of Clark or Scott. They find those works designed for the edification of Christian readers at large, and exceedingly well adapted to such an end; but of little use in affording a fundamentally critical knowledge of the original Scriptures; and so they have recourse to the ample and rich stores of the commentators of Germany, who occupy so eminent a station in critical scholarship. Here, however, unfortunately for the cause of truth, the youthful and inexperienced mind is exposed to a severe trial of its constancy to our holy religion; for often it drinks unawares of the turbid streams of Neologism and Socinianism, and seldom can appreciate the strong bias of the Master-spirits of German sacred literature, to obscure, or remove from their sphere, all the bright lights of inspiration, which adumbrate the divine character of the Author and Perfecter of our faith. The more effectually to meet such an evil, Professor Stuart has first exerted his powers upon those portions of Scripture which have been more especially assailed by the antichristian spirit of the German critics; and the Introduction to the present work shows how triumphantly their incessant, and hitherto successful attacks on the Pauline origin, and canonical credit, of the epistle to the Hebrews may be repelled. The Commentary and the Translation, as well as the introduction, exhibit throughout an acquaintance with the style of the sacred writers, a skill in discriminating the various shades of meaning of their phraseology, a knowledge of Hebrew and Greek idiom, and a reverence for the dictates of divine truth-all highly creditable to the author, and calculated to be abundantly useful to the Christian world. The author says truly, that, "interpretations a priori have long enough had their sway in the church; and it is very manifest that a more judicious and truly Protestant mode of thinking and reasoning, in respect to the interpretation of the Scriptures, has commenced, and bids fair to be adopted.” May the present work contribute, through the divine blessing, to that great object. May it form one signal movement towards that grand and auspicious consummation, when, "all shall know the Lord from the least to the greatest,"-when "the knowledge of the Lord shall fill the earth as the waters cover the sea." Cheapside, London, 1837. CONTENTS. 12. Antiquity and canonical authority of the epistle COMMENTARY ON THE HEBREWS. INTRODUCTION. I. PRELIMINARY REMARKS. No part of the New Testament, if perhaps we may except the Apocalypse, 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 at 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. If it had been expressly inscribed to a particular church, and if the author had originally affixed his name to it, there would of course have been as little occasion for dispute respecting the persons to whom it was addressed, or in regard to the author of it, as there has been in the case of the epistles to the Romans, Corinthians, or Galatians. At a somewhat early period of the Christian era, the eastern and western churches appear to have been divided in opinion respecting the author and canonical authority of this epistle. In modern times, and especially of late, 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 some other person; and whether it was originally written in Hebrew or in 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. The subjects of dispute have, in this case, been more generally, although not always, regarded as topics of literature, rather than of religious sentiment or doctrine. Men of very different views and feelings, in other respects, have often been found united in the same ranks, when questions respecting the epistle to the Hebrews have been disputed. Such too is the case, even at the present time. All the learning and ability which have hitherto been summoned to the contest, have as yet failed to achieve a victory so complete, as to bring about a general acknowledgment, that all ground for further dispute is fairly removed. The student, who is unacquainted with these facts, and who has merely read the epistle to the Hebrews with the same views and feelings which he has entertained while reading the acknowledged epistles of Paul, finds himself A thrown into a situation not a little perplexing, when he begins to make such critical inquiries respecting the epistle in question, as are usually made respecting any ancient writing. He finds philologists and critics of great reputation in the church strangely divided and opposed to each other, in respect to every topic to be examined. What he reads in one author, which perhaps for a time satisfies his mind, he finds controverted, shaken, or overthrown by another; who again, in his turn, receives castigation from a third; while a fourth, a fifth, and a sixth, differ each from all his predecessors. The curiosity of the inquirer thus becomes roused, and he begins to pursue some train of thought or investigation, with hope or perhaps with confidence, that it will lead him to an important and satisfactory result. He presses forward with eagerness, peruses and re-peruses modern critics, dives into the recesses of the ancient ones, and finds, perhaps, after all his toil, that he has been pursuing a phantom, which recedes as fast as he advances. Perplexed with doubt, and wearied at last with the pursuit, he becomes exposed to the danger of entirely abandoning his object, or of settling down in the cold and comfortless conclusion, that nothing satisfactory can be known in regard to it. Such, or not much unlike to this, will be the experience, I believe, of nearly every one who sets out with his mind unfettered by any notions of early education, and determined seriously and thoroughly to investigate and weigh for himself all the evidence which can be found, in respect to the topics suggested by the literary history of the epistle to the Hebrews. He who begins such an investigation, with his mind already made up that Paul wrote, or did not write, this epistle; and that it was, or was not, directed to the Hebrews of Palestine; may indeed spare himself most of the perplexity in which an inquirer of the class just named will be involved. But then if his mind is already made up, what need is there of further investigation? And why not spare himself the time and trouble which it must cost? Minds of a different order, however, will doubtless wish to examine for themselves, to "prove all things," and then "to hold fast that which is good;" if indeed they may be able to distinguish what is of this character. It is for such, that the following investigations are intended; and it is only to persons of this class, that they can be particularly useful, even supposing that they are conducted in such a manner as the subject demands. The writer commenced them, in the discharge of his duty as a lecturer upon the epistle in question. He found many unforeseen and unexpected obstacles in his path. He had been accustomed, with those around him, to regard Paul as the author of the epistle to the Hebrews; and he did not well know, until he came to examine, how long and how extensively this had been doubted. Men of high reputation in the church, and who admitted the canonical authority of the epistle, he found to have been doubtful in regard to the question, Who was the author of it. Neither Luther, nor Calvin admitted it to be from the hand of Paul; and so early, at least, as the latter part of the second century, more or less of the western churches, seem to have doubted or rejected its authority. With such facts before him, he became deeply interested in the subject, and resolved, if possible, to satisfy his own mind. For this purpose, he directed his attention principally toward the original sources of evidence, although he has not knowingly neglected any writer of importance among modern critics. The results of his investigation he now gives to the public, in hope that if they do not serve to satisfy the minds of others, they will, at least, excite some to engage in the discussion of the topics presented, until, sooner or later, light enough is poured in to scatter the remaining darkness which rests upon them. |