must not only read books, but they must see to it that they thoroughly understand them. Many greatly err on this point. They run so hastily through a treatise that they are little profited from what they read. For such there is no excuse. Helps there are enough, and more than enough. The difficulty is to select the best. Dictionaries must be consulted on all words of dubious import. And in consulting these, care should be taken to trace derivative and compound words up to their respective roots or primitive elements.

It is true that most of our English dictionaries are very defective in respect to etymology. They are mere definers of terms; and though their definitions may be in the main accurate, yet they leave your mind uninformed as it regards the verbal signification of the words they explain. Before Webster appeared, Bailey had done most in this department of philological criticism; and even now no student should be destitute of his valuable dictionary. Webster has been mentioned. He has indeed, by his learned labors in the field of philology, done much to clear away the rubbish which had been accumulating for ages around the roots of our language. In the department of etymology certainly, he has opened to the student a path by which he may ascend to the fountain whence issue those streams which, dividing in different directions, have flowed over those fields of human language now occupied by the nations of the earth. His work, however, is not complete. In giving us the etymology of our language, he has left unexplained those original words whence the English terms are derived. Take, as an instance of what we mean by this defect, the word CHRONOLOGY. Webster tells us that it comes from the Greek, xpovohoyia, and that it signifies, "the science of time; the method of measuring, or computing time by regular divisions or periods, according to the revolutions of the sun or moon, of ascertaining the true periods or years when past events or transactions took place, and arranging them in their proper order according to their dates." All this is accurate enough. But still, the mere English reader is no more instructed from the quotation of the Greek word, than if it had been entirely omitted, or its place supplied by some Egyptian hieroglyphic. If the lexicographer had told us that the Greek word xpovohoyia is a compound term, made up of two simple Greek words, xpovos, which signifies time, and hoyos, which signifies, a word, a discourse, or an oration, we should then have had the idea expressed by the word itself, and likewise a reason why, in its anglicized form, it was adopted to designate that branch of science which relates to the computation of time, and the dates of certain transactions.

Take another word as illustrative of this defect in etymology— Theopathy. This we are told is from two Greek words, eos and aboç, neither of which is explained-and signifies "religious suffering-suffering for the purpose of subduing sinful propensities." Very well-this is the popular meaning of the word. But does the mere English reader derive any such idea from the insertion of those two Greek words? Certainly not. Had Dr. Webster told his readers that eɛos, means God, and aboç, suffering, disease, or calamity, their minds would have been conducted up to the radical import of the words, and thence seen a reason why it is defined to

mean religious suffering, because a more literal interpretation would be, suffering for God, that is, in the cause of God.

66

Let us select one more example of this defective manner of etymological definitions-Archeology. Webster justly informs us that this is from the Greek, αρχαιος and λογος, a discourse on antiquity; learning or knowledge which respects ancient times." Here we have again a popular definition of the word archeology; but not a single ray of light to conduct us to the radical or verbal import of those two Greek words, whence the compound term archeology is derived, or rather anglicized, for it is nothing more than a foreigner arrayed in an English dress. Had the author informed us that Apxalos, means ancient, and that this comes from apxn, signifying origin, or source, the beginning, and that hoyos, as before, signifies a discourse, we should have immediately discovered the appropriateness of the term archeology, when defined to mean a discourse on antiquity.

These examples have been selected to show the great importance of being able to trace words up to their source for a right understanding of them, and also that we may see the reason why they were so used at first, and adopted into our own language. They moreover show what an essential service that man would render to the cause of science and literature, who should furnish the world with a lexicon of such a character, that the student might be able to trace, at a single glance, every word up to its source, and to find the ideal, verbal, or radical signification of each.

It is true, that by going from one dictionary to another, from Webster to Ainsworth-from Ainsworth to Schrevelia-from him to Buxtorf, Parkhurst or Gesenius-and then wading through Boyer, and some dozen of others, Spanish, Italian, German, Dutch and Anglo-Saxon lexicons, and a few.medical dictionaries, we may finally arrive to a satisfactory knowledge of the word, the precise meaning of which we are in pursuit of. The objection, therefore, that a dictionary of the description we have suggested, would be unwieldy from its bulk, and expensive from the labor and cost of preparing and printing, is obviated from the single consideration of its untold utility; but more especially from the fact that it would supply a desideratum in the department of philological literature, the want of which is principally felt, we should suppose, by every scholar, and every man of reading. Besides, what would be the expense and labor, in comparison to that which is now exhausted in going from stream to stream, until we are wearied with research, before we arrive at the fountain head?

