to my arrival, I found that a meeting had been convened, which I was requested to attend. I knew not its object, until the King's speaker arose, and told me that they had met to request me to abandon my intention of visiting England. After many interesting addresses, a chief arose, and with great gravity said, 'Mr. Williams, I have been reading to-day what Paul wrote to the Philippians,'-'I am in a strait between two, having a desire to depart and be with Christ, which is far better; nevertheless, to abide in the flesh is more needful for you.' Now, we all know that you must wish to see your friends, and visit your native country, after so long an ab. sence; this is very reasonable; but don't you think, if Paul was willing to stay even out of Heaven to do good to Christians on earth, that you ought to forego the pleasure of visiting England to do good to us?' This was a touching appeal, and feeling it deeply, I replied by expressing my pleasure at receiving this proof of their affection, and promised, on revisiting Tahiti, to consult Mrs. W., and if we could not remain ourselves, to persuade one of our bro. ther missionaries to reside with them until our return. I had no sooner made this declaration, than another arose, and after thanking me for promising to endeavour to find a substitute, exclaimed, But although we have ten thousand instructors in Christ, we have not many fathers, for, in Christ Jesus, you have begotten us through the Gospel.'"

But our quotations are extending beyond our limits, and we must omit many interesting passages we had marked for insertion.

We conclude our notice by remarking upon one thing which has excited our surprise; it is the constitution of the London Missionary Society, under which Mr. Williams acted. For some time we thought that we must have entirely mistaken the meaning of the language used, but an attentive examination seems to confirm our first impressions, and show that no other rendering can be given to it. We find what is called "the fundamental principle" of the Society, thus stated:--"As the union of Christians of various denominations, in carrying on this great work, is a most desirable object; so to prevent, if possible, any cause of future dissensions, it is declared to be a fundamental principle of the Missionary Society, that its design is not to send Presbyterianism, Independency, Episcopacy, or any other form of Church order and government, (about which there may be a difference of opinions among serious persons,) but the glorious Gospel of the blessed God, to the heathen; and that it shall be left, (as it ought to be left,) to the minds of the persons whom God may call into the fellowship of his Son from among them, to assume for themselves

such form of Church government as to them shall appear most agreeable to the word of God."

Now, what does this mean? Is it, that the missionaries sent out by them shall go among the heathen, declare the truths of Christianity, and when a sufficient number to form a church have embraced the Christian faith, then these persons thus converted from Paganism, are to be left to arrange their ecclesiastical polity in the way which "to them shall appear most agreeable to the word of God?" We know not how otherwise to explain it. But if this is the meaning, it strikes us as being a glaring absurdity. The idea is new, that these ignorant savages, just emerging from barbarism, and acquainted-as must necessarily be the case at first-with only the most simple, primary truths of religion, should be able calmly to sit down, and study out a form of church government from their newly translated Bibles. What can they possibly know of the history of the church in primitive days, and of the many other facts, a knowledge of which is absolutely necessary to arrive at a correct conclusion on this subject? And yet, about all these things the missionary must say nothing, for it would be influencing the minds of the natives, and thus violating "the fundamental principle" of the Society. Why not, for the same reason, suppress all mention of infant baptism, for about this "there may be a difference of opinions among serious persons;" and leave the heathen to discover it themselves, if they can, in the Bible?

We do not, indeed, see how a church can subsist many years, even in a heathen land, without the question of church government, and the right of ordination, being brought up. And in what an awkward predicament would the missionaries be placed, should they on these points refuse to answer the inquiries of their new converts! For instance, we learn from this volume, that they have "deacons" in their churches; in what way can they prescribe the nature of their duties and the limits of their power? Again; as they send out native teachers to other islands, it is not very improbable that a conversation like this might take place. As the teacher, after a temporary absence, is again departing to his charge which has lately renounced heathenism, he inquires of the missionary,-"Shall I administer the communion to the new converts?" "By no means." "Why not?" "Because you have no right to do so; you have never yet been ordained." This is, of course, shedding new light upon the teacher's mind, and he eagerly replies :-" Then, why cannot I be ordained? Will not you ordain me?" Here is a dilemma; what is the missionary to do? If he says "Yes," and ordains him, he teaches Presbyterianism. If he replies, "I 53

NO. IV.-VOL. II.

cannot, no one but a Bishop can confer this rank upon you;" he teaches Episcopacy. In either case he would be violating "the fundamental principle."

The consequences of attempting such a neutral course have been, in these South Sea Islands, just what we should have expected. It is evident, from Mr. Williams's account, that they have settled down into a very loose form of Congregationalism. This demonstrates, too, to our minds, the absurdity of all such efforts to separate what the word of God has joined together. No one can experience deeper emotions of pleasure than we do, at the triumphs of the Gospel, by whatever denominations they may be effected. We pray that we may always share in the feelings of the Apostle Paul when he said, that in whatever way the Gospel was preached, “I therein do rejoice, yea, I will rejoice." But still, we desire not only the truth, but also the whole truth, to be taught. We wish the precious treasure to be carried forth, lodged in its casket, and thus defended from harm; and not to be left, to be swept about at the mercy of the wild waves of popular ignorance. Our motto, therefore, is, "the Gospel in the Church."

