Slike strani

extent than is imagined, except by one whose fortune it has often been to trace some felicitous explanation from one of the Fratres Poloni down through Bengel, Wetstein, Rosenmüller, "done into English" and launched anew by Scott, Doddridge, or Kenrick, and finally reappearing in a popular American commentary. A large part of this work will be best wrought by being wrought in such instalments as one would never think of printing except in a periodical journal. This remark applies to the critical history of the several books of the Old and the New Testament, and to the various and numerous questions relating to the history of either canon. It applies with still more pertinence to exegesis. St. Paul's writings alone might be the study of a lifetime, and there are many single texts which deserve dissertations rather than notes. In the series of articles on Difficult Texts of Scripture to which we have already referred, we can see the advantage of the converging of all the lights of intellect and study on a single passage, the one writer who has taken a hard text in charge having often done more to relieve it of difficulty, obscurity, and misapprehension than was done by the generations of erudite commentators that preceded him. In fine, in critical scholarship, classical no less than Scriptural, the actual achievements, successes, triumphs, have consisted in the clearing up of single doubtful readings, or the elucidation of single sentences, verses, or paragraphs; while the more ponderous work has been hand-work rather than brain-work, - the mere decanting of old wine into new bottles, and that often without filtering.

We know that it is a very rare thing for one literary journal to review another. Perhaps it ought so to be; for, were such a procedure authorized by custom, it would be very apt to lead to mutual operations on the credit of the literary community corresponding to “kite-flying” in the money-market. But our intention is, by this entirely exceptional method, to express our strong sense of the obligations of American scholarship, in its leading departments, to the Bibliotheca Sacra. Such a work proffers the highest claims on liberal support, — we will not say patronage, for that is too mean a word to be used about anything that deserves support. Simply because it is elevated in its whole character, - because it addresses only the advanced and cultivated mind of the country, - because it is not the organ of a sect or a party, but of whatever we have in the land of devout scholarship, of consecrated learning, – it has a smaller subscription-list than it might easily secure by a lower grade of excellence.

We are aware that we have used very strong and emphatic terms of commendation in speaking of this journal, much stronger than we should have used had we contented ourselves with a cursory examination of it, or had we trusted to the vividness of the impressions made upon us by each successive number. In point of fact, it has few of the usual characteristics of a periodical, except that it keeps itself abreast of the times in literature and learning. Its articles are not adapted to some transient mood of the public mind, - appropriate when printed, yet such as would cease to be of value if delayed for a single quarter. Its papers are, indeed, suited to the demand of the religious world at the time of publication ; but their subjects are, from their very nature, of enduring interest and moment; and the successive phases of theological opinion with reference to them represent only successive stages of research, development, and knowledge, the earlier claiming the cognizance of all students and thinkers who would pass on to the later. Such essays, therefore, if ever worth the writing or the reading, are not likely to become obsolete. Subscribers to the Bibliotheca Sacra are, then, not only placing a new number every quarter upon their tables, but are adding with every year a reference-book of value to their libraries; and we dare not say how very far, with the scholar of slender pecuniary ability, the entire series, up to this day, might compensate for the lack of ponderous and costly works whose absence from his shelves would else be his perpetual grief.

ART. V.–1. Papers from the Society for the Diffusion of Political Knowledge. New York. 1863.

No. 1. The Constitution. Addresses of PROFESSOR MORSE, MR. GEORGE TICKNOR CURTIS, and MR. S. J. TILDEN, at the Organization.

No. 4. The Letter of a Republican, EDWARD N. CROSBY, Esq., of Poughkeepsie, to PROFESSOR S. F. B. MORSE, Feb. 25, 1863, and PROFESSOR MORSE's Reply, March 2, 1863.

No. 8. Bible View of Slavery. [A Letter by JOHN H. HOPKINS, Bishop of the Diocese of Vermont.]

No. 12. An Argument on the Ethical Position of Slavery in the Social System, and its Relation to the Politics of the

Day. By SAMUEL F. B. MORSE. August, 1863. 2. Speech of Hon. GEORGE W. WOODWARD, delivered at the

Great Union Meeting in Independence Square, Philadelphia, December 13th, 1860. Philadelphia. 1863.

