is well deserving of attention. If obedience to the will of God be necessary to happiness, and knowledge of his will be necessary to obedience, the best way of communicating that knowledge ought to be carefully studied. This knowledge is lodged in the scriptures, and can be obtained or communicated only by the diligent study of them; by bringing the human miud into immediate contact, if we may so speak, with the mind of God, given by the Spirit, through the instrumentality of those holy men whom he selected for his agents in evangelizing the world. But the scriptures cannot be understood theologically, unless they are understood grammatically, that is, in their genuine, simple sense. The chief duty, therefore, of a public religious instructor, and, at the same time, not the least difficult, is the sound interpretation of the holy books. On this depends the preservation in its purity of the Christian faith, as well as its efficacy on the hearts and lives of those who are brought, or are attempted to be brought, under its influence. Dr. Brown, we think, has succeeded well in giving a specimen of that kind of scriptural interpretation which is calculated to promote true spiritual improvement, and which ought generally to form the groundwork of pastoral instruction. From a conviction of there being no way of reaching profitably the affections, except through the medium of the understanding, he is at great pains in explaining terms and phrases, first by themselves, and secondly in the place which they hold in the passage where they occur. This, however, is not done in the form of verbal criticism, which must, at all times, be unprofitable to a general audience. He prefers to bring forward--and to bring forward copiously in all cases which admit of it-passages of scripture in which either the same terms or phrases are used, or others having a corresponding signification. In this manner, scripture is made the guide-certainly the safest of all guides-in the interpreting of scripture. Whatever might be interesting or intelligible only to scholars, is thrown into short notes appended to the particular discourses to which they have reference.

The first epistle of Peter, according to Dr. Brown's scheme, is divided into twenty-four paragraphs, eleven of which are discussed in the first of the three volumes. As a specimen of the work, we present our readers with the following extract, in illustration of the apostle's exhortation, 'Be courteous.' Dr. Brown says,

"Courtesy in general is opposed both to unscciableness and moroseness, the indisposition to mingle with our fellow-men, and the disposition, when we do mingle with them, to make them uncomfortable. The courteous man finds a pleasure in the society of his fellow-men; and, when in their society, discovers his satisfaction by endeavouring to make

all around him happy. The particular form which courtesy assumes depends on the relation in which the courteous person stands to the object of his courtesy. If he is his superior, he regards and treats him with deference and respect, avoiding, on the one hand, all impertinence and presumption, and uncalled-for, obtrusive display of independence, and, on the other, all man-worship, all cringing obsequiousness. If he is his inferior, he treats him with condescension and civility, like one who, in by far the most important points of view, stands on a level with himself, not coldly indifferent to, nor cruelly negligent of, his feelings, but disposed to respect his rights, and to promote his happiness. If he is his equal, he treats him with affability. He is not morose, but conciliatory; not sullen, but cheerful. He is attentive, ready to give, ready to receive, the tokens of mutual respect. He is disposed to please and be pleased; not fretful or quarrelsome, nor contemptuous; ever ready to put the best construction on words and actions; indisposed to take, and careful not to give, offence. The courtesy which the apostle enjoins in the text, must not be confounded with that artificial polish of manners which marks the higher classes of society. Christian courtesy may be combined with this artificial politeness, and the combination is beautiful, a gem richly set, apples of gold in pictures of silver,' a fair body, with a fairer soul; but they are often to be found separate. Many who are distinguished by this artificial politeness are entire strangers to Christian courtesy; and many are habitually and thoroughly courteous, who have had no opportunity of acquiring even the first elements of this artificial politeness. In very many cases, artificial politeness is systematic hypocrisy; it is a mask, concealing truth, and exhibiting falsehood; the not appearing to be what we are, or the appearing to be what we are not. Sentiments and feelings are often strongly expressed, when they exist only in a very inferior degree, or, it may be, when they do not exist at all, or when sentiments and feelings of a directly opposite kind exist. Under a pretence of studying the feelings of others, the most malignant selfishness often seeks gratification. Under the guise of the most courteous demeanour and language, the most unkind and contemptuous feelings are frequently cherished and expressed; and he who is studiously courteous to certain individuals and classes, according to the laws and usages of a conventional politeness, may be, and not uncom monly is, characterized by an utter disregard, an utter want of respect, for the feelings of other individuals and classes. Christian courtesy, like all Christian social virtues, originates in that love of men which flows from the love of God, and grows out of the knowledge and belief of the truth. The Christian regards all men as the children of God, endowed with reason, destined to immortality, capable of being, through the atoning blood and sanctifying Spirit of Jesus Christ, made fit for the most intimate fellowship with God, in knowledge, and holiness, and blessedness. He regards the arrangements of society as the result of divine appointment and agency; and hence learns that respect for all men, that honour for all in authority, and that cordial sympathy with all in the humbler stations of society, which naturally express themselves in a courteous demeanour.

While there may be conventional politeness where there is no true

courtesy, and true courtesy where there is little conventional politeness, yet it deserves to be remarked, that, so far as the established forms of intercourse in society are innocent, consistent with truth and integrity, Christian courtesy will induce its possessor to conform to them. Whereever these forms imply falsehood, a higher law than that of custom or fashion, the law of God, forbids compliance. He must not use flattering words: he must not express sentiments which he does not believe, nor simulate affections which he does not feel; but that eccentricity which leads a man to disregard innocent social usages, may commonly be traced to pride and selfishness, principles the very reverse of those from which true Christian courtesy springs.'-Vol. ii. pp. 189, 191.

