under Titus Vespasian, when also the prophecy was eminently ful· filled, by the gospel taking place of the law, with a sudden cessation of sacrifices over all the world. Hence the Greek first, and afterwards the Latin, became universal languages; the most learned and proper to have the bonor of communicating to the world the revelation of God preserved so many ages in the original Hebrew ; from which the Septuagint and the Vulgate present us with two the earliest translations, and even to this day the most extensively understood.

"Thus Japhet's conquest over Shem extended even to his language, and unfortunately the writings of Japhet are read, studied, and admired more than those of Shem; and I sincerely wish the victory might turn about, yet not so as that the former should be totally neglected and destroyed, but only made tributary to the latter."

From the Preface, page xvi.

"The truths which we should contend for, are, first and principally, the Hebrew language banded down to us, and preserved with wonderful purity aud intelligibility through a series of above five thousand years, containing, happily for us, the faith once delivered to the saints; secondly, the Greek translation called the Septuagint, of great importance, notwithstanding it is not always exact; thirdly, the points, though neither coeval with the Hebrew, nor, according to the present system of the Masora, very ancient, nor essential to the formation of its grammar, nor absolutely necessary even to its pronunciation and signification, are yet very curious, and well calculated to preserve, without changing the letters of the text, a traditional and uniform pronunciation, and in general may be made useful for a ready but not infallible interpretation; lastly, grammars, which, though not perfect, are very useful; insomuch that, had no grammar been written, the Hebrew in many particulars, if not on the whole, must have been to us unintelligible, notwithstanding any help from the Septuagint.

Cappellus hath proved that the points were not added to the Hebrew text before the fifth century; and others, that the art of pointing did not arrive at its completion till the tenth or eleventh. Elias Levita gave up the antiquity of the points, and so doth every wise man of the present Jews, who only plead their necessity and usefulness for a uniformity of pronunciation, to enable the master and pupils to understand each other in the schools, and the people their priest in the synagogue: this plea is just and proper for them; but the case is widely different among Christians, who may be allowed to understand the Hebrew without any exactness in pronunciation.

"Thanks then and civility at least, though not implicit faith, are due to the Hellenistic Jews of Alexandria for the Greek translation; to the doctors of Tiberias for the points, except where they

pervert or embarrass the sense; and to the grammarians for rules: to Rabbi Juda Hiug the first, and to Buxtorf the last.

"The grammarians in most esteem with the Jews are Rabbi David Kimchi and Elias Levita.... The additional and critical knowlege of Latin and Greek enabled Buxtorf to write upon grammar with more accuracy than either Kimchi or Levita. The Greek fathers, none of whom studied the Hebrew, except Origen of the third century, nor any of the Latin fathers, except Jerome of the fourth, contented themselves with the Septuagint, which they held in as great veneration as the Papists do the Vulgate, even to the prejudice of the original. Common sense, impatient under long imposition, began at the Reformation to appeal from translations and mere tradition, both Jewish and Papal, to the original Scriptures: hence a sudden and mighty stir about Hebrew, particularly in the sixteenth century, whence there arose a sharp controversy between Protestants and Papists. The two Buxtorfs writ warmly in defence of the points and Massoretic text: these were as warmly opposed by Cappellus, by Mascleff, by John Morin, also by our Walton. The Papists patronized Elias Levita's opinion, and put one part of the Protestants upon the labor of establishing the points with Buxtorf at their head, assisted by the Jews; the other denied the necessity of the points to fix the interpretation of the Scrip

tures.

"Father Simon acted as a moderator afterwards, but what his real opinion was is uncertain.

"Simon's materials, many of which are bad, and some unprofitable, lie in general so very undigested and shapeless, the references often wrong, that his account of manuscripts and translations is perhaps the only part of his writings to be depended upon.

