Our readers will be most concerned to know how this version differs from the common English version.

1. The Peshito version makes a much more frequent use of the copulative conjunction and to connect sentences. See Matt. 17: 12, 14, 17, 25. etc. This conduces greatly to what is called the simplicity of the version.

2. The Peshito makes a frequent use of the interjection lo or behold. See Matt. 3:10. 17:12. 10. Jo. 9:25. 14: 29, &c. The use of this particle gives life and vivacity to the version.

3. The Peshito has uniformly our Lord for the Lord. This has probably arisen from early ecclesiastical usage, and shows the deep reverence of the first Christians for our Savior. It is remarkable that this version reads our Lord, Luke 16:8, where the lord in the parable and not our Saviour, is evidently intended.

4. The Peshito clearly distinguishes between hades and gehenna, and between devil and demon, (terms confounded in our common English version,) and thus gives fixedness and weight to these important ideas.

5. The Peshito interchanges presbyter and bishop, showing that in the view of the translator these terms were synonymous.

6. The Peshito discriminates more accurately than our common English version, when rà cáßßara is used to denote the singular. See Matt. 12:10, 12, where our translators have improperly used the plural.

7. The Peshito employs emadh, (which properly signifies "to stand,”) and its derivatives for "being baptized," and the cognate terms. The reason of this is not fully understood.

8. The Peshito has special omissions, (see Matt. 10:8. 27:9,35. Luke 22:17, 18. John 7:53 to 8:11. Acts 8:37. 15:34. 18: 6. 28:29. 1 Jo. 5: 7,) additions, (see Acts 2:14. Heb. 4:8.) or alterations, (see Mk. 2: 26. Luke 9:34. Acts 1:19. 5: 4. 10:28. 12:15. Rom. 12:16. Eph. 3:1. Heb. 10:29. 1 Jo. 1: 1.) which the reader may consult at his leisure.

9. The Peshito version, in rendering the Greek term uniformly, has not distinguished, (as in the English version,) between throne and seat, covenant and testament, angel and messenger, apostle and messenger, washing and baptism. This characteristic of the Peshito unhappily cannot be exhibited in an English translation.

These are the more important variations between the Syriac Peshito, the sacred depository of the Christian religion in the East, as held by different and opposing sects, and the textus receptus or received Greek text, which is represented in our common English version and is held by the different denominations in the West. The true text, as developed by scientific criticism, lies between these two, and of course is nearer to the Syriac text than is King James's version. These differences, it will be seen, are comparatively unimportant. They do not affect any one Christian doctrine. The two testaments, although they have been separated almost from the commencement of Christianity, in regions widely remote from each other, and have been preserved in different languages by men of different religious views, are, we may almost say, identically the same―a very important confirmation of the truth of our common religion.

The learned translator has performed a useful task. He has given us a correct and faithful representation of the original Syriac. His version will be read with delight by the common reader, and may be consulted with advantage by the scholar, whenever, as is often the case, he meets with a reference in his studies to that venerable Syriac version.

Justification by Faith. A Concio ad Clerum, delivered in New Haven, July 29, 1851. By LYMAN H. ATWATER, D.D., Pastor of the First Church in Fairfield. Published by request. New Haven: Thomas H. Pease. 1851. 8vo. pp. 28.

THE subject of this sermon was assigned by the General Association of Connecticut. It is discussed at great length by the respected author, and abounds in passages of forcible argument and expression. It shows much reading and thought in the preparation, evincing a familiarity with the relations of the question to the doctrines of the Romish church, as well as to the controversies of our own times. The sermon is divided into the three following heads: "1. The meaning of the word justify, as used in relation to this subject. 2. What are meant by those works of the law by which we are not, and cannot be justified? 3. How we are justified only by faith in Christ." The third of these inquiries is the leading topic of the discourse. In discussing it, the author gives his theory of the atonement. In doing so, instead of developing the modes of justification in the way which has been customary with the New England divines since the younger Edwards, he has chosen another course. He sets up the Westminster Catechism for his text, and goes into a defense of the doctrine of the imputation of the righteousness of Christ as the necessary condition of justification. To do this was not only his right, but his duty, if such is his own doctrine. We have given his exposition of the subject some attention, and feel bound to say, that to argue as he does about the righteousness of Christ, only confuses the mind in the effort to clear up the meaning of the Scriptures, and embarrasses and weakens the whole argument. In the very first sentence he says, "It is to be presumed, at the outset, that a righteous God, judging men in reference to the claims of a righteous law, will justify them only in view of a righteousness either their own, or that of another reckoned to their account." There is in this sentence the resemblance of an argument, but not its reality. There is a play on the word righteous, thrice repeated; but we submit, whether the gulf is not very wide between the premises that God is righteous and judges by a righteous law, and the conclusion that he can only justify men by their own righteousness or that of another, if righteousness can only mean "conformity to God's law." Surely, the author cannot be ignorant that the younger Edwards has said with great truth, "though it has been said by divines of eminence that the justification of the gospel is the act of a judge proceeding according to law, it is plainly a mistake, and such a mistake as is plainly subversive of the grace of the gospel."

