do minister." Though so deficient in spiritual knowledge as to awaken the fear of the writer lest they should relapse into ritualism, yet these Christians were still exhibiting some pleasing traits of character. Notwithstanding the impossibility of renewing a second time those who have apostatized, he is convinced, he says, that the result in their case will be better than his words seem to teach, and that such improvement will be effected as is connected with salvation.

Wherefore, then, serves the warning? It is intended to serve as a means of effecting that very improvement which is to secure them against apostasy. This is the object of every exhortation given by our Lord and by the apostles to disciples. "Take heed"; "Be ye steadfast, unmovable"; "So run that ye may obtain"; "Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free"; "No man having put his hand to the plough and looking back is fit for the kingdom of God"; "Watch and pray";- these and all similar exhortations are the milder means of preserving Christians from apostasy. The passage which we have examined is the stronger and more solemn means. Had the writer been speaking, not of persons who still bore some marks of the true Christian, but of persons who had renounced all pretence of interest in the Christian cause, we may well suppose he would have spoken in terms similar to those used by John in respect to that very class of persons: "They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us." (1 John ii. 19.)

Finally, it may be remarked that this warning against apostasy has probably been too little used by the Calvinistic pulpit as a means of reclaiming backslidden disciples. There is reason to fear that its use has been quite too much restricted to attempts to save it from the uses of Arminianism, and to harmonize it with the Calvinistic theology. When used for the purpose of awakening, it should be used with the wisdom of inspiration. It should not be presented in an unmitigated form, lest it throw disciples into discouragement. It should not be followed with words which under such circumstances will serve only as an opiate. "My sheep shall never perish" was not intended by our Lord as a lullaby to souls who already are almost sound asleep.

WICKFORD, RHODE ISLAND.

N. M. WILLIAMS.

NOTICES OF BOOKS.

The Modern Greek Language in its Relation to Ancient Greek. By E. M. GELDART, B. A., formerly Scholar of Balliol College, Oxford; Modern Language Master at the Manchester Free Grammar School. Oxford, at the Clarendon Press. 1870. Duodecimo, pp. 216.

The language of Plato and Aristophanes, almost unchanged in its etymological forms, is still spoken in the streets of Athens, and among the isles of the Egean. The people who speak it are the offspring of the ancient Greeks; and its very pronunciation, if not identical with that of Pericles and Demosthenes, certainly does not differ materially from that of Plutarch and Paul. And this is the speech which all the rest of the world have persisted for centuries in calling a dead language. What other libel ever gained such extensive and lasting currency!

But a multitude of influences and agencies are now rapidly dispelling this strange delusion; and among them we rejoice to welcome this scholarly little volume of Mr. Geldart. He is known to us only by this work; but no other acquaintance is necessary to convince us that he brings to his task competent qualifications, not only by his thorough knowledge of classic Greek, but also by his familiarity with the language of the living Greeks, and, it ought in justice to be added, with the principles of comparative philology.

We know no better way to put our readers at once en rapport with the author of this book, than to quote two or three paragraphs from his introductory chapter.

It is a strange and unparalleled fact, that one of the oldest known languages in the world, a language in which the loftiest and deepest thoughts of the greatest poets, the wisest thinkers, the noblest, holiest and best of teachers, have directly or indirectly found their utterance in the far-off ages of a hoar antiquity, should at this day be the living speech of millions throughout the East of Europe and various parts of Asia Minor and Africa; that it should have survived the fall of empires. and risen again and again from the ruins of beleaguered cities, deluged but never drowned by floods of invading barbarians, Romans, Celts, Slaves, Goths and Vandals, Avars, Huns, Franks, and Turks; often the language of the vanquished, yet never of the dead; with features seared by years and service, yet still essentially the same, instinct with the fire of life, and beautiful with the memory of the past.