From this extract, the reader will be enabled to form a judg ment of the author's style, and of the general character of the work. It is a fair specimen of the whole; nothing more, and nothing less. Indeed, it would be difficult, or rather scarcely possible, to fix upon any one discourse, or even division of a discourse, better or worse than the others. The entire equability of the exposition, throughout, is one of its most distinctive characteristics. The author seems to work by the guidance of a spirit-level. He begins at his own point of elevation, and at no time allows himself either to rise above, or to fall below it. For sentimentalism, and what is commonly called 'fine writing,' he seems to have neither time nor taste. Occupied with his subject, he proceeds straight onwards, never stopping, turning aside, or losing sight of it.

In his religious opinions, Dr. Brown is evangelical, in the best and fullest sense of the term. With him, the basis of true religion consists in a just apprehension, on the part of man, of the relation in which he stands to his Maker; not simply that in which he originally stood, but that in which the Christian revelation represents him as actually standing, as fallen, guilty, depraved, helpless, miserable, yet an object of Divine commiseration, to whom forgiveness, deliverance, and everlasting happiness, through the grace of the Son of God, are, in the gospel, freely proffered. This is the relation in which, according to the testimony of the Scriptures, man stands to God. When this doctrine is understood and believed, it necessarily, through the influences of the Divine Spirit, gives rise in man to a corresponding state of affections, and a corresponding course of conduct. By this knowledge and belief, he is changed both in character and state. He becomes, in the sight of God, an object of judicial and moral approbation. He is in possession of true religion, which consists, as our author expresses it, in a right way of thinking, a right way of feeling, and a right way of acting, in reference to God.'*

* This definition is given in an admirable little work, published by Dr. Brown, many years ago, entitled' Religion, and the means of its attainment.'

Religious teaching is rendered miserably inefficient, when cramped and fettered by a scholastic, systematic theology. Divine truth is not thus presented in the scriptures; and if we believe that we have divine truth in the bible, we may be equally sure that we have also there, the best manner of teaching it. Dr. Brown has been able, in a great degree, to free himself from the trammels of system, and he has done more than this. We have reason to believe that in the large body of Christians to which he belongs, his precepts and example have had no inconsiderable influence in promoting a more healthy and liberal, because a more strictly scriptural view of Christian truth. If he has been instrumental in gaining this end, we consider him highly honoured, and as having lived to some good purpose. There is a prodigious difference between knowing the truth as God teaches, and as man teaches it. We could not help pitying the delusion of a man, who, though he had been confined all his life long within the walls of a bastile, yet were to fancy himself well acquainted with the beauties of nature, and able to point them out, and expatiate upon them, because he had pored long and attentively over some poor dingy daubings of landscape. Yet such a man's knowledge of natural objects would not be more imperfect, or his fitness for illustrating them less, than the man's knowledge of Christian truth, who had gathered what he fancied his knowledge from systems or symbolical books, articles, creeds, or confessions of faith, but who had never made the scriptures the subject of direct, diligent, devotional study.

Throughout Scotland, half a century ago, almost universally, one of the ordinary Sabbath-day services consisted of what is called a lecture, and this practice is still very generally continued. The lecturer selects a certain portion of scripture, as the subject of an expository discourse, concluding with such practical remarks, as the passage suggests. In a continued series of such discourses, the clergyman often goes over a whole book of the Old or New Testament; and in the course of a long ministry sometimes expounds in this manner, almost the whole of the scriptures. This service, when properly conducted, is found to be of great use. By the preparatory study, necessary for lecturing well, the mind of the public teacher is kept constantly employed, and in progressive movement. His knowledge of the scriptures, and of the truth contained in them, becomes as he advances in life, more enlarged, exact, and intimate; and this improvement on his part, is naturally accompanied with a corresponding improvement in the substance and probable efficacy of his public ministrations. This form of instruction has itself peculiar advantages. In sermonising, much more than in lecturing, the preacher is tempted,-and it is to be regretted he

should ever fall before the temptation, to preach himself, by displaying his ingenuity and eloquence, rather than to preach the truth of God. In such cases, the less judicious part of the audience, may admire the man who stands out before them in all the extension of conceited excellence; the better informed pity him, and grieve at his folly. The man is, perhaps, remembered; the subject, probably forgotten by both. In lecturing, on the other hand, the speaker is more likely to be sobered down, both in mind and manner, by close attention to his subject; while the hearers listen with attention, feeling themselves called upon to receive instruction, and at the same time to exercise their powers of judgment. While listening to a well prepared lecture, intelligent hearers are, in many cases, furnished with the materials of future thought; they grow apace in the knowledge of spiritual things; the desire for improvement is at once strengthened and gratified.

The work before us is an excellent specimen of what lecturing should be. It is a good deal more exegetical in its character than such discourses generally are, but it is just so much the better. There is no parade of criticism to be found in it; though the epistle throughout is critically expounded, everything said is said in such a manner as to be perfectly intelligible to a general audience, such as that to which the discourses were originally addressed. It was well said by a great man of the last age, Some people tell you that they let themselves down to the capacity of their hearers; I never do that, I speak uniformly in as intelligible a manner as I can ;' so should every body. The letting down principle is ordinarily nothing more than an awkward apology for incapacity or idleness.

With scriptural expositors, both on the Continent and in America, it has been a practice of sonie standing to give a translation of those passages of scripture which they expound. The practice is commendable, for it gives the reader a synoptical view of the sense in which the author understands and interprets the sacred text; it gives him also a pretty fair test of the author's fitness for the task he undertakes.

It would appear, however, that to give an acceptable new translation, especially of any of the more important and generally well known portions of scripture, is not quite an easy matter. If the authorized version is departed from, what is new seems to be unnatural; if there is considerable change, though only in the form of expression, the translation proposed produces suspicion and dislike. Much of this feeling is no doubt the result of prejudice, but of a prejudice that it would be unwise to attack wantonly. We are glad, therefore, to find Dr. Brown, while he very properly gives a new translation of