who have usurped the name by the vote of their own assemblies, not by the gift of the people?" A hiatus valde deflendus here interrupts the development of the argument. We can only find room for one more passage,-an imitation of a celebrated part of Plato's Republic, which will serve as a kind of antidote to the foregoing extract. It is an eloquent, though rather hyperbolical exposé of the abuse of liberty. POETRY. LINES ADDRESSED TO THE YARDLEY OAK, AND art thou yet existent? Still a tree- Who planted thee, old patriarch of the wood? By lightnings riven, or billowed o'er the flood? "When the people have been parched Who bade a people sorrow or rejoice, by any master.' W. S. *Book i. c. 43. Did never thy huge guilty arms sustain What! silent still! no thrilling tale of blood, He The sightless poet of the angelic sphere? Thou speak'st not even of Him who sang to thee! To whom thy name, and fame, and praise, belong? Even now thy living branches seem to mock Thou'st heard them, O thou blast, And now, at midnight lone, When the tall trees before thee bow, I hear thee weep for all their woe, With sympathetic moan: I hear thee sigh Across the sky, As the dark heavy clouds drift from the wintry zone ! Swell on, thou mighty wind, I love, at midnight's solemn hour, And while the sound Imagination holds communion dread with thee! At midnight deep Thou seem'st to weep, That earth is doomed to change, that man is born to die! Perchance, O midnight wind, Remembered but by them a mother's ashes sleep. Perchance, on ocean's shore, Thou'st heard the maniac's wail, Who, mourning on the rocky steep, Casts wistful eyes along the deep, Her lover's bark to hail : And bids the blast Which rushes past, NEW CREATION. CREATED once, material worlds fulfil In silent space their great Creator's will; Immensely vast, in dire confusion hurl'd, New hymns of praise are heard in heav'n, along Have pow'r to harm where God delights to dwell; Well may the host of earthly orbs amaze, I. O. REVIEW.-A Commentary on the Epistle and Jackson. London. 1833. THE want of philological and critical commentaries on the Scriptures has been severely felt by the theological students of this country. They have been left to prosecute their critical labours without that assistance for which they were entitled to look to their predecessors; and have, in consequence, adopted many erroneous principles of interpretation, and have rested in very partial and inaccurate views of the sacred texts. Such works as those of Doddridge and Macknight, whatever assistance they may afford to the general reader, are very far from supplying the students of divinity with the critical information they should possess, or from familiarizing them with those sound principles of exegesis which are necessary to an accurate interpretation of the divine word. We are far from wishing to underrate the value of such works. They have enriched the theological literature of our country, and, in the absence of some productions more decidedly philological and critical, have served to keep alive the attention of divinity students to this most important branch of their education. Still, they have fallen far below what the interests of scripture truth required, and the advanced state of our erudition might have furnished. They have merely pointed out the road, and that with many imperfections, in which more learned and successful investigators were required to proceed. An attempt has been made to supply this deficiency by the Rev. S. T. Bloomfield, in his Recensio Synoptica; but it is an obvious remark, that the extensive and valuable collection of Exegetical, Philological, and Doctrinal Annotations, which his work contains, is much more suited to the advanced scholar than to the youthful student. It serves rather to perplex than to guide the latter, and least of all can it avail to familiarize his mind with the spirit and principles of sound interpretation. continually feels the want of some learned and discreet guide, to determine his selection from the numerous comments which are before him; he is consequently in danger of adopting some unsound exegesis out of regard to the authority by which it is proposed. He Mr. Bloomfield would have greatly increased the utility of his work, if, in addition to the collection of such anno tations, he had exercised a sound discrimination in pointing out their excellences and defects. The conviction of this deficiency in our sacred literature has lately induced an application to foreign sources for its supply. This example was set us by our American brethren, especially those of the Andover school. With a zeal and diligence beyond all praise, they have translated into the English tongue some of the most valuable productions of German scholars; and, as if to evidence the advantage of an intimate acquaintance with these imperishable monuments of learning, they have, themselves, produced commentaries on the sacred text incomparably superior to any thing which our language before contained. Some of these have found their way to our country, and we know no better or more healthy symptom of the times than the hearty reception which they have met. Dr. Smith, in his Preface to Professor Stuart's work on the Romans, alludes to some difficulties which prevent our obtaining an adequate supply of the theological productions of America. What these difficulties may be, we know not; but of this we are assured, that a more important service could not be rendered to the cause of sound biblical learning, than their removal. In our last number, it afforded us sincere gratification to introduce Mr. Stuart's Commentary on the Romans to our readers: and it is with equal pleasure we now invite their attention to a work, constructed on similar principles, and displaying an erudition of the same high order, on the Epistle to the Hebrews. This is the second English edition, and is brought out at a much lower price than its predecessor. Amongst the works which we already possess on this epistle, those of Owen and Maclean are most known and most highly estimated. The rabbinical learning of the former, and the sound discriminating judgment of the latter, attach considerable