BS460 
 .TSH4S 
 
(If THF. 
 AT 
 
 PRINCETON, N. J. 
 
 SAMUEL AaNE\V, 
 
 OF PHILADF, LPHIA, PA. 
 
 q4^o 
 
 I) .'£>s4^fo.a.. i 
 

THE 
 
 INCAPABLE OF DEFENCE, 
 
 TRUE PRINCIPLES OF BIBLICAL TRANSLATION 
 VINDICATED : 
 
 IN ANSWER TO 
 
 PROFESSOR LEE'S "REMARKS 
 DR.;llENDERSON'S APPEAL 
 
 THE BIBLE SOCIETY, 
 
 ON THE SUBJECT OF THE 
 
 TURKISH VERSION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, 
 PRINTED AT PARIS IN 1819." 
 
 BY THE 
 
 AUTHOR OF THE APPEAL. 
 
 'YnOTVnQSIN EXE "YriAINONTQN AOFQN, 2 Tm. i. 13. 
 
 NON TALI AUXILIO, NEC DEFENSORIBUS ISTIS 
 TEMPUS EGET. Virgil, 
 
 LONDON: 
 
 PRINTED FOR C. AND J. RIVINGTON, 
 
 ST. Paul's church-yard, waterloo-place, and 148, strand. 
 
 MDCCCXXV. 
 
LONDON: 
 PRINTED BY R. GILBERT, 
 
 ST. John's squabf. 
 
TO THE READER. 
 
 Lest it should be supposed from the length of 
 time which has elapsed since the appearance of 
 Professor Lee's Remarks, that the author of the 
 following reply has experienced some serious 
 difficulties in meeting the arguments contained 
 in that pamphlet, he considers it due, injustice 
 to himself and his cause, to apprize the reader, 
 that his MS. was forwarded from Russia a few 
 days after the date affixed to the Preface ; but, 
 owing to circumstances over which he had no 
 control, its publication has been delayed till 
 now. 
 
 BRIGHTON, 
 Sept. 19, 1825. 
 
 A 2 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 That the Committee of the British and Foreign 
 Bible Society had been grossly imposed upon 
 in regard to Ali Bey's Turkish Version of the 
 New Testament, was evident to my mind soon 
 after I commenced the perusal of it ; but I 
 certainly had not the most distant conception 
 that their adoption of it was so unqualified and 
 irrevocable, as to induce them to resist an honest 
 and direct attempt to place in a proper light the 
 egregious errors and inconsistencies with which 
 that volume abounds. Such, however, was 
 found to be the case; and neither the remon- 
 strances which were made in private, nor a 
 public act of separation from the Society, pro- 
 duced any efficient change in the measures 
 resorted to for proceeding in the distribution 
 
vi PREFACE. 
 
 of the copies. Under these circumstances, I 
 conceived it to be my duty, as a last effort to 
 arrest the progress of corruption, and provoke a 
 keen and unslumbering jealousy over such ver- 
 sions as might be recommended to the Society, 
 to publish an Appeal to the Members of that 
 Institution, in which, besides inserting the re- 
 marks originally submitted to the Committee, 
 I made several additional disclosures on the 
 subject of the work, and endeavoured to bring 
 the whole before the public in such a manner 
 as to satisfy every candid mind, that it is alto- 
 gether unworthy of those who published it, and 
 who were afterwards advised to persist in circu- 
 lating it among Mohammedan unbelievers. 
 
 Considering the strong feeling which existed 
 against the individual who had thus dared to 
 impugn the Turkish ^ ersion, and the marked 
 determination that had been manifested to sup- 
 port its character, it was impossible not to ex- 
 pect that some public notice would be taken of 
 the Appeal by which its errors were exposed, 
 and that some attempt would be made to in- 
 validate the arguments contained in it ; but, I 
 must confess, I had no anticipation that I was 
 
 13 
 
PREFACE. Vii 
 
 to be attacked by the Arabic Professor at Cam- 
 bridge, at the head of a regularly marshalled 
 army of " learned Orientalists/' part of which, 
 according to the Eclectic Reviewer*, consisted 
 of a phalanx of no less note than " the whole 
 Asiatic Society of Paris/' When first apprized 
 of the fact, that so formidable a body was bear- 
 ing down upon me, it was natural enough to be 
 conscious of some momentary feelings of alarm ; 
 but I no sooner obtained a view of its real 
 strength, and the nature and disposition of its 
 operations, than I perceived, that whatever 
 abilities the different champions might indivi- 
 dually possess, and however formidable it might 
 be to meet them in any other field, they were, 
 on the present occasion, enlisted in a combat 
 for which they had not been previously disci- 
 plined, and that there was, therefore, no serious 
 cause of apprehension respecting the result. 
 
 With the critical theories of Professor Lee, 
 the public were previously acquainted ; his re- 
 marks on my Appeal disclose to us the opinions 
 which he holds on the subject of Biblical trans- 
 
 * June 1824, p. 536. 
 
viii PREFACE. 
 
 lation, many of them novel, and most of them 
 having a direct tendency to cast the Word of 
 God " in a mould accommodated to individual 
 fancy and conceit/' than which nothing is more 
 to be deprecated by all who feel a solicitude to 
 preserve that word purt^ and incorrupt, and 
 transmit it to our fellow-men in possession of as 
 much of its native garb and energy, as the di- 
 versity of languages will possibly allow. Indeed, 
 so completely are the principles advanced in the 
 Remarks at variance with sound Biblical criti- 
 cism, enlightened Christian taste, and the prac- 
 tice of the best translators in every age, that 
 were it not for the glare of Oriental learning by 
 which they are surrounded, I might safely have 
 left them to be confronted with the naked and 
 unsupported statements contained in the Appeal, 
 in order to produce a satisfactory conviction in 
 the mind of the reader, that they are equally 
 insufficient to exculpate the particular version 
 in question, as they are perfectly inadmissible 
 in regard to any other translation of the Holy 
 Scriptures. That the Author should have risked 
 his reputation as a scholar, a theologian, and 
 a critic, by the use of such arguments as have 
 been selected in defence of Ali Bey, is really 
 
PREFACE. ix 
 
 incomprehensible : that the futihty and inepti- 
 tude of these arguments should be detected, 
 and the dangerous consequences pointed out, 
 which are likely to result from an adoption of 
 the Professor's principles by Biblical translators, 
 or a blind deference to his advice on the part 
 of those who are engaged in publishing new 
 versions of the Scriptures, is a duty imperiously 
 binding on those whose talents and responsibi- 
 lities call them to the task. If any hints, con- 
 tained in the following pages, should be the 
 means of exciting greater attention to the sub- 
 ject, and lead to an able discussion of its dif- 
 ferent parts, by those who are thoroughly versed 
 in Biblical criticism and interpretation, I shall 
 consider one of their principal ends as gained ; 
 whatever may be the result in regard to the 
 Paris edition of the Turkish Testament, or what- 
 ever opinion may be formed of my concern in 
 the affair. 
 
 Towards the Author of the Remarks, per- 
 sonally, I am not conscious of entertaining any 
 feelings of an unfriendly or unchristian nature. 
 If I have made a liberal use of his name, it was 
 because I could not avoid it ; and even the words 
 
X PREFACE. 
 
 " Opponent" and " antagonist'' (I do not recoil 
 lect that I have used " adversary'') which some- 
 times occur, are employed merely to vary the 
 mode of expression, not to indicate any thing 
 like a feeling of rancour or spleen. In the dis- 
 cussion, however, of questions like the present, 
 it is of inferior consideration what may be 
 thought of our individual attitude towards one 
 another. In the course of a few years at most, 
 we shall both have gone to give in our account 
 to the Searcher of hearts, and Author of that 
 Book to which the controversy has respect ; but 
 the eifects of this controversy in its influence on 
 new versions, or the revision of old ones, will, I 
 am persuaded, continue to operate, either in 
 guarding the sacred diction of Scripture from 
 desecration, or in surrendering it to the plastic 
 hand of fancy and error, to the obscuration of 
 Divine truth, and the beguilement of the pre- 
 cious and immortal souls of men. 
 
 I sincerely regret that my answer has been 
 swelled to such an immoderate length, and that 
 I should have been under the necessity of in- 
 commoding the reader by the frequent introduc- 
 tion of Oriental words ; but the former has been 
 
PREFACE. xi 
 
 occasioned by the detail into which Professor 
 Lee has gone in his Remarks, and the latter has 
 unavoidably arisen out of the nature of the sub- 
 ject. 
 
 As the passage in Ali Bey's version in which 
 the Lamb solemnly interdicts his own worship 
 (Rev. xxii. 8, 9.) has been cancelled, and no 
 attempt has been made in its vindication, it was 
 considered unnecessary to say more respecting 
 an error of such alarming magnitude. I may 
 here be permitted, however, to observe, in reply 
 to Professor Lee's pointed query. Whether I 
 was or was not in possession of the fact of its 
 cancelment at the time I published my Appeal ? 
 that I certainly was acquainted with it ; but he 
 cannot be ignorant, that the document which 
 disclosed the error, was written as far back as 
 the month of March, 1820, and he has shewn 
 no good cause why I should have suppressed 
 this part of the document when inserting it in 
 the Appeal, especially as I there * explicitly 
 refer to the cancelling of the sheet, as the only 
 step which the Committee then deemed neces- 
 sary in purification of the edition. 
 
 * Pages 50, 51. 
 
xii PREFACE. 
 
 With regard to the culpabiHty with which I 
 am charged by the Professor for not making 
 enquiries relative to the errata, or the further 
 fate of Ah's version, I can only say, that I 
 never met with any great encouragement to in- 
 stitute them. The public are informed, indeed, 
 by a Gentleman who appears not to be altoge- 
 ther unacquainted with the arcana of the busi- 
 ness, that " the cancels and errata were fully 
 agreed upon at a meeting of the Sub Commit- 
 tee held Sept. 9> 1822 ; and they were then 
 forwarded to Dr. Henderson * ;" but I can assure 
 him, that no such documents ever reached me ; 
 and, if it had not been that my worthy col- 
 league. Dr. Paterson, was furnished with a copy 
 of said errata and cancels on his visit to Paris in 
 the spring of last year, I might have remained 
 till this moment perfectly ignorant of their na- 
 ture and extent. 
 
 It is also stated in the list of Committee 
 Meetings, inserted in Professor Lee^s Appendix, 
 that it was resolved by the Committee, Jan. 20, 
 1823, that " copies^' of " the cancel leaves and 
 Table of Errata,^' " be sent to places whither 
 
 * Eclectic Review, ut sup. p. b^d. 
 
PREFACE. Xiii 
 
 Turkish Testaments have been forwarded/' 
 Whether this resolution has been conscienti- 
 ously carried into effect with regard to other 
 places, I have not the opportunity of knowing ; 
 but so much is certain, that no such cancels or 
 Tables of Errata have ever been sent to Russia, 
 nor have any steps been taken to liberate the 
 copies of AH Bey's New Testament which have 
 been put under arrest in this country. 
 
 With respect to the Table of Errata itself, 
 which, we are informed, consisted originally of 
 219 faults, but was reduced, at the instance of 
 Professor Lee and others, to the moderate num- 
 ber of 49j I can only observe, that I have seen 
 no reason to alter my opinion as stated in the 
 Appeal (p. 57), that it must " amount, if any 
 thing like justice be done to the text, to nearly 
 a third part of the volume." What I mean by 
 doing justice to the text, is, to use the words of 
 the Committee in that part of their resolution of 
 Aug. 9, 1821, which relates to the Old Testa- 
 ment, to ''^purify it of every thing extraneous 
 or supplementary, as far as the genius of the 
 Turkish language will admit/' Until this be 
 done, I must sustain my charge, that " there 
 
xiv PREFACE. 
 
 IS NOT A PAGE, NOR SCARCELY A VERSE IN 
 THE VOLUME THAT DOES NOT CONTAIN 
 SOMETHING OR OTHER OF AN OBJECTION- 
 ABLE nature/' 
 
 I now leave it with the candid reader, after 
 perusing the following pages, to say whether 
 there be not serious cause for apprehension, that, 
 if such versions or editions are sanctioned by 
 the Bible Society, a just handle will be given 
 to those who are hostile to the circulation of 
 the Scriptures in the vulgar tongues, to renew 
 the language of the Rhemish translators : " To 
 say nothing of their intolerable liberty and 
 licence to change the accustomed callings of 
 God, angels, men, places, and things, used by 
 the Apostles, and all antiquity in Greek, Latin, 
 and all other languages of Christian nations, 
 into new names, sometimes falsely, and always 
 ridiculously : to fit and frame the phrase of 
 Holy Sci'ipture after the forme of prophane 
 writers, sticking not for the same, to supply, 
 adde, alter, or diminish, as freely as if they 
 translated Livy, Virgil, or Terence. Having 
 no religious respect to keep either the majesty, 
 or sincere simplicity of that venerable style of 
 
PREFACE. XV 
 
 Christ's Spirit, as S. Augustine speaketh ; which 
 kind the Holy Spirit did chuse of infinite wis- 
 dom, to have the divine mysteries rather uttered 
 in, than any other more delicate, much less in 
 this meretricious manner of writing.'* 
 
 KH. 
 
 ST. PETERSBURGH, 
 Stft. 24, 1824. 
 
THE 
 
 TURKISH TESTAMENT 
 
 INCAPABLE OF DEFENCE. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 Bearing of the Controversi/ on modem Versions of the Scrip- 
 tures. Classification of Versions. The Verbal condemned. 
 Karaite Tatar Manuscript. Importance of literal Versions. 
 Character of Castalio's Tramlation. The Authority of 
 Jerome and Dathe improperly alleged by Professor Lee. 
 The Design of Dathe^s Version. Specimen of its Manner. 
 Question not to be decided by the Practice of liberal 
 Translators. 
 
 In publishing my Appeal on the subject of the 
 Turkish Scriptures, I had a twofold object in 
 view : first, the suppression of an edition of the 
 New Testament which I conceived to contain a 
 representation of that invaluable portion of Divine 
 Truth equally unworthy of its high and sacred 
 character, and of the Society whose Committee 
 had been advised to publish it; and, secondly, 
 the excitement of public attention to the subject 
 
of Biblical translations in general, the importance 
 of their being conducted on properly matured 
 principles, and the necessity of submitting such 
 versions to a severe and thorough scrutiny as are 
 adopted for circulation among those who have 
 hitherto been destitute of the sacred oracles. 
 
 Whatever may be the result as to the former of 
 these points, — whether the remaining copies of 
 the Paris edition of Ali Bey's Turkish New Tes- 
 tament will still be put into the hands of the 
 Infidels, or, whether the good sense, the correct 
 taste, and the Christian principle of British 
 divines, and a numerous body of British Chris- 
 tians, will prove superior to the influence of a 
 vague and superficial opinion obtained from gen- 
 tlemen, skilled indeed in the Oriental languages, 
 but who, there is reason to believe, are little 
 habituated to the study of the Bible : — still, the 
 less ostensible, but more important object will, I 
 doubt not, be attained ; and should this anticipa- 
 tion be realized, the circumstance will prove a 
 source of satisfaction to my mind, far outweigh- 
 ing the trouble occasioned by the controversy; 
 or the odium attempted to be thrown on my 
 character by those who may have espoused the 
 more popular, but totally untenable side of the 
 question. 
 
 It was therefore with much pleasure that I 
 found Professor Lee had allotted a considerable 
 13 
 
part of the first chapter of his Remarks to the 
 investigation of just principles of translation ; and, 
 as the subject is confessedly of essential moment, 
 especially in the present day, when so many new 
 versions of the Bible are preparing, I hope I may 
 claim the indulgence of the reader while I devote 
 a few pages to it, in order more determinately to 
 fix the real state of the question to be discussed 
 in the following chapters, and furnish some ad- 
 ditional hints to those who are engaged in the 
 work of translation, or who may be charged with 
 the highly responsible office of judging what ver- 
 sions are proper to be adopted for general circu- 
 lation. 
 
 In the Remarks originally submitted to the 
 Committee of the British and Foreign Bible 
 Society, and afterwards embodied in the Appeal, 
 I observed, that " the numerous translations of 
 the Holy Scriptures which exist both in ancient 
 and modern languages, have generally been di- 
 vided into two kinds : such as are literal and 
 closely adhere to the text ; and the free or liberal, 
 in which greater attention is paid to elegance of 
 style, than to art exact representation of the 
 original*." The accuracy of this statement is 
 questioned by Professor Lee f ; yet, instead of 
 fairly meeting the argument, he proceeds to shift 
 
 * Appeal, p. 15, f Remarks, p. 8. 
 
 B 2 
 
it, and involves the w^hole subject in obscurity, 
 by confounding the very obvious distinction be- 
 tween a literal and a servile or merely verbal trans- 
 lation. In classifying the generality of Biblical 
 versions, it never once entered my mind to advert 
 to those which are of so servile a character as to 
 consist merely of words inflexibly corresponding 
 in number, and the order of their arrangement, to 
 the words of the original. Such barbarous, pre- 
 posterous, and contemptible metaphrases, alto- 
 gether unworthy of any but a school-boy of the 
 lowest class, can never, without a dereliction of 
 every sound principle of association, be compre- 
 hended under the name of literal translations. 
 Of this kind of absurd and distorted representa- 
 tions of the original, we possess abundant speci- 
 mens in Aquila, the Philoxenian Syriac, the Latin 
 version of Sanctes Pagninus, and that of his im- 
 prover in the art. Arias Montanus. 
 
 That the Committee of the Bible Society has 
 not published one of the most complete and cu- 
 rious specimens of the servile that ever emanated 
 from the Synagogue, at all times famous for 
 monstrous forms, is, I believe, chiefly owing to 
 the same influence, which has been, and still is 
 exerted, to prevent, if possible, the circulation of 
 the Turkish New Testament. The production I 
 refer to, is the Karaite Tatar manuscript, of which 
 mention has repeatedly been made in the Reports 
 
of the Society. In this work, not only is the same 
 order of the words retained which exists in the 
 original, but every idiom and grammatical form ; 
 and every particle of the Hebrew language is so 
 rigidly expressed, that, with little trouble, the 
 whole might be rendered back again into He- 
 brew, so as to furnish an exact copy of the ex- 
 emplar from which it was made. Indeed, its 
 servility is such, that, besides now and then sug- 
 gesting a proper word to a Tatar translator, it is 
 of no practical use whatever; the Tatar and 
 Hebrew languages differing so entirely in their 
 structure and conformation: and, it can only be 
 considered as valuable in a critical point of view, 
 as exhibiting the readings of the Hebrew ma- 
 nuscript from which it was derived, and as deve- 
 loping the principles of interpretation obtaining 
 in the Karaite school at the period of its compo- 
 sition. 
 
 The fact, however, that I did not include ver- 
 sions of this description in the former class of my 
 division, is admitted by Professor Lee*, who 
 quotes a passage from the Appeal, to prove, that 
 my opinion on the subject of translation, coincides 
 with that of Jerome, Dathe, and himself. It is as 
 follows: "While, on the one hand, a translator 
 of the Scriptures is studiously to avoid such a 
 
 • Remarks, p. 14. 
 
scrupulous adherence to the letter as would do 
 violence to the genius of the language into which 
 his version is made, and necessarily render the 
 version harsh, obscure, or unintelligible ; he is, 
 on the other hand, equally to guard against the 
 adoption of any words, phrases, or modes of con- 
 struction, that would, in any way, injure the 
 spirit and manner of the original, or convey one 
 shade of meaning, more or less, than what it was 
 designed to express*." It is nevertheless evident 
 from this, as well as other parts of the Remarks, 
 that, much as we may be agreed in rejecting the 
 verbal mode of translation, we are completely at 
 variance with respect to the real character of the 
 literal, as well as to the class of translators whose 
 method ought to be recommended for adoption in 
 all popular versions of the Scriptures ; for while 
 the learned Professor joins issue with the free or 
 liberal translator who does not consider himself 
 to be tied down to the peculiar phraseology of 
 the Bible, but is at liberty so to change and 
 accommodate it as shall best suit the received 
 forms of expression existing among the people 
 for whose use he is preparing his version, I main- 
 tain, that those translations only are entitled to 
 the character of good and faithful, which not 
 merely convey the precise ideas contained in the 
 
 * Appeal, p. 16. 
 
original, but give them in language as nearly 
 assimilated to that in which it was written, as the 
 natural and grammatical idioms of the new dialect 
 will allow. He avers, indeed, that *' as far as his 
 enquiries have gone, he knows of no instance, in 
 which that class of translators" of which he ap- 
 proves, " has professedly paid a greater attention 
 to the elegance of style than to an exact repre- 
 sentation of the precise force of the original * ;" 
 and in this statement, I believe, he is not far 
 from the truth. But the reader will perceive 
 that the ground of the argument is here com- 
 pletely changed; the point of debate not being 
 ** an exact representation oi the precise force,'' but 
 an exact representation of the jji^ecise manner of 
 the original, as far as the idioms of the vernacular 
 language will admit. The moment we concede 
 to a translator the licence of merely giving what 
 he may conceive to be the force of his author's 
 expressions, and not the identical expressions 
 themselves, to the utmost extent of the rules 
 imposed upon him by a just system of philology, 
 we surrender the sacred dictates of the Spirit to 
 the whims of human caprice, and open the flood- 
 gates of imposition and error. Hence the wisdom 
 of that saying of Augustine: "we must speak 
 according to a set rule, lest licence of words 
 
 * Remarks, p. 8. 
 
should generate some wicked opinion concerning 
 the things contained under the words *." 
 
 As I had adduced Castalio as an example of 
 the class I condemned, on account of their sacri- 
 ficing fidelity to elegance, Professor Lee gives us 
 in a note t» a declaration made by that author in 
 the dedication of his work to Edward the Sixth, 
 in which he states fidelity to be one of the prin- 
 cipal ends he had in view in preparing his trans- 
 lation ; but it must be obvious to every one who 
 is at all acquainted with the subject, that he only 
 means fidelity in regard to the general bearing 
 and sense, but not to the manner of the original. 
 It is maintained by an able Scripture critic J, 
 that it was confessedly, in a high degree, Cas- 
 talio's object in translating, to express with ele- 
 gance and in an oratorical manner, the sense of 
 the text. And if this was the case, how unwilling 
 soever we may be to accuse him of infidelity in 
 representing the meaning, it is impossible to ab- 
 
 • De Civit. Dei, Lib. X. Cap. 12. It was in reference to the 
 abandonment of the Scripture phraseology, and the adoption of 
 native modes of expression, that Gilbert Wakefield says ; " I have 
 followed my inclination here in anglicising the peculiar phrase- 
 ology of the original, and would gladly have followed it on many 
 other occasions, if prejudices could have borne it." Notes or 
 Philemon. 
 
 f Page 9. 
 
 X Campbell on the Gospels, Dissert. X. Part iv. §.2. 
 
solve him from the charge of unfaithfully repre- 
 senting the manner of the original. In a just 
 exhibition of the character of the sacred writer's 
 style, he not only failed entirelyy but even inten- 
 tionally ; it being his professed design, to meet 
 the literary prejudices of those whose classical 
 taste was shocked by the Latinity of the Vulgate, 
 but who, it was supposed, might be tempted to 
 peruse the sacred volume, if put into their hands 
 in a beautiful and ornamented dialect. Of the 
 relevancy of these remarks to the version of Ali 
 Bey, evidence, which the Professor has not been 
 able to invalidate, has been furnished in the 
 Appeal, and will receive still further corrobora- 
 tion in the course of the following chapters. 
 
 In producing the authority of Jerome relative 
 to the best manner of translation, my opponent 
 should not have omitted to notice, that the letter 
 to Pammachius, containing the sentiments of that 
 Father on the subject, was written in the heat of 
 controversy, at a time when his mind was ruffled 
 by the accusations of Ruffinus, and cannot, there- 
 fore, be regarded as furnishing us with the cool 
 and deliberate views of this learned man, on a 
 subject with which he had rendered himself fa- 
 miliar, in a degree unequalled by any of the other 
 Fathers. The circumstances of the case are these : 
 certain letters from the Pope Epiphanius to John, 
 Bishop of Jerusalem, having come into the hands 
 
10 
 
 of Eusebius of Cremona, this monk, not under- 
 standing the language in which they were written, 
 requested Jerome to furnish him with a transla- 
 tion of them. This task the Father performed in 
 his usual hurried manner, " Accitoque notario, 
 raptim celeriterque dictavi," not regarding the 
 manner or style in which he made the translation, 
 but merely executing it in such a manner as he 
 thought sufficient to give Eusebius an idea of the 
 contents of the original letters. It so happening, 
 however, that Jerome's translation, which had 
 been intended only to meet the eye of a private 
 friend, came abroad ; and, having found its way 
 into the hands of his adversaries, a great handle 
 was made of the manner of its execution. To 
 justify himself from the aspersions thus thrown 
 on his character, he wrote the epistle above 
 referred to, De optimo gcnere inter pretandi, in 
 which, whatever he may have affirmed relative 
 to the absurdity of translating ad verhum, we find 
 the following remarkable words, which Professor 
 Lee should by no means have omitted in his 
 quotations : " Ego enim non solum fateor, sed 
 libera voce profiteer, me in interpretatione Gree- 
 
 COrum, ABSQUE SCEIPTURIS SACRIS UBI ET 
 VERBORUM ORDO MYSTERIUM EST, non VCrbum 6 
 
 verbo, sed sensum exprimere de sensu. Habeoque 
 hujus rei magistrum TuUium, qui Protagoram Pla- 
 tonis, et (Economicon Xenophontis, et iEschynis 
 
n 
 
 ac Demosthenis cluas contra se orationes pulcher- 
 rimas transtulit : quanta in illis prsetermisit, 
 quanta addiderat, quanta mutaverit ut proprie- 
 tates alterius linguae suis proprietatibus expli- 
 caret, non est hujus tempore dicere." Is it not 
 evident from this passage, that what Jerome pro- 
 fessedly treats of, is not the best manner of ex- 
 ecuting a Biblical translation, but that to be 
 adopted in translating merely human writings; and 
 that, although, in the latter case, he conceived 
 himself fully justified by the illustrious example 
 of Tully, in omitting, adding, or changing, what 
 he did not find congenial with modes of expres- 
 sion already established among the Latins; yet, 
 he by no means considered himself authorized to 
 take any such liberties with the word of God, in 
 which he says the very order of the ivo7^ds is a 
 mystery ? 
 
 I grant that he appeals to Scripture in vindica- 
 tion of the free mode of translation, and adduces 
 numerous examples of the discrepancies existing 
 between the quotation made by Christ and his 
 Apostles in the New Testament, and the original 
 words of the Old ; but I am yet to be informed, 
 that he intends to infer from this circumstance, 
 that a translator of the Holy Scriptures is not to 
 be taxed with infidelity if he allow himself to 
 introduce similar discrepancies into his version. 
 The Professor employs it, indeed, as an argu- 
 
12 
 
 ment to prove, that we need not be very nice in 
 regard to uniformity * ; yet, I presume most 
 readers will agree with me in maintaining, that 
 what Christ himself, and his inspired Apostles 
 did, in quoting, referring, or alluding to the words 
 of the Old Testament, can never, with any pro- 
 priety, be construed into an argument to warrant 
 translators to perform their task, as if they did it 
 from memory, or merely referred to the original, 
 without any regard to scrupulous accuracy and 
 close imitation. Jerome, even goes so far as to 
 say, that St. Paul, in quoting Isa. Ixiv. 4. ** non 
 verbum expressit e verbo, sed irapatppaffTiKwg, eun- 
 dem sensum aliis sermonibus indicavit;" and with 
 respect to the discrepancy between Zach. xiii. 7. 
 and Matt. xxvi. 31. ** In hoc, ut arbitror, loco, 
 juxta quorundam prudentiam evangelista piaculi 
 reus est, quod ausus est prophetae verba ad Dei 
 referre personam." Would it, therefore, be lawful 
 in a translator, thus to paraphrase, or, from any 
 principles of prudence or accommodation to his 
 peculiar views, to alter the original, and make it 
 speak his own sentiments ? Against all such liber- 
 ties, the Father himself protests in his Epist. ad 
 Paulin. *' Taceo," says he, " de mei sirailibus 
 qui si forte ad scripturas sanctas, post seculares 
 litteras venerint, et set^mone composito aurem populi 
 
 * Page 61. 
 
13 
 
 mulserint ; quidquid dixerint, hoc legem Dei pu- 
 tant, nee scire dignantur quid prophetcB, quid Apos- 
 toll senserint, sed ad sensum suum incongrua aptaiit 
 testimonia." 
 
 It must also be observed, that when Jerome 
 condemns Aquila for his KaKot.ri\ia, it is not so 
 much for his verbal manner, although this also 
 met with his reprobation, as on account of the 
 etymological nicety with which that Jewish 
 translator attempted to render the words of the 
 original : " Qui non solum," says he, " verba, 
 sed etymologias quoque verborum transferre conatus 
 est." That he did not always entertain so bad 
 an opinion of him, appears from his Comment, 
 in Hos. ii., where he calls him " curiosum et 
 diligentem interpretem ;" and Epist. cxxv. ad Da- 
 masum, he writes; "Aquila 7ion contensiosus, ut 
 quidam putant, sed studiosus verbum interpretatur 
 ad verbum" 
 
 Were this a proper place to examine minutely 
 the manner in which this learned Father con- 
 ducted his own translation from the Hebrew, 
 considerable light might be thrown on his prac- 
 tical views of the subject; but we shall not, 
 perhaps, be wide of the mark, if we consider them 
 as being in unison with his declaration in the 
 Preface to Esther : ** Librum Hesther variis trans- 
 latoribus constat esse vitiatum, quem ego de ar- 
 chivis Hebraeorum revelans, verbu7n e verbo e.v~ 
 
14 
 
 pressius transtuli" taken together with that in his 
 Preface to Job : ** Haec autem translatio nullum 
 de veteribus sequitur interpretem, sed ex ipso 
 Hebraico Arabicoque sermone, et interdum Syro, 
 nunc verba, nunc sensus, nunc simul utrumque re- 
 sonabit" What he means exactly when he says 
 that there is a mystery in the order of the words 
 of Scripture, it is perhaps impossible to deter- 
 mine. The word was much in vogue among 
 ecclesiastical writers in the fourth, and some 
 succeeding centuries, and it often occurs in con- 
 nections in which those who used it scarcely seem 
 to have affixed any meaning to it at all. We even 
 find it employed in the same manner by so late a 
 writer as the Jesuit Possevini, who is cited with 
 approbation by Bishop Walton, in the Prolego- 
 mena to his Polyglot, for saying, ** Tot esse He- 
 braica in Scriptura sacramenta, quot literae ; tot 
 mysteria, quot puncta ; tot arcana, quot apices *." 
 It may, however, be affirmed with certainty, that 
 Jerome conceived some degree of sacred import- 
 ance to attach to the method in which the words 
 of Holy Scripture are disposed, which renders it 
 unwarrantable in a translator to treat them as he 
 might those of a human composition, omitting, 
 adding to them, moulding, and transposing them 
 at his pleasure. 
 
 * Campbell ut sup. Dissert. IX. Part i. §. 1. 
 
15 
 
 I will not accuse Professor Lee of unfairness, 
 though I certainly cannot exculpate him from 
 the charge of criminal inattention, in applying to 
 our present subject the words of Dathe in his 
 Preface to the minor Prophets. The direct ten- 
 dency of the quotation introduced into the Re- 
 marks *, from that able and judicious Scripture 
 critic, is to impress the mind of the reader with 
 an idea, that the principles of translation there 
 laid down, were designed to bear upon popular 
 versions of the Scriptures, and that his work was 
 intended to serve as a model for the construction 
 of such versions. Now this was by no means the 
 case. Towards the conclusion of the very sentence 
 preceding that with which the Professor's quota- 
 tion commences, Dathe explicitly declares, " nee 
 sine praevia admonitione Lectorem admittere ad 
 lectionem mte)y?^etationis, qucs, a vulgari i^atione 
 hand parum recedit, et in qua conficienda leges 
 mihi scripsi, quas nolim lectores ignorare, quos 
 judices kujus versionis habere cupiam." And in 
 his Preface to the Psalms, he says expressly; 
 " Idem enim consilium sequendum fuit, quod in 
 caeteris universae Veteris Testamenti versionis mese 
 partibus mihi proposueram, scilicet ut verba i/e- 
 braica dare et persjjicue redderenif quo htijus lingua 
 studiosi quasi manu ducerentur ad textum originalem 
 
 * Page 13. 
 
16 
 
 rede intelligendum et eo'plicandum ;" which state- 
 ment we find repeated in the Prefaces to the 
 Pentateuch and Job. The fact is, as he himself 
 informs us *, it was his object to furnish a version 
 corresponding to the second kind of translation 
 proposed by Griesbach f, as ranking next to what 
 the great critic calls a public or Church version, 
 namely, one which neither closely follows the 
 letter of the text, nor swells out into paraphrase, 
 but gives the ideas of the original, stripped of 
 their Hebraistic forms, so as to be read with all 
 the ease of original composition. It was designed, 
 not for common readers, but for the learned, par- 
 ticularly such as were engaged in the study of 
 the Hebrew original ; consequently, the rules of 
 translation, according to which it was conducted, 
 and which are detailed in the Preface quoted by 
 Professor Lee, cannot, with any degree of con- 
 sistency, be urged as authority to determine the 
 manner in which popular, or, as Griesbach calls 
 them, public or Church versions, ought to be 
 executed. Indeed, it is only necessary to glance 
 at the otherwise highly valuable work of Dathe, 
 to perceive its total unfitness to serve as a model 
 of this kind of translation ; of this I shall ad- 
 duce the following instances as a specimen. Hos. 
 i. 2. mn^ nn»D v'^J^n mm mr o, which is pro- 
 
 • Preefat. in Pentat. p. iv. 
 
 •f Repertory of Biblical and Oriental Literature, Part VI. p. 2. 
 
17 
 
 perly rendered, " For the land hath committed 
 great whoredom against Jehovah :" Dathe trans- 
 lates thus ; Sic enim populus iste pro casto met 
 amore, alios deos amove impuro prosequitur. II. 16. 
 11"Tan n^JlDbni TX^PSD Oi^< mn pb *' Notwithstand- 
 ing I will allure her, and lead her into the wil- 
 derness :" Veru77i enim vero deinde earn ad saniorem 
 mentem revocabo, atque in deserto, quo a me deducta 
 est, &c. IV. 4. IHD •'inDD "iDin *' And thy people 
 are as they that strive with the priest :" Omnes 
 enini capitalium criminum rei sunt. Habak. ii. 4. 
 rvir inilDXn pmi " But the just by his faith shall 
 live :" Sed pius propter illam Jidem suam ejus imple- 
 mentum videbit. 
 
 Having thus shewn, to the satisfaction, I trust, 
 of the impartial reader, that the authorities of 
 Jerome and Dathe, as alleged in the Remarks, 
 are altogether inapplicable to the argument rela- 
 tive to such versions of the sacred Scriptures as 
 are designed for general use, it cannot be matter 
 of surprise that I should hesitate to subscribe to 
 the conclusion at which Professor Lee arrives, 
 p. 15. ** The principle, therefore, adopted by the 
 second class of translators, is that by which we 
 are agreed that the merits of the question before 
 us shall be tried ; which is, indeed, the only one 
 to which we can have recourse, whether we take 
 the path which is obviously pointed out by the 
 necessity of the case, or are guided by the prac- 
 
 c 
 
18 
 
 tice of the best translators, both of ancient and 
 modern times." How could it be expected that 
 I should agree to decide the question by the prin- 
 ciples or practice of liberal translators, when this 
 was the very class which I so strongly con- 
 demned ? And how can my rejection of the 
 purely verbal manner, be fairly construed into 
 an approval of the opposite extreme ? The neces- 
 sity of the case will, I believe, be found to be of 
 so pressing a nature as to require a perfect ac- 
 commodation of the language of the Bible, to 
 exactly the same forms of speech which pre- 
 viously exist among mankind; to judge from the 
 best popular versions, of which our own stands in 
 the foremost rank, it does not appear to be at all 
 impossible to retain much of the characteristic 
 stamp of the original phraseology, and to follow 
 the sacred writers, Kara TroSac, while, at the same 
 time, no violence is done to the genius of the ver- 
 nacular tongue, but, on the contrary, it acquires, 
 by this very means, no inconsiderable accessions 
 of strength, beauty, dignity, and sublimity. 
 
CHAPTER II. 
 
 Principles of Biblical Trmislation. Canons relative to the 
 Matter of Versions. The Manner of Popular Versions. 
 Lowth, Batteax, Griesbach, Huet, Cicero, Horace, and 
 Denham, quoted in Support of the literal Mode of trans- 
 lating. The Importance of literal Versions of the Scrip- 
 tures. Authorities for Unifor mi ti/ of rendering. Ali Bey 
 grossly culpable in the Breach of this Rule. Hoiv a Trans- 
 lator is to accommodate the Differences betiveen the Lan- 
 guage of the Original and that of the Version. Sacred 
 Taste defined. Its Irfluence on Biblical Translations. 
 
 In fixing the principles according to which 
 translations of the Holy Scriptures are to be 
 conducted, both the matter and the manner re- 
 quire to be taken into consideration. 
 
 With respect to the matter, it will be allowed 
 by all, that it ought to be laid down as a funda- 
 mental and indispensable canon,^ — That the version 
 must e.vhibit the genuine sense of the original. This 
 rulcj which applies to translation in general, and 
 increases in force, in proportion to the importance 
 of the subjects treated of in the original work, is 
 presented in all the plenitude of its authority, 
 when brought to bear upon a translation of the 
 word of God, as containing a communication of 
 his will, to our species, on subjects of the 
 
 c 2 
 
20 
 
 highest possible interest to every individual. 
 Except the real and unsophisticated meaning, or 
 that sense which was intended by the Divine 
 inspirer, be transfused into the version, it be- 
 comes nothing more than "the word of man;"^ 
 and, as the sacred original is most significantly 
 called " the Scripture of truth *," it may fear- 
 lessly be asserted, that, in proportion as its 
 genuine sense is altered, and human conceptions 
 are substituted, for " the mind of the Spirit," the 
 door will be thrown open to the introduction of 
 every dangerous and destructive heresy. 
 
 Another canon relating to the matter of a 
 Biblical Translation is, — That it furnish a co??iplete 
 transcript of the ideas conveyed by the original. In 
 translating human authors, it is sometimes allow- 
 able, when the subject is of no importance, to 
 retrench an accessory or secondary idea, in order 
 to give a greater degree of ease or dignity to the 
 manner in which the principal idea is expressed ; 
 but to do so in a version of the Scriptures, would 
 be an infraction of that reverence to which they 
 justly possess the most paramount claims. A 
 translator may give the general sense of a pas- 
 sage, and yet omit some idea which it may not 
 be unimportant to the reader to know. On this 
 point, Professor Lee very justly remarks, in as 
 
 * Daniel x, 21. 
 
21 
 
 far as it regards the fulness of a Biblical version ; 
 " The pure word of God, then, as found in a 
 translation, is, according to our principle, that 
 which comprehends every idea contained in the 
 original Scriptures, fully and faithfully expressed 
 in the translation*." Faults against this rule, 
 however, are found in many parts of the version 
 of Ali Bey. Among others, he excludes the 
 eternity of future punishment, from Matt. xxv. 
 41.; the idea of preparation^ expressed by the 
 word irapaaKzvi], xxvii. 62. ; and that of sanctity, 
 from the saints mentioned. Rev. viii. 3. 
 
 The only other canon which it seems necessary 
 to specify, as being of essential moment in re- 
 ference to this part of our subject, is, — That the 
 translation contain no supernumerary ideas, nor con- 
 vey a single shade of meaning more than is suggested 
 by the original. This rule, important as it must 
 appear to every one who is anxious to preserve 
 unadulterated the records of eternal life, forms 
 no part of Professor Lee's estimate of a pure 
 translation. It in fact lays the axe to the root of 
 almost the whole system, by which he has at- 
 tempted the defence of the Turkish Testament; 
 for that book can never, by any rational con- 
 struction of language, be said to represent the 
 pure word of God, which, besides giving, in nu- 
 
 * Remarks, p. 16. 
 10 
 
22 
 
 merous mstances, a false sense, and curtailing 
 the ideas of the original, exhibits, in other pas- 
 sages, superadded notions, and combinations, 
 of a nature never before introduced into any 
 volume professing to be simply a version of the 
 Sacred Scriptures. The canon which thus ex- 
 cludes all redundancy, derives its religious ob- 
 ligation from Prov. xxx. 5, 6. " Every word of 
 God is pu7x ; — add not to his luords, lest he reprove 
 thee, and thou be found a liar." It was the opi- 
 nion of Chrysostom, who, as Dr. Jebb observes, 
 was no cabalist, that the addition even of a single 
 letter may often introduce a vast body of concep- 
 tions * ; and in the passage just quoted, it is evi- 
 dently implied, that, by superinducing human 
 ideas upon the authoritative dictates of heaven, 
 we not only expose ourselves to the censure of 
 attempting to improve what is already declared 
 to be pure, but incur the awful charge of falsify- 
 ing Divine truth. Now, can it be maintained, 
 that in such phraseology as the following, no 
 ideas are presented but such as occurred to the 
 mind of the writer at the time of its composition ; 
 — Court of Victory, Place of Strength, the Court of 
 Truth, the Ea^alted Creator, Market Day, Tutelary 
 Saints, Sweet-meats of Omnipotence, Tatar, Lady 
 
 IloXXak-ig KUi tvoQ iTTOiytiov tt ^o(tQi]K1] o\oK\r,pov vorjuarwv 
 (Iffriyayri cvvafxiy, quoted in Sacred Literature, p. 208. 
 
23 
 
 Mary, Lord Abraham, &c. &c. ? That these are 
 proper translations of the words as they stand 
 in Ali Bey's Version, has already in part been 
 shewn by Professor Lee himself, and will further 
 appear in the sequel, where it is demonstrated, 
 that they are totally irreconcileable with the 
 purity of the Divine word, and perfectly inad- 
 missible into any version whatever. 
 
 But, besides giving precisely the genuine mat- 
 ter of the original, it is required of a translator of 
 the Holy Scriptures, that particular attention be 
 paid to the manner in which it is expressed. And 
 in regard to this part of the question, we would 
 lay down the following rules, which, it is pre- 
 sumed, will receive the approbation of all impar- 
 tial and competent judges. 
 
 1. Every translation intended for general use 
 should be close and accurate. While we would 
 consider the servile or verbal mode as entirely 
 exploded, we cannot too strongly insist on the 
 importance of a literal version, by which I under- 
 stand a version which shall give a faithful and 
 exact representation, not merely of the sense of 
 the sacred writer, but also of his words, phrases, 
 and conformation of sentences, as far as can be 
 attained without doing violence to the natural 
 genius or idiomatic proprieties of the language 
 into which the version is made. Such a transla- 
 tion must imitate the air and manner of tlie 
 
24 
 
 original; express the form and fashion of the 
 composition, and furnish the reader with some 
 idea of the peculiar turn and cast of that which 
 it represents*. It must express, to appropriate 
 the words of M. Batteax t, the things, the 
 thoughts, the expressions, the turns, the tones 
 of the original : the things, such as they are, 
 without adding, diminishing, or misplacing; the 
 thoughts, in their colours, their degrees, their 
 shades ; the expressions, natural, figurative, 
 strong, copious, &c. ; and the whole, after a 
 model which commands with rigour, and would 
 be obeyed without constraint. According to the 
 same critic, the translator has nothing in his own 
 power ; he is obliged in every thing to follow his 
 author; and to submit to all his variations with 
 an unreserved compliance. 
 
 What the celebrated Griesbach requires in a 
 translation of this kind, is, *' the highest possible 
 degree of exactness," so that the plain unlettered 
 reader may be warranted to confide in it, as 
 representing to him the words of the original, 
 not only with fidelity, but as closely as the dif- 
 ference of the languages will allow J. With this 
 coincides the opinion of that great master in the 
 art, Huet, in his admirable work, '* De Optimo 
 
 * Lowth's Introd. to Isaiah, p. 1. 
 
 f Principles of Translation, Edin. 17G0, p. 3. 
 
 X Repertoriiim, ut sup. p. 275. 
 
25 
 
 genere Interpretandi * ;" — a work which ought to 
 be in the hands of all who wish to excel in Bib- 
 lical translation. *' Optimum ergo," says he, 
 ** ilium esse dico interpretandi modum, quum 
 Auctoris sententicB primwn, deinde ipsis etiam, si ita 
 fert utriusque I'mguce facultas, verbis arctissimh ad- 
 hceret Interpres, et nativum postremd Auctoris cha- 
 ractere77i, quoad ejus fieri potest, adumbrat ; idque 
 unu7n studet, ut nulla eum detractioiie imminutumy 
 nullo additamento auctum, sed integrum, suique omni 
 cv parte simillimum perquum fideliter e.vhibeat. Cum 
 enim nihil aliud esse videatur Interpretatio, quam 
 expressa Auctoris imago et effigies ; ea autem optima 
 imago habenda sit, quae lineamenta oris, colorem, 
 oculos, totum denique vultus filum, et corporis 
 habitum ita refert, ut absens coram adesse videa- 
 tur ; inepta verb ea figura sit, quae rem aliter effingit 
 atque est, pulchriorem illam licet, et aspectu jucundi- 
 orem exprimat: id profect6 efficitur, eam demum 
 prsestabiliorem esse Interpretationem, non quae 
 Auctoris vel luxuriem depascat, vel jejunitatem 
 expleat, vel obscuritatem illustret, vel menda cor- 
 rigat, vel perversum ordinem digerat; sed quae 
 totum Auctorem ob oculos sistat nativis adumbra- 
 tum coloribus, et vel genuinis virtutibus laudan- 
 dum, vel, si ita meritus est, propriis deridendum 
 vitiis propinet." 
 
