elucidation of the most ancient existing documents of the Christian sacred books, than any individual who has preceded him. It is true, that he has had the advantage of the investigations of others to start with; and if such laborers as Mill, Wetstein, Griesbach and Scholz had not diligently and successfully cultivated the field before him, his own endeavors would not have been so rapidly fruitful of such valuable results. Wetstein and Griesbach were in this department the facile principes of their respective generations; and, though Scholz's critical edition of the Greek Testament must be regarded as a failure, yet his activity and success in the discovery, examination, and description of Mss. entitle him to high honor as a diplomatiker in the department of New Testament criticism.

Tischendorf has already given us the best critical edition which we have of the Septuagint (Leipsic, 1850); and also, on the whole, the best critical editions we have yet had of the New Testament (Leipsic, 1849 and 1850). He, perhaps, defers too much to the authority of ancient existing Mss., in comparison with other sources of information, in regard to various readings; yet his printed editions have certainly some decided advantages over all others. Even the very creditable work of the Englishman Alford, so far as the New Testament text is concerned, does little more than bring before the English public the results of Tischendorf's labors; though in form, indeed, considerably modified and very greatly improved.

We are under great obligation to Tischendorf for the publication of the accurate and beautiful fac-similies of ancient Mss. the titles of which we have written in the note above. An accurate fac-simile for critical use has many advantages over the original Ms. itself. It can be examined leisurely in one's study; it can be used without the constant apprehension of its crumbling under the touch, and it is far less trying to the eyes. To answer the purpose, indeed, the copy must be the perfect reproduction of the original in every letter and every mark and every variety of shading; and, in regard to the best fac-similes of the New Testament Mss., these conditions are generally very completely fulfilled. The scholar needs at least once to see and handle the original мs., but he can actually study it to best advantage in an accurate fac-simile.

The Seminary library at Andover is now very fully supplied with the published works of this kind; and, though we probably never can have the original Mss. in this country, the American student can learn all that it is most important for him to know, from these printed volumes.

Any one who has had opportunity to examine the original Mss. will be highly gratified with the manner in which Dr. Tischendorf has accomplished his task. Nothing can exceed the delicacy of the shadings of the writing of different periods in the Codec Frid. August.; and never was anything more beautifully executed than the transcript of the Apocalyptic Ms. in the Monumenta Sacra Inedita.

It is exceedingly gratifying to the Christian scholar to learn, as the certainly ascertained result of all these repeated and laborious investigations,

that the text of the sacred books, as received by the church in all generations, has always been substantially correct; and that no historical fact, no moral precept, no religious doctrine, has been in any way subjected to change or even important modification, by all the variations discovered in the Ms. copies. No books, not even those of so modern date as Shakspeare and Milton, show so little change in successive editions as the books of the New Testament.

II. WAYLAND'S INTELLECTUAL PHILOSOPHY.1

THIS volume contains "the substance of the Lectures which, for several years, have been delivered to the classes in Intellectual Philosophy in Brown University. Having been intended for oral delivery, they were in many respects modified by the circumstances of their origin. Hence illustrations have been introduced more freely than would otherwise have seemed necessary." These illustrations not only interest the reader in abstruse thought, but make the thought both obvious and impressive. The style of Dr. Wayland is singularly pure and perspicuous. Here and there he sanctions such phrases as "the me and the not me are both given to us;" "all these characteristics belong to the deliverance of consciousness in perception;"" to affirm of two individuals is either nugatory or false;"" preceding every act of power which I exert;" "when we are conscious of a sensation, there immediately springs from it the idea of self-existence;" but ordinarily the words and idioms which he uses are such as Addison would not have rejected. It is no small commendation of many British treatises on mental, moral and political science, that they are eminently valuable for their method and style. Adam Smith, Hume, Reid, Beattie, Stewart, Abercrombie, Hamilton may be consulted for the.r rhetorical, as well as philosophical, excellences. Dr. Wayland's volumes on Moral Science, Political Economy, Limits of Responsibility, etc. are transparent, and, in general, remarkably accurate in their phraseology.

