hoc apertius quam aliis revelavit." And Vatablus, "qui me docuit." The passage is, therefore, accurately translated, and Dr. Henderson's objection must fall to the ground.

Rev. iii. 7. “The keys of the house of David." The house, therefore, has been added. Drusius says on this passage, Τὴν κλεῖδα τοῦ Δαβίδ. Qui hanc Scripturam solicitant contra omnium codicum fidem, næ illi nesciunt quid sit mons DOMINI. Nam mons DOMINI dictum pro mons domûs DOMINI. Sic Moria vocatur. Eodum modo hîc dicitur clavis David, pro clavis domûs David. Ellipsis est si non nota tamen certa et indubitata, de qua ne Carneades quidem, si viveret, dubitaret." Grotius says it means, "plenissimum imperium in domo Dei," &c. Ali Bey has, therefore, translated this passage correctly, notwithstanding Dr. Henderson's animadversion.

عمود

pillar," &c. To

Rev. iii. 12. We have like a pillar, instead of a pillar, that is, "Him that overcometh, will I make like a make a man into a pillar, would certainly sound extremely odd in the ears of a Turk, or, indeed, in those of any other man, who had not been previously informed, that the expression is metaphorical. Bishops, and other leading persons in the Christian Church, have, it should seem, been termed pillars, because they have been considered as supporters of the Christian doctrine and

discipline, just as pillars are of the fabric of the Church they have, therefore, been considered as like pillars. The word like, therefore, as introduced above, does nothing more than supply an ellipse, without which, even the original itself cannot be understood, and the Turkish would be perfect nonsense. Schleusner says στύλος is" omne quod rectum stat, aut instar columna ascendit et sursum agitur." We may, therefore, dismiss Dr. Henderson's remark as hypercritical.

66

Our last critique is on 'a very objectionable addition of frequent occurrence; the prefixing of the word 'noble, excellent, sacred,' &c. to certain substantives, &c." I answer, the taste of the Orientals differs very widely in this, as well as many other respects, from that of Dr. Henderson. In the preface to the Turkish Psalter already noticed, this very objectionable word is employed by the Metropolitan of Angouri himself, just as it has been by Ali Bey; and in addition to one of the words adduced by Dr. Henderson, viz., which is there written ivri oeppip, the sacred Gospel. This practice, therefore, is not confined to the Mohammedans, but is used by the highest authorities in the churches of Turkey. In this case, therefore, Ali Bey has done nothing more than translate his original, by the usual modes of expression adopted among the people for whom his Work

was intended and, as the omission of this word, although not found in the original, would imply a high degree of disrespect in the estimation of every Turk, whether Mohammedan or Christian, which would not appear in reading the original, I have no doubt whatever, that Ali Bey has here done what it was his duty to do, as a faithful translator of the Scriptures.

CHAP. VIII.

RECAPITULATION OF THE ARGUMENTS ALREADY ADDUCED. ADDITIONAL CHARGES OF DR. HENDERSON GROUNDLESS. NOTICE OF THE TESTIMONY OF THE MISSIONARIES AT ASTRACHAN. DR. HENDERSON'S RETIREMENT FROM THE BIBLE SOCIETY'S SERVICE, NOT PURELY ON ACCOUNT OF THE TURKISH VERSION. CONDUCT OF THE EDITOR OF THE CHRISTIAN REMEMBRANCER NOTICED, AS ALSO THAT OF THE EDITOR OF THE NEW EVANGELICAL MAGAZINE. CONCLUSION.

IN reviewing the whole question before us, we find, that Dr. Henderson's account of the life and character of the Turkish translator, in the first place, is partial and defective:-that his statement respecting that class of translators in which he has placed him, is erroneous. His insinuations, therefore, grounded on these premises, however inapplicable they may be to the subject before us, are disingenuous.

In the next place, all the renderings of the word Oeos, which Dr. Henderson has affirmed ought to have been given by the word & Allah, consist in some word or phrase, signifying precisely the same thing, the adscititious words to which he objects, adding nothing whatever to the sense of the original. Nor are the words, so used, technical, as he has translated and represented them, but such as are in common use in works of theology. In two instances indeed the word Kupios, Lord, has been omitted; but no injury has been done to the sense of the original on that account. Nor has he proved, in any one instance, that any name found in the original has been mistranslated by Ali Bey; he has only objected to some as being inconsistent with his canons of criticism, which are, however, false.

In his next class he has objected to what he calls "The useless employment of synonymes:" but here, he has totally put out of the question the usage of the Oriental languages, and the sense of the passages which may call for such reduplication of similar words. In all these cases, no meaning has been given at variance with the original, the only sin committed by the translator being against the opinions of his Reviewer'; which, however, he has not attempted to shew are well founded.

"Want of uniformity" is the next charge: but here our Reviewer has forgotten to shew

that the laws of translation require any such uniformity, &c. as he has contended for: and the fact is, no such laws exist. And, as he has not attempted to argue in any case, that the word or phrase employed was objectionable, we may dismiss this class of remarks without further consideration.

τα

The next animadversions are on what are called "false renderings." But here the mistakes have originated not with the translator; but in Dr. Henderson's misconception of his language, or of the sense of the original so translated. In one instance, indeed, perhaps a better translation might be proposed. I mean (in p. 34,) where idolaters are put for eovn the nations or Gentiles : but it has been shewn, that this is far less objectionable than Dr. Henderson has represented it to be. Aeverlasting fire, would certainly be more literal than hell fire, (p. 35); but, as the sense is the same in both cases, the difference in words is unimportant. The instances pointed out under this, and the preceding heads, in which our Lord's divinity is said to be impugned, have been misrepresented; nothing being more certain than, that the renderings of Ali Bey establish that doctrine in the most unequivocal manner, just as they would, had the renderings proposed by Dr. Henderson himself been adopted. Many of the emendations pro