field's work will be a valuable accession. Yet, it seems less a desideratum than a new translation of some other works. Why has no competent scholar undertaken to give a popular form to the father of ecclesiastical history?

Art. II. 1. Four Discourses on the Sacrifice and Priesthood of Jesus Christ; and on Atonement and Redemption. By John Pye Smith, D.D. 8vo. pp. 316. Price &s. London, 1828.

2. 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, United States. London, 1828.

WE

E cannot charge ourselves with either intentional neglect or culpable remissness, in having so long delayed to award to these publications the high commendation which they will command from every biblical scholar and every devout student of the sacred page. Circumstances which it is unnecessary to explain, have interposed between our purpose and its execution; and now, while we cannot satisfy ourselves wholly to pass them over, it would be scarcely in season to make them the subject of a lengthened article. We have placed them together as being not merely works of a kindred character, as regards the varied erudition, critical acumen, and theological learning which they display, but as being closely allied also in their very subject. Dr. Smith's volume comprises to a considerable extent, a commentary on that Epistle in which the Christian doctrine relating to the sacrifice and priesthood of Christ are most fully illustrated.

The first of these Discourses was originally published in the year 1813, and had long been out of print. It is now republished in compliance with repeated requests, but with considerable additions. The subsequent Discourses comprise a discussion of a subject to which, as closely connected with that of Sacrifice, the former discourse could not but refer, but which demanded further scope, in order more especially to present a 'view of the rich contents of the Epistle to the Hebrews in re'lation to this glorious theme.' We subjoin a syllabus of the first Discourse.

Part I. On the Nature and Design of the Sacrifice of Christ.-I. General Nature of Sacrifices.-II. The Ancient Rite of Sacrifice a Symbolical action.-III. Application of these reasonings to the Sacrifice of Christ.-i. The Ancient Sacrifices were intended to represent the Great Work for which the Messiah was expected.-ii. The Objects of which the Ancient Sacrifices were only declarative, were really effected by the Sacrifice of Christ.

Part II. On the Proper Value of the Redeemer's Sacrifice. 'Part III. On the Efficacy of the Sacrifice of Christ.'

In au Appendix of Notes and Illustrations to this Discourse, occupying eighty pages, we have the following articles.

I. Human Sacrifices.-II. Socinian Views of the Sacrifice of Christ.-III. Origin of Sacrifices.-IV. Skins of Animals, immediately after the Fall, converted into clothing.-V. Heathen Notions of the Intention of Sacrifices.-VI. Doctrine of the Pythagoreans and Platonists.-VII. Religious Instruction by the Levites.-VIII. The Crowned Priest and King in Zechariah.-IX. Refutation of the Objections of Gesenius to the Christian Interpretation of Isa. liii.-X. Four Translations of Isa. liii.-XI. The Philosophy of Causation favourable to the Christian Doctrine of Redemption.-XII. On the term Guilt, in imputation to Christ.-XIII. Evasion of Scriptural Language on the Sufferings of Christ.-XIV. On the term Satisfaction.XV. On the term Saviour.-XVI. On the Socinian Assertion, that Christ had to offer himself.-XVII. On the words Eternal Spirit.— XVIII. On 1 Tim. iii. 16.-XIX. On the Doctrine of the Deity of Christ.-XX. Coincidences and Differences between Archbishop Magee's Work on Atonement and Sacrifice and the Author's Discourse.'

Our readers will perceive that, within the compass of a pamphlet, Dr. Smith has compressed a brief but very complete discussion of one of the most important topics of theology. To those students who have the leisure and means requisite for further investigation, the critical and bibliographical notices contained in the supplemental matter will be a valuable directory. But, to the majority of readers, the volume will present a sufficient and satisfactory exposition of the subject; and we have no hesitation in adding, that, in a theological point of view, it is a far more competent and complete exhibition of the Scripture doctrine of Sacrifice, than is to be found in Archbishop Magee's Two Discourses and Seventy-six Dissertations.

