of information which any man now possesses, and may be reserved as subjects, on which the human mind is to exert its faculties successfully in future time. They may not be intended for our particular use, but for the use of some following age. So Peter suggests of some things which the prophets wrote, that they ministered them not to themselves, or to their own use, but to those who should come after. Now suppose it pleases God, by his Spirit, to influence his servants to write some things which cannot be well understood in their day, but which are intended to be understood, and to be of special use, in future ages. Is this any discredit to his wisdom, or his goodness? In fact, do not all our endeavors to arrive at a more perfect knowledge of the Scriptures imply, that hitherto they have been understood but imperfectly? And if we may consistently believe that men, who were divinely inspired, wrote what has hitherto been but imperfectly understood; why may we not believe that, in some instances, they wrote what for a time cannot be understood at all? What warrant have we to say, that if anything is written, under Divine influence, for the benefit of the church, it must be so written that all men in all ages shall understand it?

Eighthly. Instances of incorrectness in the present copies of the Scriptures, cannot be objected to the inspiration of the writers. How can the fact, that God has not infallibly guided all who have transcribed his word, prove that he did not infallibly guide those who originally wrote it? We might as well say, that if those who first wrote the Bible were inspired; then all who have received and read it must have been inspired. Suppose men have committed mistakes, either intentional or unintentional, in making out copies of the Bible. Have they not made mistakes also in regard to every other work of God? But do the mistakes of men in regard to any work of God prove that it is not his work? Nothing can be more certain, than that the inadvertence, or ignorance, or wickedness of man has marred many things, both in the natural and in the moral world, the original formation of which was owing wholly to the agency of God, and was a clear manifestation of his wisdom and benevolence. And what grounds have we to think that this may not be the case, in regard to a book given by Divine inspiration, as well as in regard to any other Divine work?

Ninthly. Instances of apparent disagreement among different writers of the sacred volume, and of apparent contradiction in the same writers, are no valid objection against their inspiration.

This is evident, because we can satisfactorily account for an appearance of disagreement, where there is no disagreement in reality. We often find that an appearance of contradiction vanishes on inquiry; and that the agreement becomes more sensible and striking, than if there had never been any appearance of the contrary. This is the case with most of the apparent discrepancies found in the Scriptures. Thorough investigation has made it

manifest, that thosè passages, which appeared inconsistent, are perfectly reconcileable with each other. Now it is always regarded as a circumstance in favor of the credibility of witnesses, if their testimony at first appears in some respects contradictory, and yet is found, on careful inquiry, to be perfectly consistent. In such cases, the appearance of contradiction prevents any suspicion of

concert.

But suppose there are some instances in which we are unable to remove all appearance of contradiction, and to discover a perfect consistency, among different parts of Scripture. Still we cannot with safety decide against the inspiration of the writers; because farther inquiry, more information, and a better method of interpreting the sacred writings, may help us to discover a consistency which at present does not appear. And if, in some instances, we find it necessary to admit, that in the present copy of the Scriptures there are real contradictions; even this cannot be relied on as a proof, that the original writers were not divinely inspired; because these contradictions may be owing to the mistakes of transcribers. And it is very well known, that the most remarkable instances of contradiction are found in those words or sentences, in which a mistake in copying might have been most easily made. And considering how the Scriptures abound with details of names, numbers, facts, and minute circumstances, it would seem to be a matter of wonder, that the copyists committed no more mistakes, rather than that they committed so many.

PASTOR.

REVIEWS.

A COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. In two volumes. By Moses Stuart, Associate Professor of Sacred Literature in the Theol. Seminary at Andover: Published by Mark Newman. Codman Press-Flagg and Gould. pp. 677. We receive these volumes from Professor Stuart with unmingled pleasure. In reviewing them, it will not comport with our limits or our plan, to enter into a very critical examination of their contents. We shall content ourselves with offering several reasons why we rejoice at their appearance; in doing which, we shall extend or contract our remarks, as the occasion may seem most to require.