With a view to show still farther the importance of being able to trace words to their primitive source, I will select an instance of English words which are not derived directly from either the Greek or Hebrew, but are used to represent the same idea as other words of similar import in those languages. Take, for a sample, the word ETERNITY. Turning to an English dictionary, I find this word coming to us from the Latin, æternitas, and its definition to be "duration or continuance, without beginning or end." I turn to a Latin dictionary, and find about the same definition. In neither of these, therefore, can I find the original idea whence this definition itself is derived. I therefore go to the Greek term alwv, which is generally,

in the Bible, rendered eternal, and find it to signify "a long period of time, an age, indefinite duration, comprehending time, whether longer or shorter, past, present, or future.” This does not satisfy me. I therefore turn over and examine those passages in the Old and New Testament, where this word and its cognates are found, and I learn, indeed, from these, considered in connection with their respective contexts, that the above definitions are in the general accurate; but still, I wish, if possible, to get a more precise and definite idea of the meaning of this most expressive and comprehensive term. I then take up a Hebrew dictionary, and look for the root of the words which our translators have rendered eternal, eternally, and eternity. This I find to be phy, (olim,) and that its verbal signification is, to hide, to conceal; and I think I discover in this verb a most expressive idea, as much so as any one word can express it, of that invisible eternity which lies hidden from human view; and also perceive a reason why a great man defined time to be "a fragment of eternity, broken off at both ends." While meditating upon the meaning of this word, as expressive of that eternity past and to come, which is completely hidden from my view, I feel a sacred, an indescribable awe come over my mind, as if I were standing before the incomprehensible Jehovah, about whose throne are "clouds and darkness," while he "draweth back the face" of it from human view. Eternity is then an undefinable something hidden from men's view, perfectly beyond the grasp of the most improved and expanded intellect. ^;

That this is the idea which ought to be attached to this word, I mean a something which has neither beginning nor end, I am farther convinced, by examining the several places where it occurs in the sacred Scriptures, for I find it used adjectively in reference to the supreme Being, as denoting his never ending duration-such as the eternal, the everlasting God.

These examples are quite sufficient to show the vast importance of this branch of knowledge, the proper understanding of words; and likewise the great help to its acquisition which would be afforded by a lexicon which should lead us back, step by step, from our mother tongue, up to the source whence each word is derived, with a familiar and accurate explanation of their primitives; as well as to those terms in other languages for which ours stand as proper representatives. Now, if the labor bestowed in Johnson's quarto dictionary, and is now bestowing upon Richardson's, in quoting authorities from numerous English authors, in support of their definitions, were expended in furnishing the world with a complete etymological dictionary, much of time and labor would be saved to the critical student. Let us, however, be thankful for what we have. Some master and benevolent spirit may yet arise to bless the world with the desideratum.

We must not be understood as wishing to detract aught from the merits or to depreciate the excellence of the dictionary we have more especially named. If our judgment were worth recording, we should say that it is far the best, the most perfect of any we have; and Americans ought to indulge in an honest pride, if that passion may be enrolled among the virtues,-that one of her sons has arisen to cast such a flood of light upon the page of her litera

ture. As a philologist, Noah Webster, in spite of all the obloquy attempted to be cast upon him by contemporary writers, will stand among the first-if not, indeed, in the very first-rank of those who have dug about the roots of our language, and exhibited their branches, as they have shot out from the common and original stock.

But in spite of our efforts to be brief, we perceive that we are spinning out our thread to an undue length, before we come to the thought with which we designed to close. We wished to assault, and, if possible, to prostrate an enemy which is stalking through the fair plains of literature and science, with an intent to pluck up by the roots the young trees we have planted ere they have had time to take firm hold of the earth. And the remarks we have to make on this branch of the subject, will furnish a farther answer to the question, "How shall we best qualify ourselves for this work of verbal criticism?"