 In this close, and as much as possible, literal 
 
 * Pages 13, li. 
 
26 
 
 imitation of his original, the proper office of a 
 faithful translator, has always been viewed to 
 consist. Thus Cicero, when speaking of his man- 
 ner of representing in Latin the speeches of De- 
 mosthenes and Eschynes, says expressly : " Nee 
 converti iit interpres, sed ut orator; sententiis. 
 iisdem et earum formis tanquara figuris, verbis 
 ad nostram consuetudinem aptis : in quibus non 
 verbum pro verbo necesse habui reddere, sed 
 genus omnium verborum vimque servari : non 
 enim ea me annumerare lectori putavi oportere, 
 sed tanquam appendere *." That he considered 
 the oratorical qualities of his version, to be essen- 
 tially different from the properties belonging to 
 the work of a simple translator, is obvious, not 
 only from the manner in which he here contrasts 
 the Interpres and the Orator, but also from his 
 declaration, Tusc. xviii. 41. " Fungar enim jam 
 Interpixtis munere, 7ie qiiis me putet fingere ;' and 
 xix. 43. " Haec Epicuro confitenda sunt ; aut ea, 
 quse modo expressa ad verbum dixi, tollenda de 
 libro f." The same character of a faithful transla- 
 tor, is given by Horace, in his Art of Poetry : — 
 
 " Publica materies privati juris erit, si 
 
 Nee circa vilem, patulumque mordaberis orbem, 
 Nee verbum verbo curabis reddere, fidus 
 Interpres." 
 
 * Hieron. Epist. ad Pammach. 
 
 ■J- Encyclopedic Method, de Gram, et Litter. Art. Traduction. 
 
27 
 
 As in the former case, the Translator and the 
 Orator are contrasted, so here the Poet and the 
 Translator; but in both instances the fidelity of 
 the Translator is made to consist in the strictness 
 with which he adheres to the words of his ori- 
 ginal *. Hence the beautiful triad, in which 
 Huet makes the principal merit of a good transla- 
 tion to consist : *' religio in e.vpotie?2ciis sentetitiis ; Jides 
 in referendis verbis; summa in exhihendo colore soUici- 
 tudo t." 
 
 The difficulties connected with the execution 
 of this kind of translations, will be more or less 
 numerous, in proportion to the coincidences or 
 divarications of the different languages into which 
 they are made. In translating, for instance, from 
 the Hebrew into the Syriac, the Arabic, or the 
 Ethiopic, the mutual relationship of these dialects 
 renders it possible to give a good version in a 
 manner nearly approximating to the verbal ; 
 whereas in languages greatly removed in their 
 
 * The same view is taken of the subject by Sir John Denham, 
 when he says, " I conceive it a vulgar error in translating Poets, 
 to affect being Jidus interpres. Let that care be with them who 
 deal in matters of fact, or matters of faith, but whosoever aims at 
 it in poetry, as he attempts what is not required, so he shall never 
 perform what he attempts." — Preface to the ^neid, Book II. 
 He could not have passed a higher eulogium on the true charac- 
 ter of Biblical translation, than by forming the combination here 
 presented to the reader. 
 
 ■\ De Opt. gen, Interpret, p. 7U. 
 
28 
 
 general conformation from the Semitic branches, it 
 requires a nice acquaintance with the distinctive 
 genius of the dialect employed by the sacred 
 writers, and that into which the version is made, 
 so to accommodate the latter to the peculiar ex- 
 pressions, arrangement, and terms of the original, 
 as not to offend against purity of style. Yet there 
 is in many of these languages, a natural flexibi- 
 lity, which admits of their receiving new and 
 foreign combinations to a degree, which might 
 at first view appear impossible. Besides, the dic- 
 tion of sacred Scripture partakes so much of the 
 cast of common life, which is so well calculated 
 to be universally intelligible, that it is capable of 
 being transmitted through all the diversities of 
 nation, age, and language, with little injury to its 
 beauty, and none to its plainness in all material 
 points*. 
 
 The importance of the literal mode of transla- 
 tion must be obvious from three considerations : — 
 First, it operates as a curb upon the translator, 
 and prevents the intermixture of human ideas 
 and the technical phraseology of different nations 
 with the pure mind of the Spirit of God, and the 
 peculiar modes of expression by which He was 
 pleased to reveal it to mankind. Secondly, it 
 secures the unlearned reader from being reduced 
 to the necessity of placing his faith in the wisdom 
 
 ' Dr. Smith's Scriplure Testimony to the Messiah, Vol. I. p. 16. 
 
29 
 
 of men, and not in the power of God, which work- 
 eth by means of his word. By having a close 
 and accurate version put into his hands, his judg- 
 ment is not forestalled, but he is left to gather the 
 sense from the translation, much in the same way 
 as those did to whom the original was at first de- 
 livered. Thirdly, it is highly important that all 
 public versions of the Scriptures should be literal, 
 because they form the text-book of missionaries 
 and ordinary pastors of churches. Were we to 
 regard the Bible merely as a repertory of mottos 
 to be prefixed to sermons, it might indeed be a 
 matter of indifference, whether the translation be 
 free or literal ; but if religious teachers imitate the 
 Apostles in opening and expounding the contents 
 of Scripture, and " rightly dividing the word of 
 truth," it is necessary both for themselves and 
 their hearers, that the version which thus forms 
 the basis of public instruction, should be in a high 
 degree faithful and accurate. 
 
 The Turkish version exhibits a strange medley 
 of the literal and the free ; adhering at times with 
 the utmost rigidity to the expressions and turns 
 of the original ; and, at others, striking off into 
 the use of an arrangement and phraseology, in the 
 highest degree licentious and arbitrary. 
 
 2. Chaste a?2d unadorned simplicity is another 
 quality of a good Biblical version. Such, in- 
 deed, is one of the most prominent characteristics 
 
30 
 
 of the Divine originals. The style of the New 
 Testament, in particular, is plain and humble, 
 just such as we are prepared to expect from per- 
 sons circumstanced as were the authors of its 
 different books. How totally repugnant to their 
 manner to introduce into their writings pompous 
 and high sounding words, titles, and epithets, 
 such as abound in Ali Bey's Turkish New Testa- 
 tament ! It is in diametrical opposition to the de- 
 clarations of the Apostle Paul : '* And I, brethren, 
 when I came to you, came not with excellency 
 of speech, or of wisdom, declaring unto you the 
 testimony of God. My speech and my preaching 
 were not with enticing words of man's wisdom, 
 but in demonstration of the spirit, and of power ; 
 that your faith might not stand in the wisdom of 
 men, but in the power of God." 1 Cor. ii. 1. 4. 
 Nor is it less opposed to the common principles 
 of criticism: — " Quis Aristotelis Metaphysica, 
 quis Euclidis Geometrica, vel Arithmetica Dio- 
 phanti, vel Aristoxeni Harmonica, vel Apollonii 
 Conica, vel Galeni Anatomica aut Therapeutica, 
 aliave hujusmodi ornare verbis studeat, ac senten- 
 tiis ? Quis in iis eloquentise flosculos, et dicendi 
 copiam desideret ? Quis Archimedem de Sphaera 
 et Cylindro declamitantem, vel Ptolemaeum de 
 Syderum motibus perorantem sine risu audiat ? 
 
 * Ornari res ipsa negat, contenta doceri *.' " 
 * Huet, ut sup. p. 23. 
 
31 
 
 3. Pers'picu'ity. The simplicity of structure and 
 diction, which so much abounds in the Bible, 
 greatly tends to prevent obscurity and ambiguity, 
 and renders the way of the Lord, as therein re- 
 vealed, so plain, that " wayfaring men, though 
 fools, shall not err therein." To be perspicuous, 
 therefore, the translator cannot do better than 
 imitate this Divine simplicity, and avoid the in- 
 volving of periods, and the employment of a style 
 of expression, which may be found, indeed, in 
 the language into which he makes his version, 
 but which was formed upon models of a totally 
 different stamp. 
 
 As the version ought not to be more obscure, 
 so neither must it be more perspicuous than the 
 original. It is no part of the business of a transla- 
 tor to explain or elucidate the sacred text : he is 
 to give it exactly as it is, without attempting to 
 render any part of it more intelligible to readers 
 of the present day, than the Hellenistic style of 
 the Apostolic writings was to the natives of 
 Greece, or other parts of the world, to whom they 
 were communicated in the early ages. 
 
 4. Uniformity. In the Appeal, p. 29, 1 regarded 
 it as a rule to be followed in Biblical Translation, 
 that the words of the sacred original are to be 
 rendered in an uniform manner in the different 
 passages in which they occur, except in those 
 cases in which it is unattainable, owing to the 
 
32 
 
 different senses in which the same word is some- 
 times used, and the impossibility of always find- 
 ing a word of equal latitude in the language of the 
 version. On this, Professor Lee remarks *, he 
 " has no hesitation in asserting, that no such 
 canon any where exists, save only in the Appeal 
 under consideration." This assertion, were it 
 founded in truth, would, I doubt not, be con- 
 sidered by many, as calculated to reflect honour 
 on the Appeal, rather than bring it into discredit ; 
 but I must disclaim all pretensions to originality 
 in placing it before the view of the public. Beza, 
 in his dedication of the New Testament to Queen 
 Elizabeth, 1563, thus expresses himself: *' Vete- 
 rem Interpretem Erasmus merito reprehendit, 
 quod unujji idemque vocabuliwi scepe diversis modis 
 explicat. Atqui in eo ipso quoties peccat? Le- 
 viculum hoc est, dices. Ego vero aliter censeo, 
 nisi cum ita necesse est, in his quidem libris in 
 quibus ssepe videas mirifica quaedam arcana velut 
 unius vocabuli involucris tegi," &c. And again : 
 "Singula Grceca vocabula eodem ubique modo crpjimere 
 studui, nisi cum diversa fuerit significatio, aut pe- 
 culiaris aliqua ratio incidit." Thus also, Henry 
 Stephens, in the preface to his New Testament, 
 12mo. 1576 : " Quum autem, sicut in GrcEco ser-^ 
 mone una eademqiie vox i^etinetur^ in Latina quoqm 
 
 * Page 5^. 
 
33 
 
 interpretatione servatur, ea certe in re multum con- 
 suli iis potissimum videtur, qui, cum Graecae lin- 
 guae sint imperiti, Latino acquiescere sermoni 
 necesse habent. Nam inde hoc saltem colligunt, 
 uno eodemque vocabulo Gr cecum scriptorem uti, ideo- 
 que locum unum cum altera conferri debere." " Here 
 at one view," says Dr. Taylor in the preface to 
 his Concordance, ** those who shall undertake a 
 new version, will see under every word, how va- 
 riously it is rendered in the present version ; and 
 so may more easily and exactly judge how just 
 those renderings are, and koiv far they 7nay he re- 
 duced to one and the same rendering, which is much 
 to be preferred where the sense will bear it." And 
 our own translators, notwithstanding the licence 
 they plead for, as referred to by Professor Lee, 
 write to this effect: '* Truly, that we might not 
 vary from the sense of that which we translated before, 
 if the word signified the same thing in both places, 
 (for there be some words that be not of the same 
 sense everywhere,) we were especially careful, and 
 made a conscience, accoj'ding to our duty *." To these 
 may be added an authority from the moderns, 
 who with such precedents before him, conceived 
 himself warranted to lay it down as a canon, that 
 " The same original word, and its derivatives, accord- 
 ing to the different leading se?2ses, and also the same 
 
 * Preface. 
 D 
 
34 
 
 phrase, should be respectively translated, by the same 
 corj^esponding English word or phrase, except where 
 a distinct representation of a general idea, or the 
 nature of the English language, or the avoiding of 
 an ambiguity, or harmony of sound, requires a 
 different mode of expression *." 
 
 It is said, indeed, in the Remarks f, that ** the 
 best translators have, since the times of the first 
 Targumist, down to the present day, given the 
 mind of the Holy Ghost without any such uni- 
 formity as that contended for;" but an accurate 
 collation will, I have no doubt, prove, that they 
 have maintained this uniformity on the whole, and 
 especially as it regards all the principal words 
 and phrases ; and their instances of failure are 
 rather to be considered as blemishes than models 
 for imitation. Where, it may be asked, is the 
 version to be found, besides that of Ali Bey, 
 which exhibits, under different forms, the com- 
 mon words, — day, flight, light, darkness, head, hand, 
 or the more important and characteristic phrases. 
 Son of man. Heavenly Father? What should we 
 say of an English translator, who, at one time, 
 should express, o irarrip v^tov o ovpdviog, by '* your 
 Heavenly Father," and, at another, by ** your 
 Celestial Sire V or who should, within the com- 
 
 * Newcome's Preface to the Minor Prophets, p. xxiv. 
 f Page 60. 
 
35 
 
 pass of a few verses, render jua^rjrjjc by disciple, 
 pupil, and scholar? Until such time as the Pro- 
 fessor is able to shew, that such a practice is 
 commendable, his arguments drawn from the 
 conduct of the Evangelists and Apostles, and the 
 style of languages, must be considered as alto- 
 gether aside from the point, and undeserving of 
 any refutation ; and I must, therefore, still main- 
 tain, that the want of uniformity tends to destroy 
 the diversity of style observable in the sacred 
 writers, breaks the connexion, obscures, and not 
 unfrequently alters the sense, and greatly retards 
 the edification of the reader, as it puts it out of 
 his power to compare the parallel passages with 
 that ease he otherwise might, where the memory 
 is aided by identity of expression. 
 
 5. Precision. This quality, which forms so es- 
 sential a characteristic of good writing in general, 
 and is of the last importance, as it regards the 
 conceptions of thtngs formed in the mind, deserves 
 to be closely studied by the translator, both in 
 the choice and arrangement of his expressions, in 
 order to enable him, not merely to convey just 
 and accurate ideas, but to do it with that effect 
 which was intended to be produced by the 
 original. 
 
 6. Dignity and purity of language. While, on 
 the one hand, care must be taken not to injure 
 the beautiful simplicity and plainness of the ori- 
 
 D 2 
 
36 
 
 ginal, the translator must beware, on the other, of 
 all such words or modes of expression as are low 
 and vulgar, and are inconsistent with that sacred 
 elevation and purity of mind, for which the writers 
 of Scripture are so highly distinguished. 
 
 If, to all the other qualities which ought to be 
 given to his version, a Biblical translator can add 
 such a degree of concinnity, as will in some mea- 
 sure entitle it to the character of avroipvsq, or a na- 
 tive production, so much the better; but as the 
 artificial idioms of language differ so widely, ac- 
 cording to their different degrees of cultivation, 
 and according to the peculiar intellectual associa- 
 tions formed and predominating among the people 
 by whom they are spoken ; and as a great propor- 
 tion of the idiomatic expressions found in the Bible 
 are not purely linguistical, but have originated in 
 certain particular usages, or contain certain im- 
 portant modifications of doctrine, it is obviously 
 impossible to impart to such versions as those re- 
 quired for general use, the entire stamp of vernacu- 
 lar works. All that a translator is at liberty to do, 
 in this case, is so to arrange and adapt the words 
 and conformations of the language into which he 
 makes the version, to the peculiar features of his 
 original pattern *, or *' form of sound words," as 
 
 * 'YTTOTvirwaig. 2 Tim. i. 13. delineatio, forma, prseformatio, 
 exemplar, exemplum, ad quod se alii conformant. 
 
37 
 
 not to offend against any of its natural and ver- 
 nacular proprieties. The great secret of his art 
 lies in bringing the materials of the new language 
 into accordance with the manner of Scripture, 
 not in reducing the venerable and divine contex- 
 ture of Scripture phraseology to the standard of 
 modern and multiform diction. 
 
 But, as it will be allowed by all to be an easy 
 matter to lay down rules for a good popular trans- 
 lator, or even for a translator to lay down such 
 rules for the government of his own practice, while 
 it is confessedly a task of no ordinary difficulty^ 
 uniformly to observe them in the execution of the 
 work, it may not be out of place to enquire here. 
 What is that grand key-stone principle, by which 
 all the other elements shall be united, and which 
 alone can secure the solidity and efficient utility 
 of the superstructure ? To this I unhesitatingly 
 answer. Sacred Taste, or, in other words, a mind 
 formed and matured by the holy moral principles 
 inculcated in the Scriptures ; habituated to the 
 study of the Bible, and Biblical literature ; and 
 possessed of a predilection for whatever is agree- 
 able to the spirit, manner, and design of the Di- 
 vine book, combined with a repugnance to every 
 thing of a contrary description. It would seem, 
 from the sarcastic manner in which Professor Lee 
 quotes this phrase, not fewer than six or seven 
 times in the course of his Remarks, that its acci- 
 
38 
 
 dental use in the Appeal must have introduced 
 some strangely irritating principle among his 
 mental associations. The terms, he says, are 
 perfectly new to him ; and it is certainly very 
 possible for him not to have met with them before 
 in the course of his reading ; yet, if I mistake not, 
 he will find terms nearly allied to them, Matt, 
 xvi. 23. " But he turned, and said unto Peter, 
 Get thee behind me, Satan, thou art an oifence 
 unto me ; for thou savour^est not the things that be 
 of God, but those that be of men." Here our Sa- 
 viour reproves his disciple for the want of that 
 very taste in relation to his mission and kingdom, 
 which we insist upon as necessary to the true 
 vmderstanding and right interpretation of the word 
 of the kingdom. Rectitude of disposition, and a 
 holy relish for truth, go farther towards the ac- 
 quirement of just sentiments on religion, than the 
 exercise of the most acute intellect : " If any man 
 will (deXy is determined^ minded, whose %vish and 
 delight it is to) do his will, he shall know of the 
 doctrine, whether it be of God:" John vii. 17. 
 Nor is the phrase in dispute without its parallel 
 elsewhere in Scripture. The Apostle Paul, de- 
 scribing certain characters who had powerfully 
 felt the influence of the Gospel, says of them, 
 that (koXov ytvaafiivovg Gtow prifia) they had ** tasted 
 the good word of God:" Heb. vi. 5. I stay not at 
 present to define wherein exactly this experience 
 
39 
 
 consisted ; but I make bold to say, that applied, 
 as the word taste here is, with an especial reference 
 to the ejccellence of Divine truth, it required the 
 effort of a mind not very vividly impressed by this 
 truth at the time, to attempt to turn into ridicule 
 an association no less accordant with Scripture 
 phraseology than congenial to the best feelings of 
 the Christian heart. 
 
 * But the usage of Scripture apart: — What is 
 there in the terms, sacred taste, that can be deemed 
 incongruous or absurd? We speak of profane taste, 
 pure taste, spiritual taste, poetic taste ; why not 
 also ofsac?'ed taste? Nothing is more common than 
 the combinations — sacred literature, sacred letters, 
 the sacred writers : there cannot, therefore, surely 
 be any impropriety in employing the phrase sacred 
 taste, to denote the judgment of a mind rightly 
 trained to the study of the sacred Scriptures, and 
 so disciplined by their sanctifying influence, as to 
 be peculiarly qualified to decide on the subject 
 matter of their contents, and the manner in which 
 it should be treated in placing it before mankind. 
 Wherever this hallowed principle is in operation, 
 whether in Europe or Asia, it will more or less 
 produce the same effects. Its possessor will 
 readily discern whatever is suitable to, or incon- 
 sistent with the appropriate diction of the Bible ; 
 and it is on this account that 1 consider it highly 
 requisite in a Biblical translator. He may be 
 
40 
 
 deeply versed in the profane literature of the 
 people into whose language he is preparing his 
 translation, but if he consult their taste, and allow 
 it to dictate to him in what manner he shall ex- 
 press to them the oracles of God, we may venture 
 to predict, that he will furnish them with a sorry 
 representation of these Holy writings. If, as 
 D'Alembert informs us, Voltaire had always lying 
 on his table, the Petit Car^me of Masillon, and 
 the tragedies of Racine ; the former to fix his 
 taste in prose composition, and the latter in 
 poetry * ; we may surely affirm, that the man 
 who would successfully transfuse into another 
 language the Scriptures of truth, ought to have 
 the Bible continually before him; he ought to 
 be most intimately familiar with the minutiae of 
 its style and manner, as well as with its general 
 contents ; and, deeply sensible of the importance 
 and jesponsibility of his task, he ought incessantly 
 to pray with David : ** Teach me good judgment 
 (Heb. DJ^D taste) and knowledge : for I have 
 believed thy commandments." Psalm cxix. 66. 
 
 * Stewart's Elements of Philosophy, p. S77. 
 
CHAPTER III. 
 
 Examination of Professor Lee's Charges of Mistranslation. 
 The Renderings of the adscititious Names and Titles, as 
 given in the Appeal sufficiently correct. Court of Victory. 
 Court of the Creator. Court of Truth. The Presence of 
 Solomon. ShekinahofGod. Lord Abraham. Lady Mary. 
 
 His Excellency, and His Majesty Jesus. ^^^^^ velisi, and 
 
 j^vjj Rabbani, considered. The Argument in Defence of 
 " Kudsi Sherif" as a Substitute for " Jerusalem," refuted. 
 
 The first charge which I brought against Ali 
 Bey's Turkish Version, related to the arbitrary- 
 manner in which the Divine names had been 
 translated, and the variety and pomposity of 
 periphrase that are substituted for the uniform 
 and unadorned simplicity of the original. Instead 
 of always rendering Qeog, God, by the single but 
 
 significant Arabic word ^\ Allah, a word perfectly 
 intelligible to every Mohammedan, it was shewn *, 
 that the translator has employed not fewer than 
 twelve diff'erent words or phrases ; and that out of 
 nearly one himdixd times in which Qtoq occurs in 
 the book of Revelation alone, the simple word 
 
 * Appeal, p. ID— 21. 
 
42 
 
 M Allah is only to be found in twenty-seven pas- 
 sages. 
 
 Now, in what manner has this charge been met 
 by Professor Lee ? Has he shewn that there exists 
 no such fastidious variety, or meretricious pom- 
 posity, as that developed in the Appeal, and that 
 the version of Ali Bey is in this respect precisely, 
 or, at least, nearly conformable to all other trans- 
 lations of the Holy Scriptures ? No ; he admits 
 the diversity of renderings, and the liberal use 
 of periphrastic epithets ; but, instead of entering 
 fairly upon the discussion of the question, whether 
 it be lawful for a translator to take such liberties 
 with the sacred text, he manages to throw dust 
 into the eyes of his readers, by endeavouring to 
 make it appear that I have mistaken the meaning 
 of the Oriental words, — well aware, no doubt, 
 that on such points, mankind in general are accus- 
 tomed juj^are in verba inagistri. Nor, perhaps, 
 has the stratagem failed, in securing at least the 
 partial attainment of its object, in convincing the 
 judgment of those who have suffered themselves 
 to be affected by it, that no dependance whatever 
 can be placed on the criticisms of one who has 
 stumbled at the very threshold of the inquiry. 
 
 But what if it should be proved that this accu- 
 sation is entirely without foundation ; that my 
 translation of the super-excrescent titles given to 
 the Divine Being, is, in every instance, sufficiently 
 
 11 
 
correct, and, in most, supported by the highest 
 authorities ; and, that the Professor's own version 
 of them, after all the pains he has taken to set it 
 off, so far from invalidating- my argument, greatly 
 corroborates it, by exhibiting in a still more 
 ridiculous point of view, the fopperies of the 
 Osmanli style, and the perfect incongruity of their 
 introduction into the sacred Scriptures ? 
 
 The first instance of mistranslation which he 
 attempts to substantiate, is that in wliich I have 
 
 rendered the words JUi' ^\ Allah taala, by " the 
 Supreme God." I have committed a mistake, it 
 should seem, by *' rendering JU; tdala as an 
 adjective, which is in reality a verb;" but it is 
 conceded to me*, that ** the word has been so 
 applied," and that *' an adjective will most readily 
 convey its force to the mind of an European." It 
 is unnecessary, therefore, to animadvert on this 
 cavil, especially as Professor Lee has the gene- 
 rosity to say, he will *' not take advantage of the 
 mistake;" only it will be observed, that he is 
 himself obliged to commit the same grammatical 
 blunder — high and highest, by which he gives the 
 word, being equally adjectives with the word 
 mpreme. But it is asked, why I have gone so 
 far out of my way to give a sense to the word, 
 which it will not bear? Why really I had not the 
 
 * Remarks, p. 20. 
 
44 
 
 most distant idea, that in using the word supreme, 
 I had moved a single step out of the beaten path 
 of language. According to Dr. Johnson, it signi- 
 fies, — ** 1. Highest in dignity; highest in authority. 
 2. Highest; most excellent:" and my opponent 
 tells us, that " the sense most applicable to the 
 word ^Uj tadla, will be high, highest, or the like.'' 
 Where then is the difference ? For my part, I did 
 not, nor do I now consider the phrase '* Supreme 
 God" to be technical or metaphysical, any more 
 than the " highest,'' or ** most high God," which 
 
 we are informed ^Ui' ^\ Allah tadla properly im- 
 plies. They are, in fact, perfectly equivalent, 
 both pointing out the infinite exaltation and ex- 
 cellence of the Divine nature ; its superiority 
 over the objects of idolatrous worship ; and the 
 universal dominion which God exercises over his 
 creatures. 
 
 At page 23 of the Remarks, is a criticism on 
 
 the words JUj ^\ Sj^ Tengri Allah tadla, *' God, 
 God Most High;" which I only notice in order 
 to furnish the reader with another specimen of the 
 weakness and futility which characterize too many 
 of the Professor's arguments. The form in which 
 the phrase occurs, is, it seems, in construction 
 with a possessive pronoun, instead of being used 
 absolutely, as I had represented it. A mighty 
 fault indeed ! yet its correction required no less 
 
45 
 
 an effort on the part of my opponent, than the 
 obvious mistranslation of a word, and the un- 
 warranted assumption of a various reading. By 
 
 the phrase JUJ -Oil jC,^ Tengrimuz Allah tadla, 
 " the translator," says he, ** has represented his 
 original, as having Kvp'n^ tm Oei^ v/m^v, Unto the 
 Lof'd our God." But what authority has he for 
 rendering c£/0 Tengri, by kv^ioq, Lordl He will 
 neither find it in the Lexicons, in the usage of the 
 language, nor, I may add, in his own vocabulary ; 
 for he tells us, page 19, that it signifies God. 
 The original reading must therefore have been 
 Ofw Tw 0£(^5 7}|uwv, '' Unto God our God."" But in 
 what Greek copy of this passage (Rev. v. 10.) do 
 we meet with either the reduplication of 0£oc, 
 or the reading Kupt'w tw Oay ^/tiwv ? Or in which of 
 the versions is there the smallest variety in this 
 respect ? The Professor well knew that it was not 
 to be found either in the one or the other, and 
 was therefore obliged to defend it on the ground 
 of conjectural possibility, and what he conceives to 
 be the unimportance of the addition, supposing it 
 to be merely the creation of Ali Bey's fancy. 
 What a pity that the former of these expedients 
 has not been applied to innumerable other pas- 
 sages of the Turkish New Testament, containing 
 various readings unsupported by any manuscript 
 authorities hitherto discovered ! 
 
46 
 
 The next phrase which I am accused of ren- 
 dering incorrectly is 42-^ f-r'^ Ginahi Izzet, i. e. 
 as given in the Appeal, Glorious Majesty. " The 
 literal meaning of the first of these words <— ?lis»- 
 Janab" says the Professor, *' is, according to the 
 Soorah, il^J dargdh, place, court, or the like ; and 
 
 of the second, CLijs. izzat, strength, or victory. The 
 phrase is literally, therefore, place, or court, of 
 sti^eiigth or victory," p. 24. Had I professed to give 
 a definition of the radical import of each of the pe- 
 riphrastic titles given to the Deity by Ali Bey, and 
 other Oriental writers, justice would require, that 
 I should here stand corrected ; but I have yet to 
 learn, that in determining the signification of words, 
 as practically applied, we are to be guided by their 
 primary and etymological import, and not by the 
 usage of language. Meninsky, to whom Professor 
 Lee can also refer when it suits his purpose, 
 gives substantially the same literal meaning of 
 the words as that assigned them in the Soorah ; 
 but then, as a Turkish Lexicographer, he adds 
 under ^->U>. Ginab, ** usit. pro nostris vulgatis Do- 
 minatio, Excellentia, Celsitudo, Mqjestas," and 
 
 translates the phrase t--?U ciJiU- <t->^- getiabi, 
 gelalet, mecib, by " Gloriosa, augusta, Majestas." 
 
 And under the word c^jc izzet, ** usit. magnifi- 
 centia, potentia, gloria, honor:" to which we may 
 
47 
 
 add, that the word is used in the same significa- 
 tion by Ali Bey, 1 Cor. ii. 8. ^j CJ^js. izzetun 
 Rabbi, " the Lord of Glory," and in upwards of 
 ihi?^t2/ other places in the New Testament ; whereas 
 it is never once used to denote strength or victory. 
 Am I not then entitled to ask, what egregious 
 
 blunder I have committed in rendering ti^ mU>- 
 Ginabi Izzet by Glorious Majesty ? However, that 
 I may not appear pertinacious, and to allow every 
 possible advantage to the advocates of the Turkish 
 New Testament, I shall in future translate the 
 phrase, as used by Ali Bey, for Qtog God, or 
 Kvpiog Loi^d, by court of victory, or place of 
 STRENGTH, which wc are told (Remarks, p. 24.) 
 is its "literal meaning," and its import, *' mighty 
 Godr 
 
 In rendering ^}\ ^-'^*■ Ginabi Bari, the Divine 
 Majesty, I was guided by the same general prin- 
 ciple as in the above instance, it being my object 
 to exhibit to the Committee of the Bible Society, 
 the variety of epithets employed by the Turkish 
 translator, rather than to furnish them with nice 
 etymological definitions, which, if I had done, I 
 should certainly have been taxed with the kuko- 
 IrfXia of Aquila. ^.^b Bari does indeed signify 
 Creator, but Professor Lee is just about as incor- 
 rect as I was, when he afllirms, that " the true 
 translation of the whole phrase, therefore, is The 
 
48 
 
 Creator y and not The Divine Majesty, p. 26. Ac- 
 cording to his own determination of the word 
 <-->lx>. Ginab, the real meaning must be the 
 Court of the Creator; and the reader must 
 not forget, that this is defended as a proper trans- 
 lation of the simple word Geoc, God. 
 
 On the two following criticisms, p. 26, it is 
 only necessary to remark, that what I had ren- 
 dered Supre77ie Divinity, might be rendered more 
 literally Ej;alted Ct^eator, as Professor Lee pro- 
 poses ; but, according to his own shewing, 
 fjst- <-Jc»- Ginabi Hakk, cannot mean o a\r]Bivoq 
 0£oc, the true God, but the court of truth, 
 or the True Place, — the 'dS^I^ makom of the Rab- 
 binical writers. 
 
 In the Appeal, p. 24, I observed, that " one 
 of the first things that must strike a Christian 
 reader of this (Ali Bey's) translation, is the cir- 
 cumstance, that the names Jesus and Christ sel- 
 dom occur without the prefix c^^-Js^ Hazret ; a 
 title by which kings and great men are addressed, 
 and which corresponds to our Majesty, Highness, 
 Lordship, Ladyship, &c. Now," I further remarked, 
 " not to insist on its being totally foreign to the 
 simplicity of the sacred writers, to put into their 
 mouth, His Majesty Jesus, or The Illust?ious Jesus, 
 it certainly cannot appear, at least to us Chris- 
 tians, to convey any peculiar degree of honour 
 
49 . • 
 
 on our Redeemer, to give him a title in common 
 with Mohammed and the Koran. For the same 
 reasons, I must object to its being applied to 
 God as a title of respect. Instead of exalting, it 
 is derogatory to his honour." In order to evade 
 the force of these observations. Professor Lee 
 
 first roundly denies that cuj^so^ H(zzret means 
 
 either majesii/, highness, loi^dship, or ladyship; but 
 'adds, immediately : ** We do not mean to argue, 
 however, that this word has not been translated 
 occasionally, as giving the sense laid down by 
 Dr. Henderson ; or that these translations have not 
 been sufficiently accurate for general readers. But 
 we cannot, therefore, also allow, that we can 
 hence determine the sense of the word sufficiently 
 accurate for our present purpose :" p. 27, 28. 
 Here the paragraph ends, and we are left to guess 
 what the '* present purpose" is ; — a task, however, 
 of no great difficulty, even to a superficial reader. 
 Fault is found with my rendering the word by 
 Illustrious, without having shown how it happens 
 to have this meaning : but I must confess, I never 
 dreamed that I should be put upon proving, what 
 any person capable of investigating the subject, 
 might discover on turning up a Lexicon, or attend- 
 ing to the use of the word in common parlance, 
 One of the illustrious predecessors of Professor 
 Lee, in the Arabic chair at Cambridge, in h.\^ 
 
50 
 
 invaluable Lexicon Heptaglotton, assigns to one 
 of the forms of the same root, the meaning of 
 *' Vir nobilis et illustins;' and Meninsky, after 
 giving the definition, '* Praesentia, et Dignitas, 
 Majestas, Dominatio, &c. Nomen honoris quo 
 de persona aliqua loquimur," and shewing how- 
 it is applied, exhibits, among other instances, 
 the phrases " l^b ci.yi>- hcesreti pasha, et usit. 
 ^J^JjJls>. 1-SjIj imsha hcezretleri. q. Dominus Bassa, 
 aut Illustrissimus Bassa." The fact is, I selected 
 the term Illustrious, as the least likely to associate 
 burlesque ideas with the phraseology of sacred 
 Scripture, and was the more inclined to use it, as 
 I found it universally applicable in those instances 
 in which ci-yia- Hcezret occurs as an adscititious 
 ornament, or mark of respect. 
 
 Let us now see how it is interpreted by the 
 Professor, and how the meanings which he is 
 pleased to affix to it, apply to the version of Ali 
 Bey. 
 
 In the first place, we are told, p. 27, that 
 *' when applied to kings, this word may properly 
 be rendered by the presence, which is its e.vact 
 meaning^ Abandoning, therefore, for a moment, 
 my favourite, but, according to Professor Lee, 
 improper term illustrious, let us substitute the 
 presence. Matt. vi. 29. '* And I say unto you, that 
 ^^WLs cyb- hcBzreti Suleiman the presence of 
 16 
 
51 
 
 Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one 
 of these." 
 
 Again; we are informed, that *' when applied 
 to God, it is nearly equivalent to the Jewish Slie- 
 kinah, but can by no principle of interpretation be 
 made to signify illustrious, as its primary meaning." 
 Fortunately, Ali Bey furnishes us with an ex- 
 ample of this also. Rev. xiv. 4. "These were 
 ^redeemed from among men, being the first fruits 
 
 unto ^^\ CLS^^is^ h(Ezreti Allahie the shekinau 
 
 of God, and to the Lamb." How this interpreta- 
 tion of the passage is to be reconciled with the 
 opinion of those divines, who hold that the Lamb 
 of God, to whom John pointed, is the true 
 Shekinah, I pretend not to say; but proceed to 
 the third part of the definition which instructs 
 us : — 
 
 That " the word CLij.a»' Hazrat in Arabic is 
 used precisely in the same way as Kv^ioq in Greek, 
 ♦JT^^< in Hebrew, and Lord in English, being 
 applied to any person of rank, whether the rank 
 be that of Lordy as a nobleman, a prophet, or of 
 the most high God :" Remarks, p. 28. Had this 
 assertion been supported by any attempt at proof, 
 it might have been deserving of consideration, 
 but as no examples are produced, and I will ven- 
 ture to affirm, none can be produced, we may 
 place it to the score of the other novel philologi- 
 
 i; 2 
 
52 
 
 cal doctrines set forth by our author. I was- 
 aware, indeed, of the fact, that Sarah, in respect- 
 ful token of subjection to her husband, called him 
 Lord, (Kvpiov, to which d-yi^ Hcezret is here said 
 to be parallel,) but I certainly did not know that 
 the Patriarch had also received this title from the 
 Apostle Paul, till I read Ali Bey's version of Rom. 
 xi. I. ** I also am of the seed of Lord Abraham, 
 *-Jbt^t cjj^i^. HcEzreti Ibrahim V 
 
 But why did Professor Lee forget to furnish us 
 with the signification of the word as applied to 
 ladies, as well as to men of rank, in the east ? He 
 may reply, it was unnecessary, as we have no 
 instance of its use in Ali Bey's version before the 
 names either of Sarah, or Drusilla, or Herodias, 
 or Candace, or the Queen of Sheba. Very true ;. 
 but if my eyes do not deceive me, we read, Matt.. 
 
 i- 16. ** And Jacob begat Joseph ^^}j CS-c.jo e-yi*. 
 HcEzreti Miriamun zougi, the spouse of Hcezreti, 
 Mary." How would my antagonist translate this ? 
 For my part, denied as I am the use of the word 
 illustrious, and loudly as he may declaim against 
 the idea of majesty, lordship, ladyship, &c. being 
 attached to the word, I know of no way of ren- 
 dering it more properly into English than by 
 Lady Mary *. 
 
 * In Fulke's Rhemish and Protestant New Testament, we find 
 Ibe following note on the use of this epithet among Roman 
 
53 
 
 Further ; it is attempted to defend the applica- 
 tion of this title to our blessed Saviour, because 
 he " is called o kv^ioq 'Ijjctouc in Greek, which is, 
 in our translation, rendered by the Lord Jesus :" 
 but, in order to give validity to this argument, 
 it must be shewn. First, that cj>jds- Hcezrtt is 
 really parallel to Kwpioc, Lord; and. Secondly, 
 that Ali Bey uses it as a simple translation of 
 Kv^ioq, where this word occurs in the original. 
 Were the parallelism complete, or did the two 
 words nearly agree in the mode in which they 
 are applied, I should consider it the most con- 
 summate trifling to contend about their primary 
 and etymological import, and should at once con- 
 cede the point to my opponent. But that the 
 agreement is by no means so great as he wishes 
 to make the reader believe, must be evident from 
 his own shewing, as exemplified in the above in- 
 stances, and from the manner in which c-yia- 
 
 Catholics : — " Likewise when you call the blessed Virgin our 
 Ladie, as you call God and Christ our Lord, what doe you but 
 make her equal with God and Christ in power and redemption. 
 In which respect God is called our Lord. For it is no term of 
 civil and teniporall dignitie and authoritie as when we say our 
 soveraigne Ladie, the Queen, but a religious and divine honour 
 that you ascribe unto her, calling her absolutely, Our Ladie, as 
 blasphemously as the Frenchmen doe ridiculously call other saints 
 Monsieur S. Pierre, M. S, Peter, or my liOrd S. Peter, and 
 Madame S. Genofefeve, Mistresse S. Genofef;^, or, my Ladie S, 
 GenoreCaJ' Pa^e 5. 
 
54 
 
 Hctzret is translated in the Appendix, by a Gen- 
 tleman whose authority is quoted in the body of 
 the Remarks, as that of " a very able Orientalist*." 
 This Gentleman (M. Desgranges, Assistant Inter- 
 preting Secretary to the King of France for the 
 Oriental Languages, &c.) asserts, that " it would 
 be as strange not to say in Turkish or Arabic, 
 His Eaxellcncy Jesus, as it would be singular 
 to use such an expression among us f." It will 
 be seen from the Appeal, p. 24, that 1 came 
 pretty near this rendering, only raising the title 
 a degree higher, when I gave the words His Ma- 
 jesty Jesus ; but we have another notable instance 
 in which c^^-^ia- Hazret must be taken in this 
 sublime sense, in the verse already quoted from 
 the first chapter of Matthew. The words are 
 
 these : j>^JLa£.^ ^Sj\ ^j\j..^=s- ^^—-^ (C^j^jj ^.-^ <s^ 
 Ki Mesyh didukleri Isa HcEzretleri andan dogmishtur. 
 In order to increase the intensity of signification, 
 the word is here put in the plural form, with 
 respect to which, Meninsky says, ** Sic autem 
 in PI. i^Jjjas- haezretleri postponi solitum no- 
 minibus Dei, Sanctorum et Magnatum, est pro 
 Mqjestas ejus, sanctitas, celsitudo, &c. Polonis 
 
 * Page 32. 
 
 •|- — " il serait avissi extraordinaire de ne pas dire en Turc on 
 .en Arabe, son Excellence Jesus, qu'il serait singulier de s'exprimer 
 ainsi panni nous." Appendix, p. 29. 
 
 *■ 
 
55 
 
 pari fere ratione lego Mosc ut ^^^^^.a^ il-jU 
 padishah hcEzretleri, quod et »U»jI» cj^-J^ hcEzretl 
 padishah. Rex ejus Majestas. quod nos Serenissi- 
 mus Rex, vel sua Regia Ifajestas. Ihre Konigliche 
 
 Mayestatt. aSw^ 72efl/ Alajesta. Sa Majeste, &c." 
 According, therefore, to this interpretation, the 
 verse just cited will read thus: "And Jacob 
 'begat Joseph, the spouse of Lady Mary, of 
 whom was born His Majesty Jesus, who is 
 called Messiah." I leave it with the reader to 
 say, whether he could have supposed it possible, 
 that any person, who really venerates the inspired 
 records of Hj^aven, would attempt to vindicate 
 the introduction into them of such phraseology 
 as this ? — a phraseology no less repugnant to 
 sound criticism, than it is to sober and en- 
 lightened Christian feeling. 
 
 I have only further to observe on this word 
 i^jJi^- Hcczret, that it is scarcely ever, or, at 
 least, very seldom, substituted by Ali Bey for 
 Kupioc, in the combination o Kwpioc 'Iriaovq, " the 
 Lord Jesus f this honour being reserved for the 
 
 word L^j Rahb, which literally and properly sig- 
 nifies Lord. Professor Lee is therefore incorrect, 
 in representing ciyjrw H(Ezrct as thus applied. 
 When used, which is most frequently, it is prefixed 
 
56 
 
 to Jesus after ujj Rabb, thus ; f^-^ cLij^^i>- ycj 
 Rabbimuz HcEzreti Isa, " Our Lordj Lord Jesus ;' 
 or, as I gave it, " Our Lord, the Illustrious J esus.^' 
 
 It is also prefixed to u^j Rabb, when there is no- 
 thing but Kvpiog in the original, as Acts x. 48. 
 
 > ■> 
 
 f^j>^\ i^Sij c:J>^-a:^ H(^zreti Rabbun ismi, " the name 
 
 of the Lord Lord," the Illustrious Lord, His Ex- 
 cellency Lord, or how it may best be rendered into 
 English. 
 
 Notwithstanding the summary manner in which 
 the Professor dismisses the phrases ^J\*j js^ Hakk 
 tadla, and ^^ c^^-b^ HcEzreti Hakk, p. 30, I must 
 beg to retain my translations, Supreme Verity, 
 and Illustrious Verity: neither the one nor the 
 other signifying as he would have it, o oXtjOivoc 
 ©£oc. The True God; — a phrase which Ali Bey 
 
 very correctly renders by ^\ jj'-» sadik Allah, 
 1 John V. 20, and elsewhere. 
 
 Nor is he one whit more fortunate, when he 
 
 says, p. 30, " ^\ ^^^ velisi Allah, is as he (the 
 Author of the Appeal) has given it, The Good 
 God,"" For in this instance the true proverb is 
 verified: " If the blind lead the blind, both shall 
 fall into the ditch." In assigning the signification 
 good to ^^j^) velisi, I was misled by the adjective 
 form j^j velis, to which Meninsky, after Castell, 
 
57 
 
 gives the meaning of bonus ; but I am now con- 
 vinced, that it is nothing else than the substantive 
 J^ veil, Rect07% Judge, Prefect, Patron, w^hich oc- 
 curring in construction with another noun pre- 
 ceding it in the genitive case, takes the suffix 
 
 ^ si, thus; Heb. xiii. 20. JUi' 4J1 ^_5-J^ tsi-cL. 
 Selamun velisi Allah tadla, " The Prefect of peace, 
 God Most High." It is the same with the com- 
 bination, 2 Thess. iii. 16. ^J\xi ujj ^_j--Jj CS^'Li ^^ 
 Pes selamun velisi Rabb taMa. *' Now the Prefect 
 of peace, the Lord Most High," &c. Whether 
 Professor Lee will adopt this rendering as im- 
 plicitly as he did the other, it is impossible to 
 say; but one thing is certain, that instead of this 
 accumulation of epithets, the original has nothing 
 more than o Gfoc God, and o Ku^xoc The Lord. 
 
