnabas, Clement of Rome, or by some other person; and whether it was originally written in Hebrew or Greek. There has also been a difference of opinion as to the place where, and the time when, it was written.

On every one of these topics, critics have been and still are divided.Nor has this division been occasioned merely by a difference in theological opinions."-Introduction, p. 1.

The first volume is taken up with a full examination of all the questions exhibited in the paragraph just quoted, and a list of aids, critical and exegetical, to the study of this epistle, is subjoined. The second volume contains 1st, a new translation of the epistle. 2dly, a general view of its contents. 3dly, a Commentary, in which every local difficulty is considered and explained, and the whole is concluded by twenty elaborate dissertations on some of the peculiarly interesting or obscure passages in the epistle.

On the first question suggested in the introductory remarks, Professor Stuart observes :

"However, if this must be disputed, we can easily satisfy ourselves respecting it. The address every where is like that of an epistle, viz: in the second person plural; with the single exception, that the writer occasionally uses a xovwois, that is, he includes himself with those whom he addresses, and so employs the first person plural. But this is a practice so common in epistolary correspondence, that it occasions no difficulty in the case under consideration.

"It is true, the mode of address would be the same in regard to the particular just noticed, if the epistle had originally been a homily. But other particulars render such a supposition utterly inadmissible. The epistle every where supposes the persons addressed to be absent from the writer, not present before him, as in the case of a homily. How could be, in a homily, ask them to pray that he might be restored to them?' Heb: 13: 19. How could he promise to 'to make them a visit, in company with Timothy, if he should come speedily?' 13: 23.

"I add, that I am unable to see how any one can well imagine, (as Berger does, and as Origen long ago conjectured), that the hand of a commentator is discernible in this epistle. The whole tenor of it, from beginning to end, contradicts this. Did ever any writing come more warmly and fully from the heart? Here is no patchwork; no congeries of heterogeneous materials; no designed, exegetical commentary; no trace of a copyist or reporter. It is one uniform, unbroken, continuous work; produced by the mighty impulse of one and the same mind, fraught with knowledge of the subject which it discusses, glowing with benevolent feelings toward those who are addressed, and agitated with alarm at the danger to which they are exposed. Sooner should I think of dividing into parcels the Iliad, the Eneid, or the Paradise Lost, and assigning respective parts to different poets, than of introducing the hand of a copyist, or a mere commentator, into the Epistle to the Hebrews. Be it written where, when, or by whom it may have been, one mind performed the great work, and stamped it with characteristics too plain to be obscured, too deep to be erased." Vol. i. p. 6.