served them from all the errors of their age; from the influence of all human prejudices and feelings, from all inconclusive reasoning, or from all ambiguity, impropriety, and insufficiency in the use of language. The books of the New Testament afford satisfactory information concerning those truths which it was the purpose of God to reveal to man. Those truths are continually stated, appealed to, or implied. Man is everywhere instructed to consider himself as an immortal being, intrusted with the care of his own happiness, and linked by living and sensible bonds with the moral universe, and God is constantly represented as his everlasting friend and father. Revelation speaks to us of God, of his infinite power and goodness, of our immortality, of our social nature, of our duties as capable of indefinite progress, of the unimaginable blessedness which we may attain, and of our solemn responsibility. But these are truths which may be presented in a thousand different forms. They require no scrupulous nicety of language in their statement. They are such as when once well understood, men sincerely devoted to the service of God and their fellow creatures, may be left to their natural powers to

express.

These truths rest not, therefore, on any particular sentences, incidental remarks, figures, or turns of expression, in the books of the New Testament. Their promulgation is independent of any particular form of words. They are to be gathered, not from what is said here or there by one writer or another, but from a general survey of all the original records of our religion. Such a survey will leave us in no doubt of what was taught by Christ and his apostles as the revelation of God. In ascertaining the truths which are to be believed upon His authority, we are not to confound with them the opinions, conceptions, and reasonings of any particular writer upon the different subjects which he may have happened to touch, or to regard that language which he may have used with the freedom and looseness of extempore speech, as if it had been made. secure, at once from error and from misapprehension, by an immediate interposition of the Almighty.

With these views it may be asked why, as regards the writer to the Hebrews, we distinguish so widely between the writings of the apostles, and the work of a cotemporary of the apostles; especially as we have stated a case, in which we should not feel ourselves called upon to make such a distinc

tion. We answer that whatever we may imagine as what might have taken place, the fact really is, that there are no books, except the canonical books of the New Testament, in which our religion can be safely studied. The light from Heaven which shone into the minds of the apostles, giving them a view of the essential character of Christianity, preserved them from all essential errors respecting it; and, above all, from superadding any human doctrine as a part of that revelation which they were to teach. An intelligent study of their writings may satisfy us that there is not a doctrine with which technical theology has encumbered the magnificent simplicity of our religion, that was announced by them as a doctrine from God. This is one reason why we are most desirous that their epistles should be understood as they may be understood by every intelligent Christian; that correct notions should be entertained of their character and design; that they should not, though written in English words, speak an unknown tongue to the great majority of readers; that they should not remain veiled in almost impenetrable obscurity, so that only a glimpse of the true meaning of the writer here and there appears; and that they should not, in consequence, admit of almost any perversion, and afford a lurking place for almost any error. When the meaning of the books of the New Testament is understood, and a proper use is made of them, then will the true character of our religion be revealed to men anew. But to effect this purpose we must not have recourse to any other writings we now possess, as of equal worth. We learn from the New Testament itself, that Christianity was very imperfectly comprehended by many of its earlier converts. From the very first appeared that disposition which has since been continually at work, to superadd to the temple which God has raised for the worship of man; to adorn, to modify it, and to bury it under human erections. In the minds of those who were not guided by the miraculous influences of God's spirit, a mixture of human opinions and conceptions with the truths of our religion, almost immediately took place; and the former were often regarded as equally with the latter of divine authority. We believe, and we have endeavoured in part to show, that the writer to the Hebrews differed from the apostles in no essential doctrine. But if his work alone had been left to us, if we had had no opportunity of comparing it with their writings, how imperfect, and erroneous would probably have been our

views of Christianity. He attributes an importance to certain modes of conception peculiar to himself, which appears to be altogether unfounded, and on these modes of conception has been built a system respecting the character and moral government of God, which has for ages degraded the christian world. Such are the reasons why we would make a wide distinction between his work, or any other of however early an age, and the writings of the apostles.

ART. VI.-Joa. Simonis Lexicon Manuale Hebraicum et Chaldaicum, post Joa. Godf. Eichhorn Curas, denuo castigavit, emendavit, multisque modis auxit Dr Georg. Benedict. Winer, in Academia Erlangensi Prof. P. Ö., Seminarii Exeget. Director. Lipsiæ. 1828.

WE had the greater pleasure, when the work, whose title is prefixed, was announced, because we were afraid that the very excellence of the lexicon of Gesenius might discourage the exertions of future laborers in this department of literature. And we believe that much remains to be done with respect to establishing the meaning of the terms and phrases, and facilitating the acquisition of the Hebrew language.

