of earthly worshippers with "the general assembly and church of the first born, which are written in heaven, and God the Judge of all, and the spirits of just men made perfect;" it is not surprising that the tone of the address should become elevated, fervid and sublime, that the sentiments should partake of its distinct and local application, and that the phraseology should differ sensibly from the style of those exhortations in which the more general and familiar topics of Faith, Hope and Charity, are freely discussed.

Yet, even when examined under this aspect, the discrepancies are shewn to be less striking than would be previously expected. On comparing this epistle as Mr. Stuart has most laboriously done with others of St. Paul, it is found, notwithstanding the purer Greek idiom ascribed to it by Origen, to contain as many Hebraisms as his other writings, and its peculiarities, notwithstanding the nature of the subject, to be not more

numerous.

We have never seen an instance of verbal criticism, a comparison of idioms, phrases and peculiar expressions more patiently and carefully, nor in our opinion more successfully conducted than in the many pages which Mr. Stuart has devoted to this subject. In reviewing, as he does individually, the objections of Bertholdt, Schulz, Seyffarth, &c. and comparing the peculiarities in this epistle, he has demonstrated, that the words and expressions which have been considered as not Pauline, may nearly all be justified by a comparison with the other writings of the Apostle, and that the ära λsyóueva, the words or phrases which occur but once, of which so much has been said, are not more numerous than in other epistles, not so numerous for instance as in the 1st to the Corinthians.

"It often struck me, while engaged in the toilsome and protracted labour of examining the preceding objections made against the Pauline origin of our epistle, by Schulz and Seyffarth, that the only just method of weighing the whole force of the arguments, which they deduce from peculiarities of phraseology and the choice of words by our author, would be, to carry the same principles of reasoning along with us, to the examination of one of Paul's acknowledged epistles, and see whether as great a list of expressions and words, foreign to the other acknowledged epistles of Paul, might not be found, as in the Epistle to the Hebrews." p. 241.

Professor Stuart selected as a subject of comparison the first Epistle to the Corinthians "because, like that to the Hebrews, it presents several topics that are peculiar to itself," and the results of his examination are, that while the length of the Epistle to the Hebrews is to that of the first to the Corinthians as ten

to thirteen, the ärağ λɛyóμsva in the former, are, according to the reckoning of Seyffarth, one hundred and eighteen; in the latter, according to Mr. Stuart, two hundred and thirty-or, in a proportion of twelve to eighteen.

"Certain is it, then, that if the number of drag syóueva in our epistle proves that it was not from the hand of Paul, it must be more abundantly evident that Paul cannot have been the author of the first epistle to the Corinthians, which has a proportion of one half more άrağ λɛyóμɛva than our epistle."-Vol. i. p. 249.

This comparison relates to single words that have been but once used, but our author gives in addition (p. 242 to 247) from the 1st Corinthians a catalogue of upwards of two hundred phrases that are equally peculiar. Shewing, that if this epistle had been anonymous, it might, with more propriety, by the same canons of criticism have been rejected from among the writings of St. Paul.

The conclusion of this most elaborate investigation is, that while many persons have been and are struck on reading the Epistle to the Hebrews, with a style which differs in its colouring somewhat from that of the acknowledged writings of St. Paul, yet this difference is not greater than a difference in circumstances, subject and time might reasonably be expected to produce in the composition of the same individual. As this, however, is the most important discussion connected with this portion of the New Testament, it is, perhaps, but justice to our author to present his own strong and satisfactory deductions.

"I might proceed still further, and collect a large number of favourite expressions, often repeated, in this epistle, but which seldom or never occur in the other Pauline epistles. Many such I have noticed, in the course of my investigations; many more than Dr. Schulz has been able to collect from the Epistle to the Hebrews. And if the two Epistles to the Corinthians were to be the subject of investigation, instead of the first only, the list of ἅπαξ λεγόμενα and ἅπαξ λογιζόμενα, and of favourite idioms, and peculiar ideas, might be swelled to an enormous catalogue. I have observed, as I feel quite well satisfied, more ärağ λsyóμsva in the second Epistle to the Corinthians in proportion to its length, than in the first; and quite as many peculiar phrases. In a word, after such an

investigation as I have been through, I am bold to say, that there is not a single epistle of Paul's which may not be wrested from him, by arguments of the very same kind, as those by which the genuineness of our epistle is assailed, and in all respects of equal validity.

"Unfortunately for the cause of criticism, so just and obvious an investigation has not hitherto been entered upon. Most of those who have doubted the genuineness of the Epistle to the Hebrews, have seemed to consider it as quite proper to make out from it all the specialities possible, and then to reason from them, without any fear of mistake. I have

examined their arguments in detail, because I wished to shew how many hasty and incorrect assertions have been brought forward as arguments. I have now exhibited the application of the principles, on which their whole argument stands, to one of Paul's epistles, the genuineness of which no critic calls in question. The result is so plain, that it cannot be mistaken.