 We are next told, p. 33, that " the word Jljj 
 (which I had translated Divine,) no where occurs 
 in the Gospel of St. INIatthevv, the Acts of the 
 Apostles, the Epistle to the Romans, or the book 
 of Revelations, upon which Dr. Henderson pro- 
 fesses to have made his remarks, as a translation 
 of the word Kopioc ; and we may venture to affirm, 
 that it occurs in no other book as a translation of 
 that word without some adjunct. The mistake, 
 therefore, which Dr. Henderson ascribes to Ali 
 Bey, must, in fact, fall upon himself alone." On 
 this statement, I would observe, that it is as falla- 
 
58 
 
 cious as it is imposing. In the first place, I never 
 professed to have made any remarks on the Acts 
 of the Apostles ; Secondly, if the reader will turn 
 to the title of my Remarks, at page 15 of the 
 Appeal, he v^ill find, that they are stated to be 
 ** chiefly' drawn from the three books of the New 
 Testament here specified ; and. Lastly, whether 
 
 the word d^j Rahhani occurs with or without 
 any adjunct, is nothing to our argument. It is 
 found, 1 Thess. iv. 15. M J\ij ^%^ wekelam Rab- 
 bani ile, as a translation of the Greek, kv Xoyio 
 Acupiow, ** by the word of the Lord ;" and James 
 
 V. 10. <dj3 ci^j *-j1 ismi Rabbani He, Greek, ry 
 ovojuari kv^'iov, *' in the name of the Lord." Why 
 Ali Bey did not render the words AA ^"ii CJ^j 
 Rabbim Kelaini He, and <djj *-;\ ismi Rabbile, in the 
 usual way, I pretend not to determine. 
 
 Having thus long put the patience of the reader 
 to the rack, by leading him through this forest of 
 verbal criticism relative to the names and titles 
 given to God in the Turkish version, I will not 
 detain him with any observations on the remaining 
 expressions used instead of Kvptog, which are 
 nearly as many as those occurring in the shape 
 of variations for ©toe, as my renderings are all 
 sufficiently supported by what has already been 
 adduced in the course of this chapter. 
 
On the Professor's Remarks, p. 45, respecting 
 Ali Bey's six variations in the translation of 
 Kvpiog o QeoQ o HavTOKparw^, as occurring in the 
 book of Revelation, I have only to observe in ge- 
 neral, what every one will readily perceive, that 
 they contain a great deal of vapouring about no- 
 thing. My objection toj<j5o Tengrimus, "our Gody' 
 
 did not lie against the adoption of the pronoun hfiCiv, 
 
 , which is not only preferred by Griesbach as the 
 
 probable reading, but is the textual reading in the 
 
 second edition of Matthaei, and in the editions of 
 
 Knapp and Tittmann ; but against the use of ^jU 
 Tengri, '* God,'' as substituted for Kv(>ioq Lord, a 
 liberty which must appear unwarrantable to every 
 person of correct critical taste. 
 
 Under the head of the mistranslation of proper 
 names, I censured the adoption of j— c.-*^ ij-*xJ 
 Kiidsi Sherif, or the Noble Holy Place, as a proper 
 mode of expressing 'l^^oaoXvjxa Jerusalem ; and, to 
 judge from the tone of Professor Lee's remarks in 
 its defence, p. 49 — 53, he must have been strongly 
 apprehensive of the dangerous and untenable 
 ground on which he stood at the moment he 
 committed them to paper. The fact is, he had 
 the misfortune to find himself abandoned by his 
 most powerful ally, the Baron Silvestre de Sacy, 
 and had no resource left, but to make a precipi- 
 tate and covered retreat, and leave the field in 
 
60 
 
 the undisturbed possession of the enemy. In 
 No. I. of the Appendix to the Remarks, the dis- 
 tinguished Oriental scholar just mentioned, after 
 advising the Committee to reject the ]\Iohammedan 
 form (une forme Mohamelane), ,^~t^c Isa, and sub- 
 stitute for it 9^~J Jesu, the Christian form of ex- 
 pressing the name of Jesus, proceeds to remark ; 
 ** I could also wish that the name of Jerusalem 
 were retained, for which the translator has sub- 
 stituted the modern phrase, ^ij^ (^«^ */ Will 
 the Professor reject this evidence, and maintain, 
 as he does of the Tatar and other Turkish ver- 
 sions, that it possesses " no authority whatever ?" 
 But it is said, that " certain it is, nine out of 
 every ten of them (the Mohammedans), would 
 not know what place was meant by ^t^ij, Je- 
 rushalimt." What then, we may ask, will they 
 make of Ali Bey's version, Matt, xxiii. 37. Rev. 
 xxi. 2. where, as was noticed in the Appeal, this 
 very word f^^sj, JerushaVun is exhibited ? But 
 granting that they will not know what place is 
 meant by this name until they are taught, still 
 they are in no worse predicament in this case 
 
 * Je voudrois aiissi qn'on conservat le nom de Jerusalem, au- 
 quel le traducteur a substitue Texpression moderne (— aJ-<i» j_^>^" 
 Appendix, p. 13. 
 
 f Remarlis, p. 50. 
 
than in regard to Lebmion (now liJl J-=». The Snow 
 
 Moimta'm), Jordan (now ^„j^^\ The Passage), and 
 a thousand other names of places altogether fo- 
 reign to their present vocabulary. In order to 
 be consistent, all such names should be commuted 
 for those by which the places are designated in 
 modern geography ; in which case, instead of 
 Samaria, Ephesus, Colosse, Laodicea, Philadel- 
 phia, Thyatira, &c., we shall read NeapoUs or 
 Naplous, Aiasalick, Denizli, Eskt-hisar, Alah-shehr, 
 and Ak-hisar. 
 
 I had observed in the Appeal, that the word Je- 
 rusalem is retained in the Arabic and Persic ver- 
 sions, to which Professor Lee objects *, that " these 
 versions were made for the use of Christians, with 
 whom the word is familiar." At this distance of 
 time, I do not recollect which were the precise 
 versions I consulted ; but I may now be permitted 
 to remark, that what is here objected is true only 
 of those published in the Polyglott. The Ai^abic 
 executed by Sabat, and the Persic by Henry 
 Martyn, both of modern date, were principally 
 designed for the use of Mohammedans ; yet, in 
 neither of them do we meet with the term Kudsi 
 Sherif. The same may be said of the Malay and 
 Hindostanee versions ; the former of which has 
 Jerusjjaleim, and the latter ^t^j^^ May it not, 
 
 * Remarks, p. 50, 
 
62 
 
 therefore, pertinently be asked, What good rea- 
 son can be given that an exception should be 
 made in favour of the Turks, M^hich is not made 
 in favour of other Mohammedans ? 
 
 With respect to the theological reason alleged 
 in the Appeal against " the Holi/ city," or " the 
 noble H0I2/ place," as a proper designation of Je- 
 rusalem, I consider it to be little, if at all affected 
 by the instance adduced from Matt. iv. 5. or even 
 by xxvii. 53. At the time of the temptation, 
 which the Evangelist describes, it v^as still " the 
 holi/ city ;" and when the event referred to in the 
 latter passage took place, its holiness was not 
 actually, though it was virtually removed ; the 
 actual desecration of the place being left to the 
 influence of '' the abomination of desolation, 
 spoken of by Daniel the prophet," by which an 
 end was put to the temple-worship and polity of 
 the Jews*. This, it must also be observed, took 
 
 * It was objected to the appellation " Holy City," that Jeru- 
 salem no longer possesses a greater degree of sanctity than any 
 other place on earth ; the glory having departed from it when 
 Christ passed through its gate on his way to Calvary, and the 
 hour having come, when neither at Jerusalem, nor in any other 
 particular spot exclusively, were the true worshippers to worship 
 the Father, but in every place, incense and a pure offering is 
 offered to his name, from the rising of the sun to the going down 
 of the same ; John iv. 21—24.. Mai. i. 11.— See Appeal, p. 27, 28. 
 All this Professor Lee brands with the character of " farinee ;" 
 but the reader will find the same things stated by Dean Prideaux, 
 
place several years after the composition of the 
 Gospel by Matthew, so that there could be^^o 
 impropriety in his still calling Jerusalem " the 
 holy city," although this appellation, in its strict 
 and literal sense, be not given to it by any of the 
 other New Testament writers. 
 
 The assertion * that I found Mecca called 
 i^j\^ ^jJ» Kuds Mobarika, in a Mohammedan 
 book, I am sorry it is not at present in my power 
 to corroborate otherwise, than by assuring Pro- 
 fessor Lee, of my perfect conviction that I did so 
 find it. Upwards of four years have now elapsed 
 
 who thus observes on the celebrated prophecy of the Seventy 
 Weeks. 
 
 " After which (the Seventy Weeks) the Jews were no more 
 to be the peculiar people of God, nor Jerusalem his Holy City, 
 because then the economy which had been established among 
 them was to cease, and the worship which he had appointed at 
 Jerusalem was wholly to be abolished. 
 
 ' •' All this was accomplished at the death of Christ. For then 
 the Jewish Church and the Jewish worship at Jerusalem were 
 wholly abolished, and the Christian Church and the Christian wor- 
 ship succeeded in their stead ; then the time which was determined 
 upon the Jews for their being God's peculiar people, and upon 
 Jerusalem, for its being his holy city, being fully expired, thence- 
 forth began the kingdom of the Messiah, and instead of the Jews, 
 all the nations of the world were called thereunto, and instead of 
 Jerusalem, every place through the whole earth, where God 
 should be worshipped in spirit and in truth, was made holy unto 
 Jiim." — Connection, Part I. Book V. p. 378. Ed. Land. 17t9. 
 
 * Appeal, p. 28. 
 
64 
 
 since I made the remark, and not having taken 
 any note of the passage in which the phrase oc- 
 curred, it is impossible for me to answer his 
 queries ; but should I find, in the course of my 
 future reading, that it was a mistake, I shall em- 
 brace the first opportunity of acknowledging it. 
 I cannot help observing, however, that the Pro- 
 fessor might have shewn me a little more indul- 
 gence on this point, as it is obvious, from his own 
 proving, that Jerusalem is not the only place to 
 which ^^<ii Kuds is applied. In the text of the 
 Remarks *, indeed, the author says, in reference 
 to its application to Mecca; " I believe it means 
 no such thing, the phrase being universally applied 
 by Oriental writers to Jerusalem ;" but in the note, 
 containing his authorities for the assertion, we are 
 distinctly told by the great Firuzabadi, that " it is 
 also the name of a gi^eat mountain in Najd." In 
 regard to the other statements and insinuations, 
 introduced in connection with this subject, I will 
 only say, that they are as groundless as they are 
 unkind. 
 
 * Page 52. 
 
CHAPTER IV. 
 
 Refntatioti of Professor Lee's Arguments in Defence of the 
 Epithets given by Ali Bey to the Deity. Scripture Usage. 
 The Practice of Mohammedans. Style of the Korart. 
 Turkish Taste. Quotation from Michaelis on this Subject. 
 The licentious Consequences to be apprehended from the 
 Application of the Professor's Rule. The Sacred Nature 
 of Scripture Phraseology. Usage of Christians in Turkei/. 
 The Principle injurious to the Sense, and opposed to the 
 Manner of the Original. Incapable of Vindication, proved 
 by the Practice of AH Bey himself. Farther proved by 
 the Practice of Professor Lee. Rejected by Professor 
 Kieffer in the present Edition of the 2u7'kish Bible. On the 
 Use of the Word " Effendi'' as a Divine Title, 
 
 Having in the preceding Chapter examined Pro- 
 fessor Lee's criticisms on the manner in which I 
 translated the various epithets given to the Divine 
 Being in the Turkish New Testament, and shewn, 
 that the meanings which he would affix to them, 
 so far from rendering their use in versions of the 
 Christian Scriptures less objectionable, pointedly 
 go to strengthen my argument against their adop- 
 tion, let us now proceed to review the principles 
 on which their defence is undertaken, and con- 
 sider the influence which these principles, if ap- 
 
66 
 
 proved, would have on Biblical translations in 
 general. 
 
 The first ground on which the Professor endea- 
 vours to rest the defence of such epithets, and 
 such a periphrastical mode of translation, is, the 
 usage of Scripture. *' In the Hebrew Scrijytures,'" says 
 he, " God is occasionally styled \vbv El-yoii, The 
 Most High, and Xvbv *7^? El El-yon, The Most High 
 God, and D1"ID ♦n*7K Elohe Marom, The High 
 God;' p. 20. '* The phrase, then, JUi' ^\ Allah 
 tadla, is the Scri'ptural phrase, which occurs times 
 innumerable, in our own Bibles," p. 21. It is 
 not introduced " in a way unknown to the phrase- 
 ology of Scripture;' ip. 22, " The import of the 
 phrase is, therefore. Mighty God, — a phrase with 
 which every reader of the Bible is well acquainted," 
 p. 24. " The Hebrew Bible, we know, abounds with 
 similar phraseology : if, then, the idiomatical ex- 
 pressions of the original Scriptures, can be ren- 
 dered in the Old Testament, by others which are 
 equivalent to them, I am at a loss to conceive by 
 what principle of criticism it is, that an European 
 is to step in and say, with respect to the New, 
 This is an unholy mass, a desecrated meretncious 
 jargon, because * some of the phraseology peculiar 
 
 * The reader must observe, that the peculiar application of the 
 word " because," in the above passage, is Professor Lee's, not 
 mine. I never gave any such clwracter to Ali Bey's version on 
 th^ ground here stated. 
 
to the Old Testament has been adopted," p. 25; 
 " The Exalted Creator, being all that is meant by 
 JU; tj?;V ^cL^i tadla. We have here, consequently, 
 nothing umcriptural or unintelligible," p. 26. And, 
 not to multiply quotations, " I believe we shall 
 not be justified in condemning a version of the 
 Scriptures, in every respect faithful to the ori- 
 ginal," (Query ?) " and conceived in 'phraseology 
 common enough in the Hebrew Bible, because it is 
 found to be a little at variance with the diction 
 employed in our own," p. 35. 
 
 That such phrases as the Most High, the Most 
 High God, the High God, &c. do occur in the 
 Old Testament, nobody ever doubted ; and the 
 Professor might have added ^vbv tyrhi^ Elohim 
 El -yon, the Most High God; yybv mn> Jehovah 
 El-yon, Jehovah Most High; D"l Rain, The High 
 One; ik'hv Ilaia, or i^Nbi^ lla-a. The Highest, and 
 XT!bv El-yonin, the same, as the plural of \'\'bv El- 
 yon. But what has all this to do with the argu- 
 ment? The question in debate does not refer to 
 the use of Scripture phraseology, but to the in- 
 troduction of this phraseology into a version, in 
 passages where no corresponding terms occur in 
 the original. This Ali Bey has done in instances 
 almost innumerable ; and, strange to tell, his prac- 
 tice is vindicated by Professor Lee ! Bat who does 
 not perceive, that his argument by proving too 
 much, proves nothing at all? According to the 
 
 F 2 
 
6S 
 
 principle here laid down, we are at perfect liberty, 
 not merely to introduce into versions of the New 
 Testament words and phrases peculiar to the Old ; 
 but, by parity of reasoning, such of those used in 
 the New may be exhibited in a translation of the 
 Old Testament, as do not express some idea pe- 
 culiar to the Christian dispensation. Nor need 
 we stop here : any periphrasis used for the name 
 of God, or for any other name, in any one passage 
 of Scripture, may, in this manner, be adopted, as 
 the translator sees fit, in all, or any one of the 
 other passages in which these names occur. Thus, 
 by way of specimen. Gen. i. 1. " In the begin- 
 ning the Lord God Onmipotent created the heavens 
 and the earth ;" ver. 3. *' And the Creator said, 
 Let there be light, and there was light ;" chap, 
 xli. 16. '* The God of Peace shall give Pharaoh an 
 answer of peace;" Exod. ii. 24. ** And the Father 
 of 7nercies heard their groaning, and the God of 
 ti^uth remembered his covenant," &c. Heb. i. 1. 
 ** The Possessor of Heaven and Earth, who at sun- 
 dry times, and in divers manners," &c. 2 Tim. 
 i. 7. ** For The Rock hath not given us the spirit 
 of fear, but of power," &c. Thus, also. Matt, 
 viii. 10. *' I have not found so great faith, no not 
 in Jeshurun^ xxiii. 37. ** O Ariel, Ariel, thou 
 that killest the prophets," &c. Are not these 
 *' Scriptural phrases?" Have they not their *' pa- 
 rallels in other passages of Scripture ?" And 
 
m 
 
 might they not be supposed, according to the 
 taste of some, to improve the style of the pas- 
 sages in which they occur ? But the Professor's 
 argument carries its own refutation along with it, 
 and should have been permitted to pass altogether 
 unnoticed, had it not been incessantly brought 
 forward ; and that too, as it would seem, with a 
 confident expectation, that it must necessarily se- 
 cure the approbation of his readers. 
 
 The next position that is taken in defence of 
 
 the expression ^W <dJl Allah tadla, is the practice 
 
 of Mohammedans. It is laid down as a maxim,, 
 not to be controverted, that "the best Moham- 
 medan writers alone can be relied on in questions 
 of this kind; and by their decisions must we be 
 governed in this." " Now I will venture to affirm," 
 adds Professor Lee, (and it may almost be deemed 
 excusable in the public to regard his affirmations 
 on " questions of this kind" as semi-oracular), 
 '* that in all the Mohammedan books of any value, 
 whether written in the Arabic, Persic, Turkish, 
 
 Hindostanee, or Malay languages, the word i^\ 
 Allah is ninety-nine times, at least, in every hun- 
 dred, followed by the word JUi* taala," p. 21. 
 Of the frequency with which this combination 
 occurs in the compositions of Mohammedans, I 
 am not altogether ignorant ; but that the nona- 
 decimal mode of computation here insisted on,' 
 
70 
 
 will prove more successful in this instance than i| 
 does elsewhere in the Remarks, is not quite so 
 indubitable. The Koran, I believe, will be al- 
 lowed, at least by Mohammedans, to be "a book 
 of some value ;" yet, from beginning to end of 
 the original, I fear it would rather puzzle the 
 Arabic Professor to find ten or even Jive pas- 
 sages in which the combination JUj' «dJ! Allah 
 
 taala occurs, although it be a fact, that «dSl Allah 
 alone, unaccompanied by any adjunct whatever, 
 is scattered, like the stars in the firmament, with 
 the greatest profusion over almost every page of 
 the volume. It is true, we are taught. Surah vii. 
 172. that " God hath most excellent names," and 
 that he ought to be invoked by the same; and 
 the Mohammedans estimate their sum total at 
 ninety-n'me ; but the style of the Koran is, in this 
 respect, nearly analogous to that of the Old and 
 New Testament, the Divine Being commonly re- 
 ceiving the appellations i^W Allah, God, and <— ^ 
 Rabh, Lord; while the other names are used de- 
 claratively of his attributes, much in the same 
 way as in our Scriptures, where God is described 
 as merciful and gracious, long-suffering, &c. 
 
 But my opponent may say, that he did not 
 mean such ancient Mohammedan books. Per- 
 haps he did not ; yet, I believe, most readers will 
 agree with me in the opinion, that the style of ^^ 
 
n 
 
 took written much nearer the time ot the com- 
 position of our own Scriptures than any other, 
 and a book too, forming the source of religious 
 belief among the followers of the false prophet, 
 ought to be preferred as a standard of appeal on 
 a subject of this nature, before works written at 
 a more recent period, and destitute of that autho- 
 rity with which it is invariably invested. The 
 style of the Koran is superstitiously regarded by 
 Mohammedans as inimitable ; consequently, if our 
 manner of expressing the names of God be in ac- 
 cordance with the sobriety and uniformity which 
 are found to predominate, on this head, in the 
 pages of that book, it is absurd to pretend to 
 adjudge the question by a lower scale. Yet, in 
 what Surah, or what verse, do we meet with 
 
 lujc c->lirw Ginabi Izzet, ^jj^i c->li»- Ginabi Bari, 
 
 fjp^ <-r'l:»f- Ginabi Hakk, 431 i^Ujaat' HcEzreti Allah ^ 
 
 &c. &c. &c. ? These are all the progeny of a vitiated 
 taste, sprung up like gaudy weeds, subsequent to 
 the occupation of the fair fields of Arabic literature 
 by the sons of Gog and Magog-. But let us hear 
 Michaelis : " The dominion of the Turks," says 
 that learned writer, " which has been of longest 
 duration, and is maintained even to the present 
 day, has been most prejudicial to good taste ) 
 and it would be unjust to expect, that those 
 Arabians, who live out of Arabia, among such an 
 
72 
 
 ignorant people as the present race of Turks,' 
 should still be in possession of the same taste 
 which their ancestors had upwards of twelve 
 hundred years ago. Ignorance, barbarism, the 
 form of government, and superstition, have all 
 united to prove the bane of correct taste ; for I 
 must observe, that the religion of the Turks is 
 more superstitious than that of other Moham- 
 medan sects, and is particularly defective in this, 
 that they take those parts of the Koran literally, 
 which ought to be explained figuratively. 
 
 '* I must also remind the reader, that the 
 Turkish language is no dialect of the Arabic, but 
 a complete foreign language ; consequently, no 
 conclusions can be drawn from it, either with 
 respect to Arabic or Hebrew taste : Farther, that 
 the Bible, lohich agrees so closely with ancient Arabic 
 taste, is sublime, indeed, in its poetry, but is in 
 prose completely the reverse of what is called 
 Oriental bombast. Its historical style is rather 
 too simple, than too ornamented ; and the titles 
 given to kings are as short and unpompous as 
 possible ; although, I must say, that we should 
 do the Asiatics injustice, to conclude from their 
 titles to the taste displayed in other parts of 
 style. Even among* ourselves, the style of the 
 chancery of the Court is not exactly the best 
 specimen of taste ; and I should conceive, that 
 the European titles. High Potent, Most Illustrious, 
 
73 
 
 Most Invincible, and sometimes Alost Gracious, 
 have sometimes as much of the hyperbolic and 
 figurative as the Asiatic *." 
 
 But to return to our more immediate subject : 
 In the Appeal, p. 21, it was observed in the 
 note, " that in the translation of our sacred 
 books, the partizans of Ali Bey might learn a 
 lesson from Mohammedans themselves ; for in the 
 
 Persic interlineary version, the word <d!l Allah 
 is uniformly rendered by 1j^ Chuda, God." Of 
 this, however. Professor Lee takes no notice, and 
 it is possible, that, with him, the book is not of 
 any value ; but why has he not produced some 
 specimens from the Malay, the Macassar, the 
 Javanese, and the Chinese versions of the Koran ? 
 Not that I would admit the propriety of adopting 
 any such periphrastic phraseology in translating 
 the Holy Scriptures for the use of Mohammedans, 
 should it even be found to prevail in these books ; 
 but it would be interesting to know, on what prin- 
 ciples the translators have proceeded in this re- 
 spect, although, I confess, I am rather disposed 
 to doubt whether they have followed those 
 avowed by the author of the Remarks. 
 
 Granting, however, what I have no wish to dis- 
 pute, that such usage, and such a variety of epi- 
 thets as that exhibited on the pages of Ali Bey's 
 
 * Preface to Erpenii Arabische Grammatik, p. 1. 
 
74 
 
 New Testament, do really obtain in Moham- 
 medan books of modern composition ; was not 
 this very objection anticipated in the Appeal? 
 " We may be told," it is there said, " that these 
 epithets are in common use among Moham- 
 medans ; but this is nothing to the point, unless 
 we admit the principle, that a translator is at 
 liberty to select any phrases from books of di- 
 vinity that may happen to suit his taste, and sub- 
 stitute them for the name of God. In which case, 
 may we not expect to see an English version, in 
 which, instead of the frequency of the name of 
 God, we shall be entertained with all the variety 
 of the high-sounding First Cause, Supreme Beings 
 Bountiful Parent, Omnipotent Deity, &c. &c. Till 
 such a consummation be effected, those who ap- 
 prove of the principle, will find ample gratifica- 
 tion in Harwood *; while it will suffice for any 
 who have no such desire, to be informed, that 
 in the three first verses of John's Gospel, this 
 gentleman has rendered Geoc by Supreme God, 
 Divine Person, Supreme Being, and Deity\ !'^ 
 Since we have our favourite modes of expression 
 as well as the Mohammedans, what satisfactory 
 reason can be assigned why they should be in- 
 
 * Liberal Translation of the New Testament, London, 1768, 
 in two vols. 8vo. 
 f Appeal, p. 21. 
 
75 
 
 dulged by having their peculiar phraseology in- 
 troduced into a translation of the Scriptures, 
 while we are denied what would be equally con- 
 genial to our taste, and the usages of our lan- 
 guage ? And where is the line of demarcation to 
 be drawn ? To what length may it be permitted 
 to carry this principle of accommodation? Are 
 the Turks the only people under heaven, at the 
 shpine of whose theological vocabulary we are to 
 sacrifice the sacred, venerable, and unbending 
 phraseology of the oracles of God ? Why not gra- 
 tify the Hindoos, the Malays, the Chinese, the 
 Buriats, the Calmucks, and all the other nations 
 and tribes for whom versions of the Holy Scrip- 
 tures are provided, or providing, by a similar 
 adoption of the varied consecrated modes in which 
 they are taught, by their different systems of su- 
 perstition, to express their ideas concerning the 
 Divine Being ? I am supposing these modes of ex- 
 pression to contain nothing absolutely erroneous, 
 and that their adoption would have no other effect, 
 than introducing, in their estimation, the name of 
 the Supreme, " in a manner more reverential than in 
 our own" translation *, and thereby rendering the 
 style more gratifying to the minds of the natives. 
 Between the principles entertained on this subject 
 by Professor Lee, and those of the Abbe Dubois, 
 
 * Remarks, p. 22. 
 
76 
 
 there is so close and striking a connection that 1 
 cannot withhold from the reader the following 
 passage from one of that author's pitiable and in- 
 consistent letters : '* In fact," says he, " a trans- 
 lation of the Holy Scriptures, in order to awaken 
 the curiosity, and fix the attention of the learned 
 Hindoos, at least, as a literary production, ought 
 to be on a level with the Indian performances of the 
 same kind among them, and be composed in fine 
 poetry, a flowery style, and a high stream of 
 eloquence, this being universally the mode in which 
 all Indian performances of any worth are wi^itten*." 
 Is it too much to suppose, that, upon this plan, 
 by the time the Bible has circumambulated the 
 globe, and picked up a " Court of Victory" here, 
 and ** the Great Disposer of Events" there ; a 
 ** Great Spirit" in one place, and " the Maker 
 of the Soul" in another; *' Author of Happiness" 
 in this region, and '' Father of Battle" in that, it 
 will furnish the curious with one of the most 
 Proteus-like forms that ever adorned the shelves 
 of a museum ? But would it not, at the same time, 
 wring tears of woe and lamentation from every 
 genuine Christian, to behold, attired like a har- 
 lequin, that blessed volume, which has been 
 handed down from age to age for so many cen- 
 turies, in full possession of its grand character- 
 
 * Letters on the State of Christianity in India, p. 4 1. 
 
77 
 
 istic features, notwithstanding the minor diver- 
 sities of dialectical texture in which it has been 
 habited ? That there is reason to apprehend some 
 such result, must be obvious, not only from the 
 unequivocal manner in which Professor Lee has 
 avowed the legitimacy of the principle, but also 
 from his publishing, without reprobation, the fol- 
 lowing statement in the Appendix, No. II. " The 
 Translator ouglit to conform to the received usages of 
 the people for whom the work is designed ; and, in- 
 deed, if a French translator, in rendering the 
 name of God, were to employ the words. The 
 Eternal, The Almighti/, The Host High, could any 
 real fault be found with him? Certainly not: nei- 
 ther is it by any means a Mohammedan teint that 
 is given to the work by these forms, but rather a 
 natural, local, and, consequently, a true colour, 
 which is something very different*." 
 
 * The whole paragraph in the original is as follows : " Quant 
 a I'objection tiree de ce que les noms de Dieu, de Je^us Christ, 
 &rc. sont ornes de differentes epithetes ou rendus par plusieurs 
 circonlocutions : nous nous bornerons a faire remarquer que le 
 traducteur a du se conformer aux usages re^us chez les peuples 
 auxquels I'ouvrage etait destine : et en effet si un traducteur 
 Fran^ais s'etait servi, pour rendre le nom de Dieu, des mots, 
 VEternel, le Tout-puissant, le Tres Haut ; serait-on admis a lui 
 en faire un reproche fonde ? Non sans doute : aussi n'est ce point 
 du tout une teinte Mahometane que ces formules donnent a 
 I'ouvragej mais bien une couleur naturelle, locale, et parconse- 
 quent vraie, ce qui est tres different." P. (!'>•) 
 
78 
 
 How different the ideas which all judicious 
 translators of the Bible have entertained 1 And 
 what a mercy that our approved European ver- 
 sions are not committed into the hands of such 
 theorists to be rectified and modernized ! No 
 small stir has been made in England by the late 
 abortive attempt of Mr. John Bellamy, to furnish 
 us with a new English Bible ; but whatever may 
 be the philological delinquencies of that gentle- 
 man, and, if any credit can be given to the Re- 
 views, they are by no means trivial, I will venture 
 to assert, that no such canon as that laid down in 
 the above paragraph, is to be found within the 
 limits of his critical code. It is a rule that would 
 be scouted in translations of the Greek and Ro- 
 man classics ; shall it then be tolerated in ex- 
 ecuting versions of the Holy Scriptures ? 
 
 The Bible, like the ancient Romans, is des- 
 tined, as far as religious phraseology is concerned, 
 to give language to the globe. It establishes its 
 own peculiar dialect, widely as its conquests are 
 extended. Scorning to descend to the corrupt 
 and desecrated jargon employed to convey to the 
 human mind impressions of the different systems 
 of error, which it is one of its principal objects to 
 eradicate, while it imparts new ideas on the most 
 momentous of all concerns, it casts the languages 
 in a new mould, and introduces, what Professor 
 Lee not unaptly styles, " a new vocabulary of 
 
religious phraseology." Like the celestial light 
 which it communicates, 
 
 " It gives to all, but borrows none." 
 
 These remarks, however, be it observed, are 
 designed to extend merely to such forms or modes 
 of expression as are extraneous to the essential 
 and grammatical characters of language. They 
 embrace those only which have been brought into 
 use in subserviency to local and national preju- 
 dices, and have nothing corresponding to them in 
 the texts of Scripture, as they successively pre- 
 sent themselves for translation. It is an egregious 
 blunder to imagine, that such combinations con- 
 stitute what is properly called the genius of a lan- 
 guage. To its religious idiom they may indeed 
 belong, but not to its natural ; and, in the same 
 manner as it admitted these to grow upon its 
 branches, is it compatible with its nature and 
 dignity to assume such novel forms as are not 
 contrary to its fundamental principles. 
 
 It is farther ' argued in defence of this practice 
 of prefixing certain terms of respect and reverence 
 to proper names, and using circumlocutory titles, 
 instead of the words God and Lo?^d, Jesus and 
 Christ, that it is not confined to Mohammedans, 
 but is also general among the Christians in Twkey. 
 That the Christians resident in that country use 
 them in common conversation, and in such- or- 
 
 12 
 
80 
 
 dinary compositions as they publLsh in the Turk- 
 ish kmguage, 1 freely admit ; but that it is their 
 established, or " general practice," to employ 
 them in translations of the sacred Scriptures, is not 
 quite so obvious as Professor Lee seems to imagine. 
 With the occurrence of some of these titles in the 
 Turkish Psalter, published in Greek characters, I 
 was not previously unacquainted ; but I am yet 
 to be informed, that they are introduced into the 
 Turkish New Testament, printed in Armenian cha- 
 racters, and published by the Russian Bible So- 
 ciety in 1819, the very year in which the Paris 
 Testament appeared. We are told, Remarks, 
 p. 21. " that the best Mohammedan writers alone 
 can be relied on in questions of this kind ; and, by 
 their decisions, we must be governed in this :" but 
 the Professor appears to have found a still higher 
 standard of appeal^ after the Turkish Psalter had 
 been pointed out to him, by his friend Mr. Re- 
 nouard, for he affirms, p. 30, " If it can be shewn 
 that they (the Christians in Turkey) have adopted 
 the same renderings with Ali Bey, that circumstance 
 may, perhaps, be considered as decisive." It was 
 well he inserted the doubtful particle, " perhaps," 
 in this place ; for assuredly, whatever may be his 
 individual opinion on the subject, such of our 
 readers as are at all acquainted with the state of 
 Christian knowledge among the Greeks of the 
 present day, will be disposed to consider the 
 
81 
 
 practice of " Turkish Christians," as entitled to 
 very little weight in deciding this, or any other 
 question connected with Biblical science. 
 
 Professor Lee is also of opinion, that, because 
 the objectionable modes of expression " are not 
 peculiar to Mohammedans, the version under con- 
 sideration, cannot, on account of their adoption, 
 be termed Mohammedan, as Dr. Henderson has 
 asserted," p. 31. Whatever I may have asserted 
 on the subject of Ali Bey's version, of this I am 
 certain, that no such assertion as that here im- 
 puted to me is to be found in the Appeal : but, 
 on the supposition I had made it, I must say, it 
 seems rather a curious piece of logic by which 
 we are conducted to the conclusion, that because 
 Mohammedan phraseology may chance to be 
 adopted by a people living in a Mohammedan 
 country, and cruelly obliged, in many things, to 
 conform to Mohammedan customs, it therefore 
 ceases to be Mohammedan. 
 
 There is only one argument more to which it is 
 necessary to advert, viz. that the offetisive luorda or 
 phrases do not lower or injure the idea conveyed by the 
 original. *' Here," (substituting Court of Victory 
 for QtoQy God) "as before, no violence whatever 
 is done to the sense of the original: the dignity 
 of the person mentioned is by no means lowered */* 
 
 * Remarks, p. 24, 
 
The reader will, no doubt, be surprised to find 
 such a rule seriously urged in defence of Ali Bey ; 
 for, upon the same principle, we might justify ten 
 thousand deviations from the common phraseology 
 of Scripture ; adopt, without the least hesitation, 
 " The Deity, Supreme Fareyit of the Universe^ Eter- 
 nal Majesty, Divine Being," &c. of Harwood ; and 
 even comply with the proposal of the Abb^ Du- 
 bois, to render the simple word wine, by ** the 
 juice of the fine fruit called grape *!" It may in 
 general be admitted, that the use of the peri- 
 phrastic epithets in question, does not materially 
 affect the sense of the passages in which they 
 occur, in so far as the individual word for which 
 they stand is concerned ; yet their exhibition, if 
 any meaning be attached to them in the mind of 
 the reader, may not unfrequently lead away his 
 thoughts from the specific idea designed to be 
 most prominently presented in these passages. 
 Take for instance. Rev. xii. 10. '* The kingdom 
 of the Court of our Creator," which is the 
 literal rendering of the words here used by Ali 
 Bey, according to Professor Lee's own definition. 
 Will not a contemplative mind naturally dwell 
 upon the phrase, '* The Court of our Creator ?" 
 And yet, as it is altogether extraneous to the text 
 ^i Sacred writ, is it not most evidentj that, in 
 
 * Xetters, p. 34. 
 
83 
 
 proportion as it is permitted to absorb the atten- 
 tion, injury will be done to the original, con- 
 sidered in its practical application and use ? But 
 the fact is, all such modes of expression are chiefly 
 exceptionable, on the ground, that they add to the 
 sentiment conveyed by the original, and offend 
 against the manner of the sacred writers ; it being 
 as contrary to just principles of translation, to 
 swell or heighten the style of an author, as it is 
 to lower it, or render it less striking. And with 
 respect to Biblical translation, in particular, the 
 reader will, I am persuaded, not be displeased to 
 see the rule of the Apostle Paul, though commu- 
 nicated in the words of Harwood, in his transla- 
 tion of 1 Cor. ii. 13. *' Which blessings we pro- 
 claim to the world, not with those studied arts of 
 eloquence and polished diction, which human wisdorn 
 hath invented, but in the manner which the 
 Holy Spirit dictates." 
 
 Having thus, I trust, satisfactorily shewn the 
 futility and absurdity of the arguments adduced 
 by Professor Lee, in vindication of the introduc- 
 tion of these honorary and periphrastic epithets 
 into translations of the Bible, it may not be 
 deemed irrelevant, to bring forward, in this place, 
 the evidence of three witnesses, whose testimony, 
 as to matter of fact, must be regarded as unexcep- 
 tionable, ^wA finally decisive on this subject. 
 
 The first witness I shall produce is Ali Bey him- 
 G 2 
 
84 
 
 self. Is it maintained, that by the omission of 
 c2j.-<Mv HcEzret, Illustrious, or as the Professor 
 gives it, Presence, Shek'mah, Lord, and Monsieur 
 Desgranges, His Excellency, *' the Oriental idiom 
 would not have been so well preserved*?" How 
 then, we may ask, does it happen, that, liberal as 
 our Turkish translator is in the use of it, there are 
 times when he can equally well omit it, without, 
 it is presumed, being guilty of any infraction of 
 the rules of Oriental taste ? For example, although 
 he generally prefixes this word to Xptcrroc, and ex- 
 hibits the form -tf>>^^ ciya>- Hcczreti Mesiih, '* The 
 Illustrious Messiah," " Lord Messiah," " His Ea- 
 cellency Messiah," or how you choose to give it, 
 yet whole chapters occur in certain parts of the 
 version in which it is scarcely ever used. Thus, 
 in the three last chapters of Paul's Second Epistle 
 to the Corinthians, the name Christ occurs by 
 itself, in the original, not fewer than ten times ; 
 yet, with the exception of one solitary instance, 
 it is unaccompanied in the version by this de- 
 corating adjunct. We are, nevertheless, told by 
 M. Andrea de Nerciat, late Interpreter at Con- 
 stantinople, and formerly in Syria and Persia, 
 that " with respect to the honorific epithets which 
 accompany the name of our Lord, nothing but ig- 
 norance of the religious spirit of the Orientals in 
 
 * Remarks, p. 29. 
 
85 
 
 general, can render it possible for us not to feel 
 the enormous want of decency, of which we should 
 be guilty, in pronouncing this sacred name in a 
 cold, dry manner ; and as our preachers never ex- 
 press it without taking off their cap, in like manner 
 the Orientals cannot ivrite or articulate it, without 
 prefixing the word ci^^-a^*- (HcEzret), or accom- 
 panying it with the epithets ^!Uj" ^j*3jl^ ^h-^ c/*^ 
 (Merciful, Blessed, Sacred, 3 lost High,) and a 
 thousaful others derived from the infinitude of the 
 perfections which emanate from his Divine es- 
 sence *." It is also affirmed by M. Caussin de 
 Perceval, that " it would even be a species of ir- 
 reverence to enunciate simply the name of Jesus, 
 without adding to it eij^s- (HcEzret), or saying 
 ^>ju*Jl ^^^^ (Jesus Christ) f." The same thing is 
 repeated by M. Bianchi and M. DesgrangesJ; 
 yet Professor Lee tells us Ali Bey is " an Oriental 
 translator of acknowledged talent and experience in 
 
 * Appendix, No. V. p. (23). According to this Gentleman, 
 the prefixing of the word Ha;zret to the name of Jesus by the 
 Orientals, is exactly similar to the removal of the cap by a certain 
 class of preachers when they pronounce this name. The authority 
 for both, Professor Lee will allow, is equally good. 
 
 •f- II y aurait meme une sorte d'irreverance a enoncer simple- 
 ment le nom de Jesus, sans y joindre t " < Jt-^^ ou sans dire, 
 ^p^] ^_^c. -Appendix, No. VI. p. (Z5.) 
 
 X Appendix, Nos. VII. and VIII. 
 
86 
 
 his language*," although, to judge from his prac- 
 tice, these names may at least be written without 
 any such prefix, whatever may be done with the 
 calotte in pronouncing them. The same remark will 
 apply to the use of the adjunct JUi' tadla, " Su- 
 preme,'' or " Most High,'" about which the Pro- 
 fessor has written so much, and which after all, he 
 has himself no hesitation in allowing might have 
 been left out, without injuring the sense, though 
 he has his doubts whether the translation would 
 have been improved by the omission "f. I shall 
 beg, however, to call to his recollection, a passage 
 in the Appeal, which he seems to have forgotten, 
 in his surprise at my stupidity, in citing one of 
 the Epistles to the Thessalonians, to prove that 
 Crispus was a Mohammedan ! It is as follows : 
 *' I shall only further add on the subject of these 
 epithets, that a curious specimen of the arbitrary 
 and unequal manner of the translation is exhibited 
 in the fourth chapter of the first Epistle of John. 
 In the first eight verses the word Gfoc occurs thir- 
 teen times ; and, except in the last instance, is 
 uniformly rendered as it ought to be, by ^\ Allah; 
 but, having come to the declaration, 6 Oto^ a-yaVT? 
 scrrtv, God is love, the simplicity formerly observed 
 is abandoned, and ^Ui Jl' Allah tadla is adopted, 
 
 * Kemarks, p. 29,. f Ibid. p. 22. 
 
87 
 
 and employed ten times in the course of the fol- 
 lowing eight verses *." In like manner, the phrases 
 Ginabi Bari, Ginabi Hakk, Ginabi Izzet, Hakk 
 Tadla, are sometimes omitted for whole chapters, 
 and even epistles ; why then introduce them into 
 other chapters and other parts of the New Tes- 
 tament ? 
 
 We may, therefore, conclude from Ali Bey's 
 own" practice, that the use of such epithets and 
 forms is altogether arbitrary, depending entirely 
 on the whims of the translator, and not necessarily 
 required by the genius of the language. This 
 being the case, if they can be omitted twelve suc- 
 cessive times without offending the eye or the ear 
 of the Orientals, they may in twelve hundred in- 
 stances ; and, if so, it will be granted, that they 
 may be dispensed with entirely in versions of the 
 Holy Scriptures, to the simplicity of which, most 
 of them are altogether foreign and repugnant. 
 
 The next witness we shall subpoene to give evi- 
 dence in the case before us, is the Professor of 
 Arabic in the University/ of Cambridge. After spend- 
 ing a number of pages in defence of the objection- 
 able phrases, Professor Lee completely yields the 
 point, by saying, p. 25, " In the present case, 
 indeed," (where Ali Bey uses ^iJlc '-->L^- Ginabi 
 Izzet, Court of Victory,) " the word i^\ Allah, 
 
 * Appeal, p. ~6. 
 
or -Xi' Tengri, ivould have eiyressed all that is in- 
 
 tended by the word Oeoc; but the variety of ex^ 
 pressions employed by Ali Bey, in these instances, 
 cannot be construed by any acknowledged prin- 
 ciples of criticism, as sufficient to warrant the 
 suppression of the edition in question ; or to draw 
 down those epithets, with which our Doctor has 
 been pleased to disgrace it." Does not my oppo- 
 nent here grant the very point I contend for ? And 
 will not every one who trembles at the word of 
 God, conceive, that if a translator has *' expressed 
 all that was ititended by the words" of the original, 
 he has done all that his duty requires ? To do 
 tnore, is to add to the word of the Lord ; and by 
 what acknowledged principles of criticism this is 
 to be tolerated, I am yet to be informed. 
 
 But not to insist further on this admission: if 
 ** the word n^) Allah be ninety-nine times, at least, 
 in every hundred, followed by the word ^JUi tadla 
 
 in all Mohammedan books of any value, whether 
 written in the Arabic, Persic, Turkish, Hindos- 
 tanee, or Malay languages," and this be produced 
 as a fact to prove the necessity of adopting such a 
 combination in those translations of the Holy 
 Scriptures which are to be circulated among Mo- 
 hammedans, how comes it that Professor Lee 
 could allow versions in the Malay and HindostaiieCy 
 two of the very languages here specified, to pass 
 
89 
 
 tlirough his hands without rectifying- them accord- 
 ing to the decisions of those by whom " we must 
 be governed in this ?" In the former of these ver- 
 sions 'Allah is uniformly employed throughout to 
 express the word Oeoc, and never once receives the 
 adjunct ta'^alqj {^^ tadla, " Most High") except 
 where the corresponding word v-^iarog Highest^ 
 Most High occurs in the original, and then it is 
 properly added. Nor does it occur in the Hindos- 
 tanee except in similar cases, and in Rom. ix. 5. 
 where it is given as a translation of o kirl ttuvtwv 
 0£oc God over all. It is the same with the other 
 epithets, and even with cl).-«^ Hcezret, which we 
 were prepared to expect must certainly be found 
 in the Hindostanee, this language, as exhibited in 
 the version before us, consisting of a vast propor- 
 tion of Arabic and Persic words ; but I find it 
 nowhere excepting on the title page, which, of 
 course, is no part of the sacred Text. We may 
 be told, that the Professor did not prepare these 
 versions, but only edited them. Be it so : but 
 did he make no remonstrance on the subject? 
 Did he not produce his strong reasons to shew 
 that except the bald and plain manner in which 
 the name of God had been expressed, were cor- 
 rected by the addition of the almost universally 
 accompanying adjunct tadla, the versions would 
 be rejected with contempt by the Mohammedans 
 of Hindostan, and the Indian Chersonese ? Did 
 
90 
 
 he not at least endeavour to convince his constitu- 
 ents, that it was the height of arrogance in Henry 
 Martyn " quietly to sit down" at Calcutta and 
 Dinapore, and the Malay translators at Batavia, 
 and " determine according to their principles of 
 sacred taste, what every Mohammedan" in those re- 
 gions ** ought or ought not to consider as a term 
 of respect," although they must have known that 
 their determination was diametrically opposite to 
 the taste and practice of their unbelieving neigh- 
 bours ? It is not impossible, however, that at the 
 period when the Professor brought those versions 
 through the press, his critical principles had not 
 reached that degree of maturity which they now 
 appear to have attained ; and it remains to be seen 
 whether he will omit the phrases in question in 
 the editions of the Persian New Testament and 
 Psalms, translated by Henry Martyn, and the Book 
 of Genesis, done by a Mohammedan, which, ac- 
 cording to the Reports of the Bible Society, he is 
 at present editing. If he be serious in maintain- 
 ing that the principles laid down in his remarks 
 are not merely to be held in theory, but that they 
 ought to be reduced to practice, may we not ex- 
 pect to be furnished ere long with a correct spe- 
 cimen of the genuine Persian style of Biblical 
 translation ? 
 
