nations into which language may be wrought. The determination of these points involves often the exercise of the very highest powers of the human mind, and the utmost labor of research, and it is therefore the error of ignorance to suppose that a mere knowledge of the words will necessarily communicate the ideas intended to be conveyed. A knowledge of the words is, indeed, necessary; but often much more than this is necessary; and it is this which the friends of the theory above mentioned seem to have wholly overlooked.

Again, there are many who seem to imagine that human language is a perfect medium of the communication of thought. But this is very far from being the case, even when the language is thoroughly understood. Different languages differ, indeed, in this respect, as they vary in copiousness and in delicacy of structure. Thus the translator of the noted passage, Matth. xvi. 18. "I say unto thee that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church," may well complain of the imperfection of our English tongue, as compared with the Greek, because he finds it impossible to express, in the former, the distinction between "Peter" and “rock," so admirably exhibited in the latter by the differences of termination of the words Petros and petra. Not only is the allusive force and beauty of the passage wholly lost, in our language, by the want of resemblance between "Peter" and "rock," but an ambiguity is introduced which does not exist in the original, and which, depending merely upon two or three letters, is nevertheless foundation enough for St. Peter's and the Popedom. Thus, also, there are many delicate shades of thought which may be expressed in the French language, but not in the English. But there is no human language which can perfectly reveal all the thoughts and workings of the mind.

Written language is, in this respect, especially defective, as com pared with that which is spoken. The changes of the voice, the emphasis and intonations of the speaker, will render his meaning clear, when his words alone will not express it. We feel this deficiency of written language often in the scriptures, and more especially in that most important portion of them in which our Lord's discourses are recorded. These were spoken, and when thus delivered by our Lord in person, were as different from those handed down to us in writing, as the living form is different from the skele ton. Hence much of the force and meaning of his language is wholly lost to the reader, who is either too superficial to penetrate the parchment veil, or too dependent upon naked arbitrary signs, to

pass beyond their mere literal import. Of this we might adduce many examples were it necessary, but we will here for illustration only refer to a very simple incident in the interview between Jesus and Mary after the resurrection, recorded by John, chap. xx. 15, 16. "Jesus saith unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? Whom seekest thou?" She, supposing him to be the gardener, saith unto him, "Sir, if thou have borne him hence, tell me where thou hast laid him, and I will take him away." Jesus saith unto her, "Mary." She turned herself and saith unto him, "Rabboni." Here, the mere utterance of a single word, "Mary," and that word, too, a mere proper name, and wholly insignificant as regards the subject then before the minds of the speakers, at once penetrates the heart and understanding of the person addressed, and pours a flood of light and conviction upon her mind. But by the simple written words the reason of this sudden and wonderful effect is not at all expressed; nor is it possible to perceive it even when the passage is read aloud in the usual monotonous and inexpressive style of common readers. He saith unto her, "MARY." Oh! how much was due to that gentle intonation; to that expressive accent; to that peculiar and affectionate utterance with which that single word was spoken. How that soft inflection of the voice could make that word speak a meaning which was not in it; and reveal a fact of whose communication to others it could form no part! That word of itself states nothing; explains nothing; reveals nothing; but the tone in which it is pronounced states all; explains all; reveals all. What a crowd of convictions rush upon the soul of the Magdalene! What a flood of emotions fill her heart! It is the Lord! He is risen from the dead! He is alive again who delivered me; who died for me! My Lord! my teacher! my all! All this, and more than this she feels; and all this, and more than this, she utters, not indeed in the written word "Rabboni," the single word, tha, twith all the propriety of language, of truth and nature and feeling, is the sole reply, but in the deep affection, the reverence and joy with which that word was uttered. It is most evident, indeed, that language, when oral, is much superior to that which is written, as a means of communicating ideas. The inferiority of the latter, however, arises not merely from its inability to represent by signs the various inflections of the voice which give such force and point to spoken language, but from the absence also of those gestures which are so usual and so important an accompaniment of the latter. The want of these, to a reader,

* In the Galilean dialect, "My Master."

renders many passages obscure, which were clear as a sunbeam to those who heard and saw the speaker. We may take a single example of this from the very next chapter of John: "So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these?" xxi. 15. The question here is: To what did our Lord refer by the word "these"? Grammatically, it may apply to the other disciples present, or to the boats and fishing implements. Papists will adopt the first view, because, in the use they make of it, it serves to bolster up the supremacy of Peter and the Pope. Protestants will receive the latter, because it implies a deserved reproof to Peter for having for a time forsaken his spiritual duties, to return to his old employment of a fisherman. Both of these views are constructive, neither being expressed in the words; but they who heard the question, were at no loss to determine the precise meaning, as they could see the gesture by which our Lord pointed out the precise objects to which he referred.

It may thus be readily perceived how great are the disadvantages under which we labor in the interpretation of the records of the past, and how far written language really is from possessing any absolute or necessary power of communicating thought. R. R..

LETTERS FROM HON. JOHN Q. ADAMS TO HIS SON,

ON THE BIBLE AND ITS TEACHINGS.
LETTER VII.