"But,' it will be asked, 'can we never reason, in any case, from dissimilarity of language in different compositions, to different persons as authors?' No doubt we may, in some cases. But not unless the difference be greater, than in the case before us. It has been shown above how many striking traits of resemblance to the other letters of Paul, there are in our epistle. While these remain, the discrepancy can never be made out to be great enough to build a sound argument upon it. If the question were to be asked, Whether the author of the Epistle to the Romans could have written the first Epistle of John? the answer would be easy, nay almost absolutely certain, from internal evidence.— But after all the striking resemblances which can be shewn between our epistle and Paul's letters; after proving from actual examination, that the list of peculiarities, in one of his most conspicuous and acknowledged epistles, is much greater than in our epistle; after making all the reasonable abatements which must be made, from the peculiarity of the subjects which are discussed in our epistle, and of the condition of those to whom it was addressed; after reflection upon the acknowledged fact, that every writer's style is more or less altered by advancing age; by the circumstances of haste or leisure in which he writes; by the topics themselves which he discusses; by the degree of excitement which - he feels at the time; above all, taking into consideration the fact, that every writer who travels to many different countries, resides in many different places, and is conversant with a great variety of men and of dialects, is much more liable to change his style somewhat, than he who always resides in the same place, and is conversant with the same men and books; after taking, I say, all these things into consideration, can any man have reasonable grounds to be satisfied, that the peculiarity of style and diction in our epistle is such, that its Pauline origin is to be rejected on account of them? I will not undertake to answer for others; but for myself, I can say with a clear and an abiding conviction, I do not feel that such an argument can stand before the impartial tribunal of criticism." Vol. i. pp. 251, 252.

Mr. Stuart then briefly discusses the claims of the other persons, to whom, at different times, this epistle has been ascribedBarnabas, Luke, Clement of Rome, and Apollos-and produces abundant reason to show that to neither of them can the epistle be imputed with nearly as much probability as to Paul himself. Indeed, it seems impossible, judging from their writings which remain, that it could have been written by either Barnabas or Clement; to Apollos it was never ascribed by any of the ancient churches, and with regard to Luke, in whose favour there are stronger presumptions than in that of any other person except St.

Paul, it may be sufficient to say, that his birth and education, and even his continual wanderings with St. Paul, renders it improbable that he could have acquired that knowledge of the Jewish religion, its rites, ceremonies and observances; of the Jewish feelings and modes of thinking, and even of the rabbinical learning which is displayed in this treatise. It would seem as if a native Jew, and one brought up in the schools of Jerusalem, could alone have understood so thoroughly the opinions of his countrymen.

The last question discussed in the first volume, relates to the language in which the epistle was originally written. On this point there has been a difference of opinion both in ancient and modern times. Clement of Alexandria, and Eusebius, both say that Paul wrote to the Hebrews in the Hebrew language, and that Luke or Clement (of Rome) translated it into Greek. Jerome also remarks, "Scripserat ut Hebræus, Hebræis, Hebraice." By the Hebrew language, there can be little doubt that the Jerusalem or Aramean dialect of the age of the Apostles, and not the ancient Hebrew, was intended. Into this discussion it is not important to enter. Mr. Stuart remarks, that if the epistle was designed for general circulation, to write in Greek was altogether the most feasible mode of accomplishing this, and then adds:

"When Paul wrote to the Romans, he did not write in Latin; yet there was no difficulty in making his epistle understood, for the knowledge of Greek was very common at Rome. If Paul understood the Latin language, (which is no where affirmed, and he had not resided, when he wrote our epistle, in any of the countries where it was commonly used), still he understood Greek so much better, that he would of course prefer writing in it.

"For a similar reason, if no other could be given, one may regard it as more probable, that he would write the Epistle to the Hebrews in the Greek language. At the time of writing it, he had been abroad twentyfive years at least, in Greek countries, and had been in Palestine, during all that period, only a few days. The Jews abroad, whom he every where saw, spoke Greek, not Hebrew. In Greek he preached and conversed. Is it any wonder, then, that after twenty-five years incessant labour of preaching, conversing, and writing in this language, he should have preferred writing in it? Indeed can it be probable, that, under circumstances like these, he still possessed an equal facility of writing in his native dialect of Palestine ?" Vol. i. p. 281.

"I would add merely, that the vivid colouring and animation of the whole epistle, the impassioned and energetic expression of it, and its native, unconstrained appearance, all contribute to prove, that it was originally written in the same language in which it now appears." Vol. i. p. 285.

Besides it deserves to be noticed that in the quotations in this epistle from the Old Testament, the septuagint version is constantly used, and is followed even in some passages in which it departs from the original. This would scarcely have occurred to one writing in the Hebrew language.

We have followed our author through this volume, with great, we had almost said with unmingled satisfaction. If our convictions have not always been as strong as those expressed by Mr. Stuart, we have certainly not been able any where to suggest an hypothesis more probable, than the one he defends. If his discussions should be considered in some instances prolix, it may be replied, that intending this commentary as a work of reference, he may have considered it a duty to notice every doubt which has been thrown on this epistle, and the charge of tediousness, dullness, of fastidious criticism and insufficient research, must be alleged against those who have rendered this laborious examination necessary. This volume is honourable to the literature, the talent, and the patient industry of our country, and we hesitate not to join with other journalists in expressing our opinion that this work must rank among the permanent commentaries on the writings of St. Paul, and that no one hereafter will examine critically, faithfully and thoroughly, the Epistle to the Hebrews, without consulting the volumes of Professor Stuart.

In our notices on the second volume, we shall be brief. The translation varies frequently in its expressions from the common version, and does not always improve it. Into a close examination of the translation however, we shall not enter, tempting as the subject may be. It is here, and in the commentary succeeding it, that we should be most likely to differ from Mr. Stuart. Our differences, perhaps, would in few instances, be of much importance. On two or three particular phrases or passages, we shall offer some remarks.

The quotation in Hebrew 1: 9, which Mr. Stuart has translated "Therefore, O God, thy God hath anointed thee," instead of the common reading, "Therefore, God, even thy God," will startle we believe some unlearned readers-and while he admits that the phrase is equally susceptible of the old translation, we are surprised that he should have followed the opinion of Theophylact, and introduced a change that, to say the least, seems unnecessary. In chapter 2: 1, we should prefer for ragavusv, lest we should "suffer them to pass away," which is after all only a change of words with the present translation, rather than the phrase of Mr. Stuart, "lest we should slight them." This apVOL. III. NO. 6.

42