 But we come to the last and most important 
 
91 
 
 witness, Professor Kieffer^, the Editor of Ali Bey's 
 Turkish version. If it can be fairly made out to 
 the public that this gentleman is at present acting 
 in perfect opposition to our fine-spun theory of 
 accommodation to Mohammedan or Oriental taste, 
 and that he is actually throwing out the flowery 
 Court of Victory y E.valted Creator, Court of Truth, 
 
 ^Here I beg leave most pointedly to deny the charge brought 
 against me by the Eclectic Reviewer (Art. vi. June, 1824) that I 
 had either Professor KiefFer, or Professor Lee in contemplation 
 when I spoke of " versions having been undertaken or carried 
 through the press by men equally disqualified by their previous 
 habits or their present acquirements for putting so much as their , 
 little finger to such a work." Of the Parisian Professor I should 
 be sorry ever to suffer a word to escape my lips or my pen that 
 could possibly be construed into want of respect for his talents, 
 or a withholdment of my just esteem on account of the amability 
 of his private character, and his distinguished and indefatigable 
 exertions in promoting the spread of Christian truth. From all I 
 know of him I believe I may confidently assert, that, had he been 
 left to bring out the obnoxious edition with that circumspection 
 which his own good sense would have prescribed as necessary in 
 conducting a work of such importance ; had he not been driven 
 on with " rather undue haste;" and had not express restrictions 
 been laid upon him to depart in no instance from the text of the 
 manuscript, the public would never have been troubled either with 
 my Appeal, the developement of Professor Lee's principles of 
 translation, or the present continuation of the controversy. That 
 the Committee of the British and Foreign Bible Society laid any 
 such restrictions upon him, is more than I believe ; but, that his 
 hands were thus lied down, to the no small detriment of the work, 
 is what positive information warrants mc to attiim- 
 
92 
 
 ^x. and is contenting himself with the sober ex- 
 pressions ixiil Allah and <1j Rabb, may we not con- 
 sider the point as conceded in fact, whatever 
 maybe said or written to the contrary ? Yet such, 
 reader, is positively the case. I have lying be- 
 fore me not fewer than nineteen sheets of Ali Bey's 
 Turkish version of the Old Testament, which he is 
 now bringing through the press, and on comparing 
 the text which it exhibits with that printed in 
 Berlin, I find in no one instance the objectionable 
 periphrases substituted for the Divine names, but 
 simply the corresponding Arabic words Allah and 
 Rabb throughout. But, in order to enable the 
 learned to judge for themselves, I shall here insert 
 the first ten verses of the first chapter of Genesis, 
 containing the text of both editions, with the ac- 
 companying translations in parallel columns : 
 
 BERLIN EDITION. 
 
 ^jyo ^J^^J\ c>^^* O-^^. 
 
 ^^J 
 
 > djJuL) 
 
 '. uS^j' 
 
 
 PARIS EDITION. 
 
 ^^^ j^ji'^ ^3j ^^^ 
 ^Lyj4> ijyuSj\ 0^'^^ ^1j "*" 
 
93 
 
 l«L2fci-Ij ^jJjI <Xx«>«*j te^ 
 u/ ^/!j^ As-i^jl ^U-Oj 
 
 «^J ^J^^yO y^lyC <LC}ywJjl 
 
 tj^jl eJolwjl *.^A*A5^ ^j^y^ 
 
 yj cjy juo3j ^Uj (_>s^j a 
 
 ^jjj ^LJ ^L) jjiiJT 1 
 
 y^f.jyo tjJIjl OjJu!l (^^ 
 S^*^^/ c/'^'' '^y J^' 
 
 iO^^ . jiiiJoT ajj!, T , 
 
 •— W^^ Sf*^^- uS*^ ^^ 
 
 y.ji Jy^ u^j' ^'^l "-^Z 
 
 
 
94 
 
 BERLIN EDITION. 
 
 In the beginning tlie Ex- 
 alted Creator created the 
 heavens and the earth. 
 And the earth was empty 
 and vacuous : on the sur- 
 face also of the abyss was 
 darkness, and the Spirit of 
 God (Tengri) moved tre- 
 mulously on the surface of 
 the waters. Then God Most 
 High (Allah Tacila) said : 
 let light be, and light was. 
 The Court of tJie Creator 
 also saw that the light was 
 beautiful, and the Court of 
 the Creator separated the 
 light from the darknesses. 
 And the Court of the Crea- 
 tor named the light, day, 
 and the darkness, night; 
 and evening and morning 
 having been, were the first 
 day. And the Cowr^ q/* ^//e 
 Creator also said : let there 
 be an expanse in the midst 
 of the waters, that it may 
 separate the waters from 
 the waters. The Supreme 
 God ( Tengri Taala) then 
 formed an expanse, and se- 
 parated the waters that 
 were imder the expanse, 
 10 
 
 PARIS EDITION. 
 
 In the beginning God 
 created the heavens and 
 the earth. And the earth 
 was empty and vacuous ; 
 over the abyss also was 
 darkness ; and the Spirit of 
 God moved tremulously 
 over the waters. And God 
 said : let light be, and light 
 was. God also saw that the 
 light was beautiful, and God 
 separated the light from 
 the darknesses. And God 
 named the light day, and 
 the darkness night ; and 
 evening and morning hav- 
 ing been, were the first day. 
 And God also said: let 
 there be an expanse in the 
 midst of the waters, that it 
 may separate the waters 
 from the waters. God then 
 formed an expanse, and se- 
 parated the waters that 
 were under the expanse, 
 from the waters which were 
 above the expanse ; and it 
 was so. And God gave to 
 the expanse the name of 
 Heaven ; and evening and 
 morning having been, were 
 tlie second day. Then God 
 
33 
 
 from the waters tliat were 
 above the expanse ; and 
 it was so. And the Supreme 
 Verity gave to the expanse 
 the name of Heaven; and 
 evening and morning hav- 
 ing been, were the second 
 day. Then the Exalted 
 Creator said : let the waters 
 that are under heaven be 
 collected to one place, and 
 let the continent appear; 
 and it was so. And the 
 Supreme God (Tengri 
 Tacila) called the name of 
 the continent Earth, and 
 the assemblage of waters he 
 named Sea; and the Ex- 
 alted Creator saw that it 
 was good. 
 
 said : let the waters that 
 are under heaven be col- 
 lected to one place, and let 
 the continent appear; and 
 it was so. And God called 
 the name of the continent 
 Earth, and the assemblage 
 of waters he named Sea; 
 and God saw that it was 
 good. 
 
 And is it possible, the reader will ask, that Pro- 
 fessor KiefFer should not only have ventured thus 
 to act in direct opposition to the declared opinion 
 of Professor Lee, and Dr. Pinkerton, and General 
 Macauley, but that he should still persist in so 
 acting notwithstanding the overpowering autho- 
 rity of Baron Silvestre de Sacy, and Professor 
 Jaubert, and Garcin de Tassy, and Langl^s, and 
 Andr6a de Nerciat, and Professor Caussin de Per- 
 ceval, jun. and M. Bianchi, and M. Desgranges, 
 
96 
 
 and M. Petropolis, and M. Ermian, &c. &c. 8zc. ? 
 Can he have been so infatuated as to depart from 
 the general practice of the " churches of Turkey," 
 with the Metropolitan of Angouri at their head ? 
 Has he really had the arrogance to correct " an 
 Oriental translator of acknowledged talent, and 
 experience in his language ?" Has he committed 
 himself by such an omission of words as " implies 
 a high degree of disrespect in the estimation of 
 every Ttc?ii, whether Mohammedan or Chris- 
 tian* ?" And has all this been done, have all these 
 authorities been slighted, and all these considera- 
 tions set aside, merely to bring the style of the 
 Turkish version into accordance with " the sac7^ed 
 taste of an European, not very profoundly skilled 
 in these matters ?" 
 
 It would be superfluous to say more on the sub- 
 ject. Not only is the adoption of the objection- 
 able epithets perfectly at variance with the practice 
 of the most approved translators of ancient and 
 modern times, but it is only partially and most 
 inconsistently and arbitrarily used by Ali Bey 
 himself; it is attempted to be vindicated in theory, 
 but is rejected in practice by Professor Lee ; and 
 Professor Kieffer has marked it with the broad 
 seal of his reprobation. Will its defence be again 
 undertaken ? 
 
 * Remarks p. 150. 
 
97 
 
 In concluding this chapter I may be permitted to 
 add, on the application of the word ^_^sXi] Effeiidi to 
 the Deity, which Professor Lee, sheltering himself 
 under the authority of the Metropolitan of An- 
 gouri, maintains to be proper, that, however his 
 nervous system may remain unaffected by " the 
 frightful contortions of the well-educated Persian," 
 and his mind uninfluenced by " the fears expressed 
 by a "Persian of lower attainments*," the French 
 Editor does not appear to possess any such unen- 
 viable degree of insensibility : for in Gen. xv. 2, 
 where, in the Berlin edition of Ali Bey, the patri- 
 arch Abraham addresses Jehovah by ^) *jjJIs1 ^j\ 
 *' O my Effendi God," that now printing in Paris 
 exhibits the word O, Rabb ^i ^1;. ^_s\ " ^ Lord 
 God." 
 
 * Remarks, p. 48. 
 
 H 
 
CHAPTER V. 
 
 Application of the Words ^\ Allah and c-> Rabb to Christ. 
 Groundless Assertion of Professor Lee relative to CbjJ^ 
 El-Rabb. His Hypothesis respecting t—?, Rabb as exclu- 
 sively applicable to God, equally without Foundation. Its 
 Use with Respect to merely human Masters, proved from 
 Classic Arabic Writers. Concession of Professor Lee. How 
 the Argument affects the Subject of our Lord's Divinity. 
 Passages adduced in Illustration from Ali Bey. 
 
 It was observed in the Appeal, p. 25, that " the 
 names God and Loj^d, and Jesus and Christ, are fre- 
 quently interchanged in Ali Bey's version " w^ith- 
 out any thing like a scrupulous adherence to the 
 order of the original." I also remarked, that *' it is 
 easy to be perceived, how much influence this 
 must have on the doctrine of the divinity of 
 Christ ;" and stated, in a note, that, " in the Acts 
 of the Apostles alone, I had found not fewer than 
 
 twenty-Jive passages in which M God, ^\m i^\ the 
 Supreme God, usJ'J i^^ Divine Majesty, or JU; j>- 
 Supreme Verity, are substituted for c-j, Lord ; yet 
 in almost all these passages the designation refers, 
 not to God, absolutely considered, as when thus 
 
99 
 
 changed it exclusively does, but to our blessed 
 Saviour, who, as Mediator, is made both Lord and 
 Christ, and, on this account, is called Kupioc, Kar 
 e^o^nv, in the New Testament." 
 
 Of that part of the charge which respects the 
 interchange of the names Jesus and Christ, no par- 
 ticular notice is taken in Professor Lee's Remarks; 
 and we are left to infer, that it is perfectly allow- 
 able in a translator of the New Testament to ren- 
 der the word Jesus by Christ and Christ by Jesus, 
 just as it may happen to strike his fancy. Nay, 
 we are distinctly told, p. 36, " The scrupulous 
 adherence to the order of the original, upon which 
 he (the Author of the Appeal) lays so much stress, 
 does not enter into our principle of interpretation ; 
 we only expect to see the sense and bearing of the 
 original accurately expressed in the language of 
 the translation." The reader will perceive that the 
 words here printed in Italics are taken from the 
 Appeal, where they are used, not in relation to 
 any grammatical construction of words, but to the 
 very interchange in question ; the marking with 
 Italics is the Professor's own, and was, no doubt, 
 designed to give an emphasis of reprobation to the 
 canon, that wherever the words Jesus, Christ, &c. 
 stand in the original, words exactly corresponding 
 should appear in the translation. Whether this 
 canon of translation, or his " principle of interpre- 
 tation," will more commend itself to the impartial 
 
 H 2 
 
100 
 
 and judicious Scripture critic, and indeed to all 
 who have any reverence for the word of God, I 
 leave others to judge, and dismiss the subject for 
 the present, in order to give due prominency to 
 that part of the charge which affects the divinity 
 of Christ. 
 
 To such as are at all acquainted with the grand 
 points at issue between Christians and Moham- 
 medans, it is almost superfluous to point out the 
 paramount importance of putting into the hands 
 of the latter, a faithful and correct translation of 
 the Christian Scriptures. For, whatever " can- 
 dour" and *' liberality" Professor Lee may have 
 found in those of them with whom he has had in- 
 tercourse, qualities diametrically the reverse are 
 universally complained of by such as come into 
 daily contact with them, as most conspicuously 
 displaying themselves whenever the peculiar doc- 
 trines of the Gospel are made the subjects of dis- 
 course. Against those passages of the New Tes- 
 tament in particular, which teach the Sonship and 
 Divinity of the Lord Jesus, their cavillings and 
 rancour are constantly directed ; and, if any dis- 
 crepancies are found to obtain in the renderings 
 of these passages, they are sure to seize on them, 
 and turn them into the greatest handle against the 
 Gospel of Christ. In what an awkward predica- 
 ment then must a Missionary be placed, when 
 disputing with a follower of the Arabian prophet, 
 
101 
 
 who is enabled by a false version of the Scrip- 
 tures, to repel one of his strongest arguments, 
 drawn from the genuine and unsophisticated sense 
 of these Scriptures, in support of the Divine na- 
 ture of our Saviour ! The advocate of Christianity 
 may attempt, as he pleases, to account for the 
 diversity of reading ; it will all amount to nothing 
 in the view of his unbelieving antagonist, who 
 will, on no consideration, permit a weapon to be 
 wrested out of his hands, which, he finds, he can 
 wield to so much advantage against those, whom, 
 after the example of his leader, he brands with 
 the name of Associants. 
 
 That the version of Ali Bey exhibits renderings 
 of a description suited to aid the Mohammedan 
 assailant in discussions of this nature, proofs were 
 given in the Appeal, which .have been deemed 
 perfectly conclusive by all, as far as my know- 
 ledge goes, excepting the Author of the Remarks, 
 who, after devoting nearly twenty pages of his 
 book to the investigation of the subject, leaves 
 the reader in a state of bewilderment, from which, 
 to say the least, he was perfectly free when he 
 commenced the perusal of them. 
 
 But, it will be asked, why this pertinacity in 
 contending for that which, after all, makes nothing 
 for the theory assumed in the Appeal ? Why en- 
 deavour to demonstrate, that by making use of 
 
 <0J1 Allaliy or some word or periphrase descriptive 
 
102 
 
 of absolute Deity, Ali Bey has excluded from the 
 passages in question all idea of the one Mediator, 
 when no attempt has previously been made to 
 
 shew, that the word c-^ Rabb, " Lord," will be 
 understood by the Mohammedans as signifying 
 our Lord and Saviour ? Professor Lee boldly 
 asserts, that if I had made any such attempt, I 
 should have failed : " the fact," says he, p. 37, 
 being, " that the Mohammedans understand it as 
 applicable to none but God. To have rendered 
 
 the word Kvpioc, therefore, by «-^ would not have 
 restricted the meaning in any one of the passages 
 alluded to, to the person of our Lord ; but would 
 have left it just as it now is, where the word «)dil 
 &c. have been used. Dr. Henderson's expedient, 
 would, therefore, hg-ve been ineffectual." It will 
 be perceived, that it is here laid down as indis- 
 putable, that ^]J] Allah, " God," and ^. Rabb, 
 ** Lord," are perfectly convertible terms, both 
 applying to none but God alone. Upon this as- 
 sumption, and upon the Professor's misconception 
 of the real bearing of the question, proceeds the 
 whole tenor of his Remarks, pp. 34 — 44, 86, 87,. 
 109 — 112 ; and, perplexed, as he evidently appears 
 to have been, by what he did not comprehend, 
 we cannot wonder at his repeatedly assuring his 
 readers, that I have argued entirely upon the other 
 side of the question from that which my position 
 
103 
 
 was intended to establish. Nor, for the same 
 reason,^ is it possible to be in the least degree 
 angry at the sarcastic manner in which he speaks 
 of my qualifications, p. 38, or the abuse with which 
 he loads me in thus concluding the subject: " 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 ?" P. 43. 
 
 Leaving the reader to ponder these queries, let 
 us now revert to the point in dispute, and inquire, 
 whether it really be a case so clearly made out as 
 Professor Lee would have it be believed, that C-j. 
 Rabb, "Lord," can be used of none but God? 
 And here it may not be amiss to examine what he 
 has to say relative to CjS\ Err abb, or as he pro- 
 nounces it El Rabb, in the two notes at the foot 
 of the 37th page. In the latter of these notes, 
 we have the following lexicographical definition 
 of the word by the celebrated author of the 
 
 Kamoos ; J;=.^ j^ ^^ j^ cAW. ^ (♦^tj l-^^I " El Rabb, 
 with the article El, is applied to none but God, 
 (to whom) be power and glory." The question 
 then, as far as it regards El Rabb, may be con- 
 13 
 
104 
 
 sidered as for ever set at rest, for here is Oriental 
 authority of the very highest order ; and to this 
 authority I desire to bow with the most submis- 
 sive reverence. But can it be deemed irrelevant 
 to put the question to Professor Lee, why he made 
 this quotation ? Did he suppose that any person 
 
 could possibly doubt, that C-j. Rabb, " Lord," 
 with the article Jl £/ prefixed, making it iIjJ) El 
 Rabby *' The Lord," could be applied to none but 
 God, just as ^1 or oil! liah^ " a god," with the 
 article prefixed, making it i^\ Allah, " God," never 
 can be applied to any but the Supreme Being? 
 The debate is not (and it is of essential import- 
 ance that the reader should know it is not) 
 about the application of el? J] El Rabb, " The 
 Lord," Kar k^oyjiv, but about Cjj Rabb, without 
 
 the article to give it this restrictive definiteness 
 of signification. Yet, as if I had been so ab- 
 surd as to maintain the contrary, we are told, 
 p. 38, that ** in the Arabic, Persic, and Turkish, 
 
 ^1 ,^^.[i l-jUs. ,^Ui* j^ jCj^I &c. (i. e. El Rabb, 
 
 Hakk Tadla, Ginabi Bari, Allah,) apply to none 
 but God." Again, p. 39, " He should have shewn 
 that some such words as i.-.,>»-U jJ^ju* jlil or the like 
 had been used, when the context manifestly calls 
 for L-jJl ,<}jjl (El Rabb, Allah) or some equivalent 
 term." I will not multiply quotations, but simply 
 
105 
 
 refer to pages 41, 42, 111, 112, of the Remarks, 
 for further proof, that my opponent argues, as if 
 the question turned upon the definite form of the 
 word, whereas it refers entirely to its indefinite 
 form. Did he not perceive, that, throughout the 
 whole of this argumentation, he was only beating 
 the air ? It is possible he did not ; yet, the vacil- 
 lating manner in which he treats the subject, 
 ma:kes it evident that he had nothing of a sub- 
 stantial form to grapple with, and this he appears 
 at times, powerfully, though indistinctly, to have 
 felt in his own mind. 
 
 But, what shall we say to the concluding sen- 
 tence of the preceding note ? *' It should be ob- 
 served, however," says Professor Lee, " that in 
 nine places out of every ten, at least, the word Ku- 
 pioq, when applied to our Lord, is rendered by 
 cJJI (El Rabb) in Ali Bey's version ;" p. 37. 
 
 Assuredly, if this can be satisfactorily made out, 
 no one will ever dare to assert in future, that this 
 version of Ali Bey does not inculcate the doctrine 
 of our Lord's divinity. For, if it can be made to 
 appear, that in not fewer than two hundred and 
 seventy passages of the New Testament, the word 
 Kuptoc is incontrovertibly applied to Christ, and 
 that out of these tivo hundred and seventy passages, 
 Ali Bey renders it in two hundred and forty three, 
 AT LEAST, by the word \L^j\ El Rabb, which, 
 we have the authority of the Kamoos for affirming. 
 
106 
 
 is applied to none but God ; it necessarily follows, 
 that his version exhibits such an overwhelming 
 mass of evidence in support of that doctrine as 
 must cover its enemies with eternal confusion. 
 And, as we are positively informed by the Pro- 
 fessor, that this version is ** in every respect faith' 
 ful to the original* " it as incontestably follows, 
 that all other versions are chargeable with the 
 blackest infidelity on this all-momentous and fun- 
 damental point ; it being a fact, that in no other 
 version in existence, as far as I know, does one 
 half of these passages contain a word for Kvpiog, 
 which ** can be applied to none but God." Is it 
 not to be regretted that this important discovery 
 was not made at an earlier period? How many 
 heart-sickening controversies it would have pre- 
 vented! And what trouble it would have saved 
 such men as the Bishop of St. David's, and Drs. 
 Magee, Wardlaw, Pye Smith, and many others, 
 whose distinguished talents might have been 
 employed with so much advantage in the defence 
 of some other important part of the Christian 
 system ! Faithful to the Original ! every lover of 
 sacred truth will exclaim. Where then is the in- 
 valuable Greek manuscript preserved, from which 
 Ali Bey made his version, and which applies to 
 our Lord in two hundred a^id forty three passages, 
 
 * Remarks, p. 35. 
 
107 
 
 — ^ word, the faithful rendering of which consists 
 of one that '* can be applied to none but God?" 
 
 Before indulging, however, in further specula- 
 tion on this interesting topic, it may be proper to 
 ascertain the accuracy of Professor Lee's compu- 
 tation ; for, if he has committed any mistake in 
 making the count, it will proportionally lessen 
 the promised result. Now, what will the reader 
 think, if it should turn out, that CjJ] 'El Rabb 
 
 does not occur exactly with so much frequency 
 in Ali Bey's version as a translation of Kvpiog when 
 applied to our Lord? The least he can say is, 
 that the Professor was too hasty in estimating the 
 number. But what if, instead of riine times out of 
 every ten, at least, the word in question should not 
 occur otice out of every teti ? What, if it should not 
 be found once in every hundred? It will in this case 
 be thought, that he was highly reprehensible in 
 hazarding so bold and inconsiderate an assertion, 
 and supporting it with all the weight of his pro- 
 fessional character. How then must the reader 
 be filled with astonishment, when, as the result of 
 a careful collation of the passages, he is informed, 
 that, instead of occurring two hundred and forty- 
 three times, which it must, according to Professor 
 
 Lee's statement, the word u-»Jl El Rabb is, in 
 Ali Bey's version, applied to our Lord only in one 
 solitari/ instance ! This instance occurs. Acts i. 2L 
 
108 
 
 CjJ] ,e**^ ci-yis- HcBzreti Isa El Rabb, i. e. as I 
 should originally have given it, " The Illustrious 
 Jesus THE Lord ;" but, according to my oppo- 
 nent, " The Lord Jesus God." In what manner 
 are we to account for this blunder ? 
 
 But, it will be perceived, that it is not merely 
 on the use of the emphatic form CjiJ] El Rabb 
 that Professor Lee rests his argument ; he assigns 
 even to O. Rabb, without the article, the same 
 restrictive signification. In proof of this, besides 
 the passage already cited from page 37, we may 
 refer to the following : ** We have already seen, 
 that by the word Cj. Rabb, the Mohammedans 
 do not understand our Lord Jesus Christ, but God, to 
 the exclusion of every other Being:"' p. 86. And 
 again ; *' It has already been shewn, that whether 
 the translator had used C^. Rabb or adJI Allah, the 
 Mohammedan reader would have understood none 
 but the Supreme God:'' p. 110. Now, assuming for 
 a moment that this statement is correct, let us 
 enquire what are the conclusions to which it will 
 conduct us ? 
 
 The first and most obvious conclusion at which 
 we must arrive is this ; that, as far as Moham- 
 medans are concerned, the version of Ali Bey 
 contains two hundred and seventy passages in which 
 Jesus Christ receives a title which is applied to 
 God, to the exclusion of every other being. But 
 
109 
 
 no person acquainted with the Greek original will 
 take it upon him to affirm, that it contains cor- 
 responding proofs of the divinity of our Saviour, 
 at all amounting to any thing like this. The Paris 
 edition of the Turkish New Testament, therefore, 
 if put into the hands of Mohammedans, will, in 
 numerous passages, teach a doctrine which is not 
 taught in the corresponding passages of the ori- 
 ginal-; and, if so, it must be perfectly unwarrant- 
 able in the Bible Society to distribute a single 
 copy without note and comment, or, at least, 
 without employing a living instructor to inform 
 the Turks, that they are not to understand the 
 name \L>j Rabb, as we are told it has hitherto 
 been universally and properly understood amongst 
 them, as exclusively applicable to God; but, that 
 they are merely to consider it as denoting au- 
 thority or superiority in the person receiving it ; 
 the context affording the only criterion by which 
 to judge of the nature of the person, or whether 
 that nature be human or divine. 
 
 The second consequence resulting from Profes- 
 sor Lee's premises, is the imperfect knowledge 
 which Ali Bey possessed of the language into 
 which he translated the Bible ; for, if he knew, 
 that by the word C-j. Rabb, the Mohammedans 
 would understand none but God, how did he come 
 to apply that word to Jesus Christ in passages 
 which alone refer to his human nature, or which. 
 
no 
 
 from the circumstances of the context, necessarily 
 exclude all idea of divinity from the minds of 
 those who gave him this title ? Generally, through- 
 out the Gospels, when our Saviour is addressed 
 by KuptE, where there is not the slightest reason 
 to conclude, that those who made the address 
 had any conception of his Divine nature, Ali 
 Bey renders it by Cj>j b Ya Rabb, " O Lord.'' 
 
 Not to multiply instances, let us take the case of 
 the woman of Samaria. On being told by Christ, 
 who, she had every reason to believe, as an entire 
 stranger, could not come by the knowledge of the 
 fact in any ordinary way, that she had had five 
 husbands, and that the person at present living 
 with her was not her husband, she accosted him 
 Cjj b Ya Rabb, i. e. according to the construction 
 
 which my opponent says a Mohammedan must 
 put upon it, ** O God ! I perceive thou art a pro- 
 phet 1" But let us try how this exclusive sense of 
 cl^ Rabb will apply in other passages of Ali Bey's 
 version. Matt, xxviii. 6. " Come see the place 
 where God lay." John xx. 2. " They have taken 
 away God out of the sepulchre." 1 Cor. vi. 14, 
 *' And God both raised up God, and will also raise 
 up us by his own power." xi. 26. " For as often 
 as ye eat this bread and drink this cup, ye do 
 shew the death of God till he come." Acts ix. 1. 
 *' And Saul, yet breathing out threatenings and 
 
Ill 
 
 slaughter against the disciples of God'' John 
 vi. 23. " After that God had given thanks." xi. 2. 
 " It was that Mary who anointed God with oint- 
 ment," &c. But, of all the passages in which it 
 is used, none will, on the principle in question, 
 more effectually scandalize a follower of the false 
 prophet, than Acts ii. 36. ** Therefore, let all the 
 house of Israel know assuredly, that the Court 
 OF THE Creator hath made that same Jesus 
 whom ye crucified, both God and Christ." What ! 
 he will exclaim, do you imagine I can be so in- 
 fatuated, as to hesitate for a moment, whether or 
 not I should believe in a made God? The argument 
 of Marracci, that the supreme name of Lord, which 
 is only proper to Christ as God, was also com- 
 municated to his human nature on account of the 
 hypostatic union by which the things properly 
 belonging to the one nature are predicated of the 
 other *, as it certainly will not satisfy a Moham- 
 
 * Refutationes in Suram V. Alcorani, p. 202. The passage 
 as thus explained by Marracci, as well as the others above quoted, 
 might seem to admit of vindication from the text, Acts xx. 28. 
 " The church of God which he hath purchased with his own 
 blood," but few are ignorant of the disputed nature of the reading 
 Gtoe ; and the remark of the great Athanasius pertinently applies 
 to them all : OvBa/jiov Be aXfia Qeov Bi^a arapKog irapa^eBwKacnv at 
 ypa(j)a'i, 7) Qevv Blo. ffapKOQ TcadovTa Ka\ ayaffravTa' 'Apeiariop to. 
 Toiavra ToXfii'ifiaTa. " The Scriptures have no where given the 
 expression, blood of God, as separate from the flesh [i. e. the 
 human nature], or, that God through the flesh suffered and rose 
 
112 
 
 medan, so, I believe, it will not be deemed con- 
 clusive by any Christian who impartially weighs 
 the import and bearing of the passage. The idea 
 of making or constituting Christ what he I'eally 
 was and had been from eternity, is altogether a 
 palpable absurdity ; but that, as Mediator, he was 
 constituted in his one complex person, Lord^ i. e. 
 Possessor and Ruler of all things, is a doctrine 
 plainly and distinctly taught in Scripture. But 
 it is not merely to our Lord that the word Cj. 
 Rabb is applied by Ali Bey, and that as nearly 
 synonymous with Master ; e. g. John xiii. 13, 14. 
 He also uses it of the angels; thus. Acts x. 4. 
 Cornelius, addressing the angel, whom he saw 
 coming in to him, and saying unto him, Cornelius, 
 said, tl?. b ,1^ ^ ** Ne war ya Rabb" " What is it 
 LordV where the word is used in the same sense 
 with the Greek Kupte, merely as indicatory of a 
 superior, without necessarily including the idea 
 of divinity. 
 
 Once more, if JLj. Rabb will not, and ought not 
 to be understood of any but God absolutely con- 
 sidered, it follows that Ali Bey's version, to the 
 extent of its circulation, must terminate the long 
 agitated question relative to the propriety of 
 
 again: such expressions are the daring attempts of Arians." 
 Contra ApoUinarium. See Dr. Pye Smith's Script, Test. Vol. ii. 
 pp. 493, 494. 
 
113 
 
 giving to the virgin Mary the title of Geotokoc, Dei 
 genet riv, Deipara, " Mother of Gody Thus we 
 read, Gal. i. 19. " James, the brother of God/' 
 and 1 Cor. ix. 5. ** the brothers of God ;" and, in 
 translating Luke i. 43. Ali actually appears to 
 have had the disputed phrase in view ; for he does 
 
 not render it ^[i\ CXcj. RabbimuJi Anasi, " the 
 mother oi my Lord," which the words of the ori- 
 ginal, r] fxriTi]^ Tov Kwpt'ou /iiou, require, but ^^Ul l^j 
 
 Rabbun Anasi, " the mother of the Lord," i. e. 
 according to Professor Lee, '' the mother of God P' 
 But here, as in the former instance, relative to 
 c-_>^l El Rabb, it will be necessary, before we 
 admit such important conclusions, to pause and 
 examine the premises from which they are de- 
 duced. " By the word u_j. Rabb, the Moham- 
 medans do not understand our Lord Jesus Christ, 
 but God, to the exclusion of every other being :" 
 p. 86. " If Dr. Henderson here means by Kwpioc 
 Kar k^oyr)v in the Ncw Testament, that such pas- 
 sages should have been translated by some word 
 applicable to man, and not to God, surely L;^=^l^ 
 Sahib, .^ Sayi/ud, Ul Agha, or the like, should 
 have been proposed, and not C^. in order to have 
 restricted the meaning to our Lord considered as 
 man:" p. 38. I have not adduced this latter pas- 
 sage in order to attempt a refutation of the argu- 
 
 1 
 
114 
 
 ment contained in it, because this argument is 
 directed against a position which I never held ; 
 but to shew, that Professor Lee also adopts as his 
 own, the opinion which he imputes to the Moham- 
 medans, viz. that Cjj Rabb cannot be given to any 
 created being, no?' applied in any relation to man, for- 
 asmuch as it is one of the exclusive and appropriate 
 titles of Deity. That this hypothesis, however, 
 is entirely destitute of foundation, will appear from 
 the following considerations. 
 
 First, u>?b.l Erbab, the plural of Cj. Rabb, 
 
 ** Lord,'' occurs times without number in Moham- 
 medan writings, in the sense of Domini, posses- 
 sores ; and nothing is more common than the com- 
 binations ^^^^1 «-->Ul Erbabit'tijan, ** the Lords, 
 or Possessors of Crowns," i. e. kings ; ^U] c-Jj,! 
 Erbabi-rai, " Masters of Opinion," i. e. counsel- 
 lors; t->ljJill uJ^j\ Erbabul-ibab, "Possessors of 
 Hearts," i. e. prudent, intelligent ; ^^lyj S^y 
 Erbabi Divan, *' Lords of the Divan," i. e. Privy 
 Counsellors ; vj>j«jL« ujU,! Erbabi Sencit, " Posses- 
 sors of Art," i. e. artificers. Now, although the 
 word should never occur in these forms in the 
 singular number, yet, it is evidently implied, that 
 each one of the persons here spoken of, taken 
 singly, is Cjj Rabb, " Lord, Master, or Possessor," 
 of that which is predicated as belonging to them. 
 
115 
 The same remark applies to the Scripture phrase, 
 
 1 T.im. VI. 15. o BatriXsvc Twv (SaaiX^vovrwv Kal Kvpiog 
 
 TU)v Kv^uv6vTb)v, Rex regum et Dominus dominan- 
 tium, which Ali Bey gives in the pure Arabic 
 form ; »— >b^ill «-^j CALJI CJl* Melikul-mulk, Warab- 
 bul-erbab, " The King of kings, and Lord of 
 lords;" where, as each of the kings is a king, 
 however limited his power, so each of the lords 
 is a Rabb, i. e. Master, or possessor of the per- 
 sons or things belonging to him. The word is 
 also used in its plural feminine form, as Jtss^l ci^U 
 
 Dom'uKB Thalamorum, " Ladies of the bedcham- 
 bers." 
 
 Secondly ; u-^ Rabb, ** Lord," in the singular, 
 the very form in dispute, is used in a manner ex- 
 actly resembling the above combinations. Matt. 
 X. 25u in the Propaganda Arabic, ci^j^I <-1>, Rabbul- 
 heity " the Master of the House ;" in pure Arabic, 
 .iJj) \L>j Rabbud-dar ; and in the Scholia, printed 
 in the margin of the Petersburgh edition of the 
 Koran, p. 414, besides the significations of >yx^ 
 Seid, " Master," and <LXu Malik, " Possessor," 
 we also find iiL«.l] -.^j Zewjil-marat, " the husband 
 
 of the woman," assigned as the meaning of *._> 
 Rabb. 
 
 Thirdly ; The word Jl^ Rabb is given as a title 
 to man as well as to God, in Arabic writings of 
 
 1 2 
 
116 
 
 undoubted classical authority. Thus, we find in 
 a quotation from Abulfeda, in the Monumenta 
 Vetustiora Arabiee of Schultens, p. 48, it is said 
 by that Author, of Nooman, who built the castle 
 of Khawarnak, 
 
 which is thus translated by Schultens : " Sane in 
 meditationem venit JDominus Chawatmaki quum die 
 quodam prospexisset exalto ; estque ductui recto 
 meditatio." In the Journal des Savans for January, 
 1818, p. 25, we have the following rectification 
 of the passage, and a new translation by Baron 
 Silvestre de Sacy, from which it will be seen, that 
 he affixes the same sense to the word in question, 
 and applies it to Nooman, as Lord of Khawarnak : 
 
 Recogita Dominmn aixis Khaivarnaki quando h 
 sublimi loco respexit quadam die; et utique in 
 seria cogitatione est directio. The same combi- 
 nation is found in one of the examples in Richard- 
 son's Arabic Grammar: 
 
 *• When I drink freely, then indeed I am Lord (Rahh) of 
 
 Khavarnak and the throne ; 
 " But when I awake from ebriety, then I am only Master 
 
 (Rabb) of sheep and of camels." 
 
117 ^ 
 
 Another incontrovertible instance of this appUca- 
 tion of the word occurs in the Annals of Abulfeda, 
 Reiske's edition, p. 238, where speaking of Hasan, 
 the son of Gafana, he says, 
 
 ** He forgot me not in Syria, when he was her 
 Lord." To these examples I shall add five from 
 the I^oran itself, in which Pharaoh is called the 
 ul^ Rabb, or ** Lord" of his servants : of these, 
 three occur in the 41st and 42d verses of the Xllth 
 
 Surah, thus ; &ij ^_^.***^^S U/je-1 Ul ^^sr**^l ,_^a>.Uj Ij 
 
 ** O my fellow prisoners, verily the one of you 
 shall serve wine unto his lord, as formerly; but 
 the other shall be crucified, and the birds shall 
 eat from off his head. The matter is decreed 
 concerning which ye seek to be informed. And 
 Joseph said unto him whom he judged to be the 
 person who should escape of the two. Remember 
 me in the presence of thy lord. But the Devil 
 caused him to forget to make mention of Joseph 
 unto his lord, wherefore he remained in the prison 
 some years." The other two examples occur in 
 the 50th verse of the same Surah : vi^l J(j>j 
 
118 
 
 l^jXe. ^JbiiJXi ^. J\ ^^jJoj ^jf^ ^\ 'iy^\ " And the 
 
 King said, bring him unto me. And when the 
 messenger came unto Joseph he said. Return unto 
 thy lord, and ask of him what was the intent of 
 the women who cut their hands ; for my lord well 
 knoweth the snare which they laid for me." From 
 these instances, it is obvious, that CLj. Rabb is 
 given to merely human lords, especially to kings ; 
 and we are informed by Castell, that in the time 
 of Paganism, the Arabs even gave to their kings 
 the title of u-j^II El-Rabb, ** The Lord" absolutely; 
 but this form came, after their conversion to Mo- 
 hammedanism, to be exclusively appropriated by 
 them to the Supreme Being. That it is sometimes 
 used in the acceptation of Master in general, 
 without regard to any particular dignity in the 
 person sustaining the character, is clear from the 
 
 proverb in Tabrisi ad Hamasa ; ? Joc i—^Jy, C^, JL? 
 
 " et ille ; Dom'mus servum suum mores docet." 
 Schultens' Monum. Vetust. Arab. p. 41. 
 
 Lastly, after all his efforts to establish his hypo- 
 thesis. Professor Lee, himself, completely over- 
 throws it, by admitting that the word in question 
 may be applied as a dignified Arabic title, without 
 connecting any ideas of divinity with the person 
 to whom it is given. ** But Dr. Henderson has 
 also neglected the context. The disciples of John 
 are the persons who here (John i. 39.) address 
 
119 
 
 our Lord ; there is no probability, therefore, that 
 they would give him any higher title than that of 
 teacher or doctor^ as it is hardly to be supposed 
 that they were acquainted with the divinity of his 
 person; and this inference ivill hold good, had they 
 addressed him by the more dignified Arabic title of 
 Cjj Rabb *." After this concession, we cannot be 
 
 * Remarks, p. 102. In the paragraph preceding that from 
 wliich this quotation is made, we have some remarks on my ob- 
 jection to the rendering : \Zj (j " Lord ! which, being interpreted, 
 signifies teacher." Joh. i. 39. " Unfortunately for our Reviewer, he 
 has not been aware that the word t_j Rabhi, here used by AU Bey, 
 
 }s the very word used in the original, just as it is in the English 
 version." Of two things I was perfectly aware at the time I wrote : 
 First, that the word in the original was pa(3fii ; and, Secondly, 
 that the term used by Ali Bey to express it, C-J. L) Ya Rabb, is 
 
 the very form which he employs, Acts iv. 24, in translating the 
 words. Lord! Thou art God, &c., and indeed, generally, where 
 the word Kvpie occurs in the original. According to the Transla- 
 tor's usage, therefore, a Turkish reader will consider the interpre- 
 tation as designed to explain the Arabic, and not a foreign word, 
 of which C-i Rabb cannot appear to him to bear any resem- 
 blance. Is it not a little strange, that the Professor should have 
 forgotten the manner in which the word is given in his own Propa- 
 ganda Edition ? The translator of this work, sensible of the incon- 
 gruity of giving Jjv« u Yc' Moallhn, " O Teacher," as a trans- 
 lation of the Arabic {„^ [j Ya Rabb, ** O Lord," introduces the 
 original word 'Pa/3/3i, completely in its exotic garb ; «| Rabbi ; 
 not only inserting the final ^, but also the I, neither of which 
 
120 
 
 surprised at the remark, p. 103 ; "It should 
 be remembered, that the divinity of our Lord can- 
 not be maintained by the words adopted in any 
 translation;" but it will be impossible, on the 
 other hand, for the Professor to exonerate him- 
 self from the charge of self-contradiction in making 
 such an assertion, after having gravely told us, 
 that " in ?i'me places out of every ten, at least, the 
 word Kupiog, when applied to our Lord, is ren- 
 derered by CjS\ (El Rabh) in Ali Bey's version," 
 • — a word, which, " the Author of the Kamoos," 
 says, ** is applied to none but God :" p. 37. Ac- 
 cording to this principle, the divinity of our Sa- 
 viour may, at least on the evidence of the Turkish 
 version, be maintained merely by the loord adopted 
 by the translator, as has already been shewn. 
 
 The results of the process to which we have 
 submitted the examination of the question, are 
 these : First, That the word Cj, Rabb, with the 
 article, C->S\ El Rahb, giving it emphasis, and ren- 
 dering it exclusively applicable to God, as the 
 Possessor and Lord of heaven and earth, is only 
 once, and that improperly, used of our Saviour, 
 
 is exhibited in the Arabic word cIj, Rabh. Had my opponent 
 
 attended to this, he would have found, that the Propaganda Ver- 
 sion, and not that of Ah Bey, was what he calls " a faithful trans- 
 cript of the original," in this case, iind might have spared the 
 observation, that my " remark savours of hypercriticism." 
 
121 
 
 in the version of Ali Bey. Secondly; That this 
 same word »-l^ Rabb, which, taken absolutely, and 
 in the highest sense, is a designation of Jehovah, 
 is, nevertheless, according to the best and purest 
 Arabic usage, applied to human lords, especially 
 such as are high in dignity and authority. Lastly ; 
 That when used, therefore, by Ali Bey, to express 
 KvpioQ, it is properly and legitimately employed; 
 and thfe sense in which it is to be taken, is left to 
 be determined by the circumstances of the con- 
 text; which is precisely the situation in which 
 we are placed in regard to the original. 
 
 It must be obvious, however, to every person 
 who reads the Appeal, that my objection did not 
 lie against the use of this word in application to 
 Christ, but against Ali Bey's not using it in pas- 
 sages where we find the Greek word KvpioQ thus 
 applied in the original. This objection was 
 founded, partly on the confusion introduced into 
 the sacred text by the interchange of the names 
 God and Lord ; and partly, on the annihilation of a 
 number of proofs of our Lord's divinity, which I 
 maintained must necessarily follow, as a conse- 
 quence of this confusion. 
 
 Now, what is the amount of Professor Lee's re- 
 marks in answer to this objection ? It is simply 
 this : that I am, as he conceives, chargeable with 
 a double inconsistency ; first, in asserting, that, 
 by substituting God for Lord, Ali Bey has de- 
 
122 
 
 stroyed certain proofs of the divinity of ouif 
 Saviour ; and, secondly, in proposing the use of 
 a w^ord which would inculcate his divinity exactly 
 in the same way as the word Qeog does. 
 
 Were the author of the Remarks able to prove 
 the truth of his position, that ul^ Rabb is equiva- 
 lent to Gfoc God, and is never used in a lower, or 
 subordinate sense, I admit, that his latter charge 
 would be well founded ; but, as its fallacy has 
 been detected, to the satisfaction, I trust, of the 
 reader, I may be allowed still to maintain, that 
 by employing Cj. Rabb as a translation of Kvpiog, 
 when our Lord is the subject of discourse, he 
 would not have restricted its meaning, but left it 
 in possession of the same indefinite character 
 which attaches to Kvpiog, the word used in the 
 original. 
 