value to their productions. Still, much was wanting for the thorough elucidation of this epistle. There are few readers of the present day, we apprehend, who have sufficient perseverance to get through Owen's seven volumes. His style was least adapted for such a species of composition. The text is literally buried beneath the comment; and Dr. Owen the divine and polemic, is, in consequence, every where more apparent than the apostle Paul. The case is very different with Maclean's invaluable work-he has achieved much, with but a scantling of learning. His sound sense never leaves him; and his discussion of the doctrinal difficulties of the epistle are for the most part calm, lucid, and satisfactory. From what he has achieved, we regret he did not attempt more. Professor Stuart has attempted a work of a higher order, and we are happy to say he has completely succeeded. He enters at considerable length into the literary history of the epistle. This is the portion of his work with which general readers will probably be least pleased, but with which the theological student will be most delighted. It supplies, within a narrow compass, a masterly exhibition of the evidence which learning can adduce, respecting the language and authorship of this epistle, the place of its composition, and the people to whom it was addressed. Va rious theories are brought under review, and are subjected to as severe and scholarlike an investigation as we have ever witnessed. Dr. Henderson bears honourable testimony to the competency of Mr. Stuart for labours of this kind : "Intimately acquainted," he remarks, "with the minutiæ of Hebrew and Greek Grammar; familiar with the diversities which characterize the style of the Sacred Writers; trained by long study of the laws of Biblical exegesis to a matured and refined tact in seizing the point, the bearing, the various shades and ramifications of meaning which are couched under the sacred phraseology; versed in the theological learning of Germany; imbued with a sincere love of Divine truth, and a profound reverence for its dictates; and, withal, endowed with a manly and richly cultivated intellect-his talents and acquirements peculiarly fitted him for translating and commenting upon the Epistle to the Hebrews-a task replete with difficulties, but which he has here performed with so much credit to himself, and so much advantage to the church of God. "The ordeal to which this important portion of Scripture has been subjected by the wild and extravagant hypothesis of some of the master-spirits of Germany, rendered it a matter of imperious necessity that it should be submitted to a fresh and full investigation. This, the perusal of the introductory part of the volume will prove that the author has successfully done. Questions respecting style, authorship, and interpretation, which men of such celebrity as Eichhorn, Bertholdt, De Wette, and others, were considered to have completely set at rest, have received the most patient and rigid consideration; and, in most instances triumphantly, in all more or less satisfactorily, the very reverse of their conclusions has been shewn to be in accordance with the real facts of the case."-Advert. 1, 2. Our limits forbid our entering on any of the interesting questions to which the epistle gives rise: and, indeed, this is the less necessary, as the work which we are intro ducing to our readers, and of which we hope they will immediately possess themselves, furnishes a far more lucid and satisfactory statement of these points than is within our power. The canonical authority of this Epistle was early disputed, more particularly in the Western churches; and the objections then urged have been repeated in modern times with all the additional force which an enlarged erudition could furnish. Mr. Stuart patiently examines the evidence pro and con, allows its full force to every argument, and then sets the result of his investigations before his reader in a condensed, lucid, and cautious manner : "In the Egyptian and Eastern churches," he says, "there were, it is probable, at a pretty early period, some who had doubts whether Paul wrote the epistle to the Hebrews; but no considerable person or party is definitely known to us, who entertained these doubts; and it is manifest, from Origen and Eusebius, that there was not, in that quarter, any important opposition to the general and constant tradition of the church, that Paul did write it. Not a single witness of any considerable respectability is named, who has given his voice, in this part of the church, for the negative of the question we are considering. What Jerome avers, appears to be strictly true, namely, ab ecclesiis Orientis et ab omnibus retro ecclesiasticis Græci sermonis scriptoribus, quasi apostoli Pauli suscipi. "In the Western churches, a diversity of opinion prevailed; although the actual quantity of negative testimony, that can be adduced, is not great. Yet the concessions of Jerome and Augustine leave no room to doubt the fact, that the predominant opi nion of the Western churches, in their times, was in the negative. In early times, we have seen that the case was different, when Clement of Rome wrote his epistle, and when the old Latin version was brought into circulation. What produced a change of opinion in the West, we are left to conjecture. The scanty critical and literary records of those times, afford us no means for tracing the history of it. But this is far from being a singular case. Many other changes in the opinions of the churches have taken place, which we are, for a similar reason, as little able to trace with any certainty or satisfaction. "Storr has endeavoured to shew, that Marcion occasioned this revolution, when he came from the East to Rome, and brought with him a collection of the sacred books, in which the epistle to the Hebrews was omitted. But it is very improbable, that an extravagant man, excommunicated by the Roman church itself, should have produced such a revolution there in sentiment. Others have, with more probability, attributed it to the zealous disputes at Rome against the Montanist party, whom the epistle to the Hebrews was supposed particularly