"In this last century, the study of the Hebrew has been revived with more than ordinary vigor by John Hutchinson, who opposed the points, and stood up for the correctness of the Hebrew. Though it may be right to stand on our guard against things that wear the face of novelty, yet it is also right to try all things with dispassionate inquiry and sober judgment, in order to hold fast the truth, which hideth itself, and will not be found by writers under the influence of passion and literary pride, who descend to illiberal language, and fight with their pens, as it is said the Greek and Roman scribes did with the stylus.

"The points are certainly too multifarious, tedious, abstruse, and restrictive to a literal interpretation; doubtless they add, or rather create the difficulties and labor of learning Hebrew; for which reasons, the intelligent reader may rightly depend upon his own judgment and attention to the context in construing freely, in assigning the roots, and in tracing derivatives and significations; but then he ought not to be unthankful for their help, and despise them: it is one thing to correct the mistakes or abuses of points,

and another, indiscriminately to reject their use. The steady and substantial part of language are the consonants: confusion is introduced chiefly by the vowels, which are uncertain and subject to change. The Hebrew, in which every letter is significant, particularly the serviles, as it exists in the Bible, was certainly not written according to pronunciation of vowels, nor ought any language, but according to propriety and sense. It is this which makes the Hebrew stand distinguished from every other language in the world, and affords a self-evident proof that Moses, the prophets, and scribes wrote not from tradition and common pronunciation, but by divine direction; which alone could preserve the Hebrew, notwithstanding some few Chaldaisms, various readings and apparent irregularities, so amazingly pure and uniform from the time of Adam down to that of Malachi, amidst the confusion of tongues, the variety of pronunciations, the difference of dialects, and a seventy years' captivity. Had the Hebrew been written like other languages, according to the pronunciation of the points, or any other pronunciation, any one can see at first sight that change and unintelligibility must inevitably have happened to it in as short a time as it did to the ancient Latin in the Salian verses." yani These remarks of Dr. Bayly on the Hebrew language seem to myself so valuable, that I request the insertion of them in the Classical Journal; and I beg leave to add, that it appears to myself that no person can be considered as having received a liberal· education, who is not able to examine the verity and propriety of the translation of any text in the Bible. And what more easy and pleasant task than to set about such a course of study under the direction of Parkhurst. In addition to his Hebrew and Greek Lexicons, the only books essentially necessary would be a Hebrew Bible and Greek Testament, and perhaps Dawson's Lexicon to the Greek Testament.

The Hebrew Bible of Montanus is particularly valuable for the literal version of Pagninus; and the time perhaps may come, when the superiority of that version to all others will be understood. Pagninus preserves the Hebrew and Greek idioms, which cannot be changed for those of any other language, in nine instances out of ten, without the sacrifice of truth, in part or in whole. (See Dean' Woodhouse's preface to his new version of the Apocalypse, and Tilloch on the same book, p. 187.)

If we would satisfy ourselves with translating and collating Scripture adequately, in the full conviction that, if we lift up a human tool on the altar of God, we defile it, we might perhaps become instruments of convincing the world that the Bible is its own and only certain interpreter.

The Bible the religion of Protestants, and the Bible its own proper key, according to revelation and reason, was the principle of our Reformers; but I fear that the next generation did not

content themselves with the same divine key; but instead of copying from God, copied from the copy which the Reformers had made from God, till by copying from each other in succession, generation after generation, it may have become necessary now for us to compare our picture with the original. The Bible Society has awakened us to a sense of the propriety of this step; and I feel no doubt that, if we could agree to sacrifice our own superficial reasonings and fancies, and go to the divine prototype for the purpose of translating and collating adequately and only, we should soon find ourselves in agreement with the Jewels, the Hookers, the Leightons, and the Burnets of the Reformation. I love my country I love my church; and it is with pain that I reflect on any deviation from the pattern shown to us on the mount. Δόξειε δ' αν ισως βελτιον, είναι, και δειν, επι σωτηρια γε της αληθειας και τα οικεία

αναιρειν.