 With respect to the other charge of inconsistency, 
 I am free to confess, that to a superficial reader, 
 or a person who has not thought closely on the 
 subject, it may appear to be not altogether with- 
 out foundation. Nor was I ignorant that this 
 objection had been made to my assertion, long 
 before I found it taken up in the Remarks. It 
 was urged, and, abstractly considered, urged with 
 reason, that if, instead of calling Christ Lord, a 
 term which is often applied to merely human 
 masters, the translator uses the words God, 
 Supreme God, Divine Majesty^ &c. he never can 
 
123 
 
 be chargeable with weakening or annihilating the 
 proofs of his divinity, but must, on the contrary, 
 be considered as corroborating that doctrine in 
 the most decisive manner. It must be observed, 
 however, that it was not in an abstracted or more 
 general point of view that I referred to the sub- 
 ject, but, as occurring in certain specific passages, 
 and affected by considerations necessarily arising 
 out of ,the connection in which it thus occurred. 
 What I had in contemplation was the fact, that 
 in numerous passages of the New Testament, we 
 find certain acts or attributes predicated of a 
 Being there styled o Kvpiog, " The Lord,'' which 
 cannot be predicated of any mere creature, but 
 are confessedly the sole prerogatives of the 
 Eternal God. But, according to the usual and 
 familiar style of the New Testament writers, 
 o Kvptoc is not employed to denote the Divine 
 Nature absolutely, or the person of the Father 
 in distinction from that of the Son, but our 
 Saviour Christ as appearing and acting in his 
 mediatorial capacity during his abode upon earth, 
 or, as carrying into execution the great work of 
 human redemption after his ascension to glory. 
 Consequently those passages which connect with 
 this title, as applied to him^ properties or acts 
 peculiar to divinity, clearly prove him to be God. 
 But let us substitute 6 Gcoc, or as Ali Bey has 
 
 done, ^\ Allah, ^jii u->Ui»- Ginabi Bari, ** The 
 
 13 
 
124 
 
 Glorious Creator," or some such phrase, in these 
 particular passages, and who does not perceive, 
 that quite a different idea will be produced in the 
 mind of the reader? Instead of conceiving that 
 the attributes there described are the possession 
 of Him who tabernacled as a man among men, 
 was crucified, lay in the grave, rose from the 
 dead, ascended up into heaven, where he now is, 
 crowned with glory and honour, and whence he 
 will come to judge the world at the last day, he 
 will naturally think of God merely in a general 
 point of view, as existing and acting, irrespective 
 of the personal distinctions so clearly revealed in 
 the mediatorial scheme. The direct and neces- 
 sary tendency of the change of terms is, therefore, 
 to suggest an idea of immediate acts of the Deity, 
 or acts on the part of man terminating on the 
 Divine Nature, without any regard to the econo- 
 mical arrangement which constitutes the basis of 
 the Christian faith. 
 
 But it will be proper to produce a few passages 
 for the sake of illustration, keeping in view the 
 manner in which they have been rendered in the 
 Turkish version. We read Acts ii. 47, that the 
 first Christian church continued daily with one 
 accord in the temple — ** Praising God, and having 
 favour with all the people. And the Lord added 
 to the church daily such as were saved." Here, 
 as in the original, an important nominal distinc- 
 
125 
 
 tion is maintained between the object of worship, 
 Tov 0£ov, God, referred to in the preceding part of 
 the verse, and o Kv/otoc, " The Lord," as the author 
 of that spiritual increase which was vouchsafed 
 to the primitive church. It is well known, that, 
 according to the general manner of Luke and 
 Paul, the word Kvpiog, without the article, is used 
 of God, without reference to any personal distinc- 
 tion, but of our Lord Jesus Christ when it takes 
 the article, as in the passage under consideration. 
 In the version of Ali Bey, the words are thus 
 rendered : '' Praising the Most High God, Sec. the 
 Court of Truth ( j.=^ ^^ Ginabi Hakk) also added 
 daily to the Church," &c. By destroying the 
 distinction, the translator renders it impossible to 
 resolve the effects, which are here stated to have 
 been produced, into an exertion of the power of 
 Christ as the Omnipotent Head of his church ; 
 and they are consequently described as simple 
 and immediate acts of the Father, or the Godhead 
 absolutely. 
 
 Chap. xi. 20, 2L " Preaching the Lord Jesus. 
 And the hand of the Lord was with them ; and a 
 great number believed and turned unto the Lord J" 
 The impartial reader will naturally conclude that 
 the Lord, whose agency was vouchsafed to the 
 Apostles so as to effect the saving conversion of 
 men by their ministry, a work exclusively the 
 prerogative of God, is the same Lord who had just 
 
126 
 
 been called Jesus, and to whom the converts are 
 said to have turned. Not so in the Turkish 
 version: ** They preached His Ejvcellcfici/ Jesus, 
 and the hand of the Most High God {^J\Jo ^) Aiiah 
 Ta&la) was with them." Can any tiling be more 
 marked than the distinction here made, for which 
 there is not the least foundation in the original ? 
 
 Chap. xiv. 23. ** They commended them to the 
 Lord on whom they believed." According to the 
 style of the New Testament, those whom the 
 Apostles addressed, were called to " Repentance 
 towards God, and faith towards our Lord Jesus 
 Christ," chap. XX. 21. in consequence of which, 
 where any are said to have believed on the Lord, 
 as in the passage before us, we are to understand 
 by the term, the Lor^d Jesus. This construction, 
 however, it is impossible to put upon the word as 
 given in the Turkish version : *'They commended 
 them to God{iLfi\ Allahie) in whom they believed;" 
 and, as the person to whom they commended the 
 new disciples is supposed capable of affording 
 them protection and every blessing, it is obvious, 
 that by substituting God for Lord, the ascription 
 of this Almighty Power to the Lord Jesus, is ex- 
 cluded from this passage under review. But it 
 would be doing injustice to my argument not to 
 quote the^xc client remark of Dr. Pye Smith on 
 this verse. *' In the passage before us, the person 
 to whose power and grace the Apostle and his 
 
127 
 
 associate commended the converts, and their 
 newly-established churches, was clearly the Lord 
 Jesus ' on whom they had believed,' and on whom 
 the inspired teachers directed all persons to be- 
 lieve in order to salvation. It was an act of 
 adoration ; and it manifestly recognized in Him 
 who was its object, that invincible power which 
 in the most hazardous circumstances could keep 
 his followers from falling, and guarantee that they 
 should never perish, nor should any snatch them 
 out of his hand." It is also plain, that the just 
 construction ** leads us to refer the action of 
 'praying, and that of commending to the same 
 object*." 
 
 Chap. xvi. 10. 14, 15. "Assuredly gathering that 
 the Lord had called us for to preach the Gospel 
 unto them. Whose heart the Lord opened. If ye 
 have judged me to be faithful to the LordT These, 
 and the other passages above quoted, are adduced 
 by the same able writer, from whose masterly 
 work I have just given an extract, as proving not 
 only that the appellation the Lord is currently 
 given to the Redeemer, but that it is combined 
 with a peculiar and exalted knowledge, authority, 
 power, and influence for the advancement of his 
 kingdom, and the protection of his servants ; and 
 that both the appellation and the attributives are 
 in the usual style and manner of Scripture, when 
 
 * Scripture Testimony, Vol. II. pp. 4S2, 483. 
 
128 
 
 it speaks of the Great Jehovah as the Protector^ 
 Guide, and Saviour of his people*. But all this 
 is rejected, and no person would ever think of 
 the Lord Jesus on reading these passages, accord- 
 ing to the interpretation of Ali Bey: "For we 
 concluded from this that the Most High God 
 (Allah Tadla) called us thither to preach the 
 Gospel. — Whose heart God Most High (Allah 
 Taala) opened. — If ye account me faithful to the 
 Most High Godr 
 
 We next come to a passage which was in- 
 stanced in the Appeal, p. 26, where I observed : 
 *' Thus Acts xviii. 8, when it is said, that Crispus 
 believed <)o JUi' <)J]| in the Supreme God, the reader 
 will naturally conclude, that he had formerly 
 been an Atheist or Idolater, but was now con- 
 verted to the faith of the one true God. But we 
 know that he professed this faith before, for he 
 was a chief ruler of the Jewish synagogue ; and 
 what Luke here affirms, is, that he embraced the 
 Christian faith. He believed in the Lord, i. e. 
 the Lord Jesus Christ." After spending the 
 greater part of three pages in conjuring up ab- 
 surdities and mistatements with which to clog 
 my argument, but which, in fact, after all, only 
 attach to the baseless fabric of his own miscon- 
 ceptions. Professor Lee replies in the following 
 style : " Very true, Dr. Henderson, there are many 
 
 * Ut sup. p. 462. 
 
i2d 
 
 false, though very natural conclusions, drawn 
 from the text of Holy Writ. Crispus was, no 
 doubt, a ruler of the synagogue ; he may, never- 
 theless, have been an Atheist or an Idolater, 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 virtu- 
 ally 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 *." Passing the 
 quibble relative to false and natural conclusions, 
 may we not ask, who so much as conjectured 
 before, that the sacred penman had the most dis- 
 tant idea of affirming, that Crispus was, *' an 
 Atheist or Idolater, in the strict sense of those 
 terms," or indeed in any sense whatsoever ; or, 
 that ** although professing a belief in the God of 
 Israel, he may have virtually denied him, in re- 
 jecting his Messiah?" Can any conclusion or in- 
 terpretation be more false, and, at the same time, 
 more unnatural than this ? It is in vain we con- 
 sult the commentators on the subject : their re- 
 marks are all founded on the common reading 
 T(j> Ki»p»<p, in the Lord, without deriving any ad- 
 vantage from the admirable discovery brought to 
 light by the Turkish version. Kuinoel, one of the 
 
 * Remarks, pp. 43, 44. 
 K 
 
130 
 
 latest, only remarks : *' Ne autem omni prorsus 
 fructo inter Judseos Pauli laborem caruisse pute- 
 mns, narratur Crispum archisynagogum, Christo 
 nomen dedisse cum omni sua familia," which 
 words I merely cite to shew the light in which he 
 viewed the appellative in the text. 
 
 Having attempted to defend the position, that 
 it was the Most High God, and not the Lord Jesus 
 Christ, in whom Crispus believed, the Professor 
 proceeds to turn into ridicule the passage which 
 I adduced from a Turkish book, to illustrate the 
 manner in which the Turks express themselves 
 when describing their God, and which was shewn 
 exactly to coincide with what Ali Bey says of 
 Crispus. " We are gravely told," says he^ 
 ** that a book of testimony, written by some Peer 
 Ali, has the following passage," &c. p. 44, on 
 which I have only to remark, that the book, of 
 which, from ignorance, he here affects to speak 
 with contempt, has passed through several edi- 
 tions, both at Scutari and Kazan, is to be found 
 either printed, or in manuscript in almost every 
 Turkish and Tatar house ; and was thought 
 worthy of being translated into French a year or 
 two ago by one of Professor Lee's own autho- 
 rities in his Appendix. His next attempt is, to 
 tax me with mistranslation. " ^^h Tengri,"" says 
 he, '* does not mean Divinity, as given by the 
 Doctor, but God, or Lord, when applied to God. 
 12 
 
131 
 
 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." 
 Leaving it to the reader to decide what mighty 
 difference there is between Divinity and God in 
 the popular acceptation of the word, I have only 
 to say, that I used the word merely as. a synonyme 
 to vary the form of expression agreeably to the 
 diversity obtaining between the phrases I was 
 translating. The charge of mistranslation falls, 
 in fact, entirely back again on the Professor him- 
 self. The words to be rendered are, .J ^^^ i^\y.iS3 
 
 Tengrimuz Allah Taala dur ; which, as the reader 
 will see from chapter third of the present work, 
 never can be given by " The Lord is our Godj\ 
 but strictly and literally, God Most High is our 
 God. Though we were to concede the point that 
 Te/igri meant Lo)yI, which, however, it does not, 
 it would make nothing for my opponent's argu- 
 ment, as the subject of the proposition is not 
 Tengri, but Allah Taala; and surely Professor 
 Lee would never, knowingly, render this phrase 
 by Lord as its proper translation ? That I cited 
 2 Thess.i. 11, to prove that Crispus was a Moham- 
 medan, is more than he himself seriously believes ; 
 but as he thought it worth while to refer to that 
 passage, why did he not shew that I had mistrans- 
 lated the words there also, and that ^UJ <idjl^>i* 
 
 K 2 
 
132 
 
 Tengrimuz Allah Taala, " Our God, God Most 
 High," is the proper rendering of 6 Qioq r\^Cov, our 
 God; the form exhibited in every other version ? 
 
 It may be objected, however, that granting the 
 point relative to Crispus, and allowing that the 
 specific object of his faith was the Lord Jesus 
 Christ, and not God absolutely considered, how 
 does the rendering of Ali Bey in the least affect 
 the subject of our Lord's divinity ? To this I re- 
 ply, that it certainly would not affect it were the 
 passage before us perfectly isolated ; but this is 
 by no means the case. It is stated in the very 
 next verse, that " The Lord (o Kvpioc) spake to 
 Paul in the night by a vision : Be not afraid, but 
 speak, and hold not thy peace : For I am with 
 thee, and no man shall set on thee to hurt thee ; 
 for I have much people in this city." It must be 
 evident, to every well-constituted mind, that such 
 language as this can be used by no created being; 
 and if so, then it follows, that the Lord, mentioned 
 verse 9th, can be no other than the Lord God 
 Almighty, whose peculiar prerogative it was of 
 old to declare : *' Fear not, I am with thee, and 
 will bless thee. Fear not, for I am with thee : 
 be not dismayed, for I am thy God." Gen. xxvi. 
 24. Isaiah xli. 10. Yet our blessed Saviour adopts 
 the same style for the encouragement of his dis- 
 ciples : "Lo ! I am with you always, even unto the 
 end of the world. Let not your heart be troubled: 
 
133 
 
 ye believe in God, believe also in me." Matth. 
 xxviii. 20. John xiv. 1. Now it must require the 
 aid of a very violent and unnatural principle of 
 interpretation to make it appear, that the Lord 
 who gave this promise of Omnipotent aid to Paul, 
 was not the same Lord in whom Crispus believed, 
 as mentioned in the verse immediately preceding*. 
 Ali Bey himself had too much penetration not to 
 discern that the same person was spoken of in 
 both places ; and, therefore, he renders both in 
 the same uniform manner: "Then Crispus the 
 head of the synagogue believed in the Most High 
 God, with all his house ; and many of the inhabi- 
 tants of the city of Corinth, hearing Paul and be- 
 lieving, were baptized. And the Most High God 
 said to Paul," &c. But, in no passage within the 
 whole compass of the New Testament, is the ap- 
 pellation 3Iost High God given to our Lord Jesus 
 Christ ; on the contrary, it is exclusively used of 
 the Godhead in general, with the exception of 
 Mark v. 7. Luke viii. 28, where it is applied to 
 the Father in contradistinction from the Son. Is 
 it not, therefore, incontrovertible, that the person- 
 ality of Christ, and, at the same time, one of the 
 strongest indirect proofs of his divinity, are en- 
 tirely excluded, in the version of Ali Bey, from 
 the passage under consideration ? 
 
 The only other passage to which we shall 
 further refer on this important subject, is Rom. x. 
 
134 
 
 13. " For whosoever shall call upon the name of 
 the Lord shall be saved ;" respecting which it was 
 observed in the Appeal, p. 41, that the change of 
 " the name of the Lord" into " the name of God, 
 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." 
 On this. Professor Lee remarks, p. 110, " It has 
 already been shown, that whether the translator 
 had used the word Cj.Rabb, or ^il] Allah, the Mo- 
 hammedan reader would have understood none 
 but the Supreme God. What then was the trans- 
 lator to do ? Was he to use the word ^a^I the 
 Messiah, ^^g^^Ac Jesus, ^_5•Jail Effendi, or the like ? 
 
 If he had done this, he would have been accused 
 of having given a paraphrase instead of a transla- 
 tion*." With respect to the manner in which 
 
 the word C->j Rabb " Lord" is to be understood, 
 
 and will be understood by every Mohammedan 
 acquainted with the Arabic language, enough has 
 already been said to prove the untenableness of 
 the Professor's hypothesis, and to show that there 
 exists precisely the same distinction between c_^ 
 Rabb, ''Lord," and 4)) Allah, "God," as there 
 
 * What does Professor Lee think then of Ja**. Seid, as applied 
 by Ali Bey to Christ ? Rev. xi. 8. 
 
135 
 
 does between the corresponding words in other 
 languages. His reasoning, relative to the use of 
 Lj. Rabb, by the oriental Christians, has also been 
 shewn to apply equally to Ali Bey's version, in 
 which it is applied to our Lord in passages in 
 which there is no intimation whatever of his 
 divinity in the original. " No such sense, how- 
 ever," adds Professor Lee, ** has obtained among 
 the Mohammedans ; 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 con- 
 text relates or not to our blessed Lord." What, 
 it may be allowed to ask, are we to understand 
 by "The safe side of the question?" It would 
 naturally be supposed, that the safest plan a 
 translator can adopt, where a word is capable of 
 being explained in two different ways, is, to lean 
 to neither ; but to render it in the version, so as 
 to admit either the one or the other interpreta- 
 tion, just as it is in the original. Now this is not 
 what Ali Bey has done in the disputed passages. 
 He has not left the question undetermined ; but 
 uses the word Jjl Allah, or some other word, or 
 circumlocution expressive of Supreme Deity, and 
 designed to represent 0£oc, a word which is no 
 where applied to Christ in the manner Kvptoc is ; 
 and, consequently, excludes the application of 
 the argument from the context, which, as in the 
 
136 
 
 present instance, rests entirely on the identity 
 of the word Lord. But I will quote the whole 
 passage, and leave it with the reader to decide, 
 whether the substitution of Gtoc God for Kupioc 
 Lord, in the 13th verse, does not break the con- 
 nection, introduce a new subject of discourse, and 
 thereby destroy one of the proofs of our Lord's 
 divinity. " If thou shalt confess with thy mouth 
 the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart 
 that God hath raised him from the dead, thou 
 shalt be saved. For with the heart man belie veth 
 unto righteousness ; and with the mouth con- 
 fession is made unto salvation. For the Scripture 
 saith. Whosoever believeth on Him shall not be 
 ashamed. For there is no difference between the 
 Jew and the Greek ; for the same Lord over all 
 is rich unto all that call upon him. For whoso- 
 ever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall 
 be saved." Those who wish to satisfy their 
 minds respecting the direct bearing of this pas- 
 sage on the divinity of Christ, are referred to 
 Dr. Wardlaw's Discourses on the Principal Points 
 of the Socinian Controversy, pp. 122, 123. Uni- 
 tarianism Incapable of Vindication, by the same 
 author, p. 255, and Dr. Pye Smith's Scripture 
 Testimony to the Messiah, Vol. II. pp. 641 — 643. 
 It only remains, before concluding this chapter, 
 to exhibit a brief specimen of the arbitrary man- 
 ner in which Ali Bey makes use of the names 
 
137 
 
 Jesus and Christ ; now substituting them one for 
 another, and now omitting them altogether. 
 
 (1.) The word Jesus instead of Christ. Rom. 
 xiv. 18. XV. 3. Gal. ii. 17. Eph. v. 23,24, 25. 32. 
 Phil. ii. 30. 
 
 (2.) Jesus omitted. Rom. vi. 11. Eph. iii. 21. 
 2 Tim. i. 9. ii. 10. 
 
 (3.) Jesus added. 1 Pet. v. 1. 
 
 (4.) Chi'ist omitted. Rom. xv. 8. 1 Cor. i. 24. 
 Eph. iii. 1. 1 Thess. v. 18. Titus iii. 6. Philem. 
 1. 6. Heb. xiii. 21. 1 Pet. ii. 5. 
 
 (5.) Christ added. 2 Thess. i. 7. 
 
 Professor Lee may tell us, that all this is of no 
 importance, as he does in regard to numerous 
 other liberties, which Ali Bey has taken with 
 the sacred text ; but they will not appear in this 
 light to the critic, who is acquainted with the 
 peculiar manner in which these names are used 
 and combined by the different writers of the New 
 Testament, nor to the plain Christian who believes 
 in the divine inspiration of the Holy Scriptures. 
 
CHAPTER VI. 
 
 Socinian mode of translating Rom. ix. 5. The rendering of Alt 
 Bey decidedly opposed to the Divinity of Christ, as proved 
 by this passage. Important distinction between the words 
 jdl or 6*i\ Ilah, ayid aUI Allah. Proved from the Lexicons, 
 the Koran, AH Bey himself, and the Christian translators. 
 The passage altered by Professor Kieffer. Reply to Pro- 
 fessor Lee's Remarks on the Ethiopic. 
 
 In the preceding chapter, I have endeavoured to 
 substantiate the charges brought against the ver- 
 sion of Ali Bey as injurious to the doctrine of the 
 divinity of Christ, by the interchange of the v^ords 
 God and Lord. I come now to examine Professor 
 Lee's criticism on Romans ix. 5, a passage of no 
 mean celebrity in the Socinian controversy, and 
 one which every sincere believer in the Godhead 
 of our Saviour must ever regard with the most 
 scrupulous and unremitting jealousy. 
 
 Various have been the methods of attack upon 
 this passage by the enemies of the peculiar and 
 fundamental dogmas of the Christian faith. The 
 
 words of the original o yjnaroQ to Kara aapKa o uv 
 tTTt TravTwv Qtog tv\oyr}TO(; hq tovq aiiovaQ, a^/jv, bcmg 
 
 SO clearly established by the fullest consent of 
 manuscripts, the ancient versions, and the fathers, 
 
130 
 
 the only possible way of evading the conclusion 
 which they force upon the reader, has been either 
 to attempt an improvement in the punctuation, or 
 to affix to the word Gtoc a sense inferior to that in 
 which it is commonly and strictly taken. Some, 
 by placing- a period after adpKa, would read : " Of 
 whom is Christ according to the flesh. God who 
 is over all be blessed for ever:" while others put 
 it after iravrtov, and read thus: *' Of whom is 
 Christ according to the flesh, who is over all. 
 Blessed be God for ever." Such, however, as 
 have been more deeply versed in the natural con- 
 struction and grammatical proprieties of the Greek 
 language, have given up both modes of interpunc- 
 tion, and adopted the hypothesis respecting a 
 subordinate and metaphorical god, whose exist- 
 ence they endeavour to prove from John i. 1, and 
 the passage before us. 
 
 It was in contemplation of the absurd doctrine, 
 taught by this hypothesis, that my attention was 
 particularly arrested by the manner in which this 
 important passage is rendered in the Paris edition 
 of the Turkish New Testament. In the Appeal, p. 
 40, note, I observed : *' The words o u,v iirl 7ravr<uv 
 
 0£oc ivXoyriTog elg roiig a'liovag are tllUS rendered I 
 
 jO «ill «-^Ui« IjoI iiuu ul CJ6 JcL^ <icXJjl ' He who is over 
 all a god blessed for ever,' or, ' He who is over 
 all an eternally blessed object of worship.' It is 
 well known to all who have any knowledge oi' 
 
140 
 
 Arabic, that J^\ and e^l with a simple Lam, signify 
 
 * a god in general,' * any god ;' but, when the ra- 
 dical Elif is made to coalesce with the Lam of 
 the article, and its place is supplied by Teshdid, 
 or the mark of corroboration, it then receives the 
 determinate and exclusive signification of God — 
 the only living and true God. This difference is 
 strikingly marked in the Mohammedan confession : 
 ^^ :il ^1 i La ilahi ill' Allah, * There is no God 
 but God ;' i. e. there is no object of worship but 
 the Adorable One ; and, indeed the distinction is as 
 
 plainly exhibited 2 Thess. ii. 4. ^ oill e^ftOl Jjoa 
 
 * in the temple of God as a god.' From this it is 
 evident what Ali Bey meant by using t'i] Hah, 
 and not <idil Allah of Christ. The one would, in 
 the most unequivocal manner, have asserted his 
 divinity: the other only admits that he is an in- 
 ferior object of veneration." 
 
 From this extract the reader will perceive, 
 that the argument turns here entirely upon 
 the distinction between the Arabic forms cJ!l Hah 
 and aB) Allah, of which I have asserted, that the 
 former signifies " a god, any god," whereas the 
 latter is universally and necessarily restricted in 
 its acceptation, belonging to none but God, the 
 sole and ever-blessed Object of religious adora- 
 tion. The propriety of this distinction, however, 
 is disputed by Professor Lee. After quoting the 
 
141 
 
 Mohammedan confession, given above, and para- 
 phrasing it thus : there is no other true God, as 
 the Christians suppose, but the (one) God, whom 
 we acknowledge ; he says, page 107, '' The word 
 Ilah (jJ)), therefore, means precisely the same 
 thing with Allah {^\). The only point of view in 
 which they differ, is, the addition or omission of 
 the article, which is generally regulated by the 
 context." How two words can mean precisely the 
 same thing, and yet that there is a point of view in 
 which they differ, is to me, I confess, perfectly in- 
 comprehensible; but, that the addition or omission 
 of the article constitutes the only difference be- 
 tween them, is certainly a truism, and expresses, 
 perhaps, in rather a more condensed style, the 
 very distinction maintained in my note. To at- 
 tempt to shew that the use or omission of the 
 article in language, has an important influence in 
 determining the sense, would be an insult to the 
 understanding of the reader. 
 
 It will be allowed by all, that a safer or more 
 unexceptionable mode of trying the merits of the 
 case, could not have been adopted, than that of 
 an appeal to the best Arabic authorities : the 
 decisions of men who have bestowed extraordi- 
 nary care and pains in settling the grammatical 
 niceties of their native language, being justly con- 
 sidered as ultimate and complete. 
 
142 
 
 '* In the Soorah," which I thank the Professor 
 for quoting, " we have under the root ^1. 
 
 That is, Ilah, with the vowel i, of the form JJ*i. 
 Ti^e o^'ec^ o/" praise, having the meaning of the 
 participle passive : hence the word ^1 Allah, the 
 original form of which is jdil] El Ilah, because he 
 is the object of worship. When, however, the 
 article (El) is added, the (initial) Elif is dropt, for 
 shortness (of enunciation), on account of the fre- 
 quency of its occurrence*." From this definition 
 it might at first sight be supposed, that the 
 Oriental lexicographer turns the scale against me ; 
 but when the reader is informed, that " The object 
 of praise' is by no means a correct translation of 
 the Persic words cj«i cjjuw, but that they pro- 
 perly signify ak^aaiia, omne id, quod cultu sacro 
 prosequuntur homines, ivhatever has been constituted 
 an object of religious veneration, he will find, that 
 the definition is decidedly in favour of the dis- 
 tinction for which I contend. It is not necessary, 
 however, that he should form his opinion on the 
 subject from the interpretation given, either by 
 Professor Lee, or the Author of the Appeal; he 
 
 * Remarks, p. lOG. 
 
143 
 
 has only to weigh the whole bearing of the above 
 definition, in order to be convinced, that the words 
 cannot possibly have any meaning in the con- 
 nexion in which they are introduced, except they 
 be explained in accordance with the construction 
 just given. " Ilah, is the object of worship; hence, 
 Allah, originally El Ilah, because he is The object 
 of worshijpr Could the author of the Soorah ever 
 deduce-so illogical a conclusion ? But render the 
 one word indefinitely, as it ought to be, in the 
 absence of the article El; and allow to the other 
 the full force of the presence of the article, either 
 in its original or abridged form, and his reasoning 
 will be cogent and just : " The word ;dl Ilah sig- 
 nifies that which is worshipped, any object of reli- 
 gious veneration : hence the word ajll Allah, ori- 
 ginally in full, i^l\ El Ilah," the object of worship, 
 ** because He is such to the exclusion of every 
 other." 
 
 So much for the decision of the Soorah. Let us 
 now hear what is said on the subject in the 
 Kamoos, a work containing, according to the state- 
 ment of the author, the results of a perusal of not 
 fewer than two thousand of the most celebrated 
 Arabic authors. 
 
 ** The author of the Kamoos adds: j>^"l U J/^ 
 
 »j«^ jju: jdi by.** every thing taken as an object 
 of worship, is (called) Ilah by the person so taking 
 
144 
 
 it*" It is added by Professor Lee, but the reader 
 will hesitate before he adopt the conclusion : 
 *' According to these definitions, therefore^ the 
 word jJI Ilah designates the object of worship." 
 It does not designate the object of worship, if by 
 this phrase be meant the true God, but an object 
 of worship ; whatever any person pays divine 
 honours to, whether animate or inanimate, supe- 
 rior or inferior. What then is the legitimate con- 
 sequence to be deduced from these premises? 
 That because &i] Ilah signifies an object of worship 
 in general, any god, therefore God, the sole and 
 exclusive object of religious adoration, is properly 
 designated by this form of the word ? Why, in 
 this case, did the Arabs prefix the definite article 
 to the word as applied to the true God ? And 
 why, on the contrary, do they never apply <)j]| 
 Allah to any inferior object of worship? To turn 
 the subject into plain English : because the word 
 god, written with a small initial g, means an 
 object of worship, are we, therefore, warranted to 
 conclude, that according to the usage of our 
 language, it is proper to express the name of the 
 Supreme and Self-existent Being without a ca- 
 pital G ? The cases are as completely parallel as 
 the nature of the subject will allow ; and the rea- 
 soning of Professor Lee will apply to the one 
 
 • Remarks p. 106. 
 
145 
 
 equally as well as to the other. " Whether it (god 
 Ilah) signifies the true God or an idol, must be 
 determined by the character of the worshippers' 
 rehgion. With a Mohammedan or Christian, it 
 will mean the true God, as neither acknowledges 
 any inferior deity. With an heathen, an idol may 
 be meant ; but whether an inferior deity or not, 
 must be determined by the nature of his creed*." 
 He may object, indeed, that we never use the 
 word in this form when we mean the Most High, 
 but always express the initial letter by a capital, 
 for the sake of distinction and dignity. True ; 
 but I contend, that in like manner the word cJIj 
 Ilah, as far as I can find, is never employed, as it 
 stands in the objectionable rendering of Ali Bey, 
 to designate the true God, but is universally con- 
 fined in Arabic usage to the signification of a god 
 in a general or inferior point of view. 
 
 But a couple of passages are produced from 
 the Koran, and we are told, that " to these fifty 
 more, at least, of the same character, may be 
 added from that book alone t-" And for what 
 purpose are they adduced ? If the author of the 
 Remarks meant to say, that he considered these 
 passages as affording a proof that ^1 Ilah occuring 
 by itself, as in the case under review, can be ap- 
 plied to God, or that it '* means precisely the 
 
 * Remarks, p. 106. f Ibid. p. 107. 
 
146 
 
 same thing with &\^\ Allah," I can only reply : 
 habeat sibi. The fact is, that in neither of these 
 examples, nor in any passage in the whole Koran 
 does the word occur in application to the Supreme 
 Being, in the form in which it is used by Ali Bey, 
 Rom. ix. 5. But let us examine these proofs : 
 
 Koran, Surah 2, ver. 134. L_>yi#o -iir^ dS 1j^ Ju^ J 
 
 yj^Aw^. Here we have <)dl Ilcih three times ; but in 
 the two first instances it is nothing but <^1 Allah 
 in a state of construction, either with a pronominal 
 suffix, or another noun, which, therefore, requires 
 the rejection of the article: and in the third in- 
 stance, the word is restricted by the numeral 
 adjective one, in which case the phrase is equiva- 
 lent to i&\ Allah. Thus : ** Were you witnesses, 
 when death was present with Jacob, and when he 
 said to his sons. What will you worship after me 
 (my death) ? They said : We will worship thii God 
 
 (cJcvll) and the God of thy fathers (cJuL-l ^1), Abra- 
 
 ham, and Ismael, and Isaac, one God (Ijss-Ij l^Jl) 
 and to him will we be devoted." It is the same 
 with the other passage quoted by the Professor, 
 
 ver. 165 of the same Surah, y& i!) ^lil Jo-lj ao'l .L^W^ 
 *jk»JI J.-v=^n " And yom^ God is one God, there is 
 
147 
 
 no god besides him ; he is the compassionate and 
 merciful." In the first case, the article is rejected 
 because ^1 Allah is joined to a possessive pronoun; 
 in the second the word is again restricted by ''one;'" 
 and the last is a mere negation : consequently not 
 one of them is at all in point. 
 
 It will now be proper to bring forward some 
 additional authorities, in proof of this established 
 distinction between jdl Ilah and <jdil Allah, in con- 
 sequence of which, the former is never used in its 
 separate form to denote the true God, but con- 
 stantly signifies a god in general, or an inferior 
 object of worship. These authorities shall be 
 Castell, Golius, Meninsky, the Koran, Ali Bey, 
 and one or two of the Christian versions. 
 
 I. Castell. «x]l, et e>'i\ 'i, pro yJU PI. 'LSI form 
 14. Ch. |^^^^ Quod colitur: Numen, Deus. Hinc 
 
 jit <!d!] pro aJil), o 0£oc, Deus ille Optimus Maximus, 
 &c. 
 
 II. Golius. ^1 Idem quod pro.vime seq. et eode^n 
 
 effertiir modo, ne)?ipe Ilahon. Deus. e>'i\ pro ii^U Quod 
 colitur : numen, deus. Gi. Chald. njN. Hinc fit ^lil 
 j)ro aJi!^ o Ofoc, Deus ille Optimus Maximus. Fit- 
 
 que peculiari sua forma nomen proprium, rc- 
 spondens tm Jehovah, &c. after Castell. 
 
 L 2 
 
148 
 
 III. Meji'msky. e>f[ et «xl) ilah, Deus in genere. 
 Dio. unde Jjbill ilahler Dii, Dei. et J<wb)!] ilaheler 
 Deae. But, ^xijl Allah, ^^h Tanri, vul. Tangri. 
 
 Deus. Gott. Iddio. Dieu. Bog, &c. 
 
 IV. The usage of the Koran is decidedly in 
 favour of the distinction. We shall begin with 
 the well-known symbol of frequent recurrence : 
 ^\ HI ijdl ii There is no god (Ilah) besides God 
 (Allah), i. e. we acknowledge no object of worship 
 besides the Adorable One. Thus, also the kin- 
 dred declaration, Surah iv. ver. 89. yt. ill jcJl 5) 41) 
 
 God (Allah), There is no god (Ilah) besides him. 
 By these declarations, the Mohammedans are not 
 to be considered as absolutely asserting that there 
 is no object of adoration in the world besides God, 
 for they would admit with the Apostle Paul, that 
 " there are gods many and lords many," 1 Cor. 
 viii. 5. but what they mean is, that there exists 
 no legitimate object of religious worship. He only 
 excepted, who is called by way of eminence and 
 exclusion, ^1 Allah, Deus ille optimus max- 
 im us, which name is appropriated to Him alone, 
 and cannot, any more than the homage which it 
 implies, be given to any other. Connected with 
 these confessions is that, Surah xvi. 23. As^Ij aJl j^JI 
 *' Your God is one God" In Surah xxiii. 93. we 
 read, c-^aoJ IJl adl ^ «>jc* JS Uj c^J^j ^ ^1 i^l U 
 
149 
 
 \j^ U i\\ Js " God (Allah) hath not begotten 
 issue ; neither is there any other god (Ilah) with 
 him : otherwise, every god (Ilah) would surely 
 have taken away that which he created." Surah 
 xxviii. 71. ^\^i Jj^[i, i&\ jxs. <!dlj ^ "What god 
 
 (Ilah) but God (Allah) would bring you light." 
 In the last verse of the same Surah, we have the 
 following r,emarkable declaration : L^^Jl ^1 *^ cAi" il^ 
 
 .tyrvj 111 «^la ^ j; yt. i!) ^IV yvl " Neither shalt 
 
 thou invoke any other god (Ilah) together with 
 God (Allah) ; there is no god (Ilah) besides him. 
 Every thing shall perish except himself." And 
 Surah Hi. 42. ^Jy^J^, Uc ^1 Jsf^ idll ^ ^1 ^ J 
 " Have they diny god (Ilah) besides God (Allah)? 
 Exalted be God (Allah) above what they associate 
 with him." 
 
 To these passages I shall still beg to add two 
 more, on account of the reference the one has to 
 the divinity of Christ, and the parallel phraseology 
 of the other with Kom. ix. 5, the passage of the 
 Christian Scriptures under consideration. The 
 first is in Surah v. ver. 81. ^] J\ \^\Ji ^iJ) ii* jjij 
 4j^ ^1 ^*w<Jl yb " They are certainly infidels who 
 say that God (Allah) is Messiah, the Son of 
 Mary :" in connexion with which, we have in the 
 following, ver. 82. llJ^ cJb* ^1 ^J\ 1^'i ^.JJl ^; jjij 
 Jc^lj ii]] 'Jl <id! ^^-e Uj " They arc certainly infidels 
 
150 
 
 who say that God (Allah') is the third of three : 
 for there is no god (Ilah) except one God (Ilah 
 luahid)." Is it not obvious, therefore, that although 
 a Mohammedan might admit that Jesus is Ilah, or 
 an object of worship, inasmuch as he is acknow- 
 ledged and adored by Christians, yet, he will not 
 allow that he is so legitimately ; and, consequently, 
 it would, in his estimation, be the height of blas- 
 phemy to say, that he is ^1 Allah, God over all, 
 blessed for ever. Yet the Apostle says as much 
 in our text, so that to render the Turkish version 
 conformable to the original, it must read <)dJl Allah, 
 and not <jitl Ilah. The other passage is Surah 
 vii. 52. ^JU]] C^j M J^U ^^Ij o^^\ ^ ill '' Are 
 not the creatures and the government his ? Blessed 
 be God (Allah), the Lord of the worlds!" 
 
 V. Our next authority is Ali Bey himself, who, 
 we must not forget, was " an Oriental translator 
 of acknowledged talent and experience in his 
 language." It has already been noticed, that the 
 distinctive use of the words aII Ilah and ^1 Allah 
 is plainly exhibited, 2 Thess. ii. 4. which passage 
 I shall here give more at length ; ^^>^\ ei^Ur* &^ 
 
 jji jSi) ^y ^..j)^\ J^^^ 'V*'*' ^- us"*^ ^) *^' 1^' y^ 
 
 fli.y.) " Who opposing himself, riseth superior to 
 all that is called by the name god (Ilah), or that 
 
151 
 
 is worshipped, to such a degree, that shewing 
 himself as a god (Ilah), in the temple of God 
 (Allah), as a god (Ilah) he sitteth." In keeping 
 up this distinction, Ali Bey has rigidly followed 
 
 the Greek text r o avriKHfitvoq Kai VTrepaipoiJievoQ inl 
 Travra Xeyofxevov diov rj akpaafia, loare avrov tig tov vaov 
 Tov 0£ou wg 0£ov KaOiaai, aTroSet/cvvira eavrov, on kari 
 
 Oiog. It is true, the late Bishop Middleton main- 
 tains, tha,t in the two last instances, in which the 
 word Oiog occurs without the article, it is not to 
 be taken in a lower sense, but signifies the true 
 God ; but it is utterly incredible, that the Anti- 
 christian power, that was to rise in the very 
 midst of the professing Christian Church, how 
 high soever he might carry his arrogance, could 
 ever pretend to be the Deity himself. It is suf- 
 ficiently impious to assume a place in the church 
 which cannot legitimately belong to any human 
 being, and to receive that homage which mankind 
 in every age have considered to be due to none 
 but an object invested with divine powers. Mac- 
 knight therefore renders the passage in accord- 
 ance with the manner of Ali Bey: "Who opposeth 
 and exalteth himself above every one who is called 
 a God, or an object of worship. So that he in the 
 temple of God, as a god sitteth, openly shewing 
 himself that he is a god.'' The same distinction 
 is kept up in All's translation of 1 Cor. viii. 4, 5, 6. 
 
152 
 
 J*jo «wj.1 .Ij ^^J^J^ o'i] ej^jj cdS^ £s^^\ ]ji^ jd jy. 
 _,), y^\ ^ J^l ^^ ^, _^1, y..^lj >^1 J^ - We 
 know that an idol is nothing in the world, and 
 that besides the one God (Allah), there is no god 
 (Ilah). For, though there be in heaven and in 
 earth those that are called god (Ilah), even as 
 there are many gods (Ilahler) and Effendies ; yet, 
 we have only one God (Allah).'' Thus, also. 
 Acts xvii. 23, where the Turkish translator ren- 
 ders the words of the Heathen inscription, 'Ayvw- 
 <TTw 0£<p, iicj&ill (»y.*^ U "To an unknown god (Ilah) ;" 
 but he does not say in the 24th verse, that it was 
 a god (Ilah) that made the world, &c. but i&\ 
 Allah, God, the only living and true God. In 
 this case, as in many others, he is more consistent 
 than his defendant, who maintains, that " even the 
 ayvCjoTOQ Geoc, Unknown Got? of Athens, was adopted 
 by St. Paul, in his address to the members of the 
 Areopagus *." If the Professor will take the trou- 
 ble to look again into the passage, he may pro- 
 bably find, that the Apostle no more adopted this 
 designation, than he admitted that the true God 
 had been really worshipped by those ignorant 
 idolaters ; for his address commences thus : o Qtoq 
 
 o TTOojo-ac Tov Koaiiov Kai iravra to tv avrio, ovroq ovpavov 
 
 Kal yrig Kvpiog U7ra^)(^wv ; GoD that made the world 
 
 * Rem3,rks, p. Ill, 
 
153 • 
 
 and all things therein, the same being Lord of hea- 
 ven and earth," &c. He may also find from the 
 context, that the Apostolic address was not de- 
 livered to the members of the Areo-pagus, although 
 one or more of them may have been present, but 
 to an assembly consisting for the most part of very 
 different characters. 
 
 One example more from Ali Bey will suffice. 
 It is Acts'xxviii. 6, where we are informed, that 
 the inhabitants of Melita, on perceiving that no 
 injury had accrued to Paul from the viper, tXe-yov, 
 Qiov aiiTov eivai, li^Si^t^ jd ei!l " they Said, he is a god'^ 
 
 (Ilah), not jt> M "he is God" (Allah). It may 
 
 be objected, that those islanders were idolaters, 
 and as they knew nothing of the true God, it 
 would be, in the highest degree, incongruous to 
 make them use his name. I grant the full force of 
 the objection, and that Ali Bey has properly ren- 
 dered the passage ; but does the same objection 
 apply to Rom. ix. 5. ? The Apostle was neither an 
 idolater himself, nor was he addressing idolaters ; 
 why then, according to Ali Bey, does he merely 
 call Christ ^ilj Ilah, and not 411 Allah ? The words 
 in both parts of the version are the same, and de- 
 note a being inferior to the Supreme God; and 
 after the marked difference in the manner in which 
 Rom. ix. 5. and 2 Cor. xi. 31. are rendered, there 
 cannot remain a doubt upon the subject in the 
 
154 
 
 mind of any impartial reader. In the former, 
 where our Lord Jesus Christ is the subject of 
 discourse, he is only designated by the name of 
 oil) Ilah; but in the latter, when God the Father 
 is spoken of, he is called ^U> ^] Allah Taala^ 
 
 " God Most High, who is blessed for evermore." 
 Why did Ali not employ his favourite Allah Taala 
 in the former instance, as well as in the latter, 
 and as the Hindostanee translator has done ? 
 
 Lastly, let us examine how the words «)dl Ilah 
 and iXJJl Allah are employed in Christian translations 
 into the Arabic. Not that we can place exactly 
 the same reliance on these versions, as it regards 
 purity of language, that we do on the works of 
 native Mohammedan writers ; but if we find a 
 perfect coincidence existing between them on 
 any given point, it will be allowed, that their au- 
 thority is so far valid. Now, this is precisely 
 the case in the present instance. In the Arabic 
 Psalter, done from the Syriac, and published by 
 Victor Scialac and Gabriel Sionita, Rome 1614, 
 in 4to. we find M Allah rejecting the article 
 exactly as it does in the Koran. 1. Before pro- 
 nominal suffixes, as ^1, l^^^JI, IJ^JI. 2. In regimen, 
 as Ps. xxix. 4. Ss^\ ^\ <icjJl *' God, the God of 
 glory:' xviii. 50. ^li^ aW CJ,Ij ^1 y^ ^_^ " God 
 is the living one : blessed be the God of my salva- 
 
155 
 
 twn.'' ^^] Ilah, on the other hand, in its separate and 
 absolute state, is never once used of the true God, 
 the rendering Ps. xiv. 1. adl (^^ ^icAs ^ JaUl Jli' 
 being properly : " The fool saith in his heart there 
 is no god'' Not merely does he deny the ex- 
 istence of the Supreme Being, but he inwardly 
 rejects all religion of whatever form or description. 
 A couple of passages from the Arabic version 
 of Raphael Tuki, Bishop of Erzerum, and from 
 the Polyglott, shall close the evidence. 1 Kings 
 xviii. 21, he renders thus: j!^*a;U ^il) ^ e^Jl J^ ^J\ 
 
 "If the Lord be the God (El Ilah, the original 
 form of Allah) follow him," &c. ver, [24. l^jlj 
 
 ^il) y& jjh '' And call ye on the names of 
 your gods, and I will call on the name of my 
 Lord, and the God (El Ilah) that answereth 
 by fire, he is the God (El Ilah),'" Ver. 27. 
 
 ifW <^Jil cuytf (^^ '>*7^' ^.'"' ^-^ f^^- (-5H-^ ij^ 
 *' And Elijah mocked them, saying : cry aloud, 
 for he is a god («icl1 Ilah)." But ver. 39, after the 
 people had beheld the manifest demonstration of 
 the Supremacy of Jehovah, they fell on their 
 faces, and said, aIJI) yb c_>Jl AlUI yb u-^! ** The 
 Lord, he is the God (El Ilah): the Lord, he is 
 the God (El Ilah)." In the Arabic version of 
 the Story of Bel and the Dragon, inserted in the 
 Polyglott, the same marked distinction is ob- 
 13 
 
156 
 
 served. Thus ver. 3. " Daniel answered, and 
 said, Because I may not worship Idols made 
 with hands ^_^\ M\ ^1 but the living God 
 (El Ilah), Then said the king unto him, 
 ^j=- ^^ L^,i J^ J^ Ul Thinkest thou not that Bel 
 is A living god (Ilah)." Again, ver. 23. " And 
 the king said unto Daniel, wilt thou also say that 
 this is of brass ? Lo, he liveth, he eateth, and 
 drinketh : ^^ «iil y& ^_^! ^J\ Jyij ^J| ^»^ U^ Thou 
 
 canst not say that he is not a living god 
 (Ilah) : therefore, worship him. Then said 
 
 Daniel, ^^\ ^Ul ^a> «UU s^e^] ^^1 <^Ai I will wor- 
 ship the Lord my God ; for he is the living God 
 (El Ilah)r 
 
 To sum up the whole, therefore, it appears from 
 the best lexicographical authority, both native 
 and foreign, and from the usage of the language, 
 that ^1 or eill Ilah does not mean precisely the 
 same thing with ^1 Allah; that it is never used 
 to designate the true God, but only signifies a gody 
 or numen in general ; and, that, consequently, as 
 applied to Christ in Rom. ix. 5. it only points 
 him out as an object of veneration, but not as 
 '* God over all, blessed for ever. Amen." 
 