It will, perhaps, be felt, in perusing the Discourse itself, that the very comprehensive range which it embraces, has imposed upon the Author restrictions unfavourable to the full development of his thoughts; and the shortness of the sections, together with the methodical precision of the arrangement, although it shews the clearness of the Author's ideas, gives to the Discourse too much the appearance and effect of a skeleton. We could have wished that Dr. Smith had rejected altogether the plan and form of a discourse,-that he had imbodied in the text a large proportion of the supplemental matter, and thrown the four discourses into one dissertation. Some of the shorter notes, in a new edition, he would of course transfer to the foot of the page, to avoid the awkwardness of a double series. The volume is not designed for a cursory and indolent perusal. As the fruit of patient investigation and study, it both requires and deserves to be studiously read;

while, as a repository of sound and valuable criticism, it will claim to be often consulted by every one who wishes to arrive at the true import of the Scriptures illustrated.

The second Discourse is chiefly critical; comprising, first, a minute investigation of all the appellations given to Our Saviour, relating to his priesthood; secondly, an analysis of the properties and descriptive characters attributed to that office; and, thirdly, observations on the canonical authority of the Epistle to the Hebrews, and on the Neological System of Interpretation.

Discourse III., On the Atonement made by Christ', is an argumentative exposition of the rationale of the doctrine; shewing that the principles upon which the Author's mode of representation rests, 'may be deduced by plain reasoning upon 'the necessary circumstances of accountable creatures'. The last Discourse contains an examination of the analogical language of Scripture ip reference to the redemption effected by Christ, and a defence of the Scriptural metaphors, with a judicious caution against their indiscreet application. Indexes of the Hebrew and Greek words, and of the passages of Scripture on which critical remarks are offered, as well as a general index of subjects, are appended to the volume, and materially enhance its value, by facilitating that use of it which will be most advantageous to the student.

At p. 159, Dr. Smith adverts to the objections raised against the canonical authority of the Epistle to the Hebrews, to which he offers this reply.

Let them (the objectors) consult the authors who have examined the questions relating to the genuineness, apostolic authority, and inspiration of this Epistle. Let them seriously study it, in its simple text, with close attention and fervent prayer. Let them ask, whether it is possible, without violating the most satisfactory rules of literary criticism and common sense, to affirm that it could be written at any other period than about the latter years of the life of Paul. Let them fairly consider, whether the personal allusions at the end can be referred to any other writer. Let them ask, whether it is possible to believe it to have been the work of a forger.'

In this paragraph, we feel bound frankly to express our opinion, that Dr. Smith has not exhibited his usual caution and candour. He seems to allow no alternative to those who may entertain doubts as to the Pauline origin of the Epistle, but that of rejecting it as a forgery. It is true, that Michaelis, conformably to the criterion of inspiration which he lays down, argues, that if not written by an apostle, it is not canonical; and as he thinks that the affirmative cannot with certainty be established, its canonical authority he pronounces to be uncertain. Other critics, however, who have admitted the uncer

tainty of the authorship, have considered its canonical character as amply attested, and, while agreeing with Michaelis in his premises, reject altogether his dubious conclusion. Among these, Dr. Smith is well aware, ranks the venerable Calvin. His language is: 'Ego vero eam inter Apostolicas, sine controversia amplector: nec dubito Satana artificio fuisse quondam factum ut illi authoritatem quidam detraherent... Quis porro eam composuerit, non magnopere curandum est. Putarunt alii Paulum esse, alii Lucam, alii Barnabam, alii Clementem, ut refert Hieronymus. Quanquam Lucæ tantum et Clementis Eusebius meminit. Ego ut Paulum agnoscam authorem adduci nequeo. Nam qui dicunt nomen fuisse de industria suppressum, quód odiosum esset Judæis, nihil afs ferunt: cur enim mentionem fecisset Timothei, si ita esset? Hoc enim se indicio se prodebat. Sed ipsa docendi ratio et stylus alium quam Paulum esse satis testantur: et scriptor ipse unum se ex Apostolorum discipulis profitetur capite secundo: quod est à Paulina consuetudine longe alienum. Præterea quæ de catechismi consuetudine adducit capite 6o, Pauli ætati minus

congruerent:

