sionvny, the sense which we mean to convey would be imperfect, for it would be, he wished that bread should be given or procured;' he urged that peace should be studiously sought for or made.' But to express this we should say: Evetecharo ãoτον αγοράζειν παρεκάλεσεν ἔχειν oι ποιεῖν εἰρήνην. The Inf. is commonly employed here unless the relation of subject and predicate is or may be uncertain; which is to be known from the meaning of the preceding verb. But as there is certainty in respect to those verbs which signify wish or desire, the Greeks commonly employed the Inf.; for as to verbs of this sort, there cannot be any uncertainty that what one is said to will, that is the object of his wishes. The more elegant classical writers, therefore, usually employed the Inf. ; but the later ones, even in those passages where it was unnecessary, used the particle iva or ons. Oп the other hand, even when the meaning of the Inf. would be somewhat doubtful, they still often employed it. Thus it came, that after verbs of asking, etc., the object asked for, etc., was expressed by the use of iva. And this idiom occurs not merely in unlearned authors and those of the lower stamp, but also among those of an opposite character; as is proved by the example of Lucian and others. Even among authors of the higher rank, certain expressions occur, which seem clearly to develope the vulgar idiom in this respect. These are elliptical expressions, which have been taken from common parlance and transferred to books, and frequently occur in the dialogistic forms of speech. I will not here appeal to the passage from Herodotus (I. 126), which Schaefer has adduced, viz., tov ¿scóvτos z. v. λ, although the words have the same construction; for in this case there is no ellipsis. But I would adduce the formula: trí déleis noińow; in which they do not doubt that iva is to be supplied; comp. Matt. 20: 32. John 18: 39, etc. I wish however to know, in what way the idea of purpose or design is to be introduced. Nothing is better known, than the construction of Poulouai with the Future or Subjunctive; e. g. Aristoph. Ran. v. 420, βούλεσθε δῆτα κοινῇ σκώψωμεν ̓Αρχέδημον; ‘Do you wish then, that we should make sport in common with Archedemus?" Aristoph. Equit. v. 52, ẞovie nаçada σоι dóолov, You wish me to present you with a supper.' So very frequently in Lucian ; Mort. Dial. X. 8, βούλει μικρὸν ἀφέλωμαι καὶ τῶν ὀφ ovov, You are desirous that I should take down arrogance a little. Dial. XX. 3, βούλει σοὶ ἐπιδείξω καὶ τοὺς σοφούς ; • Do you wish me to shew you even the philosophers?' Timon, 37, βούλει διαλόγισμαι (διαλογίσωμαι ?) πρός σε ; ' Do you desire that I should talk with you?' see Hemsterh. in loc. Deorum Dial. XX. 16, ẞovλε añоμоoшμαι; Do you not wish that I should take an oath? But there is no need of examples. A multitude of them occur in Xenophon and Plato; for, as it would seem, this elliptical mode of speaking was very common in conversation,* [viz., with the omission of iva]; see Scholia ad Eurip. Phenis. v. 729. It seems to me now, that relics of popular usage are clearly discernible in this formula; but in this, as all will see, the idea of end or purpose is not expressed; see Hermann ad Viger. p. 884,-But let us advance to the second particular. "Iva is said by some, to have a chronic sense, [i. e. to relate to time, or to signify when], in some passages of the evangelist John. F. g. John 12 : 23, ἐλήλυθεν ἡ ὥρα, ἵνα δοξασθ, κ. τ.λ. ý John 13: 1. 16:2, 32. Nonnus has expressed iva here by ötε, when. Grammarians have made the remark, that examples of this nature are found only in the sacred books of the New Testament. One passage is adduced from Aristophanes (Nub. v. 1235), καὶ ταῦτ ̓ ἐθελήσεις ἀπομόσαι μοι τοὺς θεοὺς, “Iv' äv neλevow "'ya oɛ; Will you then be willing to take the gods to witness for me, as to these matters, when I shall demand it of you? Here iva may seem to mean when; and Henry Stephens, in accordance with an ancient lexicon, translates it quandocunque. But if we should concede now, that the particles significant of place, are often appropriated to the designation of time, (as is the case with the German wo and da, which answer well to the adverb ïva), yet the construction of iva with the Subj. mode, seems to stand in the way of its being taken adverbially [in the sense of where] in such passages. If iva, moreover, referred to place, it would not be joined with the Subj., unless av were inserted on which the Subj. would depend. The passages which are adduced in our lexicons (e. g. Callim. Hymn. in Cer. v. 12. Hom. II. vII. 353), in order to prove that iva has such a meaning, are altogether inapposite. Two passages are also cited from Xenophon; but one of them in * The ellipsis to which he refers here, is that of iva after Boiler, etc., in the preceding quotations. Boulouai expresses desire or wish, but does not indicate ultimate purpose, end, final object. In accordance with this, the author has intimated above, that all will see that iva, if here inserted, would not be telic.