 We shall now briefly advert to Professor Lee's 
 Christian authorities, and his kind correction of 
 my *' trifling mistake" inEthiopic criticism. That 
 
157 
 
 the Arabic versions to which he refers, page 108, 
 do not exhibit the common form ^1 Allah, I freely 
 admit; but, with the exception of the Propa- 
 ganda, I have yet to learn, that they read i\\ or c^], 
 Ilah in its naked form. Both Walton's Polyglott, 
 and the Arabic New Testament, published in 1727, 
 by Solomon Negri, for the Society for Promoting 
 Christian Knowledge, exhibit the word thus : 
 
 l/^lx^ L^l where the peculiar form in which it is 
 placed, requires the ellipsis of the article. The 
 same form occurs in the Psalter above quoted, 
 
 XXX. 3. Lxij L^Jl, and frequently in the Koran. 
 The Propaganda (at least Professor Lee's edition) 
 certainly has oil] Ilah; but it gives the same word 
 Acts xxviii. 6. where, it will scarcely be main- 
 tained, that it can signify the true God. Let the 
 reader compare the two passages, and then give 
 his decision. If the Propaganda should in this 
 instance be also found to be faulty, it is no 
 concern of mine to defend it, any more than the 
 Malay, in which the same distinctive use of Ilah 
 otherwise occurs, as has just been noticed in re- 
 gard to the Arabic. 
 
 With respect to the Ethiopic, to which I re- 
 ferred, as being subversive of, instead of favour- 
 ing Gilbert Wakefield's lowe?' sense of Gcoc, Pro- 
 fessor Lee asserts, that the word A'J^'VYir 
 Amlak, on which the stress of my remark rests. 
 
158 
 
 has no such meaning as that which I had attached - 
 to it. He adds: "Ludolfsays in his Lexicon, 
 (col. 60.) * Aqo/v5l : Deus PL K^^^tCil^ \ Dii 
 Ps. Ixxx. 1. 6. pecul. Ethnicorum.' If indeed the 
 word here used had happened to be1v'2H, A-fllfliC I 
 then would the Doctor's remark have had some 
 weight (Lud. Lex. col. 541.) but the case is other- 
 wise*." Now, what is the impression left by this 
 criticism on the mind of the reader? Must he not 
 conclude, that the word Amlak does not, in *' the 
 strongest and most appropriate" manner, express 
 the idea of Supreme Divinity? and that it really 
 favours the lower sense of Wakefield ? Yet the 
 very reverse of all this is the truth ; and, in order 
 to give his readers a just conception of the force 
 of the word, Ludolf, in the passage above quoted, 
 caused the Latin to be printed in capitals, thus, 
 Deus ; which the Professor very conveniently 
 omits, and thereby leaves it to be inferred, that 
 the word has no such distinguished signification. 
 That A'J'^A.^ft. I Ajiilak is equivalent to Otoe, and 
 expressive of true and proper divinity is obvious 
 from its use in the Abyssinian Catechism : 
 
 " Jesus Christus Dominus noster estne homo an vero Deus?" 
 * Remarks, p. 10!>. 
 
159 
 
 «' Deus et homo simul in una persona*." 
 
 Thus also in the Liturgy : AI^/VYl : -l^CDtvJ^ : 
 •^ijDX^'^'VYl : '' God (Amldk) was born of God 
 
 (Amidk)r Aqo/VJi: h'ko^aqo/v^: HnAoq^: 
 
 '' Very God (Amldk) of very God ( Amldk):' Cill^^ \ 
 
 A-fl: (D(D£v^: (D""^^h: 4>E,ii: oAqo/vTi: 
 
 " In the name of the Father, and the Son, and the 
 Holy Ghost, one God (Amldk):' 0<,^ : (irX+ : 
 A-fi: (DCDfiJ^: (Dool^h: ^^t\\ ArhJ^: 
 A9°^Yi: " The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost 
 are equal — one God (Amldk):' (D£vJ^¥l : 
 'KlH^Ki : (D A«JO/V^5 : " Thy Son, our Lord, 
 and our God (Amldk):' J^oo I ^ICh-f-fl : 
 A«P^^^: *'The blood of Christ our God 
 (Amldk):' In Rom. i. 25, we also find the word 
 applied as in the text under consideration : 
 
 tiShM^ : '' The Creator of all, who is God 
 (Amldk) blessed for ever." Professor Lee's re- 
 marks are, therefore, altogether destitute of foun- 
 dation ; and Amldk (the word used by the Ethiopic 
 translator, Rom. ix. 5), strictly and properly sig- 
 nifies God. 
 
 The word proposed by the Professor, properly 
 answers to Jehovah ; and its etymological im- 
 port is ** Lord of the Universe," corresponding to 
 
 * LiulolH Hist. Ethiop. Lib, III. c. 5. 
 
160 
 
 the -^Ull «4^ of the Arabs, and the Rabbinical 
 
 ra3*715^n Jl*!. The indiscriminate use of the two 
 words by the Ethiopic translator does not affect 
 my argument : it is only one of the numerous in- 
 accuracies with which this ancient version is 
 chargeable. 
 
 It is scarcely necessary further to add on this 
 passage, that in the Armenian Turkish version, 
 and in the edition of the Turkish recently brought 
 through the press by the Scotch Missionaries at 
 Astrachan, the reading ^] Allah is found, and not 
 ci!| Ilah. In the earlier editions of the Turkish, 
 printed in Russia, the Tatar word ^_sJ^ Tengri 
 " God," had been adopted from Seaman ; and in 
 the Orenburgh Tatar version, the Persic word 
 ^1j^ Chuda is used, which has the same signifi- 
 cation. 
 
 Finally, Professor KiefFer has cancelled the page 
 of Ali Bey, in which cjil Ilah occurs, Rom. ix. 5. 
 and reprinted it with «xl]l Allah : so that the point 
 is in fact given up, whatever Professor Lee may 
 think or write to the contrary. 
 
CHAPTER VII. 
 
 Use of Si/noni/mes. Condemned by Father Simon and Dr, 
 Campbell. Refutation of Professor Lee's Arguments in 
 their Defence. Style of Scripture. Oriental Style. The 
 Style of the Koran. Difference between \ Birr, Righteous- 
 ness, and ^yij" Takwa, Piety. Their Combination to ex- 
 press ^iKaioavvt] subversive of the Doctrine of Justification 
 by Faith. The rendering " Faith counted instead of Righ- 
 teousness* Neonomian. 
 
 Besides very materially affecting the true sense 
 of many passages of the New Testament, which 
 clearly prove the divinity of the Son of God, it 
 was shewn in the Appeal, pp. 32 — 34. that the 
 version of Ali Bey was also calculated to convey 
 erroneous notions relative to the important article 
 of a sinner's justification in the sight of God. 
 Before proceeding, however, to examine Professor 
 Lee's strictures on this subject, it will be neces- 
 sary to advert to his remarks on that of Syno- 
 nymes, which subject originally gave rise to my 
 development of the improper manner in which the 
 Greek word StKaioawvj? " righteousness" is not un- 
 frequently translated in the Turkish version. 
 
 If, in my original Remarks to the Committee, I 
 was extremely brief on the subject of synonymes, 
 
 M 
 
162 
 
 it arose solely from a persuasion that the instances 
 which I exhibited, merely as a specimen, were, of 
 themselves, sufficient to convince that body of 
 the perfect incompatibility of such a style of 
 language, with the dignity and precision of Scrip- 
 ture diction. My disapprobation of it, and the 
 ground of this disapprobation, I conceived to be 
 distinctly stated in the manner in which I de- 
 signated that class of my objections : " The use- 
 less employment of synonymes where one word 
 would sufficiently express the force of the origi- 
 nal." The instances were : righteousness and piety 
 for "righteousness ;" glorify and praise for "glorify ;" 
 unoccupied, unemployed for " idle ;" anguish and sor- 
 row for " sorrow ;" worthy and deserving for " de- 
 serving;" quick and ready for "swift," &c. I 
 regarded it as a matter perfectly decided to the 
 satisfaction of every person versed in Biblical lite^ 
 rature, that such an use of synonymes was alto- 
 gether inadmissable into versions of the Sacred 
 Scriptures. Father Simon, in his critique on the 
 version of Port Royal, remarks : "I do not be- 
 lieve that any judicious person will approve of 
 another remark which the same translators add 
 in their Preface, when they affirm, that it is not 
 to depart from the letter to make use of divers 
 words to express a single one. I durst avouch, 
 on the contrary, that an interpreter who designs 
 to represent the character of the author whose 
 
163 
 
 works he translates, ought not to alter his version 
 by using synonymous words ; for if he be desirous to 
 explain some of them by others that are more 
 clear and better known, they must not be in- 
 serted in the text of the version, but in the 
 margin, as several translators in these latter times 
 have done." 
 
 " By this means," he adds, *' we return the 
 simple style of the Evangelists and Apostles, and' 
 even their words, as much as possible, without 
 rendering ourselves unintelligible : whereas the 
 translation of Mons, which is full of synonymous 
 words and phrases, does fiot e.vhibit to us the genuine 
 style of the New Testament. They sometimes limit or 
 weaken the se?ise of the original hy this eayletive word, 
 and then it becomes no longer the Sacred Text, but a 
 certain interpretation*.'" On these remarks. Dr. 
 Campbell, whose opinion ought to be allowed 
 considerable weight in questions of this kind, 
 observes: ** Mr. Simon condemns it much in a 
 translator to explain, by several words, what 
 might have been translated by one only. / con- 
 demn it no less than he-\." 
 
 Professor Lee, however, is differently minded ; 
 and to his judgment, the practice here condemned 
 stands approved : First, because he imagines its 
 
 * Critical History of the Versions of the New Testament. 
 Part II. p. 273. 
 
 f Prelim, Dissert. XI. p. i. § 23. 
 M 2 
 
164 
 
 parallel is to be found in the Hebrew Bible : 
 Secondly, because it is agreeable to the style of 
 the best Oriental books : Thirdly, because it gives 
 emphasis to the subject : And, lastly, because no 
 religious truth is thereby injured. 
 
 1. The Hebrew Bible abounds with this style. 
 *' If the style itself is incompatible with the dig- 
 nity of the Holy Scriptures, how comes it to pass, 
 that the Hebrew Bible abounds with it*?" p. 57. 
 That the Hebrew Scriptures abound with useless 
 synonymes, will, I believe, be a new doctrine to 
 many who have been in the habit of making 
 themselves familiar with the original of the Old 
 Testament ; and I rather doubt whether they will 
 admit, that it exhibits numerous "nouns of ex- 
 cess." It is true the authority of Glassius is 
 quoted in a note ; and I certainly agree with my 
 antagonist in thinking, that " on this question, 
 his authority will, perhaps, be allowed to be 
 sufficient," p. 50. But, in order to ascertain the 
 real opinion of this learned author upon the sub- 
 ject, we must suffer Glassius to speak for himself, 
 and not receive his testimony in the garbled 
 manner in which it is introduced to our notice 
 by Professor Lee. *' Pleonasmus sen abundantia 
 verborum aut sententiarum ita dicitur, non quod 
 otiosa plane sint aut inutilia, quae repetuntur vel 
 abundant : sed quod sine illis nihilominus videre- 
 
 * Prelim. Djssert. XI. p. i, § 23. 
 
165 
 
 tur necessarius sensus constitutus. Abundantes 
 aittem illae voces vel rem plenius exponunt, vd 
 emphasin addunt, vel affectum dicentis arguunt, 
 vel distributionem notant, vel demum ex usu lin- 
 guae sanctae ita ponuntur*." So far from con- 
 ceiving the fulness of expression which abounds 
 in the Sacred Scripture to be unnecessary or 
 superfluous, our venerable critic is shewing that 
 it cannot be dispensed with, and that, on accurate 
 investigation, we shall always find some reason 
 calling for its use. It would be supposed, from 
 the reference that is made to his authority, that he 
 really took up the subject of useless synonymes, 
 and that we should be furnished with some ex- 
 amples quite in point: but it is just the reverse. 
 Not one of all the instances which he adduces 
 under the head of pleonasms, has any relation to 
 our present subject; and I will venture to affirm, 
 that no example, such as those condemned in 
 Ali Bey, are to be found either in the Old or 
 the New Testament. 
 
 But granting, what is here pointedly denied, 
 that the Bible did abound in the use of syno- 
 nymes, can this be deemed sufficient to warrant a 
 translator to employ similar couplets where they 
 do not occur in the original ? If we admit this, 
 then I should like to know by what law he is 
 not to synonymize the synonymes themselves, if 
 
 * Phil. Sac. col. 1230. Edit. Lips. 1735. 4to. 
 
166 
 
 his fancy or taste should so dictate, so that in- 
 stead of one couplet of such words we should 
 have two, and so on in proportion. 
 
 2. It is maintained, ** that the best books to 
 be found in the East, whether written in the 
 Arabic, Persian, or Turkish languages, are all 
 composed in this style." "This," adds the Pro- 
 fessor, " is a fact, of which, I believe, no one, if 
 we except Dr. Henderson, has ever entertained a 
 doubt ; a proof that the sacred taste of the Orien- 
 tals differs very widely from that of the Doctor." 
 p. 57. That the Orientals of the present day, 
 and especially the Turks, are partial to the use of 
 synonymes, will not be disputed : whether the 
 best hooks written in the languages specified by 
 Professor Lee be all composed in this style, it would 
 be the height of presumption in one who " does 
 not appear to have read one book of authority 
 in either of them" to pretend to call in question. 
 He may be allowed, however, simply to ask, what 
 degree of excellence and authority his opponent 
 is disposed to concede to the Koran? It is well, 
 known, that Labid, a cotemporary of Mohammed, 
 and a celebrated Arabic poet, was so struck with 
 the style of this book, that, immediately on read- 
 ing it, he took down his prize poem which had 
 been hung up in the temple at Mecca, and yielded 
 the palm to the prophet, whose religious system 
 he embraced in consequence. It is not my in- 
 
167 
 
 tention to eulogize the taste of Labid, respecting 
 which very different opinions obtain among those 
 who have read the Koran in the original ; but it is 
 of importance to our present enquiry, to advert 
 to the fact, that the circumstance of his conver- 
 sion is boasted of wherever the doctrines of 
 Islamism are propagated, being regarded by the 
 devotees of that religion, as an irrefragable proof 
 of the inihiitable style of their sacred book, and 
 its undeniable claim to divine inspiration. Now, 
 it might have considerable influence in deciding 
 the question in debate, if it could be proved that 
 this book is composed in the style reprobated in 
 the Appeal. If it only can be shewn, that it con- 
 tains any thing analogous to imoccupied and unem- 
 'ployed^ worthy and deserving, quick and ready, and 
 such like synonymic combinations, it might, 
 perhaps, go far towards convincing some minds 
 of the propriety of adopting them in translations 
 of our Holy Scriptures, designed for circulation 
 among Mohammedans. No such instances, how- 
 ever, have been produced, and I do not believe 
 any can be produced ; but if they should, I 
 frankly own, that, for my part, even then the 
 ideas which, in common with many others, I 
 entertain on the subject of " sacred taste," w^ould 
 invincibly constrain me to withhold my assent 
 from their adoption. 
 
 It is, says Dr. Campbell, in hi,'> able work on 
 
168 
 
 the Philosophy of Rhetoric *, considered as of the 
 nature of tautology, to lengthen a sentence by 
 coupling words altogether, or nearly synonymous, 
 whether they be substantives or adjectives, verbs 
 or adverbs. But it is an invariable maxim, that 
 words ivhich add nothing to the sense, or to the clear- 
 ness, must diminish the force of the expression. There 
 are certain synonymas which it is become custo- 
 mary with some writers regularly to link together; 
 insomuch that a reader no sooner meets with one 
 of them, than he anticipates the introduction of 
 its usual attendant. It is needless to quote au- 
 thorities ; I shall only produce a few of those 
 couples which are wont to be thus conjoined, 
 and which every English reader will recollect 
 with ease. Such are — plain and evident, clear and 
 obvious, worship and adoration, pleasure and satisfac- 
 tion, bounds and limits, suspicion and jealousy, courage 
 and resolution, intents and purposes. The frequent 
 recurrence of such phrases, is not indeed more 
 repugnant to vivacity than it is to dignity of 
 style. 
 
 It has been thought by some, that words of this 
 description are perfectly identical in meaning, 
 and, that they are only different signs of the same 
 idea ; but, the more language becomes the sub- 
 ject of critical investigation, the more it is found, 
 
 * Vol. II. p. %57. 
 
169 
 
 that, whatever may be their apparent agreement, 
 they radically differ as it regards their individual 
 bearing, and the extent and shades of meaning 
 which they convey. That the same holds true of 
 the Oriental languages, will presently appear ; 
 and it was this, still more than the simple circum- 
 stance of style, which formed the ground of my 
 objection to the introduction of synonymes into 
 versions of the Holy Scriptures. 
 
 3. Their use, however, is farther pleaded for, 
 on the principle, that they '* give emphasis to the 
 expressions in which they have been found," pp. 
 56, 57. But who does not see, that the very 
 same thing may be said in vindication of their use 
 in the European languages? In fact, wherever 
 they are employed, it is to be presumed, that it is 
 with this view, which is indeed distinctly avowed 
 by the translators of Port Royal, in the preface to 
 their version of the New Testament. Yet, if we 
 examine the instances in which such usage is 
 adopted, we shall find, that no particular empha- 
 sis attaches to the words of the original thus 
 translated; at least, no greater emphasis than 
 might have been equally well expressed by equi- 
 valent words of the language into which the ver- 
 sion is made. Let us take, for example, the word 
 a^iot; : what peculiar emphasis does it possess in 
 any given passage, which would not be suffi- 
 ciently expressed by the Arabic word t>s^^ 
 
170 
 
 Mustahak, meritus, dignus 1 Or what is there emr 
 phatic in the word ap-yoi, rendered " idle" by our 
 translators, Matt. xx. 3. which is not adequately- 
 represented by Seaman and Brunton, both of 
 whom have y*J^\ Ishsiz, occupatione carens ? It 
 is not, however, the suffrage of these two trans- 
 lators only, that stands opposed to such a mode 
 of combining what are usually called synonymous 
 words : it is opposed by the whole conclave of 
 translators, if we except the Gentlemen of Port 
 Royal, Ali Bey, and one or two more, who have 
 already met with deserved castigation. 
 
 The last ground on which Professor Lee rests 
 his defence of synonymic combinations is, that, 
 in the cases adduced, " no religious truth has 
 been injured ;" and having thus briefly stated it, 
 he adds : *' we may dismiss class the second with- 
 out any further ceremony," p. 57. Such, how- 
 ever, as have read his Remarks, will recollect 
 that he was at considerable pains in endeavour- 
 ing to get rid of the particular bearing which was 
 shewn in the Appeal to attach to a combination of 
 this sort ; and I hope he will not be alarmed at 
 my once more calling up ** the palientes wnbrce of 
 the unhappy words ^5^^^^ 'f. -^^^' watakwa (righte- 
 ousness and piety) from their place of rest *," in 
 order more fully to state my objection to the use 
 
 * Remarks, p. GS. 
 
 10 
 
171 
 
 Ali Bey has made of them in the Turkish New 
 Testament. 
 
 It was stated. Appeal, pp. 28. 31. that, among 
 eight different ways employed by Ali Bey to ex- 
 press diKaioovvT] righteousness, one of frequent oc- 
 currence was the combination of the words just 
 quoted. Now I must beg it to be distinctly un- 
 derstood, that my objection to this particular 
 combination arose principally from a conviction, 
 that the two words were far from being perfectly 
 synonymous ; and that, from the difference of 
 meaning existing between them, sprang an error 
 of the most alarming and pernicious nature in 
 those passages of the New Testament, which treat 
 of justification before God, I unavoidably at- 
 tached to the latter word (uT^iJ" Takwd) the idea of 
 what is usually called a Christian grace, the per- 
 sonal and inwrought quality oi piety, which forms 
 a prominent feature in the character of every be- 
 liever, and is not less conducive to his eternal 
 safety and felicity, than it is evidential of the 
 reality and genuineness of his faith. In a word, 
 I considered it as comprehending works, and there- 
 fore could not but view its use in the disputed in- 
 stances as subversive of the grand doctrine of 
 justification by faith alone, without any regard to 
 human performances. 
 
 In perusing Professor Lee's Remarks on this 
 subject, I have paid more tlian ordinary attention. 
 
172 
 
 both to his etymological definition of the words 
 in question, and his theological reasonings relative 
 to justification; but I must candidly confess, that 
 so far from removing my scruples, they have only 
 tended more deeply to rivet my conviction of the 
 dangerous consequences to be apprehended from 
 the circulation of a version containing such obnox- 
 ious renderings. 
 
 With respect to ji Birr, as a proper word by 
 which to translate Stfcatocruvjj, I see no valid objec- 
 tion that can be made to the use of it, especially 
 as it ** has long ago been adopted by the Chris- 
 tians of the East *." This circumstance is perhaps 
 of greater importance than the Professor may 
 have imagined, as it tends to produce a degree of 
 uniformity among the different versions brought 
 into circulation in Oriental countries, by means 
 of which, they would lend each other mutual 
 countenance and support. Nor do I suppose that 
 I shall be thought singular in the opinion, that it 
 would be most desirable to have a standard Arabic 
 version of the Bible, from which translators into 
 the Persic and Turkish languages might adopt, 
 without variation, all the principal words, except 
 in those cases in which their place could be 
 equally well supplied by native words in these 
 languages. But not to insist on this : when I pro- 
 
 * Remarks, p. GO. 
 
173 
 
 posed the other Arabic word oJl^xc adakt, it was 
 merely in lieu of the synonymic combination, and 
 because y b'uT might be thought by some not to 
 be sufficiently expressive. We are told, indeed, 
 in ** rather a curious note," at the foot of page 75 
 of the Remarks, that *' the word c:J]j^ (adakt) does 
 not mean righteousness in a religious sense ; but is 
 the forensic term right ox justice;'' but this is only 
 another instance of the gratuitous ex cathedra asser- 
 tions with which the Remarks so much abound. 
 Supposing, however, that our Author were perfectly 
 accurate here in reference to the forensic sense of 
 ci^liJ^ adakt, every one conversant with polemic di- 
 vinity is aware that the word ^ikuiou) is plainly a fo- 
 rensic term, as used in relation to evangelical justifi- 
 cation ; and Witsius does not hesitate to say, that 
 *-* scarcely any who love to be called Christians 
 have such a bold front or stubborn mind as to 
 deny it. Certainly the Popish doctors themselves 
 generally own it*." But the Professor says that 
 this sense will not suit Matt. v. 6. Very true ; 
 but where did he learn that the forensic was the 
 only sense attaching to c:^Iac adaktl Certainly 
 not from Ali Bey ; or, if we must consider him 
 as uniformly using it with this exclusive significa- 
 tion, and not also, at tim^s, " in a religious sense," 
 
 * Economy of the Covenants, Book III. Chap. iv. §5. 
 
174 
 
 what construction are we to put upon the follow- 
 ing passages in which he uses it for diKaioawrj, 
 riyhteousnessl Rom. xiv. 17. ** For the kingdom 
 of God is not meat and drink, hvii justice (ci^lJ^ 
 Malet, ** as executed in the courts of law*"), and 
 peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost." 2 Cor. iii. 9. 
 ** For if the administration of condemnation be 
 glory, much more shall the administration of 
 justice {yL>S\S£. ddalet, " as executed in courts of 
 law") exceed in glory." vi. 7. ** By the word of 
 truth, by the power of God, by the arms oi justice 
 (ciJltXc Malet, " as executed in the courts of law"), 
 on the right hand and the left." What ideas must 
 the Turks form of the Christian religion, if such 
 be the genuine meaning of these passages as they 
 stand in the Turkish New Testament ? With the 
 exception of the Kadis, I fear we shall find but 
 few among them disposed to give it unqualified 
 reception. Whether it be '' as good divinity as 
 that proposed by our Doctor," and whether, upon 
 Professor Lee's own shewing, it can be proper to 
 circulate an edition of the New Testament con- 
 taining such divinity, let the reader determine. 
 
 To proceed: instead of uniformly employing 
 the word J JBzV'r by itself, to express liKawawYi,. 
 which he does in nearly forty instances in the 
 
 * Remarks, p. 75. 
 
175 
 
 course of the New Testament, Ali Bey sometimes 
 combines with it the word ^_^^ takiva, which we 
 now propose to consider. According to the 
 Lexicons, it is derived from the root ^j waki, 
 
 cavit, servavit, custodivit ; and under the eighth 
 conjugation, timuit, coluitque Deum, pius fuit. 
 Its signification is, therefore, caution or abstinence 
 from evil, the fear of God, piety. If we examine 
 the manner in which it is used separately by 
 Ali Bey, we shall find that he attaches nearly the 
 same idea to it. Thus, Luke ii. 25, and Acts ii. 
 
 5. he gives one of its forms ^siJU) mutteki as a transla- 
 tion of luXaSric pious, religious; and Acts x. 2. for 
 ivattr]^. The very word in question is, in fact, 
 that by which he renders kvGi&Ha, godliness, piety^ 
 in all the passages in which it occurs in the New 
 Testament. Is it not evident, therefore, that if 
 on the one hand,y birr, " righteousness," be used 
 
 to express the highest degree of moral rectitude 
 as one of the divine attributes ; and is the root 
 which, together with its derivatives, is employed 
 to denote the act and consequences of justification, 
 as it regards the sinner's state before God ; and if, 
 on the other hand, ^_sf^ takwa, "piety" be re- 
 stricted by its application to man only, and ex- 
 press a quality, or a constellation of qualities, 
 which are never represented in Scripture as 
 
17C ^ 
 
 entering into the matter of our justification, but 
 which, in fact, form a very important part of 
 subsequent holiness or Gospel sanctification, it 
 must incontrovertibly follow, that the two words 
 are far from being synonymic or convertible 
 terms, and that the latter cannot in any way be 
 applied to the subject of our becoming righteous 
 in the sight of Jehovah, without completely sub- 
 verting the doctrine of the New Testament on 
 this most important article. All who have pe- 
 rused that volume with attention, must be aware, 
 that we are nowhere said to be justified on ac- 
 count of kvae^eia piety, but that, on the contrary, 
 God is expressly styled ** the Justifier of the un- 
 godly," or impioiiSy tov liKoxovvra Tov 'A2EBH, Rom. 
 iv. 5. such being the character of every person 
 who is justified up to the moment of his being 
 constituted righteous at the bar of heaven. Ac- 
 cording to the reasoning of the Apostle Paul in 
 the chapter just quoted, as well as in other parts 
 
 of his epistles, L birr " righteousness," and <_5'yij 
 takwa " piety" are, as far as it regards our justifi- 
 cation, diametrically opposed to each other. In 
 this view of the matter piety is another name for 
 wo7'ks, and we have only to substitute the one for 
 the other, to perceive at once how perfectly anti- 
 scriptural it is to ascribe to this moral quality any 
 influence in effectuating the important blessing 
 
^ 177 
 
 we are here treating of. It is true, Professor Lee 
 endeavours to evade the force of this argument, 
 by asserting that the works to which God's righte- 
 ousness is opposed, were those performed by the 
 Jews in the observance of the law of Moses*; 
 but the fact is, it is equally opposed to works 
 performed in obedience to the Gospel, as a ground 
 of acceptance with the Most High. The diKaioawn 
 or righteousness which alone constitutes the ground 
 of this free and gracious act, on the part of the 
 great Governor of the Universe, is not as was 
 observed in the Appeal, p. 33. any inherent or 
 implanted righteousness, or any works of righte- 
 ousness done by man, but the meritorious righte- 
 ousness of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. 
 
 That such was the sentiment held in the pri- 
 mitive church, is evident from the following 
 striking passage in the Epistle of Clement to the 
 
 Corinthians : narrcc ovv i^o^aaOnaav Kal efiiyaXvvOti-- 
 aav ov 3i' avTUjv, ry twv epywv avrcjv, ri ti?? BiKaiOTTpayiac 
 TJC ev£ipyaaavTO, aWa Bia rov OcXrj/uaroc avTOv. Kai ^jUEtc 
 owv 8ia Tov OiXrifxarot^ avrov £v ^piario Irjcrou kXtjOevtec, 
 ou 8e tavTtJV otKatou/u£0a, ovSt Sta ttiq rj/uiETepa^ aofjt'iag, ri 
 'EY2EBEIA2, 'H "EPrQN QN KATEIPrA2AME. 
 Q^A 'EN '02I0THTI KAPAIA2, AXXa Sm r^g TrtV 
 Tswc, Si >jc navTag rovg air auovog o TravTOK^aTtop Qeog 
 tBiKuiiocrev, y ecrrw Bo^a ng rovg aitovag tmv aiijvu)v. 
 
 ttfiriv-]'. ** These, therefore, all attained to glory and 
 * Remarks, p. 71, f ?• ^^- Edit. Oxon. 
 
 N 
 
178 
 
 greatness, not by themselves, or their works, or 
 by the righteous actions which they performed, 
 but by His will. We also being called by 
 his will in Christ Jesus, are not justified by 
 ourselves, nor by our own wisdom, or piety, 
 
 or WORKS WHICH WE HAVE WROUGHT IN 
 
 SANCTITY OF HEART, but by faith, by which 
 Almighty God hath justified all from the begin- 
 ning of the world. To Him be glory for ever. 
 Amen." 
 
 The same doctrine is thus explicitly taught in 
 the Homilies of the Church of England : ** The 
 very true meaning of this proposition or saying, 
 We be justified by faith in Christ only, (accord- 
 ing to the meaning of the old ancient authors), 
 is this : We put our faith in Christ, that we be 
 justified by him only, that we be justified by God's 
 free mercy, and the merits of our Saviour Christ 
 only, and by no vii^tue or good work of our own that 
 is in us, or that we can be able to have, or do, for to 
 deserve the same ; Christ himself only being the 
 cause meritorious thereof* " And again : ** Be- 
 cause all this (justification by faith) is brought to 
 pass through the only mernts and desei^vings of our 
 Saviour Christ, and not through our merits, or 
 through the merit of any virtue that we have within 
 us, or of any work that cometh from us ; therefore, 
 in that respect of merit and deserving, we for- 
 
 * Third Part of the Sermon of Salvation. 
 
179 
 
 sake as it were altogether again faith, works, an(\ 
 all other virtues *." The same doctrine is taught by 
 Hooker in his Discourse of Justification, in whichj 
 when opposing the Roman Catholics, he makes 
 the very distinction which we maintain to exist 
 between righteousness and piety : " Whether they 
 speak of the first or second justification, they make 
 it t/ie essence of a divine quality inherent; they make 
 it righteousness which is i)2 us. If it be in us, then is 
 it ours, as our souls are ours ; though we have 
 them from God, and can hold them no longer 
 than pleaseth him ; for if he withdraw the breath 
 of our nostrils, we fall to dust : but the righteous^ 
 ness wherei?i we iJiust be found, if we will be justified, 
 is not our own ; therefore, we cannot be justified by 
 any inherent quality. Christ hath merited righteous- 
 ness for as many as are found in him. In him GocJ 
 findeth us, if we be faithful, for by faith we are 
 incorporated into Christ. Then, although in our- 
 selves we be altogether sinful and unrighteous, 
 yet even the man which is vnpious in himself, full 
 of iniquity, full of sin, him being found in Christ 
 through faith, is justified f," &c. To these au- 
 thorities, I shall add that of a Presbyterian divine : 
 ** Faith justifies, as it is the instrument or mean 
 of justification. In this instrumentality, no other 
 
 * Third Part of the Sermon of Salvation, 
 t Works, London, 1G70. fol. p. 495. 
 
 N 2 
 
180 
 
 grace of the Spirit, and no work of the law are to he 
 associated with it. Nor is it for its own intrinsic 
 worth, that a man is justified by the instrumen- 
 tality of it ; for he is nowhere said in Scripture, 
 to be justified /(?r faith, but only to be justified 
 by it*," 
 
 According, therefore, to the Apostolic testi- 
 mony, and the opinion of these theologians, piety 
 cannot, in any point of view, or under any modi- 
 fications, be taken into the account in the matter 
 of our justification, either as forming part of our 
 justifying righteousness, or as giving the righte- 
 ousness of Christ any validity on our behalf; 
 consequently, to translate ^iKaioavvr\, "righteous- 
 ness," in those passages which relate to justifica- 
 tion, by ^_sf^ takwa, which uniformly and ex- 
 clusively signifies piety in man, must infallibly 
 lead the reader to seek for something within him- 
 self, or performed by him, as the ground of his 
 acceptance. And to join righteousness ^nd piety 
 together in this matter, what is it, but to set forth 
 anew the old error of the Galatians, who could 
 not rest satisfied with the all-sufficienCy of the 
 meritorious work of Christ, but conceived it was 
 necessary for them to add something of their own 
 to help it out, and render it peculiarly available 
 to their salvation ? 
 
 * Colquhoun on the Law and the Gospel, p. 172. 
 
181 
 
 It was on this ground that I objected to the 
 rendering " for the promise that he should be the 
 heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his 
 seed through the law, but through the righte- 
 ousness AND PIETY of faith." Rom. iv. 14. For 
 I believe I shall be borne out in affirming, that 
 the foundation on which this promise rested, as 
 well as the channel of its conveyance, was not 
 any obedience, righteousness, or piety of the 
 Father of the faithful, or of his seed, either be- 
 fore, under, or after the Mosaic dispensation, but 
 the righteousness of the Messiah, the seed that 
 should come, with a special view to whom it was 
 made, and in virtue of whose obedience unto 
 the death, it is given unto them who believe. 
 Gal. iii. 16 — 22. It is because faith terminates 
 on this finished obedience of the Saviour, as its 
 grand object in the matter of justification, that it 
 is called Si/catocruvr/ 7rtaT£(uc, ** the rightcousncss of 
 faith," a designation nowhere given to implanted 
 righteousness, although it be also true, that God 
 ** purifieth the hearts of men by faith." Acts xv. 
 9. It is for the same reason that those who are 
 absolved from their legal obligation to punishment, 
 and accepted into a state of favour with God, are 
 said to be ^iKaiwOivTiq U maTeo)q "justified or made 
 righteous by faith." Rom. v. 1. Admit, on the 
 other hand, what is contended for by Professor 
 Lee, that the promise is through a righteousness 
 
182 
 
 and piety springing from faith, and that this faith 
 is available because it is " active, devotional y cau- 
 tious, abstinent," p. 70 ; that piety forms part of 
 the gift of righteousness in virtue of which be- 
 lievers shall reign in life. Rom. v. 17. p. 71 ; 
 that Abraham's faith " included the practice of 
 piety/' ibid, and that moral goodness, righteous- 
 ness, or piety, is v^^hat Paul refers to Gal. ii. 21. 
 p. 73 ; and you not only introduce a manifest 
 confusion into the language of Scripture, but 
 assign to the works or piety of the sinner an im- 
 portant place in the matter of his justifying 
 righteousness. 
 
 We are told, indeed, p. 70, that ** in any sense 
 i\\Q piety of faith cannot be said to be the piety of 
 works, or of self-righteousness, unless our ap- 
 pellant has discovered some rule of logic with 
 which the world has been hitherto unacquainted;" 
 but it would have been more satisfactory if the 
 Professor had pointed us to some passage of 
 Scripture in which it is taught, that the piety of 
 faith (if such an expression be found there) means 
 a piety which is the object and not the effect of 
 faith. For my part I cannot but think that piety 
 of faith is very closely allied to what the Apostle 
 calls the " work of faith, and labour of love, and 
 patience of hope." 1 Thess. i. 3. and is, therefore, 
 to be placed under the head of sanctification, and 
 not under that of justification, to which it would 
 
183 
 
 stand opposed even as a Christian grace, if the 
 communication of the divine favour in this act 
 were, in any shape, referrible to its influence. 
 For it becomes what the Professor calls ** a piety 
 of works, or self-righteousness," the moment any 
 dependence is placed upon it as a ground of ac- 
 ceptance with God. Such, at least, appears to 
 me to be the rule of logic laid down in the New 
 Testament., 
 
 But, to conclude this long discussion, the 
 reader has only carefully to analyze the whole of 
 the Remarks, pp. 63 — 74, to be convinced, that, 
 notwithstanding all that Professor Lee may say 
 about justification by faith, the atonement and 
 merits of Christ, self- righteousness, the Gospel 
 of Christ, &c. by connecting piety with righteous- 
 ness , or at least by vindicating Ali Bey for having 
 so connected it, in such passages as Rom. iv. 13. 
 v. 17. X. 3. Gal. ii. 12. iii. 6. 21, he, in effect, 
 clearly admits, that it is something in man that 
 is there meant, and consequently, that the SiKaio- 
 ouvtj is not, or, at least, not merely, the justifying 
 righteousness of Christ imputed to us, and re- 
 ceived by faith alone. Was there no just cause 
 then for alarm, on this infinitely interesting and 
 momentous topic ? 
 
 It is not merely, however, by this use of the 
 synonymical combination t/y"^ }i ^'^'^' watakwa, 
 ** righteousness and piety," in the matter of justi- 
 
184 
 
 fication, that the doctrine of the Gospel is sub- 
 verted : it is also corrupted by the rendering, 
 
 Rom. iv. 3. ^5**^.^ *^j^'j^ iS^^^ *'^ "And that faith 
 he counted instead of righteousness." On this I 
 observed in the Appeal, p. 32. that " it substi- 
 tutes faith, as a principle which God will accept 
 in lieu of obedience, than which nothing can be 
 more contrary to the whole scheme of revealed 
 mercy." At this assertion. Professor Lee ex- 
 presses himself in no small degree surprised, 
 conceiving it to be a complete contradiction to 
 affirm, that any person can insist upon good 
 works the one moment, and the next broach a 
 sentiment which goes to exclude their necessity; 
 but it must be remembered, that this is a contra- 
 diction for which I am not at all accountable. It 
 is one which clogs the version of Ali Bey, and is 
 found, more or less, to attach to every system 
 which represent human deeds as a constituent 
 part of our justifying righteousness. In fact, 
 those who declaim most loudly against justifica- 
 tion by faith alone, as a doctrine destructive of 
 good works, are uniformly found to be the very 
 persons who are most deficient in such works 
 as the New Testament teaches to be well-pleasing 
 to God : whereas those who reject all works of 
 any kind, or degree, as influential in justification, 
 are such as stand distinguished by a careful soli- 
 citude to be foremost in the practice of every 
 
185. 
 
 thing which tends to the glory of God, or the 
 good of man. 
 
 The idea obviously conveyed by the words ** to 
 count faith iw^^e^f^ (j/* righteousness," is one of the 
 favourite dogmas of the Neonomian system, which 
 is thus stated by Macknight, in his note (2) on 
 Rom. iv. 3. ** In judging Abraham," says he, 
 ** God will place on the one side of the account 
 his duties, and on the other his performances. And 
 on the side of his performances he will place his faith, 
 and by mere favour will value it as equal to a com' 
 plete performance of his duties, and reward him as 
 if he were a righteous person." But, surely, if 
 by righteousness be meant conformity to the re- 
 quirements of the Divine Law, and it be affirmed, 
 that faith is imputed to me instead of my com- 
 pliance with these requirements, or, at least, to 
 make up for any defects in my obedience, am I 
 not at liberty to conclude, nay, what other con- 
 clusion can be drawn, but that God relaxes the 
 obligations of his Law, and admits me to happi- 
 ness in a way consistent with their annulment? 
 The influence of such a principle, in weakening 
 the bonds of morality, is too obvious to require 
 any elucidation. 
 
 " But, if we allow," says Professor Lee, " that 
 the Turkish word xo^. is equivalent to his transla- 
 tion instead (a translation which my opponent 
 does not invalidate) as given in the first passage. 
 
186 
 
 I am still unable to discover what sense different 
 from that found in our authorised version is here 
 discoverable." The word in the English version 
 is "/or;" " Abraham believed in God, and it was 
 counted unto him for righteousness ;" but, I con- 
 fess, that of the different meanings of which this 
 preposition is susceptible, and certainly "instead" 
 is one of them, it never once entered my mind, 
 that such could be its signification in the passage 
 under review. We are, indeed, further informed, 
 p. 65, that ** it is equivalent to the Greek iiq and 
 the Hebrew *7 of the original Scriptures, notwith- 
 standing our appellant's opinions to the contrary ;" 
 but the reader must do justice to my opinion, 
 though now for the first time expressed, when he 
 finds from the first lexicographical authority, that 
 in the whole Bible, neither the one preposition, 
 nor the other, signifies in any instance " instead 
 of,", or ** in the room of" Parkhurst assigns 
 eighteen, and Schleusner not fewer than twenty-six 
 different significations to cic, but the disputed 
 sense of " instead" is not once taken into the ac- 
 count. And with regard to the prepositive V, no 
 such meaning is given to it, either by Parkhurst 
 or Gesenius ; but, indeed, if it had, it would have 
 made nothing to the present argument ; for what- 
 ever^ force Professor Lee may be disposed to 
 ascribe to this preposition in other parts of the 
 Hebrew Scriptures, he will not contend that it 
 
187 
 
 stands for £tc, Gen. xv. 6. the passage from which 
 the Apostolic quotation is made. 
 
 He proceeds: " If the faith here evinced by 
 Abraham was accounted to him instead of righte- 
 ousness, in the words of Ali Bey, or for righte- 
 ousness, as it stands in our version, I suppose the 
 meaning in either case is, that Abraham was 
 esteemed righteous, in consequence of the faith 
 thete spoken of." Ibid. But what authority has 
 the Professor for supposing, that any such mean- 
 ing can be logically deduced from either of these 
 prepositions? In what language has the term 
 instead, the sense of in consequence? What cer- 
 tainty can there be in the Scriptures, or indeed in 
 any other book, if we may be permitted thus to 
 explain particular words and phrases ad libitum ? 
 To my mind it appears to be one thing to count 
 faith for, or instead of righteousness, and something 
 altogether different to count a person righteous in 
 consequence of that faith : the one is the imputation 
 of a moral act or quality, in lieu of universal rec- 
 titude : the other regards the subject of that ope- 
 ration of the heart, as sustaining the character of 
 righteous in virtue of the relation in which he has 
 been placed by faith. 
 
 With respect to the real meaning of the phrase 
 Etc Sijcacoffuvrjv, I conccivc it to be most satisfactorily 
 given by Doddridge on the place, who renders it 
 "in order to justification." It is thus also that 
 
188 
 
 Christ is said to be the end of the law, etc Stfcae- 
 oavvrivy ''for, OF in order to justification to every 
 one that believeth," Rom. x. 4. and that with 
 the heart man believeth elg 8t/cato(ruvijv, " in order 
 to" or, as it stands in our version, " unto righteous- 
 ness," or justification. In all these instances the 
 word ^iKaioavvri denotes the grand blessing to be 
 obtained, of the conveyance of which faith is the 
 appointed instrument, and not a principle to be 
 substituted in place of it, or, a succedaneum for 
 moral rectitude, which is the sense given in AU 
 Bey. 
 
CHAPTER VIII. 
 
 Examination of Professor Lee's Arguments in Vindicatioti of 
 the Mohammedan Sabbath. The Apocalyptic Market-day, 
 Sweetmeats of Omnipotence. Meaning of the Word 
 " Gospel.'] Mohammedan Paradise. New Testament 
 Sense of the Word " Saints." Tutelary Saints. The 
 Pregnancy of the Virgin Mary. The Mohammedan 
 Antichrist. 
 
 I SHALL now consider Professor Lee's Remarks 
 in defence of some of the other palpably *' false 
 " renderings" to which reference was made in the 
 Appeal. 
 
 It was there objected, p. 35, to the substitution 
 of iM^jumd, " the Day of Assembly " for TrapaaKevv, 
 *' the Day of Preparation" that the former phrase 
 properly designates the Mohammedan Sabbath, and 
 that its adoption into the Christian Scriptures 
 makes the Evangelist speak of an appropriation of 
 the day, which did not take place till several cen- 
 turies after he wrote. Conceiving that the word 
 anachronism was used not merely as denoting an 
 error in the computation of time, but also as sig- 
 nifying the ascription of an event or events which 
 happened at one particular period, to some other 
 period, either antecedent or subsequent, I ven- 
 
190 
 
 tured to charge the Turkish translator with a 
 blunder of this description. Whether my meaning 
 was not expressed with sufficient perspicuity, 
 and whether the Professor's stricture on this head 
 was at all called for, I leave others to judge. 
 