But these remarks apply to the Society which sent Mr. Williams abroad, and not to his book. Against the latter, we have no objections to make. It is a valuable collection of facts, showing what may be effected by zeal, and perseverance, and faith. It demonstrates that the power of our religion to awaken and purify, is still undiminished. It is by triumphs like these that our faith proves its identity with that Gospel which Apostles preached, and for which they died.

ART. VII. The true Doctrine of the Latin Subjunctive Mood, proved upon the authority of the best Latin Classics. By the Rev. R. B. GREENLAW, M. A., of Worcester College, Oxford. London: 1833. pp. xvi. and 248. 8vo.

THE close connection between language and all mental cultivation, the number employed in teaching, and the still greater number employed in studying grammar, either of our own or of the ancient tongues, authorize us to devote a longer space to the subject of the work before us than might seem to be due to so minute and technical a point.

It is one of the improvements of modern philology, that

the science of language is now divided by grammarians into Lower Grammar, which treats of words taken singly; and Higher Grammar, which treats of words taken in connection. The former discusses the elementary sounds, the parts of speech, the formation of words, and their inflection. The latter is divided into two parts, that which treats of propositions, and that which treats of verse. By this happy terminology, the doctrine concerning propositions, or judgments, acquires its due prominence, and grammar connects itself with the interior of the human mind.

By another happy device, orthography, or the notation of language, has been detached from pure grammar, and subjoined to it merely as an appendix. For a language is perfect in itself, whether reduced to writing or not. Its reduction to writing is an incidental circumstance. Language, too, is the product of united minds. It is the movement of a whole people or nation, directed by instinct, or more properly, by the laws of mind which God has constituted, to one result. It is the voice of God speaking through the race. But written language is the invention of a single mind, passing, indeed, by communication to other minds. It is substantially a human invention, and has the imperfections accompanying all things human. By this judicious separation between spoken and written language, modern philologists have learned to separate language from its imperfect notation, and have given to the physiology of sound and to the principles of euphony their just importance as the foundation of philosophical grammar. As a happy example of what can be effected in this way, we would refer, en passant, to Dr. Nordheimer's Critical Grammar of the Hebrew Language, now just coming from the press; a work which promises to do much for sound learning.

From these general remarks on philology, we pass to Higher Grammar, and more particularly to the nature and form of propositions; under which heads we shall give our views concerning the nature of the Latin subjunctive mood, a point which has occasioned much perplexity to grammarians.

The verb expresses the being, becoming, and doing of things. As every sentence or clause can be merely the expression of the being, becoming, and doing of things, the developement of language in propositions or judgments passed by the human mind, must proceed from the verb. But as the infinitive gives the import of the verb in its simplest and most general form, and is at the same time the representative of the verb in all its forms, it is of course that from which this higher developement of language proceeds, even to its minutest details.

This, we think, justifies us in commencing our discussion of

the proposition, with the infinitive of the substantive verb (esse, to be) as the general or abstract verb, and as the most general form of that verb. It is, indeed, no proposition; but by means of its modifications it is the ground or basis of every proposition, and of course of every judgment, whether subjective or objective. We use the Latin, where necessary, because it is to that language that our thoughts are principally directed.

The infinitive of the substantive verb is capable of a double modification. On the one side, the peculiar manner of the same, as it were its colouring, may be exhibited on it; as, esse amantem, i. e. amare. On the other side, the thing may be specified of which the being (esse,) generally, or the peculiar manner of the same, is predicated; as, hominem esse. If we call the connection of these ideas, in which this double modification is put to the substantive verb, a proposition, then the simple infinitive may be said to be formed into an infinitive proposition; as, hominem amantem esse-a man to be loving. This phrase must stand in the accusative, since thereby is best exhibited the objectivity which the proposition holds in relation to our faculty of conception.

As the modification which specifies the peculiar mode of being, serves, at the same time, for a modification of the thing to which the being in this peculiar form is ascribed, it is called the predicate, while the thing which lies at the ground of the predicate is called the subject. The substantive verb is the copula, or common bond of the two, as by means of it the predicate, by which the general verb is limited, is attached to the subject.

As the judgment is a complex or developed idea, so the proposition which expresses the judgment may be considered as a complex or developed word, and, as such, liable to stand in all the cases or relations in which a word may stand. A main proposition or leading clause is analogous to the theme or ground-form of a noun; a subordinate proposition or dependent clause is analogous to the various cases, including also the nominative, which are derived from the ground-form.

As the infinitive mode does not form a main proposition, an infinitive proposition does not correspond to the theme or groundform of a noun; but it corresponds to most of the cases, as in the following table, which is adapted to the Latin language, the cases themselves being arranged according to a modern philosophical classification of them.

I. The nominative,

(1.) of the subject; as, Oratorem irasci non decet.

(2.) of the predicate; as, Videre est perspicere aliquid.