In a free country, war is a test alike of national character and of individual virtue. Patriotism and love of country are feeble motives, unless their roots strike down into the soil of moral sentiments, and draw nourishment from the everlasting sources of justice and truth. Whatever more than a geographical district the name of a country represents, is the measure of patriotism and the bond of nationality. When, therefore, a nation goes to war from motives of selfishness, bad passion, or ambition, it weakens its claim upon the individuals composing it for service or honor. It lowers the tone of patriotism, it diminishes its own essential power. But when a nation goes to war from a high motive, in defence of the right, in maintenance of a just cause, then it establishes a new claim on the reverence of its children, and has a right to expect from them the heartiest devotion, and the most persistent support. Then it is that the motives which influence individuals are tested and disclosed, and that their intellectual conceptions of patriotic duty, no less than the manner of their performance of it, are exhibited. Thus war develops the immoral, no less than the moral, elements in a society, and the worth of that society depends on the relative power which each of these elements secures to itself in the control and conduct of public affairs. The soldier who gives, not only his life, but his heart to his country; the contractor who cheats the government and abuses the soldiers with his shoddy; the chaplain shot in the front of the fight as he leans to comfort the dying; the bishop supporting the enemies of his native land, and wresting Scripture to the defence of slavery; the politician forgetting party, and remembering only the claims of his country and its government; the partisan Governor hampering the Administration in whose hands alone rests the power by which the nation's cause can be maintained, and calling rioters, murderers, and burners of orphan asylums his “ friends,” even while they stand in arms to violate all law and civil order, — such are among the contrasts which the test of war displays.

And if, in time of war, a government pursue a policy, in part at least conformed to pure justice, while not less conformed to the political traditions of the nation and to the political doctrines embodied in its fundamental charter, then it is that men who, from perversity of nature, from bad education or evil association, from disappointed ambition, or from any other cause, take rank among its political opponents, are likely to overstep the bounds which separate legitimate from factious opposition, and, in the heat and passion of their partisan endeavors, are carried on to profess and defend doctrines, not only hostile to the national policy, but contrary to the principles of right upon which that policy is founded. Considerations of morality are neglected, or, still worse, notions absolutely immoral in essence or in tendency are exalted as axioms by which political action ought to be determined. The consciences and the intellects of the men who hold such views become equally debased, and the arguments they put forth in support of their opinions are discreditable alike to their understandings and their hearts.

It would be difficult to find a more striking instance of this immorality in politics, or a clearer exhibition of the fatuity which is likely to accompany it, than is afforded by the pamphlets of which the titles stand at the head of this article.

The New York Society for the Diffusion of (so-called) Political Knowledge is composed, so far, at least, as may be judged from the list of its officers and from the names of some of its prominent members, of a set of men of respectable position in society, some of whom possess fair talents and moderate reputation. The President of the Society, Professor Morse, is the only man of real distinction among them, and his fame rests altogether on his artistic and scientific achievements. It would have been well for his own honor, and that of his country, had he never entered the field of political discussion. But there is one characteristic about the Society which throws light upon the spirit of its members, and the purposes for which they joined together. It is a medley of men hitherto of very different principles and of opposite parties; men who have had little political sympathy, and who now have not much in common but a spirit of bitter opposition to the Administration, a conceit of superior political wisdom, and the gall of disappointed political aspirations.

The Society was formed at a period when the Administration needed the support of all patriotic citizens, and when the people required to be united in hearty maintenance of the measures adopted for the success of the national cause. We were in the very strain and tug of war, war which could be waged to a successful issue only through the authorities in power. The proclamation of Emancipation had been issued but six weeks before. The policy inaugurated by it was plainly the only policy that could then be followed, unless a revolution should drive Mr. Lincoln from power, and unseat the Congress at Washington. The adoption of this policy was no longer an open question. The cause of the rebellion, the long cause of our internal weakness, had been struck at; the cause of liberty and human rights had been advanced ; the policy of America in regard to slavery had at length been made to conform in great measure to the principles upon which her institutions professedly rested ; and these men were found ready to take that moment for declaring their bitter opposition to the government, and their hatred of liberty,- ready to take that moment for endeavoring to weaken the confidence of the people in the Administration that had just then such supreme claim to their confidence, and finally to divert the efforts of the people from

« PrejšnjaNaprej »