—TR. Memorab. II. 1: 11, as emended, reads elvai ris por doxεł, not ἵνα τις. In the other (De Venat. VI 7), iva is not topic but telic. I apprehend, therefore, that in the afore-cited passages of John, (elsewhere this sense is not assigned to "va), this particle cannot have the meaning of, when assigned to it. Nor do I find any passage in the New Testament, in which it means where. Consequently, in those passages I apprehend iva is to be explained as indicating what is to happen in the apa mentioned in John 12: 23. The Greeks usually employ the Inf. in such cases, e. g. καιρός καθεύδειν, ὥρα δείπνειν ; οι else the Gen. case, unless perspicuity demands some periphrasis. John 4: 23 has pa öre; so in 5: 25; but in 5: 28, woa ivy. But as we, in common parlance, when we designate the time in which any thing is to take place, sometimes employ particles of place and time, sometimes the relative pronoun, and sometimes the causal particle that (dass); as, "the time is coming wherein, therein, at which, that, you will repent of it;" so ga iva may be used in like manner, e. g. "the time is coming (when it will be) that etc." In the same manner the Latins express themselves. Nor is this destitute of a good reason, if we will only concede, (what examples from many writers prove), that iva is not only telic, but likewise serves to indicate the thing which was the consequence of another, when a causal connection is conceived of as existing. [The author closes his piece with adverting to the particular religious occasions on which it was delivered or published; which it is unnecessary here to insert, as it is not connected with the main object of the discussion. That parts of this discussion will not appear as being very explicit to the young reader, there is reason to apprehend. But there are so many things, and so important ones too, which he can understand, that I would hope he will not be deterred from an attentive reading and consideration of the whole, by some paragraphs which may not appear to be sufficiently lucid. The continuation of Tittmann's remarks (on önшs, ws, ware), will depend, with the editor's leave, on the reception which the readers of the Biblical Repository shall give to the present disquisi tion. Other efforts of Tittmann, of a more immediately exegetical nature, are in store for future use; in which he discusses and illustrates some deeply interesting passages of the New Testament, about which great difference of opinion has existed. Some of these may be expected, at a future day.—TR.] ARTICLE IV. THE CONNECTION BETWEEN GEOLOGY AND NATURAL By Edward Hitchcock, Professor of Chemistry and Nat. Hist. in Amherst College. The principles of geology have long been regarded not only as hostile to revealed truth, but as favourable to atheism. "It is manifest," says a very able and violent assailant of this science, "that the mineral geology, considered as a science, can do as well without God, (though in a question concerning the origin of the earth,) as Lucretius did." And the geologists must in-. deed confess, that a number of their ablest writers some time ago, such for example as Hutton, did, intentionally or unintentionally, give a quite atheistical aspect to some of their most famous theories. And some of them at the present day, exhibit in their works so entire a neglect of every allusion of a religious character, as to excite pain in every pious mind, and lead many to the conclusion that geology must be the favourite resort of irreligion for if in this department of creation the same evidence of Divine Wisdom is exhibited as in other parts of the temple of nature, how is it possible that a man should devote his life to a description of its beautiful arches and columns, and yet make no allusion to the great Master Builder! Under such circumstances it will do no good for geologists to deny the irreligious tendency of their favourite science, unless they can show positively that it contains principles of a contrary tendency. Hitherto they seem almost without exception to have felt that nothing was required of them, but to show that atheism and infidelity do not naturally and necessarily spring from its principles. But it seems to us to be high time for them to show that influences favourable to religion may be derived from their science. And we apprehend that it will be no difficult matter thus to invert the tables. We propose to undertake the task: and hope to show that the student of nat * Penn's Comparative Estimate of the Mineral and Mosaical Geologies. ural theology will find the records of geology no unfruitful source of evidence as to the existence, perfections and plans of Jehovah. The bearings of this science upon revelation we pass by for the present, and propose to consider only its relation to natural theology. The evidence of the Divine Existence that strikes most minds with the greatest force, is the mathematical adaptation to one another of the various parts of creation and the consequent proportion and harmony of action between them. Hence geology cannot be regarded as affording at first view much palpable evidence of a Deity. For we are struck, on examining its records, with the marks of disorder and ruin which the crust of the earth and its surface exhibit. Every where is seen the evidence of violent agencies in former times, now dislocating the solid strata, elevating mountains, and pouring forth volcanic matter over the surface, and then anon sweeping that surface with deluge after deluge of tremendous power. The observer, who is accustomed to look on the regularity and harmony of the heavenly bodies, and the perfect adaptation to one another, and the harmonious action of the organs of plants and animals, as proof of the existence and wisdom of a First Cause, fancies almost that he sees in the irregularity and unbridled violence of geological phenomena, the agency of an antagonist cause; or rather, the operation of blind chance. Hence it is that geologists have found it necessary to vindicate their science from the charge of atheistical tendencies. But as has often been the case in other sciences, a more thorough acquaintance with geology is beginning to make it manifest, that the confusion and violence apparent in the strata, are only necessary parts of a great and beautiful system of order, by which the universe is sustained. We are beginning to find that disorder and confusion respecting this subject, exist rather in our own limited understandings than in the crust of the globe: Or rather, we begin to see how in the vast plans of the Deity, he brings order and harmony out of apparent confusion and chance. "From seeming evil still educing good, And better thence again, and better still, Some unexpected revolutions of this kind we hope to be able |