The volume of Dr. Wayland does not enter "upon the discussion of many of the topics which have called into exercise the acumen of the ablest metaphysicians. Intended to serve the purposes of a text-book, it was necessary that the volume should be compressed within a compass adapted to the time usually allotted to the study of this science in the colleges of our country.”3 Hence it is not so much a book of theories as a book of facts. The obvious aim of the author is to learn the truth, and inspire his readers with a love of it. The fifth section of his Chapter on the Improvement of the Reasoning Powers, is a good illustration of the spirit breathed forth from the

1 The Elements of Intellectual Philosophy. By Francis Wayland, President of Brown University, and Professor of Moral and Intellectual Philosophy. Boston: Phillips, Sampson and Company. New York: J. C. Derby. 1854. Pp. 226. 12mo.

2 Preface, p. iii.

3 Ib.

entire volume. "Chemists," he says, "speak much of the affinities of various substances for each other. There is a natural affinity in the human mind for truth, and this affinity is strengthened by seeking for it with an honest and earnest purpose. If we in our investigations inquire for nothing but truth, it spontaneously reveals itself to us." As our readers might have expected, from the well-known character of Dr. Wayland, he has written a volume well fitted to purify and ennoble the youthful mind, to penetrate it with just views of a scholar's mission, and to portray the best methods of advancing the cause of science and the welfare of mankind. We do not know where to find a treatise on Mental Philosophy which combines more practical wisdom with more lucid illustrations of scientific truth, and, at the same time, with a greater adaptedness to the wants of a pupil commencing his philosophical studies.

In many parts of the volume we are reminded that Dr. Wayland has been familiar with medical science, and that, as a teacher of psychology, he has made a judicious use of his early and intimate acquaintance with physiology. We were somewhat surprised when we first read his remarks, in the Section on Attention and Reflection (pp. 123 seq.), upon the dietetic and general physical regimen which a student should adopt; but a maturer consideration has led us to believe that these and similar remarks detract less from the scientific aspect of his volume, than they add to its practical value. We subjoin a single specimen of what the Germans would call his hodegetical style, and his exuberance of illustrations commending his wise rules:

“The control of the will over our faculties is much assisted by the use of the pen. The act of writing out our own thoughts, or the thoughts of others, of necessity involves the exercise of continuous attention. Every one knows, that, after he has thought over a subject with all the care in his power, his ideas become vastly more precise by committing them to paper. The maxim of the schoolmen was studium sine calamo somnium. The most remarkable thinkers have generally astonished their contemporaries by the vast amount of manuscript which they have left behind them. I think that universal ́experience testifies to the fact that no one can attain to a high degree of mental cultivation, without devoting a large portion of his time to the labor of composition.

"It is a very valuable habit to read no book without obliging ourselves to write a brief abstract of it, with the opinions which we have formed concerning it. This will oblige us to read with attention, and will give the results of that attention a permanent place in our recollection. We should thus, in fact, become reviewers of every book that we read. The learned and indefatigable Reinhardt was thus able to conduct one of the most valuable reviews in Germany, by writing his opinions on every work which came under his perusal. The late Lord Jeffrey commenced his literary career in precisely this manner. When a youthful student at the university, he not only wrote a review of every book which he read, but of every paper which he himself composed. His strictures were even more severe on his own writings than

on the writings of others. He thus laid the foundation of his immense acquisitions, and attained to so great a power of intellectual analysis, that for many years he was acknowledged the most accomplished critic of his time.”1