Perhaps some may think it strange that we should at the present day expect improvement, or additional information, in the dictionary of a language so ancient as the Hebrew. What greater learning, or what greater advantages have these modern Germans than those old worthies, Stock, Buxtorf, Cocceius, and others? To such we might say, in the first place, that the lexicon of any language is a great work, requiring a vast amount of investigation and of meditation. It is such a work as might not be expected to be carried to perfection, except by the successive labors of the most industrious and intelligent inquirers, each availing himself of the acquisitions of his predecessors.

We might say, secondly, that researches in the East, have in some measure enlarged the sources of scripture interpretation; have thrown light upon the natural history, the institutions, the modes of thinking and acting, and the general state of society of the people by whom the language was spoken,

and to whom it relates. And how necessary such knowledge is, in order that we may determine with precision the meaning and shades of meaning of the words of a language, we need not stop to show.

But in truth we do not regard either of the abovementioned reasons as the principal occasion for new laborers in the department of Hebrew lexicography. We maintain that the old scholars, profoundly learned as they were, had formed no just views of the nature of language, and no correct estimate of the sources of interpretation, and were guided by no just principles and rules of interpretation in the use of these sources. The improvement of modern lexicons is to be attributed, not so much to the enlarged sources, as to the improved logic, of criticism. Some of the older lexicographers have not been surpassed in learning or penetration. Their imperfections and errors are to be attributed to limited and incorrect views of the sources of interpretation, to unfounded theories, to fanciful opinions of the character of the scriptures, and to an extravagant estimate and undue use of the departments of learning, in which they particularly excelled.

Some, for instance, in consequence, probably, of the controversy with the Roman Catholics respecting the sufficiency of the scriptures as the ground of faith, were led to maintain the dogma, that the scriptures were sufficient for their own interpretation; that in order to ascertain the meaning of every word, nothing was necessary but a good concordance. Thus they neglected the light which might have been received from the dialects and from Jewish tradition. Hence the imperfection of the lexicons of Stock and Gusset.

Others have gone wrong in consequence of an undue dependence upon the primitive or etymological signification of a word, and from the unfounded theory that all the words of the language must be referred to triliteral roots, in disregard of the principle, that usage modifies and determines the meaning of words and phrases. This fault belongs, we think, to all Hebrew lexicons previous to that of Gesenius.

Others, from a belief in the inspiration of the Septuagint, or from an extravagant estimate of the Jewish commentators, have placed undue reliance upon Jewish tradition as a source of interpretation. Hence the imperfection of Buxtorf's lexicon.

Others, elated with the success of the application of the kindred dialects of the Hebrew to its illustration, seem to

have forgotten, not only that the Hebrew is the most ancient, but even that it is a distinct dialect. This abuse of the dialects, begun by Schultens, who may be excused for an undue estimate of a language and literature, with which he was so thoroughly acquainted, and by which he really shed much light upon the scriptures, has been carried to a most ridiculous excess by some of his followers. Dr Good, in England, affords a striking example of this abuse. He has sometimes given to a Hebrew word, whose meaning is determined by its frequent occurrence in the scriptures, the signification of what he supposed to be the kindred Arabic word. But time and space would fail us to speak of all the causes of error and imperfection in the older lexicographers. They may be referred, in general, as we have remarked, not so much to the want of learning, as to an imperfect estimate of the relative importance of the sources of lexicography, and to the want of settled principles and correct rules of interpretation.

We have spoken of the sources of Hebrew lexicography. These may be briefly stated to be,-1. The usage of the writers of the Old Testament, which is to be gathered from the connexion of particular passages, and from a comparison of all the passages in which the word occurs. This course is sufficient for the explanation of words of frequent occurrence, but fails in regard to those which occur but once, or very seldom. 2. The traditional knowledge of the language, which has been preserved by the Jews, and handed down to us in old translations, as the Septuagint, &c., in the system of vowel points, and in Jewish commentaries and dictionaries. In the use of this source of interpretation great judgment is necessary, in order to distinguish individual conjecture from historical tradition. 3. The comparison of the kindred dialects, as the Arabic, Syriac, Chaldee, &c., which are either living languages, or found in lexicons of native philologists, or contained in more numerous writings than those in the Hebrew dialect. 4. The natural history, institutions, customs, and modes of thinking in the East, a knowledge of which is to be gained from ancient history, and from the writings of modern travellers.

It was from the exact and extensive knowledge of these sources of interpretation, from the just estimate which he formed of their relative value, and from the correct principles of interpretation, and the sound judgment by which he was guided in the use of these sources and of the labors of his