in which they differ is, the addition or omission of the article, which is generally regulated by the context. Dr. Henderson's rule, therefore, like many others of his already noticed, is false; and, consequently, no reliance can be placed on his remark*.

But, if the word objected to had been likely to affect the divinity of our Lord, why, it may be asked, has it been used in this place in all the Arabic versions of the Scriptures, which have been made and adopted by the Christians of the East? In the Arabic Testament edited by Erpenius, which is said to have been corrected by a Bishop of the Copts, we have the very word here objected to by Dr. Henderson. In that published in the Polyglotts of Le Jaye and Walton we also have it; and again, in that published by the Congregatio de propaganda fide, which had also been prepared under the superintendence of an Eastern Bishop. We have the same word in the Malay Scriptures translated by the Dutch; yet in none of these instances, have we ever heard of Dr. Henderson's objection; although all these Christians are surrounded by Mohammedans. Surely, if the word in question

* Professor Kieffer, lest any doubt should remain on this head, has cancelled the page, and reprinted it with the word Allah, which, I believe, he need not have done.

had been calculated to lower the dignity of our Lord, they would never have allowed its adoption: as it will be assuming too much to suppose, that they have all conspired with Ali Bey, with the view of impugning his divinity.

In a note subjoined to this remark, there is also a trifling mistake in his Ethiopic criticism. After making some observations on the reasoning of Wakefield, he says, the Ethiopic rendering of this passage (i. e. Rom. ix. 5.) is so far from expressing a lower sense of Oeos, that it uses the strongest and most appropriate word denoting supreme divinity: ዘውእቱ አምላክ ቡሩክ ለለም:: who is God (the Supreme Ruler, the sole object of worship) blessed for ever." The stress of this learned remark rests on the word Amlák, which unhappily has no such meaning as that which Dr. Henderson has attached to it. Ludolf says in his Lexicon (col. 60.) “¿: Deus. Pl. A: Dii. Ps. lxxxi. 1. 6. pecul. Ethnicorum." If indeed the word here used had happened to be እግዚአብሔር∶ then would the Doctor's remark have had some weight (Lud. Lex. col. 541.) but the case is otherwise.

66

The next charge of corruption is founded on the translation of Rom. x. 13. where To ovoua

Kupíov is rendered by Ali Bey, the name of God. This, says Dr. Henderson, "seems also 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," &c. It has already been shewn, that whether the translator

رب

had used the word Rabb, or Allah, the Mohammedan reader would have understood none but the supreme God. What then was the translator to do? was he to use the word

عيسي

the

Messiah, Jesus, Effendi, or the like? If he had done this, he would have been accused of having given a paraphrase instead of a translation. In the versions used by the Eastern Christians, the word, Rabb is indeed used; but it should be remembered, they have applied this term exclusively to our Lord, even in passages in which there is no intimation whatever of his divinity in the original. No such sense, however, has obtained among the Mohammedans s; and the conclusion must therefore be here, as on a former occasion, that Ali Bey has taken the safe side of the question; leaving the reader to determine, whether the context relates or not to our blessed Lord. If then it certainly relates to him in this passage, as Dr. Henderson thinks is the case, and to which I know of no good objection, the conclusion of the reader must necessarily be, that he is a God, and that worship may and ought to be addressed to him, exactly the reverse of Dr. Henderson's assertion.

It must have appeared, from what has been said, that difficulties of no ordinary magnitude will necessarily arise in presenting a Mohammedan with a copy of the Scriptures. Accustomed as he has been to attach ideas to words, perfectly at variance with those which are taught in the Holy Scriptures, the consequence must be, that, at first sight, the Scriptures will be found to use certain words in senses, to which he will either be disposed to object, or to take in the sense usually ascribed to them by Mohammedan writers. The words & Allah » Nah, or El Rabb. for example, will in his mind, signify the one true God. Paradise again, whether you translate it by firdaus, Jannat, or the like, will ever convey to the mind of a Mohammedan, the idea of the Paradise spoken of in the Koran. What is to be done then? Must we make paraphrases instead of translations, lest we should be misunderstood? Or, must we make correct translations, leaving time to clear up questions of this kind? How did the Apostles act in this case; for they were thus situated with respect to the heathen? We usually find the word eos in their Greek, although it designated a false God among the heathen: and even the

θα γνωστος Θεος

unknown God of Athens was adopted by St. Paul in his address to the members of the Areopagus. The Baptist Translators of Serampore have been

compelled to adopt some of the names of the Deity common to the mythology of the Hindoos: and, indeed, the Allah of the Arabic was nothing more than the name of an idol, previous to the times of Christian instruction in Arabia.

Now, in the case above adduced, the word af Allah has been adopted, which always conveys to the mind of a Mohammedan the notion of the true God. The word will, as it has been shewn, convey precisely the same idea. Use which you will therefore, it must be left to the industry of the reader to discover, whether it refer to Christ or not; just as it must in the original where Kupios Lord is used. No good objection can therefore be made to Ali Bey's text: nor do I see how it can possibly be amended.

The next remark is on Rev. v. 5. where we have a lion, instead of the lion. But, as the context sufficiently declares who is here meant, the insertion of the indefinite article is unimportant.

The charge next advanced by Dr. Henderson is, (p. 42.) that Ali Bey has so expressed himself in rendering Rev. vii. 10. by a mere declaration, instead of an ascription of praise to the Almighty, and the Lamb, as to convey an idea to the Mohammedan reader that the Lamb is not to be worshipped: "Our salvation is from the supreme God," and "from the Lamb. dle all

. وقوزیدن در