a name. This is generally derived from, and is used as the mo dern Greek audevrela oäs, your excellency.

But there remain charges still more serious. Dr. Henderson maintains, in Chapter V., that the doetrine of the divinity of Christ is materially affected by the version in question. It appears that in very many passages where the word núpos in the original is used of Christ, where he is spoken of in his merely human capacity, in the translation various names or epithets are used which can only be understood of, and which the translator himself constantly applies to God. Thus rugs in the translation is frequently made equivalent to eós, Lord to God. Hence arises the strong objection, that the version destroys those arguments which the genuine and unsophisticated sense of the Scriptures afford in proof of the divine nature of our Saviour, consistently with those which shew his mediatorial capacity through his human nature. Dr. Henderson had said, that the proper rendering of xúpos, when applied to Christ, would be Rabb, Lord, as expressive of his human nature merely: and he shews here, by various examples, (p. 110.) that Ali Bey himself must have so understood this word in many passages which relate to his human nature only; also, that he uses it in the simple sense of Master, and applies it even to angels, (p. 112.) He has likewise adduced numerous examples from Mohammedan authors to shew that Rabb is as frequently said of man as of God; which, however, we do not consider as altogether pertinent to the point, these examples being all in construction with a genitive case following, while at the same time they were by no means necessary. But how does Professor Lee get rid of this difficulty? He asserts that both Rabb and Arrabb (~), the same word with the article) can never be understood of any one but God. Now, the word with the article is undoubtedly to be understood of none but God, as is proved by the authority of the canons; but there is no proof that the word without the article, when standing by itself, is used in that sense, and even Professor Lee himself allows, in another place, (p. 119.) that Rabb is only a more dignified Arabic title, without necessarily implying divinity in it. He says also," in nine. places out of every ten, at least, the word xúpios, when applied to our Lord is rendered (surely he meant by Ali Bey." If so, rejoins Dr. Henderson, as the word xúgios, applied to Christ, occurs two hundred and seventy times in the New Testament, it follows that this contains two hundred and

forty-three passages which, according to Professor Lee's explanation, Christ is called God, a most overwhelming proof surely of his divinity. Professor Lee objects, that this circumstance cannot certainly weaken or annihilate the proofs of Christ's divinity, as Dr. Henderson had said in his "Appeal." The latter shows, by producing examples, (p. 124, sqq.) that the use of God instead of Lord (xúpios) must infallibly lead the reader to transfer to God many actions of Christ, which were properly his own, and were done by him in his merely human character. "The direct and necessary change of terms is," says he, "to suggest an idea of immediate acts of the Deity, or acts on the part of man, terminating in the Divine Nature, without any regard to the economical arrangement which constitutes the basis of the Christian faith." P. 124.

In Chapter VI. Dr. Henderson notices the manner in which Ali Bey translates the passage in Rom. ix. 5. "Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever;" which has occasioned so much difficulty to the Socinians; and he maintains that his translation of this passage is favourable to the Socinian interpretation, which makes sós, if understood of Christ, (for some, by detaching the latter part, consider it as only a doxology addressed to God, and not to be referred to Christ) to be used as God in a subordinate sense. He translates thus: he who is over all a God blessed for ever," making use of the word Ilah, which Dr. Henderson. rightly considers to signify a God, and not to be identical with Allah, the God, or God himself. The former or Ilah is the indefinite form (aliquid colendum), the latter is nothing more than the other, with the article prefixed, thus & Alilah, (id quod colendum est præ aliis omnibus) which, by abbreviation, on account of its frequent occurrence, became a Allah Professor Lee endeavours to prove that the indefinite is precisely the same as the definite form, but the examples he adduces from the Koran, we think, do not bear him out in this, if we attend to the established principles of Arabic grammar in regard to the use of the article. No doubt Ilah may be followed by a genitive case, and rendered in English, or French: "the God of" "le Dieu de," or it may stand in the predicate of a sentence, which in Arabic is always indeterminate, unless the thing itself be used in a determinate signification, but in neither case does that indefinite form signify the same as a Allah. Here we may notice an error of Dr. Henderson, who says"

this is : الله in the predicate is the same as الها واحدا that

grammatically incorrect. Dr. Henderson is, however, right in his criticism on the word Пlah in the above passage; and Professor Kieffer has already altered it into Allah, which brings it to the exact sense which we give to the word ós.

We agree with Dr. Henderson, who condemns (in Chapter VII.) the use of the synonymous additions, as they are so called, which abound in Ali Bey's version, nor do we think they are defensible on any ground, inasmuch as they do not exist in the original, and from the various shades of signification they almost necessarily introduce, they may lead to error beyond any assignable limit. Professor Lee defends them, because a parallel is found in the language of the Old Testament, because they are agreeable to the style of oriental authors, and because they give emphasis. Still less can they be defended upon the supposition that they injure no religious truth, unless, indeed, we were previously assured that this was the case. One remarkable instance is adduced by Dr. Henderson. Out of eight different ways in which the word dixaoovn is rendered, one is

Birr wa takwa, righteousness and piety, an expres

sion which he thinks is decidedly inconsistent with the doctrine of our justification, the one being diametrically opposed to the other. The word takwa, fear of God, piety, must be something proceeding from man, and if coupled with Birr, righte ousness, would imply that our justification, which proceeds from the free will of God through faith in Christ, was assisted also by our own piety, i. e. by our own merits, or works. But let Dr. Henderson speak for himself.