Yet it is perhaps still stranger, that while the records of its youth and manhood form the lifelong study of thousands in England, France, and Germany, and the rest of Europe; nevertheless, almost the first symptoms of sickness and decay were the signals for us all to forsake it, few of us waiting to see whether its natural vigor had carried it on to a green old age, or whether, as most of us too easily assumed, it was buried in a quiet grave, and had given place to a degenerate scion, or had at best sunk into the dotage of a second childhood.

The reasons for the general neglect of the language of Modern Greece may be briefly summed up as follows: The political insignificance of the nation; the obscurity of its literature; the small practical use of the language; and last, but perhaps not least, the prevalence, in our own land especially, of the Erasmian system of pronunciation.

The titles of the remaining eight chapters of the book are, Pronunciation of Greek; Accent and Quantity; Modern Greek Accidence; Modern Greek Syntax; Modern Greek Phraseology; Historical Development of Modern from Ancient Greek; Dialects of Modern Greece; Modern Greek Literature. These chapters are followed by an appendix on the Greek of the Gospels of St. John and St. Luke.

In regard to the pronunciation of Greek, Mr. Geldart thus closes a discussion of nearly sixty pages:

In conclusion, with regard to the practical question, how we are to pronounce Greek, I can only state, from my personal experience and that of others similarly circumstanced, my unalterable conviction, that the man who has once learned to read Greek fluently, with accent and intonation as the Greeks read it, will never be able to tolerate either Homer or Xenophon or Sophocles read with the Latin accent and the miscalled Erasmian pronunciation.

Any one who has followed the arguments and evidence adduced in the preceding chapter must, I am sure, be convinced that the way in which the ancient Greeks pronounced their language was at least far more like the present Greek pronunciation, handed down as it has been by an unbroken line of tradition than the wholly arbitrary system which the followers of Erasmus have invented; while few have ever questioned, I may say among continental scholars no one has ever doubted, the propriety of reading Greek according to the accent.

Let it be observed, that the above emphatic declarations are not the utterances of a mere theorist, riding his favorite hobby, but the deliberate judgments of an accomplished scholar, and a teacher of large experience.

The chapter on Modern Greek Literature (pp. 138-177) contains enough to show, that the genius for poetry and eloquence, which distinguished the ancient Greeks, has never, even in the darkest days of despotism, been wholly extinct. This chapter contains copious extracts, both in prose and in verse, from more than a dozen modern Greek writers. Several of the poetical pieces are accompanied by translations into English or German. A passage cited from Franciscus Scuphos, a Cretan, written in 1681 (pp. 149, 150), is remarkable, not only for its eloquence, and the rhythm of its sentences, but also as showing how little the best Greek style of two centuries ago differed from that of to-day. Foremost

among the Greek writers of the present century, stands the name of Adamantios Koraes. "Few countries," says our author (p. 156), “none certainly save Germany, can show such a literary Hercules." Mr. Geldart gives a list of twenty-four different works from his hand, published between 1787 and 1833, varying from one to thirteen volumes each. No one did so much as he, to revive the national spirit of the Greeks, and to rouse them to that long and patriotic struggle, by which they secured at last the independence of a considerable portion of the Greek race.

In the Appendix on the Greek of the Gospels of St. John and St. Luke, our author thinks he finds proof, in the difference of the style of these two Gospels, that the former was not written until about the middle of the second century. But the fact that Luke's Gospel is much more classical in its style than that of John seems sufficiently accounted for by the different early training and the different life-long associations of the two writers.

In regard to the typography and general mechanical execution of this book, it is sufficient to say, that it is published by Macmillan & Co., and printed at the Clarendon Press, in Oxford.

We cordially welcome and recommend this book, as meeting a want in our literature, and as an earnest and well sustained plea for granting to the Greeks the right which we concede to all other nations, to determine the pronunciation of their own language. The anomalous injustice which they have suffered in this respect, is beginning to be acknowledged and redressed. It would be a pity and a reproach, if the scholars and teachers of England and the United States should be the last to abandon a practice which has nothing in its favor but prescription.

