they could wish? The following we believe to be the chief particulars in which it is defective.

First. The volumes composing it are very unequal in merit. To plead, indeed, for a perfect equality in excellence, were Utopian. There must be inequalities in works written by dif ferent authors, and upon different topics. The same degree of merit does not attach even to the individual writings of the same author. But, whilst several volumes belonging to the Cabinet are well selected, and amply deserving of their place in it, there are others which ought not to have been introduced. Thus Ernesti on the New Testament, Pareau on the Old, Planck's Introduction to Sacred Philology and Interpretation, Tholuck's Commentaries, are all entitled to their position; whilst Umbreit, Witsius, Tholuck's Sermons, and other treatises that might be named, are not of such permanent value as to recommend their transference from the German or Latin language into our own, much less to assign them the place occupied in the Cabinet. Surely Tholuck's Life and Sermons do not comport with the list of treatises intended to be embraced; whilst Witsius' Lectures on the Lord's Prayer are inferior in critical analysis, as might have been anticipated from the time at which they first appeared. We readily concede that the theology of the latter is sound and systematic; tinctured with scholasticism withal, which the pious divine found to be fashionable, and relished accordingly. Umbreit, again, though profoundly learned, is too erratic and speculative to undertake an able exposition of Job; for he sets about his task somewhat in the style of one who developes an oriental fable. Nor has the translator appended notes explanatory or corrective, but simply confined himself to the drudgery of rendering into English the words and phrases of the original.

Secondly. The best commentaries have not been uniformly chosen. Thus Calvin is not the best on Galatians, Steiger on the first Epistle of Peter, or Billroth on Corinthians. The German and Latin languages supplied better than these; and they should therefore have given place to more valuable authors. It is true that none of them is without merit. Due praise is willingly awarded to each. Calvin had an acute and powerful intellect; but his philology was not of the highest order. Steiger was a young man of great promise, and nobly did he set himself to refute the antisupranaturalism of Wegscheider; but his mind was hardly matured for the task of commentary. Billroth, too, was learned; but ought not to be called an able theologian. Still there is a difficulty in procuring German commentaries whose theology exactly squares with what the standards of the Church of Scotland, or the articles of the Church of England, pronounce sound and pure doctrine. And yet many

may be evangelical notwithstanding. They may set forth the essentials of the christian religion, such as the deity of Christ, his atonement and intercession, with man's recovery and regeneration by the Holy Spirit, without exhibiting those minute opinions on which christian churches differ. Let it not be conceived that adherence to any creed, however lengthened, should be sufficient to stamp the seal of orthodoxy on the brow of a commentator. Although, therefore, there may not be expositions in German to suit in all points the creed-formed taste of established churches; there may be evangelical commentaries proceeding from able and pious men, that ought to be translated into English. If they be not produced in the spirit of a vain antisupranaturalism, explaining away miracles, and resolving prophecy into shrewd conjecture-or if they be free from the invention of mythi, we should leave a few objectionable matters to the good sense of the christian student, without casting aside an entire volume, however excellent as a whole. Or, if any object to this as insufficient, let him separate the chaff from the wheat in pointing out its worthlessness-let it be faithfully exposed as unprofitable and pernicious; but cast not away both together; for in so doing you will lose much that is worth possessing, and recklessly abandon, it may be, the pure grain of the sanctuary. Let the aberrations of learning be held up as warnings to deter from the folly of philosophizing upon the Bible, or from the pride of pronouncing sentence in matters too high for human intellect to scan-too sacred for human presumption to invade. These are some of the uses to which the unsound portions of many German books, otherwise valuable, might be applied; without necessarily depriving the intelligent student of their multifarious contents. No poison would thus insinuate itself into the mind-it would lose its venom and its hurtfulness-while the literary giants of the continent would dwindle down before our view as frail and fallible men, equally in want of the teaching of the Spirit with ourselves, and all the more necessitous, in proportion to the extent of their attainments, and the depth of their lore. Humility generated by a calm view of their lapses, would bid away the rising thoughts of self-importance so inimical to the better feelings of christian abasement. It tends much to level the fancied greatness of human accomplishments to contemplate the hallucinations of those who toil incessantly to ascend the heights of a proud pre-eminence in literature, and toil not in vain; for, whilst they may be always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth so far as it is practically received and felt; the meanest peasant, on whose soul science has never shone, may clearly and cogently perceive its primary claims not less to a celestial origin, than to an instant submission.

With these sentiments, we should not fear to clothe with an English dress some of the best works of neological writers; not, indeed, such as were written expressly to defend a most erroneous system, but rather to illustrate the books of Scripture, and therefore less objectionable, than if it had been the avowed object to uphold a favorite but fallacious mode of interpretation. Nay, so far from entertaining fears, we should rather hope that compositions of this kind might be profitably corrected or beneficially refuted. Every attack on the inspiration of the sacred writers has hitherto redounded to the reality of the fact, by calling forth the counter-arguments of the more potent friends of truth. And, although we have no sympathy with that chivalrous spirit which carelessly flings down its arms before the daring demeanor of presumptuous reason, contented to yield where it is the more necessary to stand up for the gospel's sake; yet we have as little leaning to the sickly timidity that lives in alarms of its own creation.