 But he doubts the accuracy of my remark re- 
 specting the appropriation of the day as the Mo- 
 hammedan Sabbath, and thinks it is not so easy 
 to be proved as I seem to have imagined, that 
 this appropriation took place several centuries 
 after the Evangelist wrote *. How it could take 
 place before the time of Mohammedanism, it is 
 somewhat difficult to conceive ; and I believe we 
 must adopt some new system of chronology ere it 
 can be demonstrated, that Islamism was esta- 
 blished in the age of the Apostles. That the 
 Arabs considered the Friday as sacred, before the 
 time of Mohammed, I admit ; but that they kept 
 it in honour of the creation, or that they assem- 
 bled on that day, as they did after the introduc- 
 tion of the new system of religion, does not ap- 
 pear to be so clearly made out as my opponent 
 would have us believe. The fact, however, that 
 previous to its appropriation as the day of Mo- 
 hammedan worship, it did not receive the name 
 oi&MJb^juma, or assembly-day, but was designated 
 by that of *j^*!1 ,»y. jewmtd-arubet, renders it more 
 
 * Remarks, p. 84. 
 
191 
 
 than probable, that the Arabs borrowed it from 
 the Jews, by whom the " day of Preparation" 
 was called in the Chaldee dialect KD^I'^J^ Aru- 
 hatha, either on account of its being the day before 
 the Sabbath, or because it was that on which 
 they made the necessary arrangements for the 
 day of rest; — the very idea conveyed by the 
 
 Greek word Trapaa/cewr/. 
 
 The further discussion, however, of this subject 
 is very prudently waved by Professor Lee, who 
 proceeds to ask ; " What can our Appellant mean, 
 when he says, the translator is guilty of an ana- 
 chronism? Does he suppose that translators are 
 not at liberty to use any words in their transla- 
 tions but such as were in use when the original 
 itself was composed?" pp. 84, 85. No; he neither 
 meant nor supposed any such thing ; but he was, 
 and still is of opinion, that it is perfectly incon- 
 gruous to make the sacred writers speak of things 
 which were not understood to exist in their day, 
 as if they were already commonly known. The 
 case before us is clearly in point, as is also that 
 of the Apocalyptic Market-dayy which we shall 
 presently consider; and the circumstance, that the 
 Apostle Paul introduces the Tatars to the notice 
 of the Christian church at Colosse, five centuries 
 before they were known either to the Greeks or 
 Romans. Were we once to admit the principle 
 advocated in the Remarks, I do not see why we 
 13 
 
19^ 
 
 should not approve of Good Friday, Maundy 
 Thursday, Matt. xxvi. 17 ; Parish Priests, Titus 
 i. 5; Parish Clerks, 1 Tim. iii. 12; "now from 
 the time the clock struck six, until it struck nine," 
 &c. Matt, xxvii. 45. All these renderings (ex- 
 cept the first) are found in translations of the New 
 Testament, and most of them in one made by a 
 person, no less skilled, perhaps, in the art of trans- 
 lation, than those who made the Arabic versions 
 alleged by Professor Lee as authorities to vindi- 
 cate the use of Im>»- jumd, the Mohammedan 
 Sabbath. 
 
 But we come to a more serious fault, though I 
 am sorry to say, it is one that Professor Lee 
 treats with the same spirit of levity which charac- 
 terizes too many of his Biblical criticisms. It is 
 that which occurs Rev. i. 10. ** I was in the 
 Spirit, cjJo^ .Ijb J bir Bazar goninda, on a mar- 
 ket DAY," instead of ** the Lord's day." *' A 
 very alarming conclusion truly!" says the Pro- 
 fessor *. It will be allowed, that it required no 
 great stretch of foresight to predict, that the in- 
 dividual capable of thus treating a glaring perver- 
 sion of the language of Holy Scripture, would not 
 scruple to undertake its defence ; but that any 
 person professing serious godliness, and a native 
 of Britain too, the glory of whose country is the 
 
 * Remarks, p. 86, 
 
193 
 
 distinguishing respect there paid to the sacred 
 day, compared with the manner in which it is 
 spent in other parts of Europe, should undertake 
 to advocate so gross a dereliction of Christian 
 feeling, is to me, I confess, perfectly inexplicable ; 
 and I trust, it will never be said, that such a ren- 
 dering received the sanction of a Society esta- 
 blished for the sole purpose of propagating the 
 " word of God," whoever may be their advisers, 
 or however strongly advice to this effect may have 
 been urged upon them. The subject may not, 
 indeed, affect those w^ho reside in places where 
 public marketing is prohibited on that day, to the 
 same degree it must such as have weekly pre- 
 sented to their view all the enormities attendant 
 on its conversion into a day of merchandise ; but 
 still, it cannot but appear utterly repugnant to 
 every sacred association, to hear such a practice 
 spoken of without reprobation by an inspired 
 Apostle. Just as soon may it be affirmed, that 
 Christ hath concord with Belial, or that he that 
 believeth hath part with an infidel, or that the 
 temple of God agreeth with idols, as that it is 
 decorous and proper to translate the above pas- 
 sage, *' I was in the Spirit on a market-day T 
 Surely after reading such a version, the Christian 
 could not but feel the incongruity of joining in the 
 song : 
 
194 
 
 - - -. •« Welcome sweet day of rest, 
 That saw the Lord arise ; 
 Welcome to this reviving breast, 
 And these rejoicing eyes." 
 
 But let us hear the reasons advanced by Pro- 
 fessor Lee in defence of so notorious a breach of 
 the principles of Biblical interpretation, and so 
 revolting an offence against Christian taste. " Let 
 us try to amend the translation in the way pro- 
 posed by Dr. Henderson. It should have been 
 translated, says he, by ojJLi^ i^Aj. on the Lord's 
 day. We have already seen, tliat by the word 
 u->, Rabby the Mohammedans do not understand 
 our Lord Jesus Christ, but God, to the exclusion 
 of every other being. A Mohammedan will, there- 
 fore, understand by o^jjy^ \^j on God's day, an 
 expression which will convey to him no precise 
 meaning whatever:" pp. 86, 87. Having, in a 
 former chapter fully shewn the futility of my op- 
 ponent's reasoning, relative to the restrictive sense 
 of the Arabic word «— j^ Rabb, and proved, that, 
 according to the best usage, it denotes any lord 
 or master whatever, it is unnecessary to say more 
 ill refutation of his assertions on that subje6t; but 
 it seems passing strange, that it should not have 
 occurred to him, that the Mohammedans, after 
 finding this identical word, Cj. Rabb, applied to 
 
195 
 
 our Lord Jesus Christ by Ali Bey throughout his 
 version, should not conclude, that the person 
 here referred to is the same who is generally de- 
 signated by the title of Cjj Rabb, by the penmen 
 of the New Testament. Nor is it less surprising, 
 that he should have been so forg^etful as to permit 
 himself to employ an objection against my pro- 
 posed emendation, which militates with equal 
 force against Ali Bey's own translation of the 
 parallel phrase, KvpiaKov Smrvov, 1 Cor. xi. 20. 
 ^hj *Lij: dshai Rabbani, *' the Lord's Supper." 
 
 Must not a Mohammedan, on Professor Lee's 
 principle, understand by these words, God's 
 Supper? And would he not be confirmed in his 
 opinion by All's translation of the 23d verse; 
 ** For what I delivered unto you, I received of 
 (JU; iBl Allah Taald) the Most High Godr Nor 
 can it be urged against this mode of expression, 
 that it is " unknown to the phraseology of Scrip- 
 ture;" for we read. Rev. xix. 17. "Come and 
 gather yourselves together to the supper of the 
 great God." The devotee of Islamism would cer- 
 tainly reason as consistently with fair principles 
 of interpretation, in calling in the one passage to 
 illustrate the other, as the Author of the Remarks 
 does, in quoting 1 Cor. v. 5. 2 Cor. i. 14. Phil, 
 i. 6. 1 Thess. v. 2. in application to the present 
 subject. 
 
 o 2 
 
196 
 
 With respect to the unintelligibility of the 
 phrase, ** The Lord's Day," I cannot perceive 
 how it should be greater to a Turkish Moham- 
 medan than it is to the Mohammedans of Hin- 
 dostan, or to the Malays. In the version destined 
 for the use of the former, we read, ^^^ ^Si^^si^ 
 Chudawendaki den ; and the Malay translators have 
 rendered it, hdrij maha Tuhan. We are told, how- 
 ever, p. 90, that *' it should be remembered, there 
 are certain words or phrases, such as the Lord's 
 Day, the Christian Sabbath, &c. in use in Chris- 
 tian countries, which would either be unintelligible 
 to a Mohammedan, or Heathen, or would give an 
 idea totally different from the scope of the original, 
 if literally translated." And what is the conclu- 
 sion to which we are conducted by this argument ? 
 ** In a future edition, pei^haps, the word might be 
 altered with advantage^ as it has been the case with 
 the version of Luther; but I doubt whether a 
 better word could be proposed now *." Is it not 
 here distinctly avowed, that in preparing first 
 versions of the Scriptures, or such as are destined 
 for those nations or tribes that have been hitherto 
 destitute of Christian instruction, translators ought 
 to reject whatever phraseology they may conceive 
 to be unintelligible, and substitute one of their 
 own fabrication, how different soever the expres- 
 
 * Remarks, p. 91. 
 
197 
 
 sions may be from those used in the original ? If 
 this principle be just, it will certainly very much 
 facilitate the labours of Missionaries and others 
 engaged in a work of this nature ; and every pos- 
 sible means ought to be adopted, to put them in 
 possession of it, that they may be relieved from 
 those fetters by which they have hitherto felt 
 themselves shackled in the execution of their im- 
 portant undertaking. They have only to carry it 
 to the full and legitimate extent of its application, 
 and the Mohammedans and Heathen will be fur- 
 nished with translations of our sacred books, com- 
 pletely purged from every expression peculiar 
 either to the Jewish or Christian economy, and 
 so intelligible, as to supersede the necessity of the 
 living instructor. ** For my part," remarks Pro- 
 fessor Lee*, ** I had always supposed that ver- 
 sions of the Scriptures should be so made as to 
 be intelligible, at least to those for whom they had 
 been intended ; and that, how unbending soever 
 the phraseology of the originals might be, they 
 must be rendered, in a translation, by the phrase- 
 ology in use among the people, for whom such trans- 
 lation is made, in order that they may understand 
 theniy however different their style and taste might 
 be from that of the original Hebrew and Greek 
 texts." It may seem ignominious to advocate the 
 cause of unintelligibility ; but no reader of any re- 
 
 * Remarks, p. 151. 
 
198 
 
 flection will contend, that the Scriptures can be 
 universally understood by such as peruse them for 
 the first time in any translation : numerous words 
 and phrases must be perfectly new to them ; while 
 with others they will never be able to connect any 
 proper ideas, unless they be taught by such as are 
 previously acquainted with their meaning. 
 - Before the religious public delegate full powers 
 to any man or body of men to new-model the 
 sacred diction of the Spirit of God, by commuting 
 it for the phraseology in use among Infidels and 
 Idolaters, it becomes them seriously to reflect on 
 the consequences to be apprehended from such 
 practice : for, if what the Baron Silvestre de 
 Sacy asserts in the Appendix (p. 13) be true, 
 that " every intelligible translation is necessarily a 
 kind of commentary^' must not such versions as 
 those made, or to be made, agreeably to the 
 canon laid down by Professor Lee, be complete 
 commentaries ? And if so, what guarantee have we 
 that they will not contain the mind of the trans- 
 lators, instead of the mind of the Spirit, and that 
 the most absurd and dangerous errors will not be 
 circulated under the sacred character of the word 
 of God ? The adoption of such a principle, how- 
 ever, is totally at variance with the fundamental 
 rule of the Bible Society, which ordains, that the 
 copies to be circulated by it, be " without note 
 and comment;" and, if I am not much mistaken, 
 
 15 
 
199 
 
 the great majority of the friends of that institu^ 
 tion will be disposed to question tlie propriety of 
 constituting the individual, who professes this 
 principle, the sole guardian and editor of any one 
 version of the inspired oracles of God. For, after 
 so explicitly and unblushingly avowing his appro^ 
 bation of the unhallowed rendering market day 
 instead of the Lord's day, what security have 
 we that ht will not take equal, if not still more 
 daring, liberties with the sacred text ? 
 
 Leaving the reader to examine the remarks of 
 Professor Lee, on the encouragement given by 
 the above rendering to the desecration of the 
 Christian Sabbath, it is only necessary to add, 
 on this passage, that when I said the Russian 
 name of the day, Voskreseiiie, "■ Resurrection," 
 was most appropriate, I never meant to affirm 
 that it was at all appropriate as a Biblical render- 
 ing, but merely referred to it as the common 
 designation of the day in the popular language of 
 the Russians, and as strikingly descriptive of that 
 glorious event which the first day of the week was 
 instituted to celebrate. 
 
 The next point to which we must advert, is that 
 respecting the Sweetmeats of Omnipotence. It was 
 shewn (Appeal, p. 44), that in this bombastic 
 style, Ali Bey has translated the simple word 
 fiavva, Manna, John vi. 31. and the authority of 
 Golius and Meninsky was produced in proof of 
 
200 
 
 the accurate interpretation of the Turkish words. 
 Now, does Professor Lee so much as attempt to 
 fix upon me the charge of inaccuracy, in making 
 the statement contained in the note ? Or does he 
 endeavour to invalidate the testimony of these two 
 celebrated Orientalists ? No ; he only doubts 
 " whether what I cited were done in a way suf- 
 ficiently impartial to entitle me to the meed of 
 praise, to which he says I aspired *.*' In reply to 
 this, I can only assure the reader, that if I did not 
 insert the whole of what stands in the Lexicons 
 under the phrase in dispute, it was not done with 
 any fraudulent intent, but merely to save room ; 
 as all that the Lexicographer adds, goes merely 
 to shew, what every reader of Ali Bey's version, 
 or of my note, must at once conclude, that by 
 " Sweetmeats of Omnipotence," the Turks mean 
 ** The Manna of the Hebrews." But let us ex- 
 amine, for a moment, what the Professor has to 
 say in defence of this delectable phraseology. 
 
 1. His first argument is German usage, which, 
 of course, we may pass. 
 
 2. ** The phrase used by Ali Bey is not without 
 a parallel in Scripture, however paraphrastical it 
 may be thought to be t-" Here we have the same 
 hackneyed remark obtruded upon us, which was 
 60 often employed in respect to the Divine Names, 
 
 * Remarks, p. 1S5. f Ibid. p. 136. 
 
201 
 
 and is deemed universally applicable^ but which 
 no person of an enlightened and impartial mind 
 can ever admit as available in Biblical translation. 
 It will also be questioned, whether the phrases, 
 ** bread of heaven," and " food of the mighty 
 ones," be exactly parallel to Sweetmeats, or Past?y 
 of Omnipotence. In Psalm Ixxviii. 25, the word 
 p Man does not occur, but in the preceding 
 verse, where Luther retains it, and does not give 
 it by Himmelbrod, or Heaven-bread, as the reader 
 would conclude, from the manner in which this 
 German phrase is referred to in the Remarks. 
 The compound, Himmelbrod, " Bread of Heaven," 
 is given by the Reformer as a translation of 
 D^DB^'pn degan shamaim, which is, however, 
 more literally rendered by " Corn of Heaven," 
 in our authorized version. 
 
 3. *' But why," the Doctor will repeat, " did 
 he not use the word '^ Mann? I answer, if 
 he will look again into his Meninski and Golius, 
 he will probably find, that this word is used to 
 designate a medicine, just as the word Manna 
 does among ourselves. And, in order to avoid 
 this, Ali Bey preferred the phrase under consi- 
 deration*." If Professor Lee be serious in assign- 
 ing the medicinal sense, which, it seems, also 
 attaches to the word, as the cause why our 
 
 * Remarks, p. 126. 
 
202 
 
 Turkish translator preferred, in the present in- 
 stance, the i^Qvi^hxdise" Sweetmeats of Omnipotence J' 
 I hope he will not be offended if I ask him, what 
 he conceives to be the reason that induced Ali 
 Bey to use the word ^ Man?i? Heb. ix. 4. This 
 circumstance, as well as the use of the word in 
 the Koran, I noticed in the Appeal ; but both 
 seem to have escaped the obversation of my 
 opponent. It is not, however, in these passages 
 alone, that it has been adopted. It is also used. 
 Rev. ii. 17. And, if any reliance can be placed 
 on the Berlin and Paris Pentateuchs, it occurs, 
 Exod. xvi. 15. 31. 33. 35. in all which places, 
 unfortunately for the Professor's hypothesis, it 
 cannot be understood as signifying " a medicine," 
 but, with the exception of that in the Revela- 
 tions, designates the manna which descended 
 from heaven for the nourishment of the children 
 of Israel. 
 
 4. The last, and we may suppose, the strongest 
 ground for the use of the phrase " Sweetmeats of 
 Omnipotence^' is, its adoption by the Metropolitan 
 of Angouri in his edition of the Turkish Psalter, 
 where we have both the word, and its interpreta- 
 tion: KovTpiT yAt>aai] {.lavvari. ** The Metropolitan," 
 says Professor Lee, *' must be left to answer for 
 himself and Ali Bey ; and I have no doubt his 
 answer will be satisfactory*." For himself this 
 
 * Remarks, p. 127. 
 
203 
 
 prelate may be left to answer; but I incline to 
 think it rather betokens a sense of weakness to 
 devolve upon him the 07ius probatidi, relative to 
 Ali Bey, which the Professor had taken so man^ 
 fully upon himself. As to the satisfactory nature 
 of the answer to be expected from his Eminence, 
 I will not forestall the judgment of the reader by 
 any anticipatory remarks. 
 
 Having expended his critical reasons, the author 
 of the Remarks thus proceeds : ** Whether such 
 phraseology is scrupulously to be avoided, may 
 be determined from the consideration of the word 
 Gospel, adopted by our own translators ; a word 
 compounded of God and spel, as the best transla- 
 tion of the Greek EuayyEXtov. If we try Dr. Hender- 
 son's principle, then, upon this word, will it not 
 appear, that our Lord came to preach the spel 
 (history, account, or speech) of Omnipotence, or of 
 God, to the poor*?" Some readers will rather 
 be disposed to doubt the aptness of the example 
 here adduced ; but the etymology here assigned 
 to the word Gospel, and consequently the reason- 
 ing founded upon it, falls to the ground, the 
 moment we introduce an Anglo-Saxon scholar 
 into the arena. *' Godspel," says the learned Dr. 
 Marshall, of Lincoln College, Oxford, ** Lat. 
 Evangelium; Anglis Iwdief^nisGosvELL. InJElfrici, 
 ut creditur, Glossario nondum edito kgitur, Evan- 
 
 * Remarks, p. 127. 
 
204 
 
 gelium vel bonum nuncium, Gods pel. Hoc it ague 
 tantundem valet ac Gr cecum 'Euay-ycXtov. Voi' est 
 composita ex God ei spel, quorum prius significat 
 tarn Deus, quam Bonus : ut, Nys nan man god 
 BUTON God ana. Lat. Nemo bonus, nisi solus 
 Deus. Luc. xviii. 19. Quce quidem God et god 
 nulld scepissimd gaudent distinctione orthographicd, 
 in codicibus saltern manu cvaratis," Observ. in vers. 
 Anglo-Sax. p. 509. And again, p. 510. ** Nihil 
 aliud ergo significat Francorwn Cuatchundida 
 quam Bonum indicium, sive nuncium ; quod Sax- 
 onico GoDSPEL aptissimh conformatur. Ea^ hac 
 linguarum cogjiatarum harmonid non obscurh evin- 
 citur, nostrum Godspel potius 'EvayykXiov signiji- 
 catu ea:prim€re, quam Dei historia; quod iamen 
 doctis quibusdam magis placuisse video" *' Gospel," 
 therefore, does not signify " the spel (history, 
 account, or speech) of God" but " the ^oor/ his- 
 tory or account ;" admirably corresponding in its 
 etymology to the Greek cu good, and ayys\ia a 
 message. But the reader may further consult 
 Junius in his Etymol. Anglican, in Gospel, and 
 Dr. Adam Clarke's Preface to the Gospel of 
 Matthew. 
 
 In the Appeal, p. 43, in the note, I adduced as 
 another instance of improper translation : Luke 
 xxiii. 43. " This day shalt thou be with me 
 cSjj^ Jennetda, in (the Mohammedan) Para- 
 dise, lb it asked : what other word could Ali 
 
205 
 
 Bey have employed ? I have only to reply, that 
 the Arabic of the Polyglott, the -Propaganda and 
 Sabat; Martyn's Persic ; Seaman and Brunton's 
 Turkish; and Frazer's Tatar versions, have all 
 ^j*,jiiJ Firdaws, the very vv^ord from which the 
 Greek -rra^ahKroq is derived. The Persic of the 
 Polyglott has ^j>Ji^, bihisht, but jj-.j'i/ Fii^daws 
 occurs in Ali Bey's own version. 2 Cor. xii.4." 
 
 On this Professor Lee begins his remarks, as 
 follows : " This is all as groundless as it is plausi- 
 ble*," by which the reader might be led to con- 
 clude, that the words referred to were not to be 
 found in any of these versions. It is a fact, how- 
 ever, that they are so found ; and I may now add, 
 that vj*«5»>y Firdaws and not c:^JL»- Jennet is the 
 rendering of the Malay ^ the Hindostanee and the 
 Armenian-Turkish versions. 
 
 He proceeds : ** The Greek TrapaSatroc is not 
 derived from ^^^d^Jii'daus^ but the contrary, as 
 
 the Oriental writers themselves allow ; that part 
 of the remark is, therefore, futile." If, instead 
 of this mere counter-assertion, we had been 
 favoured with unexceptionable Oriental authori- 
 ties, some benefit might have accrued to the 
 Lteraryx world from the fresh agitation of this 
 etymological question ; but as the Professor has 
 not condescended to produce them, we must still 
 
 * Remarks, p. 124, 
 
206 
 
 abide by the ancient Greek derivation given in 
 the Onomasticon of Julius Pollux : oi Se irapa^^Krot, 
 
 BapQapiKov uvai Sokovv TovvofiUy riKtt Kai Kara avvrjdiiav 
 tii V DTjcrtv sXXriviKriv, wg Kal aWa TToXXa f wv TleprriKwv. 
 
 ix. 13V I will only add, that if any person is dis- 
 posed to question the Persic origin of the word, 
 we may, perhaps, not be far from the mark, if we 
 trace it to the Armenian, in which it is still found, 
 and is the common word for garden. 
 
 The Professor adds : " In the next place, the 
 word i^^i^y Jii^daus conveys to a Mohammedan 
 ear the idea of Mohammed's paradise just as 
 much as the word 'kx». above objected to, or the 
 word c:^v>^j Bihisht does," and refers us to a 
 couple of passages in the Koran, in which ^^d^ 
 Firdaws is employed to designate Paradise. That 
 it is so used, is a fact with which I was not un- 
 acquainted at the time I wrote the Appeal; still 
 I considered myself fully warranted to denomi- 
 nate c:^J^ Jennet the Mohammedan paradise, be- 
 cause I never found it used by Christian transla- 
 tors ; because it is the word generally employed 
 by Mohammedans to denote their heaven 6f 
 sensual delight; and because, on the contrary, 
 ^j4>^ Firdaws is not of frequent occurrence, i 
 
 do not expect, however, that these reasons will 
 have much weight with my antagonist ; but I 
 hope he will satisfy the public on one point : 
 
207 
 
 How it comes that all the versions (Ali Bey's 
 alone excepted) should, with the most unanimous 
 consent, reject the word commonly used by 
 Mohammedans to depict their paradise, and that 
 most of them should agree in adopting another 
 word, which is also, but by no means so fre* 
 qftiently employed for this- purpose ? iQ 
 
 '-f Fault was also found with the manner in which 
 Ali Bey had rendered the word a-ytoi ** saints." 
 Instead of rendering it by the proper word Ju*o,js«> 
 kadkkr^ " holy persons," he translates it JUJj) 
 
 ewliale?', which, according to the definition com- 
 monly given in the lexicons, signifies "friends or 
 favourites of God," and also great men, and 77iims- 
 ters of state*. All this is granted by Professor 
 Leef; but he is noi satisfied with me for omit- 
 ting to quote Meninsky in proof of the latter part 
 of the definition, although his authority after all 
 only goes to shew the combination of the word 
 "with another (clJ^t) dawiet) signifying state, or 
 
 empire, and thereby restricting the meaning in 
 this case to state-saints, men high in office, favour, 
 and dignity, in contradistinction from saints in 
 the religious, or, to speak more properly, in the 
 superstitious sense. Having left that ** great 
 storehouse" of Oriental learning, the Professor 
 adds : *' The word, therefore, in its proper accepta- 
 
 * Appeal, p, 38. f Remarks, pp. 96, 97. 
 
208 
 
 tion, means saints, as being favourites of God ; 
 which every one who has been in the habit of 
 reading Mohammedan books, knows to be the 
 case." But does he mean to say, that a word 
 properly signifying ** saints as being favourites of 
 God,'' is a fit word by which to express the ayioi 
 of the New Testament ? Would it not be sup- 
 posed, that to impute to him such an opinion, is 
 to torture his words with the view of rendering 
 him ridiculous in the eyes of every person of 
 solid acquirements in the art of Biblical interpre- 
 tation? Yet he actually sums up the whole of 
 his criticisms in the following manner : ** We 
 may, therefore, now leave the word JUJ^l just as 
 we found it, as being no less expressive of the 
 term ayioi, than the word Jw*j,jj» which is else- 
 where used*." 
 
 May it not be permitted, however, to enquire, 
 by what law of criticism are we warranted to 
 affix to ayiog the sense of friend or favourite ? Is 
 it because every one who is holy enjoys the 
 favour of God ? Professor Lee surely never can 
 assign so weak a reason ; for, on the same prin- 
 ciple we might affirm, that it signifies an heir, it 
 being a fact, that in Scripture the saints are 
 called heirs of God. How then can he possibly 
 have come by an interpretation which excludes 
 the idea of purity from ayioc ; an idea which is 
 
 * Reiyiarks, p. 98. 
 
209 
 
 not only radically inherent in the Greek word, 
 but inseparately attaching to it in all the passages 
 of the New Testament in which it occurs? It is 
 not impossible that he took it from the fifth sense 
 of Schleusner : "Qui est Chnstianorum ciEtui an- 
 numerandus, cul contigit bencficio Dei singular i reli- 
 gionis Christiana cognitio, nullo scepe ad moires animique 
 affectioneni respectu habitoT In proof of this strange 
 definition, the lexicographer refers to Acts ix. 13, 
 14. 32. 41. xxvi. 10. Rom. i. 7. viii. 27. xiii. 13. 
 xvi. 15. 1 Cor. vi. 1, 2. vii. 14. Rev. xiii. 7. xx. 
 6. but I venture to assert, that in no one of these 
 passages is the name ayiot given to Christians, 
 merely because they were members of the Chris- 
 tian Church, or participants of the external ad- 
 vantages of the Christian dispensation, but on the 
 contrary they are so called because they either 
 were in reality, or at least professedly rtyiafffiavoi iv 
 aXiiOeia, " saticti/ied hj the truth," in consequence 
 of which, the Apostle could address them : " And 
 
 such were some of you, aXXci aireXovaaaOe, aWa 
 
 ■hyiaadriTi, but ye are washed, 3/e at^e sanctified " &c. 
 John xvii. 19. 1 Cor. vi. 11. In consideration of 
 the direct tendency of the above interpretation, 
 to instil false views of Scripture into the minds 
 of commencing students of theology, and lead 
 them to rest satisfied with the name and form, 
 instead of the power of godliness, it is not saying 
 too much of the lexicon which contains it, to 
 
 p 
 
210 
 
 adopt the language of the learned Bishop ot 
 Limerick, and ask : ** However useful and even 
 indispensable on the table of the staid and prin- 
 cipled divine, should this mingled mass of truth 
 and falsehood, of acute philology and licentious 
 innovation become the oracle of every unfledged 
 and implicit theologian*?" If the principle 
 adopted by Professor Lee with the suffrage of 
 Schleusner, be admitted as valid, it will be one 
 reason in addition to many others for serious ap- 
 prehension, *' that from those theological works 
 which students are more and more taught to 
 respect, as guides to the critical knowledge of 
 Scripture, much confusion, much obscurity, re- 
 peated contradictions, and a fatal habit of ex'pla'in- 
 ing away the mod pregimnt truths of Christianity, 
 may be superinduced upon, or rather substi- 
 tuted for, our manly, sound, and unsophisticated 
 English theology -f." 
 
 But there is another acceptation of the word 
 ^Uljl ewlialer, *' saints," no less proper than that 
 
 given in the Appeal from Meninsky, and ap- 
 proved by Professor Lee : viz. " tutelary saints," 
 fatronSy protectors, guardians, which seems still 
 better to suit, Rev. viii. 3. in Ali Bey's version, 
 and, according to which, the ^^ls.^ ^M%\ ewliale- 
 run dualeri, '' prayers of t\LQ protectors," will sig- 
 
 * Dr. Jebb's Sacred Literature, p. 328. f Ibid. p. 51. 
 
•211 
 
 nify the intercessions of tutelary saints in behalf of 
 their votaries ! Such is, in fact, the established 
 and current Koranic meaning of the word, as will 
 appear from the following quotations : Surah II. 
 100, 101. " Dost thou not know that God is Al- 
 mighty ? Dost thou not know that unto God be- 
 longeth the kingdom of heaven and earth ? Neither 
 have ye any protector (1^ well) or helper except 
 God :" ver. 258. ** God is the patron f Jj well) of 
 those who believe." III. 27. " Let not the faithful 
 take the infidels for their protectors fUy ewlia.y 
 61. " God is the patron (^^ well) of the faithful." 
 118. *' God was the Supporter of them both ("U^Jj 
 weliuhuma) ; and in God let the faithful trust." 
 IV. 47. ** God is a sufficient Patron fUIj ivelia), 
 and God is a sufficient Helper." 91. " Take not 
 friends fUI^l ewlia) from among them : take no 
 friend fLJj ivelia) from among them, nor any 
 helper." 118. "Whosoever taketh Satan for his 
 patron ("Ulj welia) besides God, shall surely perish 
 with manifest destruction." 138. *' They who take 
 the unbelievers for their protectors fUJ^I ewUa)y do 
 they seek for power with them? Surely all power 
 belongs to God." VI. 51. " They shall have no 
 patron ( }^ weli), nor intercessor, except him 
 (their Lord)." 69. " A soul becometh liable to 
 destruction for that which it committeth : it shall 
 
 V 2 
 
212 
 
 have no patron-^ ( }^ weii) nor intercessor besides 
 God." VII. 193—195. " Verily the false deities 
 whom ye invoke besides God, are servants like 
 unto you. Call therefore upon them, and let them 
 give you an answer, if ye speak truth. Have they 
 feet to walk with? Or, have they hands to lay 
 hold with ? Or, have they eyes to see with ? Or, 
 have they ears to hear with ? Say, call upon your 
 companions, and then lay a snare for me : defer it 
 not ; for God is my protecto?^ (^J^ well) who sent 
 down the book of the Koran, and he protectelk 
 (^ J Jj> yatawelia) the righteous." These specimens 
 which I have given in the words of Sale's trans- 
 lation, lest any suspicion might attach to my own 
 manner of rendering them, are sufficient to shew 
 the common acceptation of the word in the Mo- 
 hammedan Bible : to which, I shall only add, 
 that it occurs in the same sense on the seal of 
 the Emperor of Morocco, ^1 ^1 Joe ^1 s:isro 
 oi!.^^ ^^ ^1 JjkcU^I thus rendered by Silvestre de 
 Sacy*: "Mohammed, fils d'Abd-allah, fils d'ls- 
 mael. Dieu est son protecteur et son seigneur." 
 Is it therefore too much to affirm, that if with this 
 sense prominent in his mind, or rising from the 
 perusal of any of these passages, a follower of the 
 Arabian prophet, or one of the Oriental Christians 
 
 * Chrestomathie Arabe, Tom. III. p. 263. 
 
213 
 
 who is familiar with Arabic, were to read Rev. 
 viii. 3. in the version of Ali Bey, he will naturally 
 understand the saints, the^Ulj) ewlialer there spoken 
 of, to be such as have been made the objects of trust 
 by mortals, v/hose protecting care has been confided 
 in, and whose intercessions have been assiduously 
 supplicated as efficacious with the Most High ? 
 Ask M. Andrea de Nerciat, how he views the pas- 
 sage, and, if I am not greatly mistaken, he will 
 give the same interpretation. 
 
 But Professor Lee will accuse me of incon- 
 sistency in endeavouring to prove that Ali Bey 
 made his version both Mohammedan and Roman 
 Catholic. To this it is only necessary to reply, 
 that Ali does not appear to have had any settled 
 notions whatever on the subject of religion . He was 
 born a Catholic, lived a Mohammedan, and wished, 
 we are told, to die a member of the Church of 
 England : Vir erat Polonus natus, multarum lingua- 
 rum, sed religionis in speciem Turcicce, re ipsa, Deus 
 scit cujus, &c *. Was consistency to be expected 
 in a version executed by such a character as 
 this? 
 
 It was objected to the rendering Luke ii. 5, 
 " With Mary, who being his espoused wife, was 
 great with child;" that it suggests the idea of her 
 being pregnant in consequence of her connexion 
 
 * Meninsky Thesaurus, Ling. Orient. Prooem. 
 
214 
 
 with Joseph*. In reply to this. Professor Lee 
 dexterously conjures up a supposition which he 
 imagines I must entertain, " that as Mary was 
 with child, when she is said to have been the 
 espoused tvife of Joseph, it must appear probable, 
 at least, that this was in consequence of an im- 
 proper connection; an inference," he adds, "which 
 may be drawn from the original text, or our own 
 authorized version, with as much propriety, as it 
 can from the text of the Turkish translation -f." 
 I appeal to the reader whether any such sense is 
 even seemingly implied in the terms of my objection? 
 Did I not print the word being in Italics, expressly 
 to shew, that it was upon this word that the point 
 at issue turned, and not upon ^y: ewreti, " his 
 wife," or ^»LiJ nishanlu, " espoused," on which 
 words the Professor expends so much unneces- 
 sary criticism ? The proposition contained in my 
 objection, and that which he deduces from the 
 original and our common version, are by no means 
 identical. The latter read thus : ** With Mary 
 his espoused wife, being great with child :" the 
 former reads, ** With Mary, who being his es- 
 poused wife, was great with child." The one 
 simply states that she was pregnant : the other, 
 that she was pregnant in consequence of her con- 
 nexion with Joseph. 
 
 * Appeal, p. 43, note. f Remarks, p. 121. 
 
215 
 
 But although my opponent affects at first not 
 to see the precise point of the argument, he is at 
 last obliged to take up the participle l-j^j) olup ; 
 but tells his readers, that both the Turks and Per- 
 sians ** introduce words of this kind, just as the 
 Greeks do, without any other intention than that 
 of continuing the narrative, till the sentence is 
 concluded \n a verb in its proper tense and per- 
 son ; and not for the purpose of assigning a reason 
 for the events related*." Admitting, that in cer- 
 tain connexions, this participial form, both of the 
 substantive verb (>«J^1 olmak, and of ordinary verbs, 
 is used with a view to continue the narrative, I 
 nevertheless believe it would rather puzzle Pro- 
 fessor Lee, with all his practice in the Turkish, to 
 establish the position, that it is never introduced 
 " for the purpose of assigning a reason for the 
 events related." Let us try a passage or two 
 from the specimen he has given us from Ali Bey, 
 at the end of his Appendix, adhering scrupulously 
 to the Professor's own words : ** Your eyes shall 
 be opened, and ye, being (^^<^\ olup) like G6ds, 
 shall know good and evil. The woman seeing 
 C^jij^ g'onip) then that the fruit of the tree was 
 good, &c. she took. At that time, the eyes of 
 both bei?ig opened fu->^T atchilup), they knew that 
 
 * Remarks, p. 122. 
 
216 
 
 they were naked. Having seiued (<^^i^ dikup) fig- 
 leaves one to another, they made wrappers for 
 wrapping themselves." To these instances, I shall 
 add a couple from the New Testament; Matt, 
 ii. 13. *' Being fv^y olup) divinely warned in a 
 dream that they should not return unto Herod, 
 they departed to their own country by a different 
 way." 2 Tim. iv. 17. " But the Most High Lord 
 being f^-J^jl olup) with me, imparted strength to 
 me." Now, I would simply ask. Was not the 
 knowledge of good and evil to result from our first 
 parents being as Gods ? Did not Eve take the fruit 
 because she saw that it was good ? Did they not 
 discover that they were naked, in consequence of 
 their eyes being opened ? Was not the formation 
 of the fig-leaves into wrappers the effect of their 
 being sewed together ? Did not the wise men de- 
 part by a different route in consequence of the hea- 
 venly admonition ? And was not Paul strengthened 
 in consequence of the presence of his Divine Master ? 
 Are not these instances perfectly parallel with that 
 under consideration ? Do they not manifestly ex- 
 hibit the gerund, not as a mere continuative, but 
 as specifying the cause of what follows ? 
 
 The Professor's philological criticism on the 
 word Ij^ ewreti, is equally destitute of founda- 
 tion. " The truth is," says he, p. 121, " the word 
 Jj^ ewreti, here used, does not necessarily mean 
 
217 
 
 wife, but woman, in the sense of the Greek ywt}." 
 Let us again call in Ali Bey to our aid, and let 
 him be umpire between us : Matt, xxvii. 19. '* His 
 wife ( ^^j^ ewreti) sent that they might say to 
 him/' &c. Acts V. 1. ''With Sapphira his tvife 
 ( ^j^ ewreti) r Had we been told that ^^jf- ewret, 
 in its separate form, signified woman, in the sense 
 of yuvj?, it would have been an undisputed truth ; 
 but in the case before us, it happens to be in 
 alliance with the suffix ^^ i, denoting the third 
 person singular of the possessive pronoun, and 
 rendering it equivalent to the Greek, r; ywri avrov, 
 which the Professor may, indeed, render into 
 English by his woman, but then the word woman 
 must be taken in the low, or vulgar sense, or, as 
 it is sometimes used by foreigners, who say, my 
 woman, meaning thereby, my wife. 
 
 I shall conclude this chapter with Dedjiat, the 
 Mohammedan Antichrist. In Ali Bey's version 
 of 1 Johnii. 18. the Apostle is made to say : "Ye 
 have heard that J^d Dedjial cometh" — a thing, 
 I observed in the Appeal, p. 46, which is per- 
 fectly false : nobody ever having heard of the 
 coming of Dedjial till the time of Mohammed, by 
 whom an imaginary being of this name was intro- 
 duced to the notice of his followers. It was ad- 
 mitted, that the cognate dagolo is found in the 
 ancient Syriac version ; but then, it was con- 
 
2lS 
 
 tended that it occurs there uiiaccompanied with 
 Mohammedan ideas. Professor Lee, however, 
 attempts to justify the use of the word. Availing 
 himself of my concession relative to the Syriac 
 version, he argues : First, that *' the Christians of 
 Syria had heard of this JU^J Dedjial at least five 
 hundred years before Mohammed was born:" and 
 Secondly, that " as the Christians of Arabia were 
 formerly of the Syrian communion, nothing can 
 be more probable than, that this word was in use 
 among them, and understood as designating the 
 Antichrist*." But it must be recollected, that 
 however nearly the two words Dagolo and Dedjial 
 be related to each other in an etymological point 
 of view, they are not convertible terms ; conse- 
 quently, however early the Syrian Christians 
 may have heard of Dagolo, they knew nothing of 
 " this Dedjial" with whom alone we have to do 
 on the present occasion. Again, if the Arabian 
 Christians ever derived any such word from those 
 of Syria, how does it happen that it is not to be 
 found in any of the Arabic versions ? If the word 
 JU-j Dedjial was already introduced among them, 
 and had obtained currency for so many centuries 
 as a designation of the New Testament Antichrist, 
 why did they not employ it ? I am here arguing 
 on the supposition, that some one or other of the 
 Arabic versions, at present known in Europe, was 
 
 * Remarks, ppt 136, 137. 
 
219 
 
 made by those Christians, and designed for public 
 and private use ; but even viewing this as pro- 
 blematical, and supposing these versions to be 
 the production of a more recent period, what 
 satisfactory reason can be assigned for the trans- 
 lator's not adopting the word as a designation of 
 Antichrist, seeing it had already been thus ap- 
 plied throughout the Mohammedan world ? It 
 cannot be urged, that they were ignorant of its 
 use ; and we may consider it as certain, that if 
 Professor Lee had been one of them, he would 
 infallibly have introduced it. It is more than 
 probable, however, that they had the same 
 scruples with Seaman, Brunton, Frazer, Martyn, 
 Sabat, and all other Christian translators, the 
 authors of the Malay version alone excepted, who 
 may have been ignorant of the ridiculous ideas 
 combined with the word by Mohammedans, and 
 merely adopted it because it was employed by 
 them to denote Antichrist. 
 
 The reasoning of the Professor, relative to our 
 rejection of the words Heaven, Paradise, Hell, the 
 Earth, &c. because the Mohammedan commen- 
 tators have framed some ridiculous stories re- 
 specting them, and the name of Peter, because 
 the Catholics have framed a ridiculous hypothesis 
 upon it, is altogether aside from the point. These 
 words have their common and appropriate use in 
 all languages, altogether independant of the er- 
 11 
 
220 
 
 roneous ideas which some particular people or 
 denomination may attach to them ; but JU^J 
 Dedjial is restricted in its application to the Mo- 
 hammedan Antichrist exclusively ; consequently, 
 by adopting it into any part of the Christian 
 Scriptures, we give a sense to the passage which 
 it was never intended to convey. Nor can the 
 plea of necessity be urged; it having been already 
 shewn in the Appeal, that in the Arabic, the 
 older Turkish and the Persic versions, a phrase 
 has been adopted, which strictly signifies " The 
 opponent or adversary of the Messiah." 
 
CHAPTER IX. 
 
 Cases of Eunuchism, Matt. xix. 12. " HelV\for "Everlast- 
 ing'^ Signification of the Phrase, "To be in Christ." 
 Futility/ of Professor Lee's Reasoning in Defence of the 
 Omission of the Pronoun ohroi, Rev. xix. 9. and the Ima- 
 ginary Redding kv tu (jifiXiu, xx. 12. His Exclusion of 
 the Worship of the Lamb from Rev. vii. 10. Shouldering 
 the Cross, al ypa<pat improperly rendered by " Law" and 
 " Divine Books." The Case of the Tatars. Col. iii. 11. 
 Mohammedan Phrase " Lord of the Worlds." New Cove- 
 nant. 1 John ii. 7. 
 
 Proceeding in our examination of Professor 
 Lee's Remarks on the subject of the false 7^en- 
 deruigs charged upon the version of Ali Bey, 
 we come next to consider the case of the 
 eunuchs, Matt. xix. 12. The passage in the 
 Appeal, on which he animadverts, is as fol- 
 lows: *' ^jj>Jt^\ a^jyi ^Ji^\ JoCifi tlx^ yi Bu skeile?'e 
 dtid olan buile olsun: Let him be thus who is dis- 
 posed for such thifigs ; i. e. whoever is disposed 
 or prepared to become an eunuch, let him sub- 
 mit to castration ; it is an act of which I will 
 approve. Yet, who does not perceive, that o 
 ^vvafxevoQ yjopHv, yjopi'iTU), has no reference what- 
 ever to the cases of emasculation parenthetically 
 mentioned as instances of what men are capable 
 
222 
 
 of bearing ; but to the state of celibacy, tov X070V 
 TovTov, specified in the preceding verse, where the 
 identical verb (y^Mpovai) is employed. Seaman 
 and Bruton render the passage properly thus: 
 ^^y^\ J^*i ^ijiljl ,*il!>" 'WUJ] J^ Kabul etmeke kadir 
 olan kabul etsun." p. 35. 
 
 After quoting my words, the Professor asks : 
 ** Does Dr. Henderson here mean to argue, that 
 the former part of the 12th verse, which he says 
 has been introduced parenthetically, has no re- 
 ference whatever to the preceding or following 
 context? If he means this, then may the instances 
 of emasculation, which he sees, or thinks he sees 
 in this parenthesis, be excluded *." I might leave 
 it to the candid reader to decide, whether my ex- 
 pressions possibly admit of the construction here 
 put upon them ; but I cannot help expressing 
 my surprise, that any such misconception could 
 for a moment be imputed to me, since it was dis- 
 tinctly stated, that '* the cases of emasculation 
 were parenthetically mentioned as mstances of what 
 men were capable of bearing" and consequently were 
 designed most pointedly to corroborate the doc- 
 trine taught in the preceding context. The posi- 
 tion, therefore, which my opponent assumes being 
 hypothetically false, the argument founded upon 
 it must be false likewise. 
 
 ♦ Remarks, p. 79. 
 