In Dr. Wayland's explanation of the perceptive powers, he avoids many of the needless innovations which some recent writers have introduced. He leaves the number and the names of the senses as they have been ordinarily stated. To some of his teachings, however, we are not able to give an unqualified assent. He adopts the theory that the sight gives us a perception of solidity, or extension in its three dimensions. "Until quite lately," he remarks, "this power has been denied to the faculty of vision. It has been the generally received opinion that sight gives us nothing but the different shades of color, represented on a plane surface, as we perceive them in a painting; but that by touch we learn to associate the shading with the form, and thus indirectly learn to cognize solidity by the eye. This view was universally received, until the Researches of Professor Wheatstone, of King's College, London, threw new light upon the whole subject. The brilliant discoveries of this philosopher have added a new function to the organ of vision, and demonstrated, that, by the eye alone, we are enabled to cognize solidity as well as simple extension. He has shown that, in consequence of binocular vision, we are able to determine the form of bodies within a certain distance. The manner in which this is accomplished is as follows: It must be obvious to every one, that, inasmuch as the right and left eye occupy different positions in space, the images which an external object forms on the two eyes must be slightly dissimilar. I look inkstand on the table before me, closing first my right eye and then the left. I can clearly discover a difference between the right and left image. Now, it is this difference of figure in the two images, that gives us the notion of solidity. This is proved by the stereoscope, an invention of Professor Wheatstone. This instrument is so constructed that we can see separately the image of an object formed on the right eye, and then that formed on the left.

upon an

"When seen in this manner, each figure appears to us as a mere drawing on a plane surface. When now we look at them with both eyes, we do not perceive two plane drawings, but a distinct, and, I had almost said, palpable solid. It is, however, evident that this effect can be produced only when the body is at so small a distance, and of such a magnitude, that two images can be formed. If it be far off, so that the rays become parallel, and thus form the same image on both eyes, no effect from binocular vision is produced. We observe the truth of this law in our daily experience. When we look upon a well-executed painting, every figure, when viewed from a proper position, appears to stand out from the canvas. It seems to us impossible that it should be a plane surface. But if we draw near, the illusion vanishes. When we arrive at the position at which the figures, if solid, would form different images on the two eyes, and no such difference exists,

1 Pages 128, 129.

we know at once that the surface is a plane. If it be objected that persons with one eye are able to distinguish solidity, it is replied that they do it less perfectly than others; that they are obliged to do it by observing the shading of the surface, and that they are frequently seen to move the head in a horizontal direction rapidly, in order to form the different images on the

same eye.

"In consequence of this discovery, a very beautiful optical instrument has been invented, by which the effect of daguerreotype pictures has been much improved. A picture is taken separately for each eye. When these are looked at together, through glasses adapted to the purpose, we perceive only one figure; but it has all the appearance of solidity. Daguerreotypes of statuary have thus all the effect of the original marble.”1

But why may not these interesting phenomena be accounted for on the theory, that we associate the sensations of sight with the knowledge which we had previously acquired from touch? The sensations which we expe rience when we look through the prepared glasses to the daguerreotype pictures, we have been wont to experience only when we looked at bodies which we learned from touch to be solid. Therefore, for the instant, we refer these sensations to a solid body; just as we learn to refer our sensations of taste, and smell, and hearing to bodies which we had perceived through the other senses. We refer these sensations experienced in using the stereoscope to a solid body for the instant, but we immediately correct the reference. The image is not solid. If sight gave us a perception of the solidity, it erred; for we were in fact looking at a superficial image, and in this case, as in other cases, the touch rectifies our mistake. Does the eye give us a perception of the solidity of the palace or pyramid which we see painted on the canvas? But there is no solidity in that superficies of paint which we look at. The eye deceives us, if of itself it occasions our perception of solidity. Do we not rapidly associate the particular sensations occasioned by the picture on the canvas, with the knowledge previously acquired from touch; and do we not, for an instant, refer those peculiar sensations to a solid palace or pyramid as the objective cause, and in the next instant do we not correct our reference by another sense or by a change in the position of the visual organs? Does not Dr. Wayland sufficiently explain these fascinating experiments in his Section on our Acquired Perceptions, or the Interchangeable Use of the Senses? See Chap. I. Section IX. especially pp. 85, 86.

In treating of the perceptive faculties, Dr. Wayland favors the theory that men, or, at least, men in general, have no distinct conception of an absent smell or taste. In treating of memory, he sanctions the theory that we cannot remember a past sensation of smell or taste. "With respect to simple knowledge," he says, after speaking of our ability to recal external objects, "or that which is limited to sensations, the case is different. We here form no conception, and the act of memory is imperfect. I remember, for instance,

1 Pages 72-74.