"According, therefore, to the Apostolic testimony, and the opinion of these theologians (he is speaking of the authors of our Homilies and others,) piety cannot, in any point of view, or under any modifications, be taken into the account in the matter of our justification, either as forming part of our justifying righteousness, or as giving the righteousness of Christ any validity on our behalf; consequently to translate dukaworurn "righteousness," in those passages which relate to justification, by takwa, which uniformly and exclusively signifies piety in man, must infallibly lead the reader to seek for something within himself, or performed by him as the ground of his acceptance. And to join righteousness and piety together in this matter, what is it, but to set forth anew the error of the Galatians, who could not rest satisfied with the all-sufficiency of the meritorious work of Christ, but conceived it was necessary for them to add

something of their own to help it out, and render it peculiarly avail. able to their salvation?". P. 180..

We think there is not much validity in Dr. Henderson's objection, (in Chapter VIII.) to the use of to express the Greek napaoxeun, because it is peculiarly applied to the Mohammedan sabbath, or Friday, and agree with Professor Lee, that the translator is scarcely chargeable with having made an anachronism, merely because the appropriation of the word is strictly Mohammedan. It is, however, in constant use among the Christians of the East; but here, as it is rather an explanation than a translation, some word expressive of TapaoxεVÝ ought rather to have been used. But we agree with Dr. Henderson in thinking, that such expressions as Market-day for Lord's-day, sweetmeats of Omnipotence, (Professor Lee does not reject this translation of the Turkish,) for Manna, Ewlia for saints, Dedjial (Dejjal) for Antichrist, are too Mohammedan to be admitted into a version of the Scriptures in a language which possesses every facility for expressing them otherwise, when two others more appropriate might have been supplied, if necessary, from the Arabic versions.

These are only a few of the errors with which Dr. Henderson charges Ali Bey's Turkish version of the New Testament, but they will be sufficient to give our readers some idea of them. He himself gives a summary view of his own and his opponent's arguments in the Conclusion, (p. 295. sqq.) to which we would refer those who wish to see the general bearing of the whole question. As for ourselves, after a careful perusal of Dr. Henderson's work, we are decidedly convinced that his objections are, on the whole, really well-founded, and that if he has committed some errors in some of his philological observations, these are of so little importance, that they do not affect his competency as a judge of the merits of the version. In fact we think he has completely proved the object. he had in view, and that all controversy on the subject of the Turkish version of the New Testament, published at Paris in 1819, ought now to be considered as set at rest. The British and Foreign Bible Society have already tacitly admitted that this version was not such as doubtless they at first expected it to be, as appears from the cancels and the table of errata which were afterwards printed in order to be forwarded to places where copies had been previously sent; and they allow, in a late Report, that the second edition, which is now in. progress, will have undergone "much criticism and revision.", The only advantage, therefore, which has been gained by the

publication of Professor Lee's "Remarks" in defence of the original edition (as afterwards amended by the cancels and table of errata) is, that the objectionable nature of it has been placed in a much broader light than before by Dr. Henderson's present work, and the attention of the public has been more strongly directed to the important subject of Biblical translations, and the principles upon which they ought to be conducted or estimated-which, in our opinion, are by no means those which Professor Lee has been induced to maintain in his defence of Ali Bey's version.

Psalms according to the Authorized Version, with prefatory Titles, and Tabular Index of Scriptural References from the Port Royal Authors, marking the Circumstances and chronologic Order of their Composi tion: to which is added, An Essay upon the Psalms, and their spiritual application. By MARY ANNE SCHIMMELFENNINCK. Pp. 446. London. Arch. 1825.

ALTHOUGH various critics have expended their labours on the book of Psalms, the subject is far from being exhausted. The metre and order of singing, notwithstanding the erudite researches of Lowth, may yet receive light from future investigations, and the scope and phraseology of a vast number of passages may yet be more felicitously illustrated. Conceiving some such research to have been Mrs. Schimmelpenninck's object, we gladly observed the publication of her book; and, however despoiled of our hopes on an attentive perusal of it, we cannot avoid making some obervations on its contents.

Instead of a new version, or of a correction of the authorized version, we discover that which stands in our Bibles, preceded by an Introduction, and an explanation of the Titles of the Psalms. This Introduction having furnished" a peculiarly interesting and valuable course of family-reading to" this lady's "household," is presented to the public, that its interest and value may be more widely known; yet, we cannot conjecture how the ordinary households of ordinary families are to understand remarks on "the original Hebrew and the Septuagint," or even to comprehend such a sentence as the following: That which confers real importance on the inquiry, is the necessity of an accurate literal, as the only definite and solid basis, on which to found a rational and enlightened, as well as