not conveying the idea of a divine person. The translation, therefore, must convey an idea of divinity, but the words composing it, must have no such sense! And, what is still more strange, he proposes a word conveying precisely the sense which he reprobates, and which, nevertheless, he would have the reader to understand as the true sense of the passage. I ask, can any translator, on any principles, expect to escape the lash of such a Homeromastix as this? Where is the Society of men, who can satisfy the requirements of such an Appellant, who, bidding defiance to every principle of criticism, feels, or thinks he feels, the ground firm under him, and then proceeds to arraign, condemn, and execute, for the pure love of truth?-But to proceed, “The reader will naturally conclude," continues he," that he, (that is, Crispus) had formerly been an Atheist or Idolater, but was now converted to the true God." Very true, Dr. Henderson, there are many false, though very natural conclusions, drawn from the text of Holy Writ. Crispus was, no doubt, a ruler of the Synagogue; he may, nevertheless, have been an Atheist or an Idolator, in the strict sense of those terms, and still a ruler of the Synagogue. And further, although professing a belief in the God of Israel, he may have virtually denied him, in rejecting his Messiah; and now, for the first time, have been initiated in the true faith.

There is not much stress, therefore, to be laid on the Doctor's dogmatic reasons; and his critical ones are absurd.

Let us examine the next part of this exquisite piece of criticism. "It might even be shewn, that the passage, as it stands in Ali Bey's translation, implies that Crispus became a Mohammedan." We are then gravely told, "that a book of testimony, written by some Peer

تکریمز الله تعالی در Ali, has the following passage

"The

The supreme God is our Divinity," &c. very terms used by Luke, (Ali Bey I mean,) form the distinguishing Shibboleth of the genuine Moslem, and the complete formle all! jasjli is substituted for o cos nuwv. 2 Thess. ii. 11*, &c." I remark, in the first place, that Tengri does not mean Divinity, as given by the Doctor, but God, or Lord, when applied to God. The true translation, therefore, is, The Lord is our God, and the sentiment is just as proper for a Christian or a Jew, as it is for a Mohammedan. But, what could Dr. Henderson have been thinking about, when he cited this passage, occurring in the Epistle to the Thessalonians, to prove, that Crispus was a Mohammedan? There is no mention whatever of Crispus in the chapter in which this passage is found: and, as for that in The Acts, it does not correspond

* The passage referred to, is probably 2 Thess. i. 11.

with the dogma of Peer Ali's text book; the Doctor's remark must, therefore, fall to the ground.

We may now consider the passages quoted from the Revelations, as translations of the original Κύριος ὁ Θεὸς ὁ Παντοκράτωρ, (p. 22.). It should be premised, that most of the names and epithets applied to the Deity by Mohammedans, are given in the Arabic language, as found in the Koran. In the Arabic, there are no compound words, such as Пlavтoкρáтwp Al-mighty. The expressions, therefore, which are used as equivalent to this, are a literal translation of

Upon the علي كل شي قدير or قادر it, thus الله علي كل شي being added we have الله word tadla may still be تعالي to which قدیر or قادر

added immediately after Allah. In this case we have a literal translation of ò eos ò Пavтo

κρατωρ.

:

be added, we تكري or الرب If to this

then have a literal translation of ὁ Κύριος ὁ Θεός ὁ Παντοκρατωρ.

"From this specimen, it will be seen," continues Dr. Henderson, "that in the first and last examples, (that is, in pp. 22, 23. of the Appeal,) there is no word at all answering to Kúpos; in the second, third, and fourth, it is rendered by Rebbi and Effendi; and in the fifth Tengrimuz, 'our God,' is substituted in its stead."

By the first and last examples, Dr. Henderson means, I believe, Rev. iv. 8, and xxi, 22,

in which, it is true, the Greek word Kúpios of the original, has no corresponding one in the Turkish translation. These are certainly omissions but they are the only omissions of the kind, occurring in this book. In other instances, Kúpos is rendered properly, either by Rebbi, Effendi or Tengri, as Dr. Henderson has remarked. It cannot, therefore, be inferred, that these omissions have been made through design: but, that they are mistakes of inadvertency, either by the translator, the copyist, or the printer. Another consideration is, they are unimportant, as to the scope and bearing of the context: no religious truth, whatever, suffering in consequence of them. In this instance, therefore, the table of errata will set the matter right.

Dr. Henderson thinks, indeed, that the addition of a table of errata is most objectionable; and, in proof of this opinion, he has adduced a Persian exile, (pp. 58, 59) expressing his fear, lest a work, having such an appendage, should be a false Gospel. In answer to all this, I would merely observe, that no such fear as this is expressed by the Mohammedans themselves, with respect to the Koran. Any one, who can consult the Commentaries of Jelál Oddeen and Beidawi will see, that they make no scruple in allowing, that various readings are found to exist in the different copies of the Koran itself. And, in other books, nothing is more common,

than a hope expressed by the copyist in the epigraphe, that the reader would pardon and correct his mistakes. A Persian slave, indeed, might be unacquainted with these facts; but, if the Bible Society is to be governed in its proceedings by a fear, that they may be misunderstood by a Persian slave, then had they better not circulate the Persian Scriptures at all, lest such a person, being unlearned, should wrest them to his own destruction. I am inclined to think, therefore, that a table of errata, supplying such defects as the above, will not be objected to, by any well educated Mohammedan. And for this end alone it was, that the table of errata was originally projected. This may, perhaps, suffice on this subject.

Dr. Henderson proceeds: "In the second, third, and fourth (examples, Kúpos) is rendered by Rebbi and Effendi."

To the first of these, viz. Rebbi, he will, of course, make no objection, as it is the very word which he himself has proposed. To the second, indeed, namely Effendi, he has expressed strong objections. Of the propriety of applying this word to the Deity, he, at first, entertained very strong doubts, (p. 23.) and, upon further enquiry from a well educated Persian, he was informed, with the most frightful contortions of visage expressed by his informant, that no such word could ever be applied to the Deity, (ibid.).