Thirdly. Volumes have been occasionally introduced into the Cabinet which do not harmonize with its acknowledged character. Thus Gess on the Revelation of God in his Word, is too popular and brief to satisfy the wants of the scholar. One of Krummacher's works has been numbered as a volume belonging to the series, which all will admit to have been sadly misplaced; for this pious and imaginative theologian belongs to another class of authors than that embraced in the Cabinet; and however much we admire his elegant fancy and breathing piety, we cannot praise the correctness or sobriety of his expositions. Lisco on the Parables, though generally judicious, is not such a treatise as could have been desired. It wants fundamental investigation, as far as the nature of the subject will allow. We question, too, whether it be a wise proceeding to make up volumes of miscellaneous articles, chiefly reprinted from the American Biblical Repository and the Repertory. The former is possessed and read by the majority of persons interested in the progress of the present Library. But there are some American productions which might well be transplanted; especially Exegetical Essays by Professor Stuart on Future Punishment; a volume that presents a valuable specimen of hermeneutical investigation on a theme intensely momentous. There, the reader may find a thorough antidote to the philosophical speculations of the Unitarian and Universalist, who set aside the statements of Scripture without ceremony, as being opposed to the amiable reveries of the human heart. Herder's Spirit of Hebrew Poetry might be added, in the English translation by Professor Marsh, although it is now imperfect, desiderating notes and references to adapt it to the present state of our knowledge.

Fourthly. Some of the volumes are not well rendered into our language. We do not say that the laborious translators have often mistaken the sense of the originals. We bring against them no sweeping charge of gross unacquaintedness with the German language. Some of them, however, are manifestly deficient in acquaintance with its minutiae or nicer idioms; and might have produced versions less uncouth, and a style less Germanized. Inelegance characterizes the labors of a few, who seem incapable of transfusing the force and beauty of the German into our own tongue. It requires long and diligent study before the ability to accomplish a good version be produced. Let the inexperienced translators take a lesson from Marsh's Michaelis, frequently comparing the original with its English costume; and they will learn the excellencies and mysteries of a finished version.

In these brief remarks upon the defects of the Biblical Cabinet, we have been anxious to state our opinion as candidly and faithfully as possible. We have a great desire to see the work as excellent and perfect as it ought to be. Be it far from us to complain without cause, or to censure without reason. When the interests of sound learning, the reputation of our theological literature, and the soundness of our national judgment is at stake, we are anxious that our defects should be as few as possible in the eyes of the most competent judges in other lands. We wish to see no stain upon our sacred literature, but to look upon it ascending with onward progress to a high and noble elevation. Rather should we have spoken in terms of unmeasured commendation, had a conscientious regard for truth admitted; since it is painful to dwell upon the faults, and to spy out the minor errors, which some are solicitous to find and feed upon. Had we been less anxious for the continuance and prosperity of the valuable series, we should have said less respecting its defects. It is just because we are impressed with the conviction of its importance to the cause of biblical learning, that we have ventured to give utterance to our sentiments, in order that the whole may hereafter challenge the unhesitating approbation of the ablest scholars. Alive as we are to the necessities of an age like the present, when the pulpit gives forth so little exposition, and the religious press re-echoes the trite sayings of hereditary pietism-when doctrinal truths are so unsubstantially inculcated from the high platform occupied by the preacher as to leave the mass of the people unfed with the strong meat of the gospel, and lean in their forms of spiritual manhood-we seek their removal by the application of successful remedies. Such features cannot be contemplated but with unquiet spirit, as they pass before

the view in shadowy mood, indicative of feebleness and frailty.

There are several suggestions which we would now propose. Should they be adopted we are quite confident of the success of the work.

First. The general superintendence of the whole ought forthwith to be entrusted to some competent scholar. It is matter of regret that this was not done at first; else so great inequality would not have been exhibited. By committing the entire selection to an individual, it will be pervaded by greater unity and excellence-treatises of doubtful propriety will be excluded, and works of primary interest alone presented to the public. We take it for granted that the management would be invested in safe hands. No second-rate individual should be selected; but one universally known to possess learning, judgment, and piety, combined with a philosophical spirit and liberal heart. Except these qualifications be found in the same person, he will be so far deficient in ability for the active superintendence. Neither should any antipunctist be entrusted with it, in the land of waning Hebrew literature where it is published; for the obvious reason, that he cannot be a good Hebraist. Nothing will tend to raise the character of the series more, than the adoption of such a suggestion. Conversant with German biblical literature as well as English, the editor will feel his reputation at stake, and exercise a sound discretion in choosing such able volumes as are often consulted by the masters of criticism.

Secondly. There ought to be more commentaries on the Old Testament, since it is less understood than the New. In itself, too, it is certainly more difficult; requiring a patience of study and an oriental apparatus which few possess. The number of those who thoroughly comprehend the Hebrew Scriptures is small; and the learned interpreter should devote himself more to this department, in the hope of enlightening the obscurities by which it is extensively enveloped, or of disclosing the beauties that lie far distant from the eye of the carnal and indolent. Why should we not have parts of Rosenmüller's Scholia, such as those on the Book of Psalms, translated; as also Tiele on Genesis, a sensible and judicious commentary, though pervaded by far less learning than that of Tuch the neologian, which followed it?

Thirdly. Treatises on particular subjects, such as contain able and independent investigations of topics important in themselves, ought to be frequently selected. Fundamental discussions of an exhaustive kind should by all means be brought forward. These constitute the nutriment which satisfies the mind, convinces the understanding, and affords the richest repast to the intellectual powers. They leave little room for un