This remark does not apply to those who entertain the following views of Scripture, but is meant to sound a warning in its full force to all who differ from Origen, in not taking their shoes from off their feet when they approach the oracles of the living God. Πρεπει δε τα ἁγια γραμματα πιστευειν μηδεμιαν κεραιαν έχει» κενην σοφίας Θεον· ὁ γαρ εντειλάμενος εμοι τῳ ανθρωπῳ και λεγων, Ουκ οφθηση ενωπιον μου κενος, πολλῳ πλεον αυτός ουδεν κενον ερει: Εκ γαρ του πληρώματος αυτου λαβοντες οἱ προφηται λεγουσι, διο παντα πνει των από πληρώματος. Και ουδεν εστιν εν προφητεία, η νόμῳ, η ευαγγέλιφ, η αποστολῳ, ὁ ουκ εστιν απο πληρώματος, πνει του πλήρως ματος τους εχουσιν οφθαλμους βλεποντας τα του πληρώματος, και στα ακουοντα των απο πληρώματος, και αισθητήριον της ευωδίας των από πληρώματος πνεον. Εαν δε ποτε αναγινωσκων την γραφήν, προσκο ψης νοηματι, οντι καλῳ λιθῳ προσκόμματος και πετρα σκανδαλον, αιτιω σεαντον. Μη απελπισης γαρ τον λίθον τούτον του προσκόμματος και την πέτραν του σκανδαλου εχειν νοηματα· ὡς τ ̓ αν γενεσθαι το ειρη μενον, και ὁ πιστευων ου καταισχυνθήσεται πιστευσον πρώτον, και εὑρήσεις ύπο τον νομιζόμενον σκανδαλον πολλην ωφέλειαν ἁγίαν. Origenis Philocalia, p. 20.

The Pharisee says to the ignorant, Take this Bible together with my additions to it; the Sadducee says, Take it with my subtractions; the honest Christian says, Take it as you find it, without noté or comment; reverence it as the word, not of man, but of God; add not to it, nor deduct from it; but pray for grace to understand and practise it; and if I, your instructor, add to it or diminish from it, tell me of my fault, and I will amend it.

Ι. Μ. Β.

ON THE HELLENICA OF XENOPHON. BY B. G. NIEBUHR.

I CONCEIVE the history of Xenophon to consist of two intirely different works, the conclusion of Thucydides, and the Hellenica, written at very different times.

- Every reader must have remarked that the first two books and the five following are not connected by a continued chronological succession. If there is any thing new in this remark which I could wish to submit to the examination of philologists, the novelty would consist in the reason which I assign, viz. that contrary to the intention of the author, two different works have been put together under the title of one of them,

Opinions about style and exposition differ so much, that peculiarity in that respect does not decide for itself alone. A plan, however, by which the work dissolves itself into two pieces externally only united together, is evidently defective; but the author might have demurred on this point, or might have considered it as beauty and gracefulness free of restraint. But what follows will decide it. The five last books, which form a whole body, are, as it appears from the account of the tyrants of Pheræ, written about the beginning of Ol. 106. But the author says, at the end of the second book, that the Athenians under Thrasybulus marched out against the Oligarchs, who lived then at Eleusis, and who formed there a state of their own, because these enlisted troops; but that after their leaders had been killed, both parties came to an agreement, and took the oath on their reconciliation; and still now they form one community, and the demos is faithful to its oath: Ti xal võv ὁμοῦ πολιτεύονται, καὶ τοῖς ὅρκοις ἐμμένει ὁ δῆμος.

This could not be written by Xenophon about four-and-forty years after the event. Long before another generation had taken the place of the one, which had sinned, and the other, which had pardoned: the old men, who, like Xenophon bimself or Plato, remembered the victory of Lysander from their younger days, and who lived long enough to witness the origin of the reign of Philippus, need not be taken into consideration. Every successive year diminished the merit of the faith of the demos with respect to the Amnesty: one could hardly speak of it twelve or fifteen years after the thirst of vengeance had been repressed, and when in the mean time so many individual alliances and reconciliations must have taken place.