ntary on the Epistle to the Hebrews_; in 1829
his _Hebrew Chrestomathy_, and in 1830 his _Course of Hebrew Study_. His
Commentary on the Hebrews, was received as an accession to the body of
permanent theological literature. It was spoken of in England as "the most
valuable philological aid" that had been published "for the critical study
of that important, and in many respects difficult book;" and the late Dr.
Pye Smith, one of the first biblical, theological, and classical scholars
in Great Britain, stated, that he felt it to be his duty to describe it as
"the most important present to the cause of sound biblical interpretation
that had ever been made in the English language." In Germany also it
secured for Professor Stuart the highest consideration; and it continues
in all countries to be regarded as one of the noblest examples of
philological theology and exegetical criticism. In 1832 Professor Stuart
published another great work of a similar character: his _Commentary on
the Epistle to the Romans_. It was distinguished for a profoundness of
research, for an intensity and minuteness of philological labor, and a
singleness of purpose to arrive at the meaning of the apostle, without
regard to any preconceived or partisan opinions, which obtained for it a
regard as an authority equal to that awarded to its predecessor. In 1845
he published a _Commentary on the Apocalypse_; a profoundly learned and
critical work, in which the interpretation of this difficult book varies
much from that which has been most generally received. In the same year he
also gave to the church a _Critical History and Defence of the Old
Testament Canon_. His devotion to biblical criticism continued to the
close of his life, and we believe, his last use of the pen was in the
correction of the concluding sheets of a volume of Commentaries.

In his later years Professor Stuart entered into political controversies,
and was particularly distinguished for his defence of the policy of Mr.
Webster, in a pamphlet entitled _Conscience and the Constitution_. He also
ventured very injudiciously into the field of classical criticism, in an
edition of _Cicero_, which was sharply reviewed by Professor Kingsley of
Yale College; and he lost reputation in his more legitimate sphere by a
controversy with Professor Conant, of Madison University, growing out of
his translation of the _Hebrew Grammar of Gesenius_. It is not to be
denied that in measuring his strength agai