66 each other. In reference to this class of critics, Winer tells us, (page 355,)" that they overlooked the fact that iva was to be judged of after the Hebrew telcology, which confounds worldly consequences with divine designs and counsels; or rather represents each important event as ordained and determined by God." By this Hebrew teleology he means nothing less than the Old Testament theology, since he refers to Exod. xi. 9, Isaiah ix. 10; the theology, by the way, not only of Moses and the prophets, but of the whole ancient world. Therefore," says he, "in the language of the scriptures, iva can frequently be used, when according to our view of the divine government, we would have used worɛ.” The meaning is most evident. The emphatic contrast between " the language of the scriptures" on the one hand, and "our views" on the other, is too clear to be mistaken. It was not the fault of the language of the New Testament writers, (he had gone too far in rationalism, and was too sound a scholar to admit that,) but the error of their religious philosophy. Their use of iva was philologically correct; in making this admission, his duty as a critic and interpreter was discharged, but he must go beyond his office in the gratuitous assertion, we with our more enlightened views would have used wore. Our Saviour also (page 356) uses this teleological language in Mark iv. 12, whether ignorantly or out of accommodation we are not told; but it matters little, since as our author says "he is only applying an Old Testament prophecy, and therefore the teleological language cannot be misapprehended." In respect to Ephesians vi. 3, "no one," says our author, "can doubt that ira is in the Mosaic law τελικον. He correctly vindicates the apostle's philology, but what then must be said of his theology, so different from that of these enlightened times, a theology so supernatural as actually to represent the Deity as exercising a special providence in the affairs of the world, and performing a special promise, by conferring long life as a reward for filial obedience! This may all be admitted in the Mosaic law; a mere reference to the exploded Hebrew teleology prevents all difficulty from that quarter. In this instance, however, our author thinks that both may be saved. "Might not the apostle," he gravely asks, "use the same motive?" A wonderful exercise of candor, truly! to suppose that Paul might really agree with Moses, and correctly set forth the same views of the divine government! Again, he says, (page 357,) "it cannot be doubted that the formula iva npwon, which was for some time translated by ita ut, has the stronger meaning, in order that it might be fulfilled, but the Jewish writers from whom the formula is derived, did not apprehend this with scientific accuracy." A fair translation of the passage would be this: iva really signifies in order that; there is no question about the meaning philologically; but it was all based upon a false system of religious belief, and therefore we must reject their meaning, or give the expression such a sense as the writers would 31 NO. XI. VOL. VI. have adopted had they enjoyed the benefits of modern science and philosophy. The author appears singularly unhappy in his illustration of bros. He asserts, without qualification, that bros in order that, is wrongly taken for ita ut. "Luke ii., 35," he says, "needs not be judged of by the Hebrew teleology (science of final causes,) in order to see the propriety and force of the conjunction." "In Matthew v. 16, only philological levity can find a bros ExẞaTIKOP." Now according to this, what distinction exists between inws and iva? Both perform the same office, and both are to be rendered in order that. The author is right in contending that this is the exclusive meaning of iva, but in forcing it upon bros, he is guilty of the same fault which he charges upon other interpreters in page 350. The truth is, no two particles in Greek are more clearly distinguished. Both signify design, but iva refers rather to the design of the action itself, brws to the design of the manner of its performance. The best test of the proper use of orws is the possibility of supplying sure or bros in the governing part of the sentence, so as to flow on easily with the sense. Ouros thus ever goes with bros, expressed or understood. In Matthew v. 16, vr is actually expressed so as to leave no doubt as to the meaning of όπως. Ούτω λαμψάτω, etc. " Let your light thus shine (in such a maner) that (bras) men seeing your good works may glorify your Father in Heaven." all Although our attention was drawn more particularly to these remarks on the important particle iva, yet we had noted passages of a similar tendency in other parts of the work, which the short space allotted to this notice will not allow us to dwell upon. A serious question arises. The philological merits of this and similar productions from the German school, are undoubtedly great. The present work exhibits a vast store of biblical and classical learning. It furnishes many happy elucidations of different passages. But may not all these benefits be attained at too dear a price? What are to be the consequences of exposing the unformed minds of our young students of theology, (especially in an age which spurns restraint and whose motto is free inquiry,) to the continual reiteration of such views from most of the philological grammars, lexicons, and commentaries, that are placed in their hands? Can they be trusted to extract the good and escape the poison, when theologians who had grown old in the ranks of reputed orthodoxy, have exhibited symptoms of its deleterious influences? Can it be expected that spiritual and evangelical views of the scriptures, reverence for their solemn messages, and confidence in their plenary inspiration, can remain unaffected by continual contact with Gesenius, and those other German rationalising philologists, whom almost all classes condemn, and yet all seem to unite in furnishing as the biblical guides of our young theologians? Can they consistently be recommended by orthodox divines? Are those interpretations which silently tend to destroy all confidence in revelation, to be selected as the most learned guides to its meaning? Would not some of the learned professors whose names appear in the recommendation of this and similar works, be better employed in compiling substitutes, at least if they decline the task of original investigation? Is there no remedy for the evil? If there is not, how long may it be before the seed which has produced so fruitful a crop in Germany and Geneva, may fill our own unprotected churches with the tares of rationalism and semi-infidelity? 