One reason why we are happy to receive these volumes, is, they will satisfy intelligent and serious minds, that the most extended, liberal and various investigations at once authorize the received canon, and establish the evangelical interpretation of the Sacred Writings.

Many conscientious Christians have entertained fears, as to the tendency and ultimate result of an intimate acquaintance with the German theological writers. These Christians have been influenced, we doubt not, by a most sincere regard to the best interests of man, and the glory of their Redeemer. But conscientious feeling often differs from an intelligent conscience, and a disposition to do well is not always sure to select the best means to accomplish its purpose. This feeling and this disposition, however, will ever receive from us that respectful deference which they most certainly deserve. Yet, as we not only use the name, but profess to inherit the spirit of the Pilgrims, who were among the first scholars of their age, distinguished with all the advantages and attainments of the celebrated seats of science in Britain, we cannot but think that their sons, who are set for the defence of their faith, and the faith of the Gospel, should also pursue those studies, and make those intellectual acquisitions, which the altered character and the exigencies of the times require.

Error is sometimes ingenious; in connexion with intelligence, it it is too often plausible. To refute it requires something more than the child's reason, cause; to expose its fallacy, and present the claims of truth and holiness in their proper aspect and attitude, claim, and have often called forth, learning more various, and ingenuity more acute, than were ever yet volunteered in the cause of error and of evil. Pascal, Grotius, Butler, Campbell, Paley, Watson and Marsh, to mention no others, present an array of ingenious and learned defenders of Christianity, who, viewed either in relation to native talent, or acquired ability, far surpass Hume, acute as he was, Gibbon, with his various learning, Voltaire, with all his wit, and Paine, with his boundless scurrility.

When we leave the outposts of the Christian citadel, and enter within, we shall find that evangelical sentiments have ever had, not only open adherents, but intelligent advocates. We would by no means rest our own faith, or desire our readers to rest theirs, on the authority of names. Yet it should not be forgotten, that an Augustine was cotemporary with Pelagius; that an Edwards silenced a Taylor; that when Dr. Priestley, with the pretensions of knowledge and the confidence of ignorance, published "The History of the Corruptions of Christianity," a Horsley was at hand to sift those pretensions, and brand that ignorance with its appropriate mark ;* while a Magee and a Smith retain possession of the field,

As Dr. Priestley's book is in the hands of many, who may not be aware of its true character, the following quotation from Prof. Stuart's Letters to Dr. Miller, will not be out of place. By quoting it, some young minds may be preserved from that perversion to which they would otherwise be exposed. "It has often been said, that anything can be proved from the Fathers.' And this is really true, provided one may be permitted to use them in the way, which those have done who rished to prove anything from them. I could refer to Dr. Priestley's History of Corruptions, as a striking example. There can be nothing more certain, than that the great body of the Fathers never dreamed of defending sentiments such as those of Priestley. And yet, with a profound unacquaintance with

from which their most vigorous opponents have fled, dispirited by frequent defeats, and hopeless of ultimate success. The defenders of orthodoxy just named were men of great original strength and capacity of mind, possessed of various learning, and disciplined to deep, continued, vigorous thought. Their attainments were such as their age, their opponents, and the general condition of the church required.

Times have now altered, and in this vicinity threaten a still greater change, requiring defenders of the faith of similar intellectual vigor and piety, to the Edwardses and Bellamys of other days, but trained in a different school, and armed with weapons adapted to the conflict that awaits them. At the head of the metaphysical school of New England divinity, the names of the two Edwardses, father and son, and of Hopkins, have by common consent, for some years, been placed. Their efforts, their success, and their merit, were great. But a new school has risen, the school of philology, of criticism; the school, in short, of scientific interpretation. Professor Stuart, by his Letters to Dr. Channing, gave the first distinct evidence of its existence to the public, and proved himself in his proper place, as professor of sacred literature in the oldest theological institution in the Union. The present work (to say nothing of his other labors) shows that he has not been idle in the quiet retreat at Andover. We hardly dare trust ourselves to speak of it as we feel, and as we know it deserves. Some of our readers might think we were warped by party or personal considerations, were we to give full utterance to our sober and well pondered estimate of its worth. The tribunal of criticism should be that of inflexible justice. Those who occupy the bench should be blind to everything but law and evidence. With this conviction strongly impressed upon our minds, we have endeavored to judge of the work before us. In the opinion we have formed, and which we shall here express, we are confident that all, who are capable of examining the work, and have done it, will coincide.

