if this be the case, the Mohammedan will not be left in the dark, as to the throne on which the Faithful and true Witness declares himself to be seated; but will see, that it is the throne of God. So much for Dr. Henderson's inference, as to the Theological part of our enquiry. Let us next enquire, whether Ali Bey had any authority or not for the omission, with which he is here charged. If the reader will turn to the passage in Griesbach's Greek Testament, he will see, that these words are not found in several valuable Greek Manuscripts. That the Editio princeps of the Greek Testament, as well as that of Arethas, omits them and, that some others read the passage differently. Now, can Dr. Henderson suppose, that all this has been done, in order to leave the Mohammedans in the dark? Would it not be more just to suppose, that Ali Bey followed one or other of these copies? Dr. Henderson, however, seems to disdain making enquiry on any part of this subject, which may seem to militate against his feelings: and, what is more strange, he is careless as to the accuracy of his assertions, should his criticisms be true in other respects.

Of the nine omissions noticed by him, under this head, two of them are found in several valuable manuscripts; and of these, one has been preferred by Griesbach. Of the seven others, two can satisfactorily be accounted for by having re

course to the ellipse; and the remaining five do not in any way affect the sense.

CHAP. VII.

ON THE ADDITIONAL WORDS AND PHRASES, SAID TO EXIST IN THE VERSION OF ALI BEY.

occurs دیگر مریم ,It is true

مریم

WE now come to the last class of alledged corruptions, which is said to contain words or phrases, in addition to those found in the original. Of these the first is in Matt. xxvii. 5, 6. (an error of the press for 56.), “the other Mary," twice. twice; but the word Mary, occurs only once more than it ought to do; and "the other," twice. This is undoubtedly a fault; and, if it came from Ali Bey, the parallel passage in John xix. 25, may probably have accasioned it: for there we have an account of three Marys witnessing the crucifixion. In the passage, under consideration, we have two Marys, with the mother of Zebedee's children, to whom Ali Bey, if this be the reading of his MS., has also given the name of Mary. I have some doubts, however, whether the error is not due to the copyist. Be this as it may, it may be corrected before the version is

put into circulation, which I should recommend to be done. Professor Kieffer has, I see, corrected it in the larger table of errata, but it will be better to cancel the page.

The next animadversion is on Rom. iii. 21, where the additional word books occurs. Here Dr. Henderson remarks, "But the prophets testified of the Divine Righteousness, previous to their depositing their prophecies in writing." I answer, this may be very true, without at all affecting the question before us. If I mistake not, St. Paul here appeals not to the unwritten (if ever there was any), but to the written Revelation, "Now," says he, "the righteousness of God without the Law is manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets." By the Law, he must mean the written Law; and by the Prophets, their written testimony. As it would be absurd to appeal to that of which no one had any knowledge. Ali Bey has, therefore, very properly supplied the ellipse of the original.

Rom. iii. 22. us, is added. We have, therefore, "unto us all, and upon all them that believe." This is certainly an addition to the words of the original; but, whether it is to the sense, I am not quite so certain. The translator, no doubt, inserted the word with the view of supplying an ellipse, which he supposed to exist in the original; but, whether such ellipse

K

2

exists or not, may be fair matter for debate, as it also may, in many such instances to be found in our own authorized version. For my own part, I do not think any such ellipse exists; but I do think, that its insertion is of too little importance to warrant the suppression of the edition on its account.

which

He is mis

The next addition is Rom. x. 5. Dr. Henderson renders by precept. taken, however, for the word is in the plural number, meaning precepts. His citation is, in other respects, incorrect; for the addition is

That is, the precepts of the يعني شريعتك قرايضني

Lawo. Ali Bey, in this instance, instead of say ing those things, as in our version, gives the above translation, in which the sense of the antecedent declaration to which it refers, is fully expressed. In this instance, therefore, he has done nothing more than it was his duty to do. If Dr. Henderson has misunderstood him, he is not to be condemned on that account.

The pas

Rom. xi. 26. sons, is added. sage will, therefore, read thus: "and shall turn away ungodliness from the sons of Jacob." I suppose Dr. Henderson will allow, that Jacob himself was dead, long before this declaration was originally made. The transgressions of the Patriarch himself, therefore, could not have been meant. By a figure very often used in the Scriptures, the name of the progenitor is often

put for that of the offspring; thus, the descendants of Jacob, who was also called Israel, are often called Israel; Edom is put for the descendants of Edom, and so of others. In the above instance, Jacob is put by the same figure for the descendants of Jacob; it being absurd to suppose, that the promise could have affected one, who had been many hundred years dead. The translation of Ali Bey has, therefore, very properly supplied the ellipse of the original; and Dr. Henderson, as in many former instances, has offered an absurd remark.

Rom. xiv. 1. courteously. According to Schleusner, the Greek verb found in the original, has precisely this sense. "Benigne aliquem et humaniter tracto, favore meo dignor," &c. Rom. xiv. 1. τὸν δὲ ἀσθενοῦντα τῇ πίστει προσλαμẞáveole, eum vero, qui est fide infirma et imbecilla, benigne et humaniter quoquo modo tractate," &c. The translation is, therefore, correct. Le may be allowed to add, that without the above addition, it would have fallen short of the sense of the original.

"Rom. xiv. 14. d by the doctrine of the Lord Jesus." But Dr. Henderson's translation is here, as in some other instances, incorrect. The correct translation is, by the teachings of the Lord Jesus, which, according to the commentators, is the true meaning of the passage. "Id est," says Grotius, "per Christum, qui mihi