2. EcvopwvTOS ATоμvпμоvεvрата. Xenophon's Memorabilia of Socrates, with English Notes. By ALPHEUS S. PACKARD, Professor of the Greek and Latin Languages and Literature, Bowdoin College. Andover and New York: 1839. Gould, Newman, & Saxton. THIS beautiful volume is distinguished alike for the elegance and accuracy of its execution, the intrinsic excellence of its subject, the happy judgment and solid learning displayed in the notes, and the absence of that disgusting pedantry which so often disfigures works of a similar kind. The author is evidently a ripe scholar, a man of correct moral and philosophical taste, and eminently qualified to render one of the most attractive productions of Grecian literature still more attractive to the youthful mind, by the happy though concise manner in which he illustrates the meaning of his favorite author, and assists in carrying on those delightful trains of thought which are started by the Grecian sage. The student, with such a guide, cannot help understanding Socrates, and utterly deficient must he be, not only in all taste for the really good and beautiful, but also in every thing which tends to constitute a manly and virtuous character, if he does not learn to love the sage, and admire his faithful and philosophical interpreter. After a careful examination, we hesitate not in decidedly preferring this work to any others of a similar kind that have lately issued from the English or American press. The author deserves the gratitude ef every friend of classical literature, for presenting to our seminaries of learning so choice a selection from the ancient philosophy, and for the great pains he has taken to render it profitable and delightful to the student. It is impossible, at this day, to determine satisfactorily whether Plato or Xenophon have furnished the most faithful account of the philosophy of Socrates. Both present the strongest internal evidence that they aimed at giving an accurate sketch of the habits and opinions of the man, whom they alike, although from different motives, loved and admired. Both were equally capable of appreciating that exquisite poeta which forms the peculiar characteristic of his reasoning, and both alike exhibit their fidelity in the distinctness given to this part of the por trait. Plato, however, may have invested him with too much of philosophical grandeur, whilst the frank soldier, struck with the practical bearings of his sublime precepts, although not fully appreciating the high source from whence they were drawn, may have represented him in a lower though not less interesting light. However this may be, there can be no doubt, that in a course of liberal education, the Memorabilia should precede the dialogues of Plato, and that if it is faithfully studied, under a guide so competent as the author of this edition, a taste will be imbibed, which will carry the student onward to the perusal of every relic which antiquity has left us of the Athenian martyr. Believing that such a result would have a most important influence in elevating our literary and theological character, we should rejoice in seeing this volume introduced as a standard school book in every seminary of our land. The author in his preface has justly adverted to the important bearings which the study of the Grecian, and especially the Socratic, philosophy would have upon our theological literature, and he seems to have kept this thought prominently before his mind in many of his clear and happy annotations. We may learn much from this light shining in a dark place, much that is in strict accordance with the scriptures; much, also, by way of contrast, of the inestimable value of that higher light, which Socrates longed to see yet saw it not. In this point of view we would particularly specify, as of great value not only to the youthful student but also to the more mature scholar, the notes on pages 198, (2)-201, (11)—224, (16, 17,) -248, (5)-256, (1)-257, (16;) especially the long discussion in respect to the state of Grecian philosophy previous to the times of Socrates. 3. Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar. Translated from the Eleventh German Edition. By T. J. CONANT. With a Course of Exercises in Hebrew Grammar, and a Hebrew Chrestomathy, prepared by the Translator. Boston: 1839. Gould, Kendall, and Lincoln. Svo. PP. 386. MUCH has been taught and written of late years on the subject of Hebrew Grammar, and in many respects Gesenius has been surpassed by his successors; so much so, that he has sometimes been compelled to adopt in turn the ideas of those whose elementary knowledge was obtained from the study of his own writings. Still the scholar-like accuracy, the clearness of method, and the felicity of illustration which render Gesenius the facile princeps of Hebrew lexicographers, have enabled him, although not possessing the most profound and comprehensive views of the originating causes of the phenomena he describes, to give a sufficiently full and very lucid statement of the facts of Hebrew Grammar. Another consideration must be superadded to the question of the value of the original work, and this respects the manner in which the translation has been performed. It has been said by Doctor Johnson that translation is the bane of language; and indeed, the character of many late versions from the German too fully bear out the truth of this remark. With these, however, the present work will bear a most favorable comparison; for, with the exception of a few oversights, to which all are liable, and the occasional use of inversions foreign to the genius of our language, it is not only faithful as to matter, but also correct and even elegant in style. The paper and typography of the volume are irreproachable. Indeed its whole appearance is uncommonly elegant and inviting, and does great credit to the skill and taste of all concerned. 4. Aids to Reflection. By SAMUEL TAYLOR COLERIDGE. With the Author's last corrections. Edited by HENRY NELSON Coleridge. To which is prefixed a Preliminary Essay, by JOHN M'VICAR, D.D. London: 1839. William Pickering. New York: Swords, Stanford, and Company. 12mo. pp. 324. WE are glad to see another American reprint of the "Aids to Reflection ;" and we doubt not that the Editor's Preliminary Essay will add much to the profit and satisfaction with which the work itself will be read and studied, as especially by the members of our Church. We would suggest the insertion of a list of errata in the next edition that is worked off; not that the typographical mistakes are many in number, but that they are such as might in some instances, lead to misapprehension of the author's meaning. 5. Poems. BY WILLIAM THOMPSON BACON. New Haven: 1839. B. & W. Noyes. Boston: Little and Company. 8vo. pp. 214. AN" Introductory Essay," interposed between these poems and the poetical "Dedication" of them, informs us what is the office, and what, in the opinion of its author, is the definition of, a true poet. We are obliged to confess that neither the matter nor the manner of this essay prepossessed us in favor of the poet, so stating such views of his art; for, as to those views, they are either common |