The author then adds, that this presumption is justified by the representations of the Scriptures: 1. That we are justified by faith in Christ as the ground of our justification. 2. That it holds up 'the idea of a substitution, so that by his obedience many are made righteous, or "the righteousness of God in him." 3. Faith looks to the atonement and the everlasting righteousness he has brought in as the ground of our justification.' The author surely cannot be ignorant that the phrases under the second head are thought by many orthodox interpreters to refer to the fact, that the justified are treated as righteous, and not to have the remotest relation to the righteousness, but to the atoning work of Christ, as the ground of this treatment. We ask also: Where in the Scriptures are we taught that faith looks to the atonement, and the everlasting righteousness, &c., he has brought in?

The author then raises four questions upon the definition of justification given in the catechism. The first is, "Is there a righteousness of Christ, which, when appropriated by faith, thus inures to the believer's benefit and justification?" To this he answers," that Christ does become or furnish such a righteousness to the believer, appears from the most cursory view of the scriptural representations." The passages referred to are four. The author must be aware that

many orthodox divines give to all of these passages an interpretation different from that which he takes for granted to be the only one that can possibly be true. The second question is, "In what does this righteousness consist?" We looked here with earnest scrutiny to see the answer. Perhaps, thought we, the author will explain the meaning of the word righteousness, used so freely in the Scriptures. Perhaps he will inform us, that as the same word is used for at least two Greek words, it may, in different connections, have different shades of meaning. Perhaps he will tell us that the word sometimes translated righteousness, is also translated justification, so that we need to scrutinize very closely the connection in which it occurs, in order to get at the true meaning. But we are disappointed. His answer is brief and decisive,-"I can form no idea of righteousness other than conformity to God's law." Thus the whole question is taken for granted and decided, simply, in our judgment, because righteousness in English is derived from righteous, and because a word of more limited signification in English is employed to translate a word of wider signification in the Greek. The author certainly must know that ikatos, in Greek, is an attribute of relation as well as of quality, meaning right in law, as well as right in character, and that dialogovn, dikaiwois, dikaiwpa, in Greek, may have a similar breadth of meaning. After giving the answer thus briefly, he adds, "like every law, it consists of precept and penalty, and is equally righteous, equally binding, in both," and from this he argues that the righteousness of Christ saves us from penalty by suffering it in our stead, which is a negative benefit, and then obeys for us the law, which obedience is imputed for our positive good.

The author had certainly a right to vindicate this cardinal doctrine of the gospel in his own way. But the way is novel in New England, and we are not yet convinced that it is attended with any advantage. It is not the way adopted by the younger Edwards in his three sermons preached in 1785. We are aware it is the way sanctioned at Princeton, but the arguments used by Dr. Hodge in his Commentary, seem to us anything but decisive. We believe with Edwards, that "if the meaning of these propositions be that the believer is righteous with Christ's righteousness," "then they amount merely to this, that Christ has satisfied the law on his behalf, and that he, for Christ's sake, is justified and saved." This we believe to be New England theology, and what is better, to be true theology. We commend the author for his zeal in behalf of the cardinal doctrine of the Christian faith. We can only express the desire that his other able arguments had not been deformed by this unscriptural hypothesis.

The Elements of Christian Science. A Treatise upon Moral Philosophy and Practice. By WILLIAM ADAMS, S.T.P., Presbyter of the Protestant Episcopal church, in the diocese of Wisconsin. Philadelphia: H. Hooker. 1850. 8vo. pp. 379.

THIS book should rather be entitled "A Treatise upon Moral Philosophy, &c., on Church Principles." Like Sewell's Christian Morals, it is an attempt to base the whole of moral philosophy on revealed Christianity, not on Christianity as revealed in the Scriptures, but as revealed in the church by men divinely commissioned to teach man his duty. We do not mean that these principles are so baldly asserted in this volume as they are in Sewell; nor that some parts of the volume are not very valuable and interesting. We speak only of the system, the philosophy of morals, so far as any is taught in the book. We say so far as any is taught, for there is a singular mixture of theology and philosophy, of science and poetry, which leads us to doubt whether the author ought really to be tried before the ordinary tribunals, and according to the principles "in such cases set forth and provided."

The author divides his volume into six books, under the following titles:Human Nature; The Conscience; the Spiritual Reason; the Heart or Affections; The Home and its Affections; The Human Will. A glance at these titles will satisfy any one who is competent to judge that the order of scientific development cannot be very strictly observed in the transition from one of these topics to another. A few instances of the questions which are started by the author, and of the answers which he gives, will serve to convey some idea of the contents of this treatise.

