bic صود صود sud-though in the one language, it signifies milk, and in the other black? So much for French orientalists, whose authority bulks so much in the estimation of the Professor. Dr. H., then, would not have been far from the mark, if, regulating his judgment by the contents of the Appendix,' he had represented some of them as deficient in learning.' This, however, he does not,-on the contrary, he describes them as 'skilled in the oriental languages.' He, indeed, speaks of them as having given a very vague and superficial opinion;' but this, as Dr. L. very well knows, is perfectly compatible with oriental scholarship. Neither is it true, that he represents them as not reading their Bibles.' He considers them as little habituated to the study of the Bible;' but Dr. Lee needs not to be told, that to read is one thing, and to study is another. Would that all who read were indeed even a little habituated to the study' of the Sacred Volume! "Professor Lee continues to take great offence at his opponent's use of the terms sacred taste'repeatedly informing his readers, that the terms have, till now, been unheard of in discussions of a biblio-critical nature. But, conhas coined a new phrase, given us ceding this, has not Dr. H., if he its meaning; and could he have a very satisfactory explanation of found two words in the English language better fitted to express, in brief and comprehensive phraseology, his ideas relative to what he conceives to be an indispensable pre-requisite in a translator of the Scriptures- that grand keystone principle, by which all the other elements shall be united, and which alone can secure the solidity and efficient utility of the superstructure?' This he defines as 'sacred taste, or, in other words, a mind formed and matured by the holy moral principles inculcated in the Scriptures; habituated to the study of the Bible and biblical literature; and possessed of a predilection for whatever is agreeable to the spirit, manner, and design of the divine book, combined with a repugnance to every thing of a contrary description.' p. 37.And again, sacred tuste denotes the judgment of a mind rightly trained to the study of the Sacred Scriptures, and so disciplined by their sanctifying influence, as to be peculiarly qualified to decide on the subject matter of their contents, and the manner in which it should be treated in placing it before mankind.' p. 39.-Now what says Dr. Lee to all this? Why, simply that the phraseology of Dr. H. is unnecessary, and what is worse, it savours of religious cant!! Addit. Rem. p. 19.-This surely is no new phrase in biblical inquiries-and sounds most becomingly in the mouth of a Cambridge, and, what is more, of a Christian Professor! But how shall we reconcile this application of the terms, religious cant, with To the canons of the following? Dr. Henderson I have agreed, being quite as anxious as he can be, that exact and accurate Versions of the Scriptures be 'circulated throughout the world.' Appen. p. 143. "With regard to the word táalla, as affixed to the simple Allah, and the other epithets made use of by Ali Bey, as a substitute for the simple Ocos of the original, and, therefore, impugned by Dr. H., the learned Professor furnishes us with no new light whatever. Now, who that is at all conversant with the languages of the East will ever think of denying, that such epithets are in common use; but does this common use warrant their introduction into a Version of the Scriptures, when no such epithets occur in the original? This I conceive is the point at issue. Whatever may be their etymological import, we cannot allow to a translator the right of introducing any word at pleasure into a Version of the inspired volume. But on this subject we may consider Dr. Lee as having given up the point. He does not mean 'to argue for the adoption of any such principle;' and though he certainly did spend much time and labour in defending Ali Bey's infringement of the principle, yet now to the canons of Dr. Henderson he has agreed,'--and of derson he has agreed,'--and of these canons this is the second, p. 29. Chaste and unadorned simplicity is another quality of a good biblical version.' "The Professor seems to have considered it necessary, however, notwithstanding these concessions, to impress his reader with the belief, that this is quite compatible with a continued reprobation of Dr. H.'s sentiments. He agrees with his opponent as to the canons of translation-and without giving us to know how this agreement has been brought about, he proceeds to reason, or rather to declaim, as though he had himself gained a decisive victory. Now, when, in his former work, he endeavoured to invalidate Dr. H.'s opinions relative to the principles of translation, it was quite an easy matter to discern the exact line of demarcation between them; but he concedes the justice of Dr. H.'s when, as in the work before us, principles, we are really at a loss to know how he should have reconciled himself to the idea of spending a great deal of time-a whole fortnight; and a great deal of money, in vindication of a Version, which he yet acknowledges to contain the grossest violations