equal ignorance, is manifested by such as complain of a deficiency in man's accountableness until they have given him more power than God ever saw fit to impart.

Not as theologians only would we discuss this question. We have rather treated it as a part of mental philosophy and on the ground of the general consciousness, and by induction from principles recognized both in theology and philosophy, endeavoured to educe the right conclusion. It is not one thing for philosophy and another for theology; one set of principles for and from the Bible, and another for and from man; but when they run together, parallelism; when they unite, identity. And on purely philosophical grounds, by induction from the Christian and the general consciousness, we believe that it can be proved, that our spontaneous native affections have a moral character; that of such character, conscience is not the fountain, but the judge; that man's will in its spontaneous and deliberate action making these affections his, and thus ensuring his accountableness, still has not in itself the power to change or make their character; has not in itself those elements of virtue and vice which alone could impregnate a neutral emotion with the decisive and eternally immutable character of holiness or unholiness.

We intended to have specifically objected to Professor Upham some of those views and principles in his philosophy, with which his positions upon this point disagree; especially to have applied his views upon the immutableness of moral distinctions, and the rights and authority of conscience, both to the elucidation of our own, and to a contrast with his positions upon this subject; and likewise to have shown that, in making, as he does in his chapter on "Love to the Supreme Being," the elements of our Saviour's character to be different from our own, he assumes what consistency would have required him to deny, and places the doctrine of our Saviour's sinlessness upon a different basis from such as those could rest upon who make the character of our affections determinable by our personal wills alone. But we have room only to adduce one point and ask one question, which, we think, will show that his views upen this subject have not permeated his whole philosophy. He allows, as we have seen, in man a defection of the principle of love to God; and that, like the other benevolent affections, this ought to have both a spontaneous

and a voluntary action. If this principle should spontaneously flow forth in love to Him who is the ground and source of right and holiness, would it have no moral character? Would not all that we can conceive of virtue be comprehended in this spontaneous issue of divine love.

We would not be understood as affirming that Professor Upham adopts in full the views which we have thus combatted. There is no regular discussion of this subject in his work. In his section on self-love there is no direct remarking upon what constitutes its moral character. And in that our love to the Supreme, though the distinction is pointed out between its instinctive and voluntary character; yet there is no precise assertion that it is only in the latter capacity that it has such a character. Analogy, then, from those affections in which such an assertion is explicitly made, is the ground for supposing him to hold the same opinion in regard to these central affections. This is ground enough in a systematic treatise; but, perhaps, if he had attempted to apply his general position to these affections, and found the difficulty thereof, a considerable modification in his statements regarding the subordinate appetites, desires, &c., would have resulted. When we also recollect that there is an ambiguity in the terms which are employed, and that as he was not writing upon this specific subject he might be less cautious in his phraseology; and that also many other of his views are inconsistent with logical results of the doctrine which we have thus opposed; we should be slow to affirm that he had adopted it in the definite form in which it is here stated; though a systematic developement of this instinctive and voluntary action, in the sense in which he uses these words, could result only in this doctrine. And therefore we have opposed it; because Professor Upham's principles would lead to this result, at war with the interests. of sound theology and vital piety; and not because he has come out unequivocally in defence of this position. This subject, too, in all that is said upon it, occupies only a few pages in these volumes; and but for its theological bearings, and the use which would be made of his authority in support of these doctrines, we would not have so carefully pointed out this defect in a work, whose value in other respects we unhesitatingly acknowledge; and for which, as a contribution to American philosophy, he deserves the most hearty thanks.

NOTICE.

Complete Hebrew and English Critical and Pronouncing Dictionary on a new and improved plan. By W. L. Roy, Professor of Oriental Languages in New-York. New-York, published by Collins, Keese, & Co., 130 Pearl-street. University Press, J. F. Trow Printer, 1837.

We believe that it is not generally known that, to a very great extent, the clergy of this country are ignorant of the language in which far the greatest part of the Bible was

written.

It is certainly somewhat singular that those who would feel ashamed to read Virgil or.Cicero, or Horace, through a translation are nevertheless, very few of them, able to read the text-book from which they constantly teach in the original. How happens it that a polite scholar would be mortified not to be able to hold a conversation with a Frenchman in his own language, and the clergyman is content to hear God converse on the most momentous subjects only through an interpreter.

One great obstacle to the progress of Hebrew knowledge among those who have not been favoured with a teacher, has been the bulk and formidable appearance of most Hebrew grammars from which the selection of the knowledge most requisite to beginners is not easy. Another has been the fact that lexicons in their construction, have presupposed an intimate acquaintance with the grammar of the language, and even the assistance of able teachers. In the present work these obstacles are removed. The learner who can read the words of the language, and has acquainted himself with the paradigms of the nouns and verbs, may immediately commence the study of the Hebrew text, and acquire the vocabulary and grammar of the language at the same time.

The distinguishing excellence of this work, and that which in our view places it far before all others of its kind, is this, it is at once a lexicon and a concordance. It furnishes the student with the only means of genuine scholarship in any language; it points him to all the passages of the Bible where the most important words are found, and permits him to ascertain their meaning as lexicographers themselves have done. We believe that this is the most direct and least laborious way of attaining not only an exact acquaintance

with the Hebrew, but a critical knowledge of the Bible. The truth is, that lexicographers of the Hebrew of the Old Testament, and the Greek of the New, have hitherto been unsafe; and the work before us puts it in the power of every man to be his own lexicographer. In Biblical literature, as in all other studies, we spend more time and labour and study in attaining second hand, desultory, and miscellaneous knowledge, than would be necessary, with well-directed, systematic, and persevering effort, to make us really learned. That so few are exact and solid scholars, is not from the lack of labour and study, but that they do not aim at it.

Let a person spend but half an hour every day in reading the Bible in the original for a year, and he will always prefer to read it in that language. Let him but take the true secret of learning a language-habitually read every chapter eight or ten times, and he has not only the Hebrew language, but the Bible itself all theology-the word of God fixed and dwelling within him.

We fully concur in the high commendations which this work has received with regard to execution, though we confined our observations wholly to its general plan, which makes it alike useful to beginners, and the most advanced scholars. We will only add that the talents, industry, Biblical and oriental learning of the author, have given it a copiousness, exactness, and completeness which will make it an invaluable treasure to every clergyman who is ambitious of eminence in his calling; and the unexampled rapidity with which the first edition has disappeared, shows that its value is already appreciated.