ceived a letter from Pope Paul III. in answer to an epistle of congratulation, which he had addressed to him on his election. At the same he received intelligence from Rome, that his Holiness designed to offer him a Cardinal's hat, and other ecclesiastical preferments. But although the yearly income of the office was fifteen hundred ducats, independently of other revenues, which would have been bestowed upon him, he declined it, probably from a conviction, that his end was near. The circumstance, however, serves to show, the light in which the court of Rome regarded him, after his disputes with Luther.

In the spring of 1536, he was seized, in addition to his old disorders, with a dysentery, which continued an unusual length of time, and carried him off upon the 12th of July. He retained his gaiety and love of study, to the very last, endured his sufferings with patience, and expired with these words on his lips, "Domine Jesu, miserere mei." He died and was buried, without any Popish ceremony, though a multitude thronged to behold his body. The coffin was carried by students of the University, and followed by the Magistrates, Senate, and Professors, to the Cathedral church, where his monument still stands, and where his ring, seal, pencil, knife, and sword, his portrait, (a master-piece of Holbein,) and his autograph of the Tew Testament, are still exhibited to strangers. At Rotterdam, his native place, his memory has been perpetuated by statutes, medals, and inscriptions, with as much zeal as at Basle, and in both cities, there are colleges which bear his name. In his will, he constituted Ammerbach his heir; but left many legacies to other friends, and several bequests for charitable purposes. When he died, he was not quite sixty-nine years

old.

In the rapid sketch, which we have given, in the foregoing pages, we have attempted nothing more than a succinct view of the subject, in the order adopted by the author of

this work, with a notice of such views and sentiments suggested by him, as appeared entitled to attention from their novelty or force. His extended criticism on the writings of Eranmus we have left untouched, because it can neither be abridged nor analyzed. His views in relation to the moral character and literary merits of Erasmus, we have partially exhibited, although their full development engrosses a large space in the original. On this point we have little more to say, than a reiteration of the fact, that his characteristic quality, was a supreme, exclusive, and unwavering devotion to the cause of literature, to which may be added, the remark of Luther, who appears to have known him better than he knew himself, that Erasmus was quick to detect error, but slow to learn the truth. In drawing a parallel between these celebrated men, our author becomes eloquent, and contrasts with a species of enthusiasm, the heroic consistency of the one, with the time serving policy of the other. He exhibits, indeed, a manifest dislike to the character and conduct of Erasmus, which has freed his work from the ex. cess of extravagant and undue partiality, so common in biography, without, however, warping in the least, his fairness as a critic and historian.

REVIEW.

A Hebrew Chrestomathy, designed as the first volume of a course of Hebrew Study. By Moses Stuart, associate Professor of Sacred Literature, in the Theological Institution at Andover. 1829. pp. 243.

THE publication of Professor Stuart's smaller Hebrew Grammar, of his Chrestomathy, and of Professor Gibb's Manual Lexicon, has placed in the hands of the Hebrew students of our country, a set of books eminently adapted to facilitate their acquisition of a knowledge of the Hebrew language. There is little doubt also, that they will tend to make this study more general, by removing many of the difficulties by which the path of the student of the original language of the Old Testament, has hitherto been beset. This is a result, in which all the friends of truth and of sound theological knowledge will rejoice. It may be considered as one of the favourable characteristics of the present day, that zeal for the study of the original Scriptures, is every where reviving. Still, it may be doubted, whether theological students generally adequately feel their obligation to make this one of the main objects of their attention. There are so many other subjects which appear to have a more immediate bearing on the practical duties of the ministry, and are to most minds, at least in the first instance, more inviting and interesting, that it generally happens, that the sacred languages, and the Scriptures themselves, are made but secondary objects. It may be too, that the importance of intellectual culture generally, in the ministers of the Gos

pel, is not properly appreciated. There are, doubtless, many theological students who are not sufficiently aware how intimately the interests of religion are connected with the stand assumed by its ministers. This is peculiarly the case in our country. For here, influence is only to be obtained by mental and moral superiority. Among unenlightened nations, the mere fact, that a man is the minister of religion clothes him with moral power over those around him. Here ministers are men, and have little influence which does not arise from their personal character. They have no splendid revenues, nor lordly titles, which in most European countries secure for religion and its officers, the external respect even of the great and the worldly; but are dependent on themselves for their power to do good. Experience proves that where the clergy are ignorant, religion is degraded and in disrepute ; but where they have maintained an equality in intellectual improvement, with the best educated portions of society, the respect which the world could not withhold from them has been extended to religion itself. If the interests of religion be thus united to the character of its ministers, the solemn obligations to cultivate to the utmost the talents which God has given him, cannot be denied by any theological student, who properly appreciates the nature of the office which he seeks.

That the objects of his attention should be mainly professional, need scarcely he remarked, and that every department of theological knowledge should receive its due proportion of time and study, will be readily admitted. This we think with respect to the Hebrew, and indeed, the Scriptures generally, is rarely the case. The importance of this branch of theological education is not properly appreciated, and therefore, the sense of duty (which it is to be supposed regulates the conduct of candidates for the sacred office,) does not secure for this subject, the amount of attention it really deserves. That it is a matter of duty, for every

man who seeks to enter the ministry, to qualify himself for the work in the best manner which his circumstances will admit, will not be denied. The only question therefore, is, whether a knowledge of the Hebrew be of such importance, that a man reglects a serious duty, who fails to make this acquisition, when the Providence of God has placed it within his reach. This would seem a question of very easy decision. Are not ministers appointed to explain, enforce, and defend the contents of the sacred volume? Can this be done as well without a knowledge of the languages in which this volume was written, as with it? The neglecters of the Hebrew, if they act conscientiously, must answer this question in the affirmative, and must maintain that the English version is adequate to teach them, all a minister need know of the revelation of God. But the least reflection is sufficient to show that this cannot be the case. No version, from the nature of the case, can in all instances be an exact exhibition of its original; because no two languages exactly correspond. Indeed, beyond some few classes of words, such as the names of natural objects, the essential relations in life, the signs of simple ideas, &c., few words can be discovered which in one language have precisely the same signification with the nearest corresponding term of another. The correspondence is, in the great majority of instances but partial, the one will generally admit of applications foreign to the other. Hence the version will often express more or less than the original, will admit of interpretations which the former cannot bear. Thus we often see men urging arguments founded upon some possi ble or even common use of the terms of the English version, entirely foreign to the usage of the word or phrase for which it stands in the original. Admitting, therefore, that the translation was the best possible, yet from the nature of language-from the difference between the modifications of thought and feeling in every nation of which their respec