A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Leviticus, with a new Translation. JAMES G. MURPHY, LL. D., Author of Commentaries on Genesis and Exodus. Andover: W. F. Draper.

The commentaries of Murphy have many excellencies. They are clear, discriminating, and comprehensive. His power consists in adhering to the teachings of Scripture, book by book. What is taught by the book he is expounding is to him final. Other books of Scripture are mere sidelights, which may or may not shed light upon the specific work before him. He does nothing exhaustively. He has no antagonist ever in his eye. He cares little what others have said upon specific passages, and never loads his pages with authorities. With a style in most respects peculiarly transparent, he moves on fearlessly, stating the results of his investigations, but giving no clue to the processes by which the results have been reached. This method is a decided advantage to the English reader. It frees his work from lumber and makes his commentaries enjoyable reading. But it has its drawbacks to the critical scholar. His commentaries are never of the highest order, but they answer a good purpose for that class of students who wish to know, at a glance, the conclusions of the author they consult.

The book of Leviticus is a dense untraversed forest to most persons.

Very few, even of theologians, ever read it, except to cull here and there a passage to point a moral or enforce a doctrine. Yet it is one of the choicest books of the Old Testament, to the believer in the atonement of Christ and the exposition of that atonement in the Epistle to the Hebrews. Mr. Murphy expounds it from the New Testament point of view. He spiritualizes the ritual of the Jews from the teachings of Paul and the other apostles. He seems to assume that the Jews attached as much meaning to their offerings as Christ himself. In this respect we think he errs. The inchoative thought was there, but it is at least questionable how much of that thought they appropriated to their spiritual necessities. In this respect we think he transcends just principles of criticism. Revelation is progressive, and it is hazardous to assign to starlight the glory of noonday.

His exposition of the essential meaning of the sacrifices is to us the chief merit of the book. Interpreting their meaning by the book of Leviticus itself, he comes to these conclusions, conclusions with which we are in accord. They differ from the more generally accepted opinions, but we think he is right.

He says, page 15 of preface

The various kinds of offerings described in the first five chapters have tasked the ingenuity of expositors from the earliest times, and much depends on the elucidation of their true meaning for the right understanding of the book itself, and of the way of salvation for the lost family of man, which the Bible unfolds. It is manifest that there are three primary and stated offerings, and two secondary and occasional. The former are the burnt-sacrifice, the oblation, and the sacrifice of peace, expressing the atonement, the benefit of atonement, and the enjoyment of this benefit; the latter, the sin-sacrifice and the trespass offering, expressing the expiation and satisfaction for an occasional sin of inadvertance. The burnt-sacrifice represents the great propitiation for sin, to be offered up once only on behalf of a sinful world.

The oblation sets forth the righteousness which is the life. . . . The sacrifice of peace includes the three stages, the blood of expiation, the fat of propitiation, and the feast of communion, in which the benefits of redemption are actually received and enjoyed by the wor shipper. . . . Subordinate and occasional are the sin-sacrifice and the trespass-offering.

This view to us is conclusive and satisfactory. It puts the whole. matter in a nutshell. It removes many difficulties. Our own studies have brought us to a similar conclusion. Our Lord undoubtedly absorbed in himself all the typical thoughts of all the Jewish sacrifices; but the burnt-offering has always seemed to us chronologically, locally, and designedly, the leader and guide to the others. We commend Dr. Murphy's results to the thoughtful students cf revelation. His work is not all that is desired, but it moves in the right direction.

Ecce Messias; or, the Hebrew Messianic Hope and the Christian Reality. EDWARD HIGGINSON. Williams and Norgate, London. 1871.

A man strikes out with a bold hand, who thinks to set right the Messianic thought of revelation, with as little knowledge of the discussions upon the sacred theme, as the author of this volume exhibits. To confess as he does in his preface his entire dependence for his results upon Grotius, Rosenmuller, Lowth, Wintle and Sharpe, though in the body of his work he makes use of Davidson, Newcomb, Noyes, and Rowland