THE imperfections of the Mosaic Institutions which it was the object of Christ's mission upon the earth to remove, appear to me to have been these: 1st-The want of a sufficient sanction. The rewards and penalties of the Levitical law had all a reference to the present life. There are many passages in the Old Testament which imply a state of existence after death, and some which directly assert a future state of retribution; but none of these were contained in the delivery of the law. At the time of Christ's advent it was so far from being a settled article of the Jewish faith, that it was a subject of bitter controversy between the two pincipal sects-of Pharisees who believed it, and Sadducees who denied it. It was the special purpose of Christ's appearance upon earth to bring immortality to light. He substituted the rewards and punishments of a future state of existence in the room of all others. The Jewish sanctions were exclusively temporal: those of Christ exclusively spiritual. 2d-The want of universality. The Jewish dispensation was exclusively confined to a small and obscure nation. The purposes of the Supreme Creator in restricting the knowledge of himself to one petty herd of Egyptian slaves, are as inaccessible to our intelligence as those of his having concealed from them, and

from the rest of mankind, the certain knowledge of their own immortality; yet the fact is unquestionable. The mission of Christ was intended to communicate to the whole human race, all the permanent advantages of the Mosaic Law, superadding to them-upon the condition of repentance-the kingdom of Heaven, the blessing of eternal life. 3d-The complexity of the objects of legislation. I have observed in a former letter, that the law of Sinai comprised, not only all the ordinary subjects of regulation for human societies, but those which human legislators cannot reach. It was a civil law, a municipal law, an ecclesiastical law, a law of police, and a law of morality and religion; it prohibited murder, adultery, theft, and perjury; it prescribed rules for the thoughts as well as for the actions of men. The complexity, however practicable and even suitable for one small national society, could not have attained to all the families of the earth. The parts of the Jewish law adapted to promote the happiness of mankind, under every variety of situation and government in which they can be placed, were all recognised and adopted by Christ; and He expressly separated them from the rest. He disclaimed all interference with the ordinary objects of human legislation; He declared that His "Kingdom was not of this world;" He acknowledged the authority of the Jewish magistrates; He paid for His own person the tribute to the Romans; He refused in more than one instance to assume the office of Judge in matters of legal controversy; He strictly limited the object of His own precepts and authority to religion and morals; He denounced no temporal punishment; He promised no temporal rewards; He took up man as a governable being, where the human Magistrate is compelled to leave him, and supplied both precepts of virtue and motives for practising it, such as no other moralist or legislator ever attempted to introduce. 4th-The burdensome duties of positive rites, minute formalities, and expensive sacrifices. All these had a tendency, not only to establish and maintain the separation of the Jews from all other nations, but in process of time had been mistaken by the Scribes and Pharisees and Lawyers, and probably by the body of the people, for the substance of religion. All the rites were abolished by Christ, or (as Paul expresses it) "were nailed to His Cross." You will recollect that I am now speaking of Christianity, not as the scheme of redemption to mankind from the consequences of original sin, but as a system of morality for regulating the conduct of men while on earth; and the most striking and extraordinary feature of its character in this respect, is its tendency and exhortations to absolute perfection. The language of Christ to His disciples is explicit: "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father in Heaven is perfect"-and this he enjoins at the conclusion of that precept, so expressly laid down, and so unanswerably argued, to "love their enemies, to bless those who cursed them, and pray for those who despitefully used and persecuted them." He seems to consider the temper of benevolence in return for injury, as constituting of itself a perfection similar to that of the Divine Nature. It is undoubtedly the greatest conquest which the spirit of man can achieve over its infirmities; and to him who can attain that elevation of virtue which it requires, all other victories over the evil

passions must be comparatively easy. Nor was this absolute perfection merely preached by Christ as a doctrine: it was practised by Himself throughout His life; practised to the last instant of His agony on the Cross; practised under circumstances of trial, such as no other human being was ever exposed to. He proved by His own example the possibility of that virtue which He taught; and although possessed of miraculous powers sufficient to control all the laws of Nature, He expressly and repeatedly declined the use of them to save Himself from any part of the sufferings which He was able to endure. The sum of Christian Morality, then, consists in piety to God, and benevolence to Man: piety, manifested not by formal solemn rites and sacrifices of burnt offerings, but by repentance, by obedience, by submission, by humility, by the worship of the heart, and by benevolence; not founded upon selfish motives, but superior even to a sense of wrong, or the resentment of injuries.-Worldly prudence is scarcely noticed among all the institutions of Christ: the pursuit of honors and riches, the objects of ambition and avarice, are strongly discountenanced in many places; and an undue solicitude about the ordinary cares of life, is occasionally reproved. Of worldly prudence, there are rules enough in the Proverbs of Solomon, and in the compilations of the son of Sirach; Christ passes no censure upon them, but He left what I call the selfish virtues where He found them. It was not to proclaim common-place morality that He came down from Heaven; His commands were new; that His disciples sho'd "love one another," that they should love even strangers, that they should "love their enemies." He prescribed barriers against all the maleficient passions; He gave as a law, the utmost point of perfection of which human powers are susceptible, and at the same time allowed degrees of indulgence and relaxation to humuan frailty, proportioned to the power of any individual. An eminent writer in support of Christianity, (Dr. Paley) expresses the opinion, that the direct object of the Christian revelation was to supply motives, and not rules-sanctions, and not precepts; and he strongly intimates that, independent of the purpose of Christ's atonement and propitiation for the sins of the world, the only object of His mission upon the earth was to reveal a future state, "to bring life and immortality to light." He does not appear to think that Christ promulgated any new principle of morality; and he positively asserts that "morality, neither in the Gospel nor in any other book, cen be a subject of discovery, because qualities of actions depend entirely on their effects, which effects, must all along have been the subjects of human experience." To this I reply in the express words of Jesus: "A new commandment I give you, that you love one another;"and I add, that this command explained, illustrated, and dilated, as it was by the whole tenor of His discourses, and especially by the parable of the good Samaritan, appears to me to be not only entirely new, but, in the most rigorous sense of the word, a discov ery in morals; and a discovery, the importance of which to the happiness of the human race, as far exceeds any discovery in the physical laws of Nature, as the soul is superior to the body. If it be objected that the principles of benevolence toward enemies, and the forgiveness of injuries, may be found not only in the Old Testament,