of those same principles. The sum and substance of the Professor's additional remarks is shortly this-To Dr. Henderson's canons of translation I agree; but though in Ali Bey's Version one and all of these canons are repeatedly and grossly transgressed—the Version is nevertheless a good one, and my defence of it was, and still is, quite consistent and commendable.' place and refuge of his people. Now, in order to make his position good, he ought to have shown that these and other passages do really represent the Supreme Being as himself possessed of and requiring a refuge and a hiding-place; thus, the refuge of the Creator-the hidingplace of the Creator. But this, by the way. Does not the Professor know, that the word is never or rather very cunningly, suppressing the hypothetical part of the first sentence, and supplying the place of the second by a very significant &c.' represents Dr. H. as disdaining to inquire into the etymological meaning of words, p. 28. and then gets rid of a great deal of trouble by appealing to his reader, (who of course cannot be supposed to doubt the Professor's to say much in opposition to a genintegrity,) whether it be necessary tleman who does not argue for nice etymological distinctions? p. 30. “On Ali Bey's use of the word Kupios, the Professor labours, but in used by the Turks as signifying either court, area, or inclosure? Whatever the Kamoos or Jauhari may say to the contrary, such an application of the term is utterly unknown among the Orientals-of, as a translation of the Greek which Professor Lee will be convinced whenever he is pleased to take a trip to the Mediterranean. At all events, he will be somewhat puzzled, I will not say mortified, at finding the Turks and others addressing him as follows: jinabunguz keifleri eiu mi-jinabunguz chokdan buraie geldi mi-jinabunguz Turkje suiler mi, &c. which phrases being interpreted by the rules of etymology, are as follows: How does your court do?-Has your area been long in this quarter? Does your inclosure speak Turkish? "Before leaving this same subject of etymology, permit me to notice one misrepresentation of the learned Professor, which, however demonstrative of his ingenuity, does not say much for his candour. Dr. H. p. 53. when speaking of the term hazrat as not being (as his opponent would have his readers believe) equivalent to the Greek kupios, expresses himself as follows: Were the parallelism complete, or did the two words nearly agree in the mode in which they are applied, I should consider it the most consummate trifling to contend about their primary or etymological import, and should at once concede the point to my opponent. But that the agreement is by no means so great as he wishes to make the reader believe, must be evident,' &c. Now Dr. Lee, very carefully, mind of a Mohammedan the idea of the Divine Being and I will here affirm that it does so uni versally occur in the version in dispute.' Now without referring to other passages of the New Testament, it is quite evident that, according to this statement, the word رب as occurring in Ali Bey's version of Elizabeth's address to Mary, must convey to the mind of the Mohammedan reader the idea that if he become a Christian, he must consider Mary as really and truly the Mother of God.' This Dr. Henderson has placed in a point of view very convincing to all not even excepting the Professor himself who sees nothing so very obnoxious in the idea, but even vindicates its correctness. Could cally conceded by one on whose talents and judgment he elsewhere professes to place the utmost confidence. Nor is this all; for not only does he still maintain that ilah, without the article, as occurring in the version, must necessarily refer to the divinity of Christ; but he now gives it as his deliberate opinion, p. 77, that the Pope Pius himself have framed a more plausible argument than the following in defence of his creed? We are told that she (i. e. Elizabeth) was on this occasion filled passage, as it now stands,will givea sense suitable to the Socinian hypowith the Holy Ghost; and if so, the probability is, that she spoke. e. with or without the article, thesis." How ilah and ¿Ã¦ Allah generally mean the same thing,' and yet the substitution of the one for the other gives a Socinian chais rather mysterious. But this is not the only mystery in the Professor's book. racter to the passage, "SAHIB EL LISAN." Thus far our correspondent. Before taking leave of the subject, we should like to offer a parting hint to Professor Lee. It does not appear that any public journal in this country has avowed its confidence in the reasonings and principles of the learned Professor. The Evangelical and Congregational Magazines do not stand alone as his antagonists. The organs of his own church have spoken the same language with ourselves. The Theological Review and the Christian Remembrancer, which will not be suspected of undue attachment to Dr. Henderson, agree, according to his own account, in repro of Christ much in the same manner as David had done before her, not as of a temporal Lord, which, indeed, he never was; but of his divine character, and as the supreme Head of the Church.' p. 62. But does the Professor really intend to inculcate the Catholic doctrine?O no! he never means any such thing-but though the word must, in every instance, designate Deity, it is not at all likely that either a Mohammedan or Christian will make up his creed on these points on the authority of any version.' Ibid. And if this be the case, what, I ask, is the use of these versions? Must every individual who is in search of truth repair to the university, and be initiated in Hebrew and Greek, before he can form his religious principles? What a pity it is that Mr. Norris, in his insatiable hostility to the Bible cause, did not stumble upon an argument so cogent and conclusive! What a pity that so much labour and money have been ex-bating the lax principles of Propended on the circulation of the fessor Lee." Does it not occur to scriptures, when not one copy of the Professor that there must be any version whatever is sufficient some ground for this concurrence, to guide the poor bewildered sinner which deserves his consideration? to the knowledge of the truth! Can he persuade himself, or does he expect to persuade his readers, that all these parties, with Mr. Bell and Dr. Henderson, can be influenced by no higher motives than a desire to injure Professor Lee? For this seems to be his general mode of accounting for the opposition of all of them. "After Professor Kieffer, acting, doubtless, under the authority of the Committee, had cancelled the page containing the obnoxious version of Rom. ix. 5, it is certainly somewhat strange to find Professor Lee still attempting to argue a point which has been so unequivo " They are all "partial, and all censorious." His reputation," he thinks, they cannot eventually injure; their own they may.' All this, we must say, savours of something which we do not like to find in connexion with the principles of the Bible, or in those engaged in putting it into the languages of the earth. Professor Lee, we are sorry to say, and we are sure his best friends agree with us, does not appear to advantage in this controversy; not because his talents are not considerable, or his learning extensive; but because he rashly undertook to defend that which cannot be satisfactorily defended, and which, in fact, has been practically abandoned; and foolishly perseveres in a species of petty warfare and special pleading, which is as unsatisfactory to his readers as it is unworthy of himself. In regard to the matters which concern ourselves, to which he has referred in his Appendix, we could very easily give a satisfactory answer, were they of sufficient importance to entitle them to public notice. Neither the public nor Professor Lee have any concern with the writers of our articles; they are only concerned in what is written. We have not made our work the vehicle of personalities on any occasion, and are resolved never to be diverted by personal attacks from those great public objects in which alone the readers of our work are interested. A contrary line of conduct only tends to lead off the mind from the important points at issue, and to excite and inflame the worst passions of human nature. We again repeat the testimony of our respect for Professor Lee, and have no hesitation in saying, that we believe him to be a more amiable man, and a better scholar, than many things in his controversial discussions would indicate. The. Whole Works of the Right Rev. Edward Reynolds, D.D. Lord Bishop of Norwich; now first collected, with his Funeral Sermon. By B. Riveley, one of his Lordship's Chaplains. To which is prefixed, a Memoir of the Life of the Author, by Alexander Chalmers, F. S. A. In six vols. 8vo. London, 1826, Holdsworth. Price £3. FEW circumstances more encourage our hopes respecting the present and future generation, than the republication of many of the works of our oldest and most respectable divines. It is a proof, that the theology of the olden times is not altogether unfashionable; and that the days have passed away, we trust for ever, when the huge tomes, on which our forefathers spent their lives, could be purchased by their weight, instead of their intrinsic value. That these extended collections are undertaken by booksellers, rather than by the Mecænases of theological literature, of whom, by the way, we have very few, so far from proving that the spirit of the age is low and discouraging, proves the very reverse. For if there was not a very considerable demand, those who study the public taste, and supply it with the means of gratification, would not embark their property in unprofitable speculation. The sale of such extensive publications as the collected works of Hall, Lightfoot, Owen, Baxter, and Taylor, not to mention many others, affords proof, that the appetite for good theology has increased, is increasing, and the booksellers and our readers will unite with us in maintaining, that it ought not to be diminished.. Various opinions are entertained, respecting the propriety of publishing the whole works of many of the writers of the former age. It is alleged by some, that though they were great and good men; all that fell from their pen cannot be re |