Dr. Smith refers, in his preface, with high approbation, to Professor Stuart's first volume, in which the American Professor enters at large into the question, defending the Pauline origin of the Epistle with considerable erudition and dexterity, against the German critics, Bertholdt, Schulz, Seyffarth, De Wette, and Boehme. Of the great Genevese Reformer, strange to say, he takes no sort of notice: he does not even mention his name among those who have commented on the Epistle. He enumerates Erasmus, Grotius, Le Clerc, Drusius, J. Cappell, Limborch, and Wolfius, but seems never to have heard of Calvin as a commentator. He appears, too, to take it for granted, that all doubt on the subject must spring from either heterodoxy or perverseness; and in his 'balancing of 'the testimony,' he discovers, we think, far more of the skill and ardour of the advocate, than of the sound discrimination and even-handed impartiality of the judge. The frivolous objections and cavils of the German critics, who would bring into doubt the Apostolic authority of the Epistle, he has, indeed, triumphantly demolished; but he has taken very slight notice of the main difficulties, which Calvin felt to be insuperable, so far as regards its being the production of St. Paul, although he had no doubts whatever as to its inspiration. Mr. Stuart does not fairly state the case, when he asserts, that the objections have arisen more from taste and feeling, than from tra'dition or testimony;' nor does he argue fairly, when he attempts to shew, that the author of the Epistle must have been, if not St. Paul himself, an imitator and a plagiarist.

The fact is, that the canonical authority, the genuineness and inspiration of the Epistle to the Hebrews, are so fully attested by the strongest evidence, historical and internal, that they may safely be pronounced unimpeachable. That the Church, during the first century after the Apostolic age, ascribed it to some ' one of the Apostles,' Mr. Stuart correctly remarks, is clear from the fact, that it was inserted among the canonical books of the churches in the East and the West; that it was comprised in the Peshito; in the old Latin version; and was certainly admitted by the Alexandrine and Palestine churches.' Clement of Rome, who wrote his epistle towards the close of the first century, frequently cites the language of this Epistle, but does not name its author. The copious use which he makes of it, although not in the shape of formal citation, proves satisfactorily, not merely that the Epistle was previously in existence, and that he was well acquainted with its authorship, but also, that the phraseology and reasonings of the Epistle were still more familiar to him than the exact words of the document. Indeed, unless Clement was himself the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, (which there is good reason to conclude, from the difference of style, he was not,) it must have been written by one for whom he had that deference which it is not conceivable that he would feel for any one but an Apostle. The use which he makes of its language, is precisely similar to the manner in which he refers and alludes to passages in the other apostolic epistles. But the only epistle which he expressly names, is the first Epistle of Paul to the Church at Corinth, to which his own epistle was addressed: Take into your hands the epistle of the blessed Paul the Apostle.' This is quite natural, since the epistles to other churches might not, possibly, be in their hands. Considering then the relation in which Clement stood to the Apostle Paul, the references he makes to the Epistle to the Hebrews, whether they be regarded as direct citations or as mere allusions, would afford a presumption in favour of its Pauline origin. Eusebius, referring to the ancient tradition, that this Epistle was originally written by St. Paul in Hebrew, and that it was translated into Greek by either Luke or Clement, adopts the latter supposition as appearing to him the more probable, on account of the similarity of style. Whatever opinion may be entertained as to the language in which it was originally written, the tradition associates Clement with the Apostle in that intimate relation which best explains his familiarity with the Epistle to the Hebrews, on the supposition of its having proceeded from his friend and master. Still, as the epistles of James and Peter appear to be referred to by Clement in the same manner as the Epistle to the Hebrews, all that can be inferred with certainty, is, that he regarded the latter as

VOL. III.-N.S.

R R