Under the head of Human Nature, the author asks, “Is man's nature good or evil?" To this he answers, "It cannot be indifferent, like that of the brutes. It cannot be partly good and partly evil. It cannot be entirely evil. Therefore it must be good," adding, by and by, "but fallen." In his argument about these several answers, he treats the nature of man precisely as if it were a physical constitution, determined by its very nature to specific results. He does not recognize the peculiarity by which a nature can be moral at all. He does not reason as though a nature could be wholly good in its constitution and wholly bad by its perversion. He introduces this afterward, but not until his reasoning has been vitiated by its omission. Had he recognized this distinction, which is fundamental and elementary, he would not have indulged himself in so passionate a tirade against the Calvinistic doctrine of total depravity as occurs on p. 21. In Chap. II., he discusses the nature of good and evil. He asks, what is good? Recognizing the fact that there must be some common quality that makes all virtuous actions good, he asks what that quality is. He answers, goodness, absolutely considered, is God. Goodness in man is "that which is likest God." He scorns any other analysis than this, and says, "to a Christian, the supreme good is God; the supreme law of action is the revelation of God; the pillar and ground of it is the church;" that which applies it the spirit, and that which receives it, the nature of man.

The account given of Conscience, in the second book, is as follows: The action of Conscience is threefold,-to prohibit, to record, to prophesy retribution. In all of these offices "We attribute to this faculty a personal power, as if it were the influence upon us of an individual who is not ourselves." But this personal power, thus dimly recognized, can be no other than a personal God. Conscience is therefore God speaking to man. The decisions of Conscience are not "the thoughts" of men "accusing, or else excusing, one another," but the direct utterances of God. To distinguish, however, those judgments of conscience which are fallible, from those which are infallible, the author is forced afterwards to distinguish between "Conscience, the natural faculty in us,” and the "voice of the Holy Ghost without us;" conscience, the eye and the light which we see; conscience, the ear and the voice which we hear. We cannot go farther into the criticism of the contents of the volume. It is most instructive to read, as it shows how the poetico-scientific way of treating theology and morals can be as readily used to sustain the highest views of church authority, as well as the most lofty notions of the sufficiency of human reason; how it is of the easiest application to the servile creed of Hobbes, as to the haughtiest independence of the modern rationalist. In respect to practical ethics, there is much truth, strikingly and beautifully set forth, showing the author to be possessed of rare elevation of mind, as well as of much practical sagacity. We regret that views so just and so forcibly illustrated, should be deformed by so feeble, so obscure, and so inconsistent a philosophy.

Select Discourses of Sereno Edwards Dwight, D.D., Pastor of Park street church, Boston, and President of Hamilton College, in New York. With a memoir of his life. By WILLIAM T. DWIGHT, D.D., Pastor of the Third Congregational Church, Portland. Boston: Crocker & Brewster. 1851. 12mo. pp. 382.

THIS is a volume of great interest, in some respects the most valuable that has recently been given to the public. The discourses on the death of Christ have long been out of print, and have been anxiously inquired for in vain. The discussion of the subject, as a Scriptural argument, is one of the most thorough and exhausting which has ever been produced in this country, and is a fine model of this kind of investigation. Its publication at the present time, when the subject is so much mooted in our churches, will be hailed by many of the younger clergy. These sermons are worth more than the cost of the volume. The other sermons are also models in their kind: direct in argument, forcible in style, warm and earnest in feeling. They are fine examples of what a superior mind, enriched by liberal culture, and, above all, trained by the conflicts and experience of the bar, can furnish for the pulpit, without losing aught of simplicity or clearness. Indeed we cannot but think, that in these days, when there is a tendency to almost every way of preaching, except the right way, the publication of sermons written with so little pretension, and so great excellence, is most timely. The memoir is also written in good taste, and with that moderation and selfrestraint which is fit in a brother when speaking of the character of a brother. We regret that the sermon, "Forbid them not," is not in the collection, it is so full of practical wisdom and pious feeling. We hope the volume will receive, as it ought, a wide circulation.

The Life and Times of John Calvin, the great Reformer. Translated from the German of PAUL HENRY, D.D., Minister and Seminary Inspector in Berlin. By HENRY STEBBING, D.D., F.R.S., &c. In two volumes. New York: Robert Carter & Brothers. 1851. 8vo. pp. 519 and 454.

THE second volume of this great work is now given to the public by the enterprise of the Carters. The obligations of theologians and scholars for this gift will be readily acknowledged. The name of Calvin is too conspicuous in the history of the church, to be exposed to reproach, from the ignorance of his revilers or defenders. His history is too intimately connected with that of theology to be left in the shade. It is of the utmost importance that there should be at hand a candid, thorough and copious biography to qualify the indiscriminate praises of those zealous partisans who ascribe a perfection more than human to the leader of their party, and to reprove the ignorant and malicious attacks of unscrupulous and prejudiced adversaries. Dr. Henry's work meets all these conditions. It is candid. This is obvious to any one who takes up any portion of the work, especially such a one as the account of the trial and execution of Servetus. The story is told in an impartial, cool and dignified manner, which enforces conviction and shames down calumny. Not only is the work candid in reality, but it will be believed to be so, from the fact that Dr. Henry, from his own position, is above the suspicion of partiality. As a German Protestant, he will not be suspected of any bias for Calvin's doctrines or character. As a Christian and student, he does not lack sympathy for his surpassing merits as a man, a scholar, and a theologian. The work is thorough and exhausting. No part of it is superficially treated, but every question is thoroughly canvassed and searched to the bottom. The contemporary history, the state of the times, the politics, secular and ecclesiastical, the personal peculiarities of all