We have already shown some of the methods by which this may be done. But these, however assiduously we may apply ourselves to the subject, and however apt scholars we may be, are slow and tedious. We venture to affirm that the same student will acquire more real knowledge in one month under the tuition of a competent teacher, than he would in six months without one. And the sooner he begins in this work the better. While the mind is young and flexible, the body active and vigorous, is the fittest, indeed, the only proper time, to lay a foundation for mental improvement, and for the acquirement of useful and extensive knowledge.

Hence, from both these considerations, the importance of having literary institutions for our youth. We do not wish to train them especially for the work of the ministry, but chiefly to imbue their minds with sound learning, and to make them thorough scholars. For theological schools, as such, we have no predilection. We have no wish to take a young man and educate him for the ministry the same as we would educate a man for the profession of law, of medicine, or for a statesman. And yet we would, were it the will of Providence, that all our ministers were thorough scholars; for sure we are that no science demands the exercise of greater powers of intellect, of more critical acumen to develope its principles, to scan its doctrines, to defend its truths, and to enforce its precepts, than does the science of divinity. Nor can a man lay the foundation for those high attainments in theological knowledge and verbal criticism with greater facility than by availing himself of the advantages of these seminaries of learning in the days of his youth; and then, if after that God shall see fit to call him to the work of the Christian ministry, he will be qualified to enter upon it with all that enlightened piety and chastened zeal which distinguish God's most favored servants; as well as with a reasonable prospect of succeeding in the discharge of his high and holy duties.

It is often said that if God prefer learned men for his work, he will doubtless call them to it. Without stopping to expose the impiety of such an assertion, we may ask, How shall God call learned men when none such are to be found? Or does the objector suppose that learning will spring up among us in the same miraculous way that he presumes his minister is to be called and

qualified to preach the Gospel? He professes not to undervalue learning. He loves to see and hear a minister of Jesus Christ evince the depth of his researches, the power of his eloquence, and the conclusiveness of his deductions. And he is perfectly willing, yea, very desirous that his minister should exhibit these eminent attainments, provided he mingle with them a suitable degree of scriptural zeal and fervency of devotion. But he objects that he should acquire these things in a college!

But wherefore? Are college walls so polluted that they contaminate all who come into contact with them? Those especially which are under the supervision of men who fear God and work righteousness? Have not our colleges, as well as academies, been hallowed by some of the most blessed revivals of religion with which the Church has been favored in these latter days?

Let then our youth be sent there, not, as before said, to receive a theological training for the ministry, but to receive a literary and scientific training, such a one as will fit them for any department either in the Church or state, to which the providence of God shall call them. When thus prepared by human instrumentality,-you may say in faith and piety,—if the Lord delight in these more than others, he will doubtless call them to his work. But if you hold back the means essential to accomplish this work of literary and scientific cultivation, it is the height of presumption to say that if God wishes learned men he will select such. We ask again, if there be none such-and there would be if all were of the mind of our objector-how can he select them and send them forth? You might with equal propriety neglect to manure and cultivate the earth, and then cantingly say, if the Lord see fit to fill your barns with the choicest of the hay and wheat, he will select and deposit them therein, as to say, while you gripingly withhold the means of education from our youth, if the Lord prefer a learned ministry he will call and qualify men to become such.

But you will say, probably, there is no call for us to expend our time and money to found colleges and educate our youth, because there are enough such already. Hold, a moment! Now you contradict your own principles. Just now you thought learning unnecessary. Do you not perceive that if all were of your opinion, there would be no man of learning in the universe? If it be not your duty-provided you are able to contribute to the advancement of literature and science, it is not the duty of any one. If all, therefore, were to imitate your conduct, we should not long have Bibles to read, books for our edification, nor schools for our children. But if our forefathers had adopted this heartless theory, neither you nor any of us would at this day have had a single book in our mother tongue. Neither Bible, Prayer Book, Psalm, nor Hymn, would now adorn our shelves, nor preacher alarm our consciences. We might have been, not only Pagans, wandering in all the mazes of polytheism-worshippers of many gods-but barbarians under the influence of savage ferocity. If, then, you value the Bible, love and adore the one living and true God, and are thankful for the living ministry of Jesus Christ, show your gratitude by helping to found colleges, establish academies, and to train up men in the knowledge of letters. There is no alternative. You must either