223 
 
 Another instance of strange misconception, not 
 however of my words, but of those of our Saviour, 
 occurs in the following paragraph. After shewing 
 that we are agreed in referring the reception spoken 
 of, not to the state of emasculation mentioned in 
 the 12th verse, but to that of celibacy mentioned 
 in the 10th, the Professor asks: *' If celibacy 
 only is meant in the former context, and if this 
 twelfth verfee is an explanation of what was there 
 laid down generally, how does it come to pass, 
 that emasculation has here been recommended as 
 projitahle * ?" I do not mean to affirm, that he re- 
 presents our Lord as recommending the utility of 
 emasculation ; this sentiment he does not hold ; 
 but I certainly think I am warranted to affirm, 
 that he conceives the passage to contain a recom- 
 mendation of the state of celibacy as profitable ; for 
 such, in plain language, is his state of metaphori- 
 cal emasculation. Now, I believe, it may be con- 
 fidently maintained, that in this passage, Christ 
 recommends as profitable, neither the one state 
 nor the other. He is merely meeting an extreme 
 case, which had been put in the form of an objec- 
 tion by his disciples. Having heard the authori- 
 tative decision, which he gave to the question 
 proposed by the Pharisees, they said : " If the 
 case of the man be so with his wife, it is good 
 not to marry," ver. 10. If the conjugal state be 
 
 * Remarks, p. 80, 
 
224 
 
 attended with such serious inconveniencies, 
 arising from these severe restrictions, it is more 
 eligible not to enter into it ; for although a man 
 may not have his domestic peace wounded by 
 the actual infidelity of his wife, yet her temper 
 and conduct may be otherwise so bad, as to prove 
 a source of constant annoyance to him. To this 
 observation, which was made by the disciples, 
 with the view of obtaining a solution of the diffi- 
 culty, our Lord replies, that however preferable a 
 state of celibacy might seem from this view of the 
 inexpedience of matrimony, it was, nevertheless, 
 a state by no means to be recommended to man- 
 kind as profitable. " All men cannot receive this 
 saying :" they cannot live in such a state. It is 
 not their duty, but is the case only with certain 
 individuals who have received this peculiar gift 
 from God, with a view to enable them to accom- 
 plish infinitely more important ends than those 
 for the attainment of which marriage was insti- 
 tuted. Nor must such consider, that they have 
 any intolerable burden imposed upon them in 
 being deprived of the comforts of the married 
 state. It is what some endure from a natural 
 defect ; others have been incapacitated for enter- 
 ing into that state by a cruel act on the part of 
 their fellow-men ; and there are even some who 
 have incapacitated themselves, in order, as they 
 think, more effectually to please God. Whoever, 
 
225 
 
 therefore, is called by circumstances (Suvafxai, licet 
 mihi, decet, oportet me. Wahl's Clavis Nov. Test.) 
 to lead an unmarried life, let him do it without 
 grudging. 
 
 Such, I conceive, to be the natural import and 
 bearing of the passage, and its connexion. By 
 *' the eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for 
 the kingdom of heaven's sake," I am not the first 
 to suppose, that our Lord means the Therapeutse 
 or contemplative Essenes, of whom great numbers 
 abounded at that time in Judaea ; and whoever con- 
 siders the excessive austerities to which, we are 
 informed, they otherwise submitted, and the w«- 
 sparing manner in which they treated their bodies, 
 (a</>£iSca <rw/iUToc, Coloss. ii. 23.) in order to repress 
 every impure desire, will not deem it in any de- 
 gree improbable, that among other modes of 
 corporeal discipline obtaining among the mem- 
 bers of this sect, that of eviration was not omitted. 
 Nor was the practice confined to them. Ecclesi- 
 astical history exhibits numerous instances of 
 persons who have thus done violence to nature 
 from the same mistaken principle ; and, even at 
 the present day, there exists in Europe a sect of 
 this description, whose growing numbersare by 
 no means inconsiderable, who ground their war- 
 rant on this very passage, conceiving, not only 
 that the words are to be taken literally, but 
 
226 
 
 that ** emasculation is here recommended as pro- 
 fitable." 
 
 Professor Lee may easily imagine, that pos- 
 sessed as I was of the knowledge of this fact, I 
 liiust have been strongly inclined to embrace his 
 metaphorical view of the subject ; but I am free 
 to confess, that though I had consulted the com- 
 mentators on this passage, not one of them afforded 
 me the least satisfaction. And even my opponent 
 himself, after having rather sarcastically stated, 
 that " the Doctor is the first orthodooc diviJie, as 
 far as my knowledge gt)es, who has discovered 
 these cases of emasculation in this passage," and 
 affirmed, that *' no one, I believe, has proved 
 either from the etymology, or the use of the word 
 'E.vvovyoq, that it must necessarily mean an emascu- 
 lated person; nor, if it did, that some translated 
 or metaphorical sense ought not to be attached 
 to it in this place *," proceeds gravely to say, that 
 he thinks *' the commentators are unanimous in 
 supposing, that the word 'Ewovyoq Eunuchs, here 
 means nothing more than persons addicted to 
 celibacy, either from some natural defect, the cir- 
 cumstances in which they have been placed, or 
 from the desire of devoting themselves more 
 entirely, than they otherwise could, to the ser- 
 vice of God." Is it not evident, from the words 
 
 * Remarks, p. 80. 
 
227 
 
 marked in Italics, that however desirous Professor 
 Lee is of getting rid of literal emasculation, he is 
 under the necessity of admitting it in the first of 
 the cases here specified ? And, if the word must 
 be taken literally in the first instance, why not in 
 the second? The practice of castrating slaves 
 was not uncommon in the East then, any more 
 than it is at the present day ; and, indeed, most 
 expositors seem to go thus far in explaining the 
 word literally. Thus Kuinoel translates the two 
 instances : " Qui nati sunt sine e.vtis ohscoenis, 
 quibus natura ipsa virilitatem ademit;" and "qui- 
 bus testiculi demessi sunt aut compressi et con- 
 tusi, vel de industria ab aliis, vel casu, ut rebus 
 venereis uti nequeant." And to the same pur- 
 pose the Professor's own oracle Schleusner; " 1. 
 cui ante pubertatem membra virilis exsecta sunt, 
 &c. 2. sunt eunuchi ab hominibus exsectiT With 
 respect to the second class, I believe few will 
 admit, in the present day, that justice is done to 
 it by Gregory Naziazen and Theophylact, who 
 interpret it of the effect produced upon the minds 
 of men by the doctrines of their teachers, or that 
 any reference can be had to the forcible act of 
 confining young people in monasteries, that they 
 may addict themselves to a single life. To con- 
 tend that it means, " prevented from matri- 
 mony by the circumstances in which they are 
 placed," is certainly, to say the least, a very 
 
 q2 
 
228 
 
 lame interpretation of the words, *' to be made 
 eunuchs of men :" for this will apply to the first 
 class as well as to the second. But if we must 
 interpret the word Ewov^oi Eunuchs in the literal 
 sense, in the two first instances, by what rule of 
 criticism are we to explain the third metaphori- 
 cally ? The thing cannot be thought impossible 
 any more than in the other cases ; for it has been, 
 and still is practised. It may be said, indeed, 
 that the custom is so barbarous, and so unnatural, 
 that it would be altogether derogatory to the 
 character of our Lord to suppose, for a moment, 
 that he gave it his sanction. I grant it ; but by 
 whom has it been established, that he either 
 sanctions it, or recommends it as profitable ? 
 This must first be proved, before the conclusion 
 here drawn can be fairly charged upon my hypo- 
 thesis. The truth is, Christ no more taught 
 that men should make themselves eunuchs, than 
 he taught that they should be made eunuchs by 
 others ; or that it was profitable for them that 
 they should be born eunuchs : he merely stated 
 the fact, that such instances existed, in order to 
 set the minds of his disciples at rest respecting 
 the hardship of a case, which seemed to them to 
 arise out of the manner in which he had treated 
 the subject of divorce. 
 
 In giving the manner in which Seaman has 
 rendered the concluding part of the passage. 
 
229 
 
 which is precisely that of our English version, I 
 am charged with not noticing the circumstance, 
 that this translator has employed a word in 
 rendering EwovyoQ, which never signifies any but 
 a castrated person*; but the fact is, this word 
 did not occur in the sentence which I adduced 
 from that author, and was in no wise connected 
 with my a^rgument. But now, that the word 
 ^^s>■ Khasi " a castrate" is brought forward, it 
 may not be impertinent to our present question, 
 to ask, why the Professor did not inform us, 
 that it is the very word used in the Ai^abic, Persic, 
 and Ethiopia versions of the Polyglott; in the 
 Arabic N. T. published in London, 1727; and in 
 the Arabic of the Propaganda, with the Bible 
 Society's edition, of which he tells us, p. 91, he 
 had something to do ? Words of precisely the 
 same meaning are found in the Vulgate (seipsos 
 castraverunt), Armenian, Slavonic, Russian, Polish, 
 Anglo-Sa.von, German, Dutch, Dajiish, and Swedish- 
 versions. In Wiclif, we find the verse thus trans- 
 lated: "For ther ben geldyngis, whiche ben thus 
 born of the modirs wombe, and ther ben geldyngis 
 that ben maad of men, and ther ben geldyngis that 
 ban geldid hemself for the rewme of hevenes ; He 
 that may take ; take he." In a small English quarto 
 Testament in my possession, without title-page 
 or date, 1 find the following translation: ** For 
 * Remarks, p. 82. 
 
230 
 
 there are some eunuchs which were so born of 
 their mother's belly ; and there be some eunuchs 
 which be gelded by men; and there be some 
 eunuchs which have gelded themselves for the 
 kingdom of heaven. He that is able to receive 
 this, let him receive it." In one of Barker's black- 
 lettered Bibles, on the other hand, we find the 
 words rendered pretty nearly in accordance with 
 the sense assigned to the passage by Professor 
 Lee : ** For there are some chaste, which were so 
 borne of their mother's bellie ; and there be some 
 chaste which be made chaste by men ; and there 
 be some chaste which have made themselves 
 chaste for the kingdom of heaven. He that is able 
 to receive this, let him receive it." 
 
 Whatever may be the etymological meaning of 
 the Greek word Euvov)(^oc, it will not be denied, 
 that the Hebrew DHD Say^is from the Chaldee 
 root D'lD castravit, evulsit, eMirpavit, signifies an 
 emasculated person. This is indeed evident from 
 Isaiah Ivi. 3. " Let not the eunuch say: Behold, 
 I am a dry tree.'' And Dr. Castell observes under 
 the word: Solis, h. e. CDNH \\2yD Matth. xix. IL 
 vel tZDlS^ ab homine factus (castratus) Zabin. c. 
 2. 1. Jevam. 79. 2. Majm. H. m2?»K c. 2. invisus 
 hie Hebrseis, Deut. xxiii. L et Romanis maxime: 
 hunc arcebant Leges Jud. a Sacerdotio et Syne- 
 drio, Sanhed. 30. 2. et ab Ordinatione Ecclesias- 
 tica jus Canonicum tam Or. quam Occidentalis 
 16 
 
231 
 
 Ecclesiae. Attamen apud iEgyptios, Medo&, Persas, 
 Babylonios, imo Asiaticos ferh omnes, et Greecos, 
 Barbaros, Africanos, Turcasque magno in honore 
 habitus ; tandem et apud principes Hebr. a Gen- 
 tibus acceptus, s. alio casu ita efFectus, Is. 56. 3. 
 It is also well known, that it was from the circum- 
 stance of castrates being selected to be keepers of 
 the royal harems in the East, that the word came 
 to be applied to courtiers, or officers of high rank 
 in general, without its being necessarily implied, 
 that such was literally their condition. In the 
 passage before us, it is obvious our Saviour 
 does not speak of such officers ; on which 
 account nothing can be more ridiculous than 
 the rendering of the Syriac version according 
 to the strict etymological import of the words : 
 
 Usdioik) Zalo ]ivo'^^v> 0001 liii lin ^> .U^oi^ 
 
 .. • I .. . • ▼ 
 
 .]lk2«> ]7n^Vv> V^i^4^ UlOkOiSo ^oaiMSii 0*^1 ^clioi> 
 
 *' For there are some accredited persons who have 
 been thus born from their mother's womb ; and 
 there are some accredited perso7is that have been 
 accredited by men ; and there are accredited persons 
 who have made themselves accredited for the kingdom 
 of heaven." Nor is the translation of Ali Bey, ac- 
 cording to Professor Lee, much better. For if 
 Ali has " used a word to which no such meatiing 
 (as that of castration) can properly be attached,'' but 
 
232 
 
 which designates " an officer," who either may or 
 may not be an emasculated person, it is evident 
 the passage must read somewhat as follows : 
 " For there are officers (Kliadims) who were thus 
 born of their mother's womb ; and there are officers 
 (Khadims) who have been made officers (Khadims) 
 by men ; there are also officers (Khadims) who, for 
 the sake of the kingdom of heaven, have made 
 themselves officers (Khadims). Let him be thus 
 who is disposed for such things." Will the reader 
 join the Professor in affirming, that " Ali Bey has, 
 therefore, translated the text in such a way, as to 
 give the sense found in the original, and no more V 
 Or will he not rather conclude, that if the sense 
 given to the word in Ali's version by his advocate 
 be just and unexceptionable, it must speak as 
 complete nonsense in reality, as the Syriac does 
 etymologically ? 
 
 It is difficult to conceive for what purpose 
 Professor Lee could allow himself to make the 
 following remarks, p. 81. except it was to throw 
 odium upon the Appeal. " Dr. Henderson," says 
 he, *• gives the following translation of the passage 
 of Ali Bey, on which we shall only remark, in his 
 own language, that there is nothing in it like * a 
 scrupulous adherence to the order of the original:* 
 for what Ali Bey expresses first, he expresses last, 
 and vice versa. The Doctor's practice, therefore, 
 is in this, as in other places, perfectly at variance 
 
233 
 
 with his own principles. The translation is this : 
 Let him be thus who is disposed for such thi?igs." If 
 the reader will turn to page 25 of the Appeal, to 
 which reference is here made, he will find, that 
 the subject treated of is the unwarrantable inter- 
 change of the names God and Lord, and Jesus and 
 Christ, in the use of which, Ali Bey has not scru- 
 pulously adhered to the order of the original, but 
 changed, adopted, or omitted them at pleasure ; 
 and not the simple construction of words in a 
 sentence ; a thing which I have nowhere main- 
 tained ought to be followed by a translator. 
 Surely my opponent would not have me to give 
 the words in the Turkish order : These things for 
 disposed being, thus let him be. 
 
 But it is time to take our leave of this passage, 
 which I shall do with the observation, that in 
 whatever light we view it : whether we consider 
 the Ewvou^oi to be Eunuchs strictly so called, or 
 merely certain officers of high rank and trust, the 
 version of Ali Bey is false ; for by adding the 
 words ** these things" at the end of the verse, the 
 attention of the reader is directed to the cases 
 mentioned in the preceding part of the verse, 
 whether of emasculation or high official trust, in- 
 stead of Tov \6yov TovTov, the state of celibacy 
 mentioned in the 10th verse. 
 
 I stated in the Appeal, p. 35. that Ali Bey 
 had rendered to nvp to aiioviov, Matt. xxv. 41, by 
 
234 
 
 -iJioT ^j^j^ Gihennem-dteshi, " Hell-Jire,'" instead of 
 ^jilT t_fJol ebdi dtesh, ** everlasting-Jire." This 
 statement was unaccompanied by any remark, as 
 1 considered the error to be sufficiently glaring 
 to carry its own condemnation along with it. 
 Now, how does my opponent dispose of it? 
 Condemn it outright he could not ; for that would 
 have been inconsistent with the character of 
 fidelity, which he had given to the Turkish 
 version ; but although he cannot deny, that there 
 is some diiference of meaning between the words 
 hell and everlasting, taken separately, and has no 
 hesitation in allowing, that ** everlasting fire" 
 would be " the better and more literal translation 
 of the two," he, nevertheless, argues, that "the 
 general sense afforded by the context is precisely 
 the same ;" that '* the difference in words is un- 
 important;" and that, " as the word used by the 
 Turkish translator is 7iot iinscriptural, no good 
 reason can be assigned why the book should on 
 this account be suppressed*." I leave it to those 
 who have any just sense of the importance of ac- 
 curate translation, and such as are acquainted 
 with the Universalist Controversy, to pronounce 
 upon the satisfactoriness of these reasons, and to 
 say, whether they are equalled by any thing in 
 the shape of argument in the Notes to the Soci- 
 nian New Testament. 
 
 * Remarks, pp, \iS, 84. 15S. 
 
235 
 
 ** The next critique," says Professor Lee, *' is 
 on Rom. viii. 1. <_5%Uy l^.Xs^'*-* ^_^£ 'those who 
 are Jesus Christ's,' for kv Xplarij) Irjcrou, * in Christ 
 Jesus.' But what does Dr. Henderson under- 
 stand by in Christ Jesus ? I suppose he must mean, 
 in the faith of Christ Jesus, as it is expressed in the 
 Arabic of the Polyglott. If that be the case, then 
 those who ^are his people, are here meant, just as 
 it has been expressed in the Turkish, unless it can 
 be shewn, that to profess faith in him, and to be 
 of his Church or people, must necessarily mean 
 different things. The same may be said of his 
 next remark on Chap. xvi. 7, where we have 
 .bjoUl ^^sr^'*^ * they believed in Christ,' instead of 
 * were in Christ ;' than which, I will venture to 
 assert, a better translation cannot be given *." I 
 have been at the trouble of transcribing the whole 
 of this passage, in order to furnish the reader who 
 may not have seen the Professor's pamphlet, with 
 a specimen of his general mode of argumentation, 
 as well as the character of his theological creeds 
 A great proportion of his pages is filled with similar 
 interrogatories, suppositious cases, and arbitrary 
 conclusions ; yet this is a small matter compared 
 with the sentiments occasionally developed in the 
 course of the work. We have already seen what 
 are his views on the article of "justification," and 
 
 * Remarks, pp. 95, 96. 
 
236 
 
 heard his opinion respecting the proper accepta- 
 tion of the word " saints :" he here lets us into his 
 ideas relative to the meaning of another of those 
 New Testament phrases which have ever been 
 regarded as principal pillars in the Christian 
 edifice. According to the above induction to be 
 in Christ, to be in the faith of Christ, to be of his 
 Church or people, and to profess faith in hiin, are 
 one and the same thing. And what is the result 
 of this identification of terms ? "Why, nothing less 
 than this, that to be a genuine Christian, it is only 
 necessary to '■'profess faith" in Christ. According 
 to the doctrine of Scripture, however, and the 
 confessions of all the Reformed Churches, no per- 
 son is warranted to consider himself to be one of 
 those who are in Christ Jesus, except he be a 
 new creature ; old things having passed away, and 
 all things having become new. All who are in 
 him are freed from condemnation, and give evi- 
 dence of a change of state, by walking, not ac- 
 cording to the flesh but according to the spirit. 
 2 Cor. V. 17. Rom. viii. 1. But can this be af- 
 firmed of all who prof ess faith in Christ, and that 
 they are of his Church or people ? Again, when 
 the same Apostle is enumerating the glorious and 
 peculiar privileges of real Christians, he writes, 
 " And of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God 
 is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and 
 sanctification, and redemption ;" 1 Cor. i. 30. 
 
237 
 
 And, when giving an account of his own expe- 
 rience, he states it to be his highest ambition and 
 aim to *' win Christ, and be found in him, not 
 having," says he, " mine own righteousness which 
 is of the law, but that which is through the faith 
 of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by 
 faith." Phil. iii. 9. To be in Christ, therefore, is 
 to be in that state of happy and secure union with 
 him, in virtue of which we become interested in 
 his merits, are reconciled to God, and enjoy a title 
 to all the blessings of redemption, as wrought out 
 by, and freely communicated unto us through him. 
 But this is obviously something essentially different 
 from a mere profession of the Christian faith ; 
 and we cannot, in my opinion, entertain a more 
 destructive error than to imagine that, because 
 we profess to believe in Christ, and are numbered 
 with his Church or people, we are, therefore, 
 really in him, in the New Testament sense of the 
 phrase. Nor can it be said with accuracy, that 
 to be in the faith of Christ, and to be iii Christ are 
 identically the same. Faith is the instrument by 
 which the soul is united to the Redeemer; not 
 the state of union itself; and the profession of this 
 faith, although necessary to constitute us mem- 
 bers of Christ's visible Church, in the eye of man, 
 is of itself altogether insufficient to procure for us 
 admission into the favour and presence of God. 
 Must we not, therefore, consider the interpreta- 
 
338 
 
 tion given of the term by Professor Lee, as another 
 instance of what Dr. Jebb so emphatically and 
 justly calls, " 2i fatal habit of explaining away the 
 most pregnant truths of Christianity *r While the 
 critic smiles at the assertion that " a better trans- 
 lation cannot be given" of the words y£yovao-ev ev 
 Xp/ffTw, than " they believed in Christ,'" the Chris- 
 tian will mourn at the perversion of Divine truth 
 exhibited in the above instance, and be more than 
 ever convinced of the necessity of subjecting to 
 strict scrutiny the means employed for communi- 
 cating that truth to our fellow-men. 
 
 Another palpable instance of the laxity of Pro- 
 fessor Lee's principles of Biblical criticism, is dis- 
 covered by the manner in which he treats the im- 
 portant omission, Rev. xix. 9. instead of the 
 words, OvToi oi Xoyot a\r\Bivo[ tifft tow Geou, *' These 
 are the true sayings of God," the Turkish simply 
 reads, jC>a>. i^Jjy** '>^J^\ " the words of God are 
 true ;" an assertion, it was observed in the Ap- 
 peal t, to which no Mohammedan will refuse his 
 consent, it being in daily use in reference to the 
 Koran. The reader would naturally have sup- 
 posed, that after the words in the Remarks J, 
 " the passage is certainly defective" the Professor 
 
 * Sacred Literature, p. 51. 
 t Page 38. 
 X Page 98. 
 
239 
 
 must have added, **and ought immediately to be 
 corrected;" but instead of this, we are favoured 
 with the greater part of two pages of reasoning 
 upon the subject, the general purport of which is, 
 that " the omission does by no means injure the 
 truth contained in the proposition, view it in what 
 light you will ;" and, accordingly, the whole cri- 
 tique concludes with a strong recommendation to 
 insert the omitted pronoun in a future edition ! 
 
 The rendering Rev. xx. 12 : " And the dead 
 were judged according to the things written in 
 the book, or that book, (c^JjS J^\ ol kitabda),'' is also 
 defended by Professor Lee, and is, it seems, to 
 remain unaltered. Conceding for a moment the 
 point to him, that the Mohammedan reader will 
 not naturally think of the Kitab, or private book, 
 belonging to every individual, which, according to 
 Islamic ideas, is to be put into the right hand of 
 the faithful, and into the left hand, or behind the 
 shoulders of the infidels, it still remains a fair 
 subject of debate, whether it be " sufficiently 
 clear, that no Christian doctrine has suffered by 
 this translation?" The Professor maintains the 
 affirmative*; but, I believe, it will be found to be 
 no part of Christian doctrine, that the dead in 
 general ** will be judged according to the things 
 written in the book of life (so he explains the 
 passage) according to their works;" for the un- 
 
 * Remarks, p. 101. 
 
240 
 
 godly have no works to be registered in " that 
 booky^ and their being cast into the lake of lire 
 is assigned to this very circumstance, that they 
 are not written in it, ver. 15. The doctrine ge- 
 nerally taught among Christians is not, that the 
 judgment will proceed upon the evidence of the 
 book, but upon that of the books; and these are 
 commonly explained, as signifying the light of 
 nature, the Mosaic law, the Gospel revelation, 
 and the register of conscience. To these is super- 
 added, exclusively with respect to the righteous, 
 " another book, which is the book of life," con- 
 taining the evidences of their being spiritually 
 alive through Jesus Christ their living Head, ac- 
 cording to which they shall be adjudged to life 
 everlasting. T4ie simple change, therefore, of the 
 plural into the singular number by Ali Bey, com- 
 pletely sets aside the whole of this Scriptural 
 mode of representing the solemn transactions of 
 that tremendous and decisive day. 
 
 But an attempt is also made to support the 
 objectionable rendering on critical grounds ; and 
 I am charged with culpability for not having 
 adverted to the circumstance, that the Arabic 
 version of Erpenius, and the Ethiopic, exhibit 
 the same reading with Ali Bey, and that the 
 word in question is, according to Griesbach, 
 entirely omitted in the Armenian*. Had any 
 
 * -Remarks, p. 100. 
 
241 
 
 Greek MSS. favoured this reading, or did they 
 furnish us with a diversity of reading, some au- 
 thority might reasonably be allowed to the testi- 
 mony of these versions in the present instance: 
 but in the total absence of all proof, that any 
 Greek manuscript ever read ev rw /3t6Xi/^,or omitted 
 ev ToiQ /3i€Xiotc, the particular rendering of a couple 
 of versions, is unworthy of any regard. Yet, 
 upon the slender ground furnished by this cir- 
 cumstance, Professor Lee conceives himself en- 
 titled to ask : ** Does it not now become proba- 
 ble, that the manuscripts have presented some 
 variety here ? and that the Arabic, Ethiopic, and 
 Turkish translators, all read it in the singular in 
 their copies, and not in the plural ?" Assuredly, 
 if we were to assume it as probable, that in cer- 
 tain specific passages, the Greek MSS. read 
 differently from what they now universally do, 
 merely because varieties are found in different 
 versions, it would produce a wonderful augmen- 
 tation to our collections of VarncE Lectiones. 
 Whether the task will be accomplished by some 
 future scholar, remains to be seen ; but I believe 
 it would add but little after all to our means of 
 ascertaining the primitive state of the original 
 text. But it is also taken for granted in the 
 Remarks, that the translator of Erpenius' Arabic, 
 and Ali Bey, made their versions from Greek 
 ftianuscripts. That the former, as far as the Book 
 
 R 
 
242 
 
 of Revelation is concerned, was not done from the 
 Greek original at all, but from the Coptic, has 
 been rendered highly probable by the examina- 
 tion instituted by Christ. Bened. Michaelis, in 
 the 29th sect, of his Tractatio Critica de Var. 
 Lect. N. T. p. 39; and if Professor Lee can 
 make it appear, what I believe, however, he 
 will have some difficulty in doing, that Ali Bey 
 made his Turkish version from some manuscript 
 Greek copy, then, certainly, in the belief of his 
 assurance, that it is "in every respect faithful 
 to the original" I should be one of the first to call 
 for an edition of it in its grossest state, not with 
 a view to its distribution among the Turks, but 
 merely to serv€ as a literary curiosity, furnishing 
 us, as in that case it must, with a representation 
 of tbe most remarkable Greek manuscript ever 
 known to be in existence. "With regard to what 
 he is pleased to call *' my favourite Ethiopic," I 
 believe we must abide by the following decision 
 of Michaelis*, that " as we have no edition of 
 this version, that is the result of a careful colla- 
 tion of various manuscripts, we must never suspect 
 the authenticity of a word in the Greek text, be- 
 cause it is wanting in the Ethiopic." 
 
 The next passage demanding reconsideration, 
 is Rev. vii. 10. which Ali Bey thus exhibits in 
 his version: ^jJjj^yj ^d ^US" *ill ^\y^\ t,^J y^ls- 
 
 * Introduction to the New Testament. Vol. II. Part i. p. OQ. 
 
243 
 
 ** Our salvation is from the Supreme God and 
 from the Lamb." To this rendering it was ob- 
 jected, that it represents the words of the original 
 as containing a simple declaration, that our salva- 
 tion is derived from God and the Lamb, instead 
 of that ascription of praise to the Lamb, which is 
 justly considered by Drs. Wardlaw and Smith as 
 constituting an act of religious adoration, of which 
 the Lamb is the object equally with the Father, 
 in as much as they are in essence and deity 
 one*. In this point of view, the translation is 
 again chargeable with annihilating, as far as it 
 goes, one of the proofs of our Lord's divinity. 
 Professor Lee, indeed, views the passage differ- 
 ently ; for he says, p. 113. **The redeemed ap- 
 pear here to be praising God for that salvation 
 which they have derived solely from him and 
 from the Lamb. Now, whether this be termed 
 an ascription of praise, or a declaration of that 
 which amounts to the same thing, seems to be but 
 of little moment.''' And again, p. 114. " Instead 
 of derogating here in any respect from the glory 
 of God he (Ali Bey) has so rendered this passage 
 as fully to ascribe it to him." It will be per- 
 ceived, that the adoration of Christ, under the 
 character of the *' Lamb," is here completely ex- 
 cluded. And will it seriously be maintained by any 
 believer in his divinity, that this is oi little moment'^ 
 
 * Scripture Testimony to the Messiah. Book IV. Chap. ii. 7. 
 
 r2 
 
244 
 
 I had asserted*, that I was acquainted with 
 no version except the one under review, that 
 rendered the words ry Gew k. t. X. ^^ from God and 
 from the Lamb." To this it is replied, that "in 
 all the Arabic versions, the construction here 
 found may be rendered, by the genitive case, and 
 if Griesbach may be relied on, the Slavonic, and 
 even some Greek manuscripts read tov Gsou ** of 
 God." It certainly was prudent, to say the least, 
 in the Professor, to 'reduce the matter to a bare 
 possibility in the former of these cases ; for it 
 would be doing injustice to his official character 
 to suppose, that if he had translated the Arabic 
 words, totally irrespective of controversy, he 
 would not have taken the prepositive Lam in its 
 usual sense as denoting the dative case. How, 
 indeed, could the passage have been otherwise 
 given in Arabic, to express more directly the 
 object and not the cause or possessor of a thing? 
 With respect to the Slavonic, we may remark, it 
 is only the MSS. 3. 4. 5. and the two first printed 
 editions, that exhibit a reading corresponding to 
 Tov Ofou : that of the present text expresses t(J Gtw, 
 as do all the Greek MSS. except the Alexandrine 
 copy, and it is the reading of all the printed 
 editions of the Greek Testament. Where then 
 are the other Greek MSS. in which Professor Lee 
 has discovered the reading row 9eov ? 
 * Appeal, p. 42. 
 
245 
 
 It is unnecessary to go over the commentators 
 alleged by my antagonist. Some of them are 
 directly against him, and support the view above 
 given of the passage. Take, for instance, his first 
 quotation. *' Grotius says, n acjTiip'ia tm Qew, &c. 
 Est metonymia : nam saliitem vocat gratias ob ac- 
 ceptam salutem; sicut Kparog supra 1.6. et 5. 13. 
 est agnitio potentia," kc. Could any authority have 
 been brought forward more directly corroborative 
 of my position, and condemnatory of the render- 
 ing of Ali Bey ? 
 
 One observation more shall close my remarks 
 on this passage. Professor Lee maintains, p. 114. 
 that if the Turkish translator had servilely imi- 
 tated the original here, *' he would have infringed 
 on the just principles of criticism, and made his 
 translation scarcely intelligible^ to an Oriental 
 reader." How then, we may ask, did this same 
 Turkish translator come to render Rev. v. 13. 
 
 .20 tjr^yj '■'1/j^ "'^Z " ^^ ^i^ that sitteth upon 
 the throne, and to the Lamb." Will his de- 
 fendant say, that he was here guilty of an in- 
 fringement of the just principles of criticism ? or, 
 that this passage will be scarcely intelligible to 
 an Oriental reader ? 
 
 But to proceed. Ali Bey renders Luke ix. 23. 
 " Let him take his cross (^t^^l umitzuw') on his 
 shoulde7\ and follow me." Now, would it be sup- 
 
246 
 
 posed, that any person could seriously undertake 
 the defence of this translation ? Yet upon it also 
 Professor Lee expatiates to the length of a page 
 and a half, and concludes, by observing: "All 
 Bey has done nothing more than simply supply 
 the ellipse, which the reader must supply in his 
 own mind, even in consulting the original*." 
 How very convenient a thing the ellipse is we 
 shall see in the following chapter ; but I would 
 here simply put the question : Reader, have you 
 ever been accustomed to supply the word 
 SHOULDER, when you read of taking up the 
 cross ? And why, it may farther be asked, did Ali 
 Bey not supply it in the parallel passages, Matth. 
 X. 38. xvi. 24. Mark viii. 34. x. 21.? Was it 
 because uniformity did not enter into his prin- 
 ciple of interpretation? Or did he anticipate, 
 that in these instances the reader would perform, 
 "in his own mind," what he omitted to do in the 
 version ? But, perhaps, the Professor will say, 
 that these questions are " trifling and puerile," as 
 he does of my remark respecting the carnality of 
 All's translation. 
 
 Another instance in which the erroneous ren- 
 derings of the Turkish version are vindicated, is 
 that in which oi ypa<paL the Scriptures, without 
 restriction or limitation. Acts xvii. 2. are changed 
 
 * Remarks, p. 123. 
 
247 
 
 into e:->|;yi Tewrat, the Law or Pentateuch. On 
 this Professor Lee remarks, that Tewret means 
 the Bible among the Turks, and considers the 
 fact to be sufficiently proved by the authority of 
 Meninsky. But he should have given that au- 
 thority in full, vv^hieh the reader, on turning to 
 the Lexicon, will find to stand thus : " o\jfi et ci*);^' 
 Tewrat. Lex Mosaica, Biblia, genesis." From 
 this it is evident, that Bible is not its primary, 
 nor, we may add, is it its customary meaning 
 among the Turks, any more than it is the common 
 signification of the Hebrew Tn\r\ Torah in the 
 Old, or the Greek word vo/iog in the New Testa- 
 ment. The circumstance, that both words are 
 sometimes used in a general sense for all the 
 Books of the Old Testament, is of no weight at 
 all in the argument ; it would only then have been 
 valid if I had objected to Ali Bey's use of the 
 word ujl.y Tewrat, John x, 34. or any similar 
 passage where the original has vo^oq in this sense. 
 But even the partial use of the word in the sense 
 of Bible among the Turks, will not justify its 
 adoption in this passage, unless Professor Lee 
 be prepared to shew, that it would have been 
 warrantable in our translator to employ .yj Zebur, 
 
 a word which, although among Mohammedans it 
 customarily signifies *' The Psalms,'" yet is also 
 used in a general sense for the whole of the 
 
 10 
 
246 
 
 Sacred Volume*. The question before us is 
 simply this : Whether Ali Bey had a right to 
 employ, in this particular instance, a word, which, 
 although it might be used in its more compre- 
 hensive sense in other parts of the New Testa- 
 ment, does not give, in the present case, an exact 
 representation of the original ? Is it asked, how 
 could Ali Bey have otherwise translated the words 
 m ypac^ai ? I answcr : By the word^^tl^ Kitabkr, 
 just as he has done Matth. xxvi. 54. Luke xxiv. 
 32. John v. 39. and elsewhere. 
 
 An objection was also made to the substitution 
 of the phrase ** divine books" for al ypa^ai. Acts 
 xviii. 28. on the ground that it is purely Moham- 
 medan. Not only does it not occur in the passage 
 just referred to, but it is a phrase altogether un- 
 known in Scripture ; and this I do think ought to 
 have some weight with my opponent, who con- • 
 stantly insists on Scripture usage as a sufficient 
 warrant for any particular mode in which any 
 particular passage may happen to be rendered. 
 It was shewn in the Appeal f, that the phrase in 
 question is that under which Mohammedans com- 
 prise all the books which they believe to have 
 been sent down from heaven, and of these, the 
 
 * " Vox Arabica .^jM accipitur generatim pro omnibus sacris 
 libris." Marraccii Refut. in S\jr. xxi. Alcor. Not. cv. 
 t P. 45- 
 
249 
 
 first place is always allotted to the Kormiy which 
 they believe to have superseded all the rest. 
 Until such time as the Professor shall have 
 proved the necessity of adopting such phraseo- 
 logy into translations of the Christian Scriptures, 
 his remarks relative to the ideas which Moham- 
 medans may attach to words actually occuring in 
 these Scriptures, may be dismissed as altogether 
 irrelevant to the subject. 
 
 A few words will be sufficient to dispossess the 
 Tatars of Colossians iii. 1 1 . which place I believe 
 they never occupied till they were introduced 
 into it by Ali Bey about the year 1666. The 
 Professor thinks, indeed, that they may be tole- 
 rated, because Schleusner says: ** Scythia autem 
 latissima olim erat regio, magnam Europse Asise- 
 que partem, hodiernam nimirum Tartariam cum 
 regionibus quibusdam finitimis complectens, A 
 Scythian, therefore, of ancient times, is supposed 
 to have been of the same nation as a Tartar or 
 Tatar of the present*." If he will turn to the 
 Hermes Scythicus of Dr. Jamieson, or Dr. 
 Murray's History of the European Languages, 
 he may find reason to adopt a very different 
 opinion on this subject; but, not to insist on this: 
 Does not also Schleusner say, under the word 
 EXajumjc : "Olim uni versa Persia Elam vocabi- 
 tur." And does he not moreover say, und^ 
 
 * Remarks, p. 131. 
 
250 
 
 MrjSoc, '' Media autem est provincia Asise — hodie 
 Sckirvan vulgo appellatur;" Eia/u^vXia Pamphilia, 
 ''^OTH-EVOQ^iinx Menteselir and of Mesopotamia: 
 ** Metropolis ejus imX Amida, quae hodie Amed 
 dicitur, et regio ipsa Diarbecka vocatur ?" Would 
 it, therefore, be proper to render Acts ii. 9^, 10. 
 thus r Parthians and Shirvanese and Persiatis, and 
 those who dwell in Diarbektr, &c. ? Or, shall we 
 justify Saadias for introducing the Franks and 
 Sdavonians into the Arabic version of the 10th 
 chapter of Genesis ? 
 
 But it is urged *, that if AH Bey '* had intro- 
 duced the word Scythian into his translation, it is 
 probable, that no Turk or Tatar, now in existence, 
 would have understood him. The translation is, 
 therefore, in this place, both correct and intelligi- 
 ble, neither of which would have been the case, 
 had the Translator adopted Dr. Henderson's rule^ 
 of Biblical interpretation." The impartial reader 
 will, I doubt not, be disposed to give what are 
 here called my rules of Biblical interpretation, 
 a retrospective influence of no very limited extent,; 
 for they have,, m fact, been acted upon by the best 
 translators in every age. With respect ta the in- 
 lelligibility of the word Scythian, I leave it to the 
 hundreds of thousands, or, to speak more correctly, 
 the millions now in existence, into whose lan- 
 guages this word has been introduced through the 
 
 * Remarks, p. 132. 
 
251 
 
 medium of Biblical translations, to say, whether 
 they do not understand it just as well as many 
 other ethnical names which occur m Scripture : 
 its correctness will not likely be called in question 
 by any but the Author of the Remarks. 
 
 The next passage which claims our attention is 
 James v. 4. where the phrase Kvpiog 2aj3aa»^, 
 *' Lord of SLabaoth," is rendered by the Koranic 
 form j^UJl O. ** Lord of the worlds;'' by which 
 latter word, the Mohammedans, according to 
 Marracci, understand the three species of rational 
 creatures, in which they believe, angels, genii, and 
 men. That the phrase itself was originally bor- 
 rowed by Mohammed from the Jews, I have no 
 doubt ; D''D'?li^n 1"! Rah-ha-olamim occurring fre- 
 quently in their ancient prayers ; but still, this is 
 not exactly equivalent to the original Hebrew 
 phrase, rwn^y^ TV\TX^ Jehovah Tzebaoth, part of which 
 is retained in this passage in the Greek. The 
 phrase is allowed on all hands to be figurative, 
 and the latter word is derived from the verb >*a^ 
 tzaba, to go out to war, to assemble in military 
 array. The first time the substantive occurs is in 
 Gen. ii. 1. ** Thus the heavens and the earth were 
 finished fD^<ni{ ^D1 vecol Tzebdam) and all their 
 host," where it is evidently used figuratively ; and 
 this figurative sense it retains, when used in the 
 plural number, of the angels, stars, &c. Now 
 I cannot discover any good reason, why^ this 
 
252 
 
 translated sense should not be admissable in the 
 Turkish as well as in any other language. Profes- 
 sor Lee affects to ridicule the use of the word 
 ^^J9^. cheri, which I had proposed, because it hap- 
 pens, when combined with ^ leni, to signify a 
 
 Janisary; but he has himself given ej:ercitus as 
 one of the meanings affixed to it by Meninsky 
 (and he is not ashamed to be found quoting Me- 
 ninsky any more than the Author of the Appeal) ; 
 and as Ali Bey has used a similar word, jL*^ 
 esker. Gen. ii. 1. it may reasonably be allowed to 
 make use either of the one or the other in trans- 
 lating the phrase under consideration. 
 
 That the Arabic and Syriac translators have 
 rendered a'novaq, Heb. i. 2. by words signifying 
 worlds, is not to the point; their versions being 
 made for the use of Christians, and not for Mo- 
 hammedans ; but the reference to the Malay of 
 this passage, and that under review, is an impo- 
 sition on the reader, the word in the Malay ver- 
 sion of both passages being JU alam, " world," 
 and not ^j^^^ alamin, worlds, under which plural 
 form alone it is objectionable. 
 
 But I hesitate not to declare, that my principal 
 objection lay against the introduction of the 
 Eastern genii mio our Scriptures, of which, how- 
 ever, this is only one, and that an indirect in- 
 stance, out of the many producible from the pages 
 
253 
 
 of Ali Bey. Whoever wishes to form a complete 
 idea of the opinions prevalent in the East, respect- 
 ing these imaginary beings, is referred to D'Her- 
 belot's Bibliotheque Orientale, Article Gian, and 
 Richardson's Dissertation on the Languages, Lite- 
 rature, and Manners of the Eastern Nations, 
 pp. 165 — 175. I shall only quote here the defini- 
 tion given of-the word V». Ginn, by two Oriental 
 writers, from which it will be seen, how incongru- 
 ous it is to employ any such word in a translation 
 of the New Testament. The first is Al Jannabi, who 
 writes, ^^ tj^ *^^'^ U*^ cT* c;M'j ^.^'1 ^'^ O^ 
 
 tt/^O u^.i ^^ cry J^ ^' ^^^'^ <ir*J *^^ ^ r*^' 
 ^J». ^ Creavit Deus Angelos et Genios ex eodem 
 
 genere, ex ipsis qui mundus (vel sanctus est) An- 
 gelus dicitur, qui malignus Diabolus, qui medii 
 statas Genius. The other writer, Al Demiri, de- 
 scribes them thus : JUUJ]] ^Ju: 'i.d^i n^}^ ^^^\ ^^1 
 
 aiUJI JUcJIl ^ 8,uVjj l»(yl_5 Jf.c [^ .xAJCisr* JX/ib 
 
 Genii (inquit) sunt covpora aerea, quae varias in- 
 duere formas pro libitu possunt, ratione, intellectu 
 et ardua quselibet praestandi potentia prsedita *. 
 
 I shall conclude my review of the false ren- 
 derings in Ali Bey's version, and Professor Lee's 
 defence of them, by adverting to 1 John ii. 7. 
 where the word kvToXri, commandment, injunction, 
 
 * Pococki Porta Mosis. 
 
254 
 
 is translated, by the Arabic word a^ ^ht, fae- 
 dus, testamentum, promissum, pactum. That this 
 word is sometimes used in the sense of precept, was 
 granted in the Appeal * ; but it was affirmed, that 
 according to its usage by Ali Bey, it mmt be 
 taken in the sense of Covenant, and I instanced the 
 title of the book on which my criticisms were 
 made : Jo.<W| j^) s^]jS <« The Book of the New 
 Covenant." It is, in fact, the word in established 
 use to express the Greek Bia9t}Kri, How then can 
 it, with any propriety, be introduced into this 
 passage, where there is not the most remote re- 
 ference to any federal transaction? If Professor 
 Lee will only take the trouble to compare the 
 passages of the New Testament in which the two 
 words IvToXri, commandment, and ^laOriKtj, covenant, 
 occur, he will find that he might have spared his 
 suppositious query relative to the possibility of a 
 difference between them f . 
 
 ♦ P. 46. t Remarks, p. 136. 
 
CHAPTER X. 
 
 Omissions and Additions in the Version of AH Bey. Professor 
 Lees dextrous Use of the Ellipse. His References to Greek 
 MSS. inaccurate or entirely unfounded. Certain Words 
 and Phrases of Scripture he deems unimportant. Confounds 
 the Province of the Lexicographer and the Commentator 
 with that of the Translator. His Vindication of the Com- 
 binations, " Sacred Will" " Sacred Name" " Precious 
 
 ^'' "Blood," 8^c. examined. 
 
 It now only remains to examine the strictures 
 contained in the Vlth and Vllth chapters of Pro- 
 fessor Lee's Remarks, which may be done with 
 greater brevity than was found to be necessary in 
 going through the preceding divisions of his work. 
 These strictures relate exclusively to the Omis- 
 sions and Additions specified in the Appeal, in 
 noting down which, I merely took such as struck 
 me in the course of my ^rst perusal of the three 
 books which formed the basis of the Remarks I 
 submitted to the Committee of the Bible Society. 
 Since that time, numerous faults of a similar 
 stamp, many of them much more aggravated in 
 their nature, have been detected ; but, consider- 
 ing the developments which had been made, 
 relative to the other delinquencies of the version. 
 
256 
 
 fully adequate to require the suppression of the 
 edition containing them, it was deemed unneces- 
 sary, at the time I drew up the Appeal, to swell 
 