This Commentary, we hesitate not to say, will hold the same place in the new school of theology, that Edwards on the Will holds in the old. It is a thoroughly critical performance, and presents irresistibly convincing evidence of the truth of various important questions, that may be considered the basis of the Orthodox or evangelical faith. It is not, however, a work of party disputa

the nature and spirit of the times in which the Fathers lived, and of the exegesis which must be applied to them, he has contrived to make them say many things, which, he would fain have us believe, accord with his own views. I cannot do better justice to such an effort, than in the words of Dr. Muenscher, a consummate patristical scholar, and, at least, one whose testimony will not be, thought to be warped by any attachment to orthodoxy. A late work,' says he, (Dogmengeschichte, Band. 1. s. 80.) wherein the celebrated dissenter, J. Priestley, aimed to shew the corruptions of Christianity, has through the fame of its author, excited greater attention than its superficial contents, and its ignorance of the sources of history, which everywhere betrays itself, deserve.' So judges one of the best patristical scholars now living, from a mere sense of literary justice." p. 75.

tion, but of widely extended inquiry, of independent discussion. Its primary, original character is philological; its theology inferential. Erskine, the author of the work on "The Internal Evidence," has pronounced the Essay on the Will, by Edwards, the ablest theological treatise in the English language. We know of no work except, perhaps, Butler's Analogy, that can be compared with it. We doubt not that Mr. Erskine will now admit, that no critical work on any portion of the sacred writings has ever appeared in the English language, that will sustain a comparison with the volumes before us. This, at all events, is our opinion, which, though to some it may appear an expression of party prejudice or American partiality, is uttered with a perfect conviction of its truth, and after an acquaintance, somewhat extensive, with the best English and American theological writers.*

The only work that can claim to be compared with it, is the Translation of Isaiah, by Bishop Lowth, a work of learning and merit most certainly, but the learning of which is by no means so extensive in its character, nor so critical and cautious in its use, nor is the merit of it so various and unquestionable, as that of these volumes. The merit of Bishop Lowth, who may be considered the parent and liberal patron of biblical science in England, is very great; greater in this respect than that of any other British theological writer, either before or since his day. The defects of his Translation resulted, no doubt, from the fact, that the principles, on which the sacred text was to be settled and interpreted, were not then fixed, as they are at the present time. Besides, his plan was by no means so extensive as that pursued in the volumes of Professor Stuart.+

The first of these volumes contains what is technically called an Introduction; in which the Professor examines the various questions, which have been started relative to the antiquity and canonical authority of the Epistle, its Pauline origin, the persons to whom, the time when, and the place from which, it was written. He also states fully the objections of Eichhorn, Bertholdt, Schulz, Seyfarth, De Wette, and Boehme, and fully shows their weakness, irrelevance, and absurdity. The second volume contains the translation of the Epistle, a general view of its contents, and a more extended analysis of its separate parts, followed by a critical exa

* Dr. John Pye Smith, who deservedly ranks among the first biblical, theological and classical scholars in Great Britain, writes to an American friend in New York thus: "I have felt it my duty to describe this work on the Hebrews, as the most important present to the cause of sound Bible interpretation that has ever been made in the English language." We introduce this remark to convince every reader, that our judgment has been formed independent of local considerations, party bias, or personal attachments, which are too apt to have influence even over minds designing to be impartial. The opinion of Dr. Smith is that of a scholar and critic, which, we doubt not, time and posterity will confirm.

+Bishop Lowth was a good Hebrew scholar, as well as a thorough master of the Latin and Greek, but with the exception of Hebrew, he seems to have been wholly deficient in the Shemitish languages.