to favour. The Montanists strenuously opposed the reception again into the bosom of the church, those persons who had so lapsed as to make defection from the Christian faith. The passages in Heb. vi. 4-8, and x. 26-31, at least seem strongly to favour the views which they maintained. ་། ་ church at Rome carried the dispute against the Montanists very high; and Ernesti and many other critics, have been led to believe, that the epistle to the Hebrews was ultimately rejected by them, because the Montanists relied on it as their main support. "As a matter of fact, this cannot be established by direct historical evidence. But, in the absence of all testimony in respect to this subject, it must be allowed as not improbable, that the epistle to the Hebrews may have, in this way, become obnoxious to the Romish church. Many such instances might be produced, from the history of the church. The Ebionites, the Manicheans, the Alogi, and many ancient and modern sects, have rejected some part of the canon of Scripture, because it stood opposed to their party views. The Apocalypse was rejected by many of the Oriental churches, on account of their opposition to the Chiliasts, who made so much use of it. And who does not know, that Luther himself rejected the epistle of James, because he viewed it as thwarting his favourite notions of justification; yea, that he went so far as to give it the appellation of epistola straminca? It cannot be at all strange, then, that the Romish church, exceedingly embittered by the dispute with the Montanists, should have gradually come to call in question the apostolic origin of our epistle; because it was, to their adversaries, a favourite source of appeal, and because (unlike Paul's other epistles) it was anonymous. "That all, even of the Montanists, however, admitted the apostolic origin of our epistle, does not seem to be true. Tertullian, who took a very active part in favour of this sect, had, as we have already seen, doubts of such an origin; or rather, he ascribed it to Barnabas. "But whatever might have been the cause that the epistle in question was pretty generally rejected by the churches of the West, the fact, that it was so, cannot be reasonably disputed. A majority of these churches, from the latter half of the second century to the latter half of the fourth, seem to have been generally opposed to receiving this epistle as Paul's; although there were some among them who did receive it.. "It remains, then, to balance the testimony thus collected together and compared. The early testimony is, of course, immeasurably the most important. And there seems to me sufficient evidence, that this was as general and as uniform, for the first century after the apostolic age, as in respect to many other books of the New Testament; and more so than in respect to several. I cannot hesitate to believe, that THE WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE FROM TRADITION, IS ALTOGETHER PREPONDERANT IN FAVOUR OF THE OPINION, THAT PAUL WAS THE AUTHOR OF OUR EPISTLE."-p. 110 to 112. It is of the utmost importance that the ministers of religion should be accurately informed on matters of this kind. To calculate on the ignorance of others is disho nourable to themselves and injurious to the best interests of their people. This is more especially the case in the present day, Information is now so rapidly circulated, that the more intelligent and reading portion of the community cannot fail to be apprized of the difficulties which attach to revelation in general, or of the objections which have been urged against any portion of it in par ticular. It should, therefore, be the study of those who minister in the house of God, to make themselves masters of these questions, in order that they may be prepared, according to the exigencies of the times, to protect their people from the assaults of infidelity, and to advance them in the belief and knowledge of the inspired word. A diligent study of the dissertations prefixed to this volume, will be found one of the best means for the attainment of this desirable end. The new translation which the volume contains, is designed to furnish, on a more exact view of the features of the original Greek, than is presented by our common English version.' This is followed by a general view of the contents of the epistle, for which we should be glad to find room, as it presents, within a narrow compass, an exact and beautiful development of the scope and order of this composition. The Commentary displays qualities of the same order as those which we noticed last month, in our author's work on the Romans. It is critical throughout, frequently so to an extent which the general reader will deem unnecessary. Mr. Stuart proceeds with great caution in his investigation of the meaning of words. No process is regarded as too laborious, no research too extensive, no collation of authorities too minute or comprehensive, which promises to secure the integrity of his version. He displays the patience of enlightened scholarship to an extent which is seldom witnessed. The following extract, for which alone we can find room, may be taken as a fair sample of our author's style : Θεῷ, “ Ver. 25. Ὅθεν καὶ σώζειν hence, also, he is able always to save those who draw nigh to God through him, i. e. approach the throne of grace (ch. iv. 16) in his name, or on his account, trusting in him as their priest and intercessor. "OJEV, whence, i. e. because he is a perpetual priest. Zwlav, to save, means here, to deliver from condemnation and punishment. This the high priest did, in regard to God's external government over the Jews, when he went into the most holy place, and made expiation for the sins of the people. Christ, as a priest in the heavenly world, is able to do this; and to do it, εἰς τὸ παντελές, unceasingly, always, so long as there are any who need pardon, and who can obtain it. «Πάντοτε ζῶν, ever living, i. e. always abiding or continuing a priest; compare ver. 3. 8. 17, 21. 21. Zaw, to live, to endure,, to be perennial; as frequently before. The mere continual existence of Christ is not at all the question here, but the perpetuity of his priesthood; so that |