abound. There is a time for all things. God turneth man to destruction, and again he says, Return, ye children of men.t Mercy rejoices over judgment, &c. I must reserve for another opportunity an explication of the text on which you lay so much stress. 7. The case of the children marks indeed the severity of the law, and should render parents, who live under the gospel dispensation, deeply sensible of the superior privileges which they enjoy. Death, however, is the common lot of mankind; and probably the form of death, as judicially administered, does not inflict more pain than is experienced by those who die in their beds. I cannot bring myself to think that the parents who were the executioners of their offending offspring, had any suspicion that they were thus rendered the instruments of consigning them to endless misery. A great and useful purpose was intended in thus manifesting the determination of God to cut off those whose evil example tended to corrupt and degrade a people whom he had selected as the depositaries of his law, and as the instruments of reforming the world. They have for a while been superseded in this office by the Gentiles; but they shall eventually be restored to it under happier circumstances," and so all Israel || shall be saved." 8. I do not deem it consistent with the modesty enjoined by our Saviour, to talk about, far less to boast of private devotions. This is the only answer you will ever receive from me to questions as to prayer. Whether or not we make a proper or pious use of the privilege of communing with the Father of Spirits, who seeth in secret, will be manifested by the rewards In a time-state. I cannot admit this explanation; I dare not. § We do not know to the contrary. I leave with God what is meant by Israel. Boast of what?-A confessed backwardness to pray for a full conviction of sin. [To be concluded in which he has promised to bestow openly upon such as seek him. This reward will consist in the graces of his holy spirit, which are love, joy and peace, long-suffering and gentleness.+ Those who observe our lives and conversations will judge of the degree in which we bear those fruits. I am truly sensible of my barrenness, and deeply lament the defects of my character, The sense of these defects serves to close my lips and to impair my usefulness. I sincerely hope that your experience may enable you to win many souls to righteousness, and that you may shine like the sun in the kingdom of heaven. I. God is the judge whether we actaally do pray unreservedly for a full couviction of the evil of sin.-We shall know in the next world. + Here again conviction of and feeling for the evil of sin is put away because it is distressing. It is always put away and not suffered to abide a minute, if we cau help it. The evil of sin, as our people being opposed to God; and not in our understand it, principally consists in its suffering as the consequence of it. All your arguments seem to me to spring from one source, namely, God's not having given you a thorough conviction of the evil of sin.-I am quite sure you will not obtain that conviction but by his gift-I entertain awful apprehensions of such teaching. May the Lord grant ened to pray for a full discovery of the me his grace, so that I may be emboldawful realities of the eternal state! I consider, that from motives of self love, and through our natural blindness, we are apt to underrate the evil of sin-that it is even salutary to contemplate the predicament so obnoxious to you, that we may be enabled to have a most hearty quarrel with sin, and be prepared for and actually obtain all those delightful and glorious things which you anticipate, and which cannot be fully and purely realized through any other medium. I have witnessed inexpressibly awful mistakes and delusions in these matters. When sin is not duly appreciated, pleasing experiences terminate in unspeakable anguish and disappointment. Such is the unsearchable deceitfulness of the human heart. It is blindness and deadness not to perceive what the scripture says of the evil of sin. the next Number.] REVIEW. "Still pleased to praise, yet not afraid to blame."-POPE. ART. 1.-An Appeal to the Members of the British and Foreign Bible Society, on the Subject of the Turkish New Testament, printed at Paris in 1819. Containing a View of its History, an Exposure of its Errors, and palpable Proofs of the Necessity of its Suppression. By Ebenezer Henderson, Author of a "Journal of a Residence in Iceland." London, printed for Holdsworth. 1824. 8vo. pp. 70. ART. II.-Remarks on Dr. Henderson's Appeal to The Bible Society, on the Subject of the Turkish Ver sion of the New Testament printed at Paris in 1819. To which is added, An Appendix, containing certain Documents on the Character of that Version. By the Rev. S. Lee, A. M. D. D., of the University of Halle, &c. &c., and Professor of Arabic in the University of Cambridge. Cambridge, printed by Smith. Sold, in London, by Seeley, 1824. 8vo. pp. 159. App. &c. 44. IT IT is not a little remarkable, that of the controversies of which the British and Foreign Bible Society has been the occasion and the subject, nearly all have regarded its principle and constitution, rather than its actual administration. We should antecedently have looked for the reverse of this state of things. It appears extremely difficult to conceive, on what ground an association for circulating the Holy Scriptures can, so far, be arraigned by Christians, or, at least, by Protestants; while, on the other hand, nothing was more probable than that some of the measures of a very miscellaneous body of men would betray strong marks of fallibility, and afford just cause of animadversion. Warmly attached as we are to the avowed purpose of the Society, we think, nevertheless, that the conductors of it have fallen into grand mistakes: we are not indeed of opinion, that Dr. Henderson has made good his charge, or effectually defended his secession from the service of the institution; but, previously to our further notice of his pamphlet, and of the tract of his opponent, we shall avail ourselves of this fair occasion of saying a few words upon the extent of the Society's agency, and upon one or two collateral topics. Now, according to our deliberate yet humble judgment, that agency is placed in too many hands, and absorbs an undue proportion of the monies entrusted to the disposal of the Committee. The sole and proper object of the British and Foreign Bible Society, is the circulation of the Scriptures. Not only therefore should its revenues be applied, as far as is possible, exclusively to this end; but the same ratio in which its salaries we must further be sensible that in and incidental expenses are multiplied, will be its inability to print and distribute the volume of revelation. In consideration, for example, of the fif ally to the Secretaries, a vast number teen hundred pounds, now paid annuof copies of the Bible, and still more of the New Testament, might be obtained and spread abroad. A most capital error has been committed, in annexing any salary to that office; in converting the character of the Secretaries from that of gratuitous and honary to stipendiary. We are far from being disposed to underrate the merits of the gentlemen who are at present employed in such a relation, or to measure their labours by any pecuniary standard. Surely, however, it was of the first importance that the reputation of such a Society for disinterestedness, for a freedom from all party-attachments, and, we will add, for enlightened prudence and discretion, should be perfectly unassailable! We could heartily wish that a step which we so much lament might be retraced; while we fear that the very nature of it forbids this desirable issue. There are, besides, a vast number of inferior agents of the institution : and, admitting, as we do, that they should receive no inadequate compensation for their time, their efforts and their responsibility, we cannot but pro test against so large an appropriation of the funds of the Society. Many of those agents, are, in effect, missionaries; so that there is at least danger of oral notes and comments accompanying the distribution of not a few even of those copies of the Bible, which, ostensibly, are distributed with out any note or comment whatsoever. If it be alleged, that, as the conse quence of the agents being more numerous, more Bibles are really put into circulation, and more money obtained for the institution, we may de mur to the principle of the allegation, even should we allow the fact. We cannot grant that for a highly excel lent purpose-no, not for the best of all -money is to be sought and procured without reasonable discrimination: we must observe, that every measure pursued should accord with the dignity and sacredness of the design. Our view of the real interests of the Society, is the same with Dr. Henderson's. (Pref. p. v.) We deprecate any thing like a selfish, gainful and mendicant spirit-any thing like a departure from first and noble principles on which account, we must, in particular, express our regret that so very considerable a sum is expended on printing Monthly Extracts. This measure is virtually, if not literally, a deviation from the original and repeatedly professed object of the institution. What, in truth, are these monthly extracts, for the most part, but notes and comments; religious tracts, often containing sentiments and phraseology, which, as we believe, will scarcely bear the test of the volume that they aim to recommend? This consideration, together with the circumstances on which we have already insisted, has, we acknowledge, shaken our confidence in the judgment and good faith of the Directors of the Bible Society; while the strains of fulsome and reciprocal panegyric, and the ostentatious homilies, which are so frequently heard at its meetings, both in town and country, the unmeasured praise bestowed upon its friends, the censures pointed against its real or supposed adversaries, are greatly offensive to men of correct taste and sober piety. Let us not be reckoned among the enemies of the institution, for thus "telling" what we deliberately consider as "the truth." We shall always endeavour, as we have, thus far, endeavoured, to aid the circulation of the Sacred Volume. But we distinguish between the end and the means. The British and Foreign Bible Society, while yet in its infaney, was more attentive to the letter and the spirit of its declared principle than it has been during its more advanced stages. Success can render bodies of men, as well as individuals, less vigilant and careful. These observations are far from being irrevelant to a review of the controversy between Dr. Henderson and Professor Lee. The pamphlets before us have arisen, in effect, from the extent of the agency procured by the Society, and from some want of judgment in the selection of the agents. Dr. Henderson, we doubt not, is a man of solid worth and merit: yet we must be permitted to question his qualifications as an oriental scholar and a scriptural critic. His complaint is, in substance, the following, that in Ali Bey's Turkish Version of the New Testament, printed in Paris, 1819, and circulated under the sanction of the Committee of the British and Foreign Bible Society, are numerous and gross and hurtful errors; prejudicial to purity of faith, revolting to accurate taste, and bearing throughout marks of a most censurable accommodation to Mohammedan practices and ideas. Concerning these things Dr. Henderson remonstrated with the Committee: his remonstrance, however, being ultimately ineffectual, and Ali Bey's Version being continued in circulation by them, though with some few modifications, he has retired from the service of the Society, and now makes his appeal to its members and to the public. It certainly appears from the minutes of the General Committee, and from those of the Sub-Committee, "in which the subject of the Turkish Testament was brought under consideration," that great pains were employed to procure the opinions of competent judges of the Version. Among the names of some distin Gal, iv, 16. guished Orientalists, who were con sulted, on the occasion, we find Professor Lee's, at whose suggestion, and that of his colleagues, measures were taken, by which it was hoped that Dr, Henderson's objections might be removed. Some leaves were cancelled; some tables of errata were prepared and adopted. In the mean time, the circulation of Ali Bey's Version was suspended its merits were still made the subject of investigation by the Sub-Committee; and, after a long and careful scrutiny, this Turkish Testament was again circulated by the institution. We cannot be astonished that, under such circumstances, Professor Lee comes forward to vindicate a step, which he was so deeply concerned in advising. Before we met with the "Remarks," &c., we had put down a few notes on different parts of Dr. Henderson's "6 Appeal," &c. : : some of our strictures we shall transcribe. The author of the "Appeal," &c., does not distinguish between what is matter of exposition, of interpretation, properly so called, and what is matter of translation: Rom. x. 13. In Dr. H.'s opinion, (p. 41,)" the change of To oropa Kupi8, the name of the Lord,' to [in the Turkish Version] the name of God,' seems to have been done with the design of annihilating one of the proofs of the divinity of Christ, as also not only the lawfulness but the necessity of addressing divine worship to him." Now it is neither just nor candid to intimate that the translator had this design, or indeed any design beyond that of rendering the passage with correctness and fidelity. Dr. Henderson would have been better employed in consulting Joel ii. 32, whence the quotation (for such it is) has been borrowed. He would have found that the prophet uses the word Jehovah, and that the LXX, from whom, as is most probable, the apostle cites the clause, render this word by the corresponding term Kupis. Neither in the book of Joel, nor in Rom. x. 13, is there a reference to Jesus Christ, to his alleged divinity, or to the worship that Dr. H. supposes him to claim. The writer of the Appeal subjoins, "The Lord in this verse, is unquestionably the Lord of all, mentioned VOL. XIX. 4 T in that preceding." Thus far we agree with Dr. H. Not so, when he proceeds to say, "and who He is we read Acts x. 36." But the key to this latter text is Acts ii. 36, "God hath made that same Jesus whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ." Jesus is Lord of ALL, of believing Gentiles and believing Jews; from each of which classes of men converts have flowed into his church. Other indications and examples of Dr. Henderson's propensity to confound translation with exposition, occur in pp. 14, 29, 52, 64, of his pamphlet. In some of his animadversions on the text of the Turkish New Testament he is exceedingly unfortunate. "Matt. vi. 15.* Тa парanтwhatα pay, your trespasses." Our author complains of the omission of this clause in Ali Bey's Version. Now Griesbach has annexed to the preceding clause the mark of probable omission and this he justifies in one of the highly excellent notes contained in his Commentarius Criticus, &c. We cannot, indeed, blame him for retaining the words in the text of his edition of the Greek Testament: but neither shall we accuse Ali Bey of a want of either judgment or fidelity in rejecting them; because he might easily mistake the one clause for the other, and because he has assuredly given the speaker's meaning. Dr. Henderson would have done well in weighing the external and internal evidence on both sides of the question. The Commentarius Criticus is less known in England than it deserves to be: nor, probably, will our readers be displeased, if we copy the note to which we have referred: « Vers. 14 et 15, Τα παραπτώματα aurav S. ipar, in vulgari textu legitur ter, in codice L et aliis quater, in Det nonnullis aliis bis. Nobis præ cæteris arridet lectio codicis D, quæ comm. 15 τa apañтwμата avтwv omittit. Inserta fuerunt hæc verba, quo comma 15 exactius responderet commati 14, sicut in fine versûs 14 ab aliis intercalatum fuit rа Tаpanтwμaτα iμar, quo comma 14 propius ad similitu dinem commatis 15 accederet. Ergo in utroque commate eam præferimus lectionem, quæ parallelismum mem P. 44. brorum sistit imperfectiorem; hunc enim defectum sarcire studebant librarii." * "Matt. viii. 5. Inge." Here, too, Dr. Henderson points out what he regards as an omission in the text of the Turkish Version. Let us look then into Griesbach's edition of the 'Greek Testament, where the clause stands thus, Εισελθοντι δε αὐτῷ. † We cite another example, “ Rev. iii. 21. Μετα τε πατρος με.” Of these words the omission is strongly remarked upon, by the author of The Appeal," &c., who tells us that the effect of such an omission "is to leave the Mohammedan in the dark, as to the throne on which the Faithful and True Witness declares he was seated after his victory." Pp. 46, 47. But the context renders that point completely unambiguous: and Griesbach's observation in his inner margin, in loc. should have abated Dr. Henderson's severity of criticism. ‡ 66 (1) Εν τῷ θρόνῳ τε πατρος με. Arın. Moyses in Epist. ad Cypr. Ev T θρόνῳ αυτό =lips. 6." Our decision would not have been the same with Ali Bey's. Yet this transcript denotes a variety in the early readings, and sufficiently vindicates the Turkish Translator from the implied accusation of being governed by some corrupt bias. Dr. Henderson is not more successful in his interpretation than in his adjustment of the Sacred Text: 66 Rom. v. 6. Κατα καιρον is rendered [in the Turkish Version by Ali Bey] at the predestined period: but the Apostle seems to refer to the suitableness of the time at which Christ died, as well as that predetermined in the Divine counsel." Pp. 37, 38. Be it so. Yet if Paul refer to both these points, as, undoubtedly, he does, then what expresses the one, implies the other. Why was that ara predetermined, why selected, except on account of its suitableness? Dr. Henderson is particularly sensitive with regard to those parts of Ali Bey's version, in which he suspects an heretical taint, and which may be thought to bear on the Trinitarian controversy. His suspicions, fears and criticisms are alike groundless. A correct theological scholar knows that scripture must be interpreted by itself, and not by previously-formed systems. When the author of the "Appeal" objects to the Turkish translation, the rendering which follows, John x. 30, I and the Father are one thing," we must remind him that in the original we read ἑν εσμεν, and that John xvii. 21, 22, are texts exactly parallel. We should rather complain of the words being too literally translated. It is the concurrent testimony," says Dr. H., " of all orthodox divines that in Rom. iv. 13, v. 17, x. 3; Gal. ii. 21, iii. 6, 21, the word 'righteousness' is not descriptive of any inherent or implanted righteousness, or any works of righteousness done by man, but of the meritorious righteousness of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, in virtue of which alone any sinner cau be justified in the sight of God." P. 33. We believe, on the contrary, that the word dixion here means justificution or acceptance: and, in proof of our statement, we might appeal to the connexion, and to many other texts. Nevertheless, it is not merely on this gentleman's erroneous annotations that we must pass our censures: it still more becomes us to complain that where only translation is concerned he obtrudes an exposition. In what passage of the New Testament does he meet with the terms " the Christian Sabbath?" No traces of such a phrase, or of such an institution, can be found in the records of the gospel of Jesus Christ. The words in kupiony nμepa, ought, unquestionably, to be rendered "on the Lord's-day:" yet Dr. Henderson, who has noticed different versions of them by some European and ancient English translators of the Bible, should have been more indulgent, if we must not say more equitable, to Ali Bey. In Cranmer's or the Great English Bible we have," I was in the spirit on a Sonday." Rev. i. 10. **, We are desirous of the author of the "Appeal" being consistent with himself. In reading his pamphlet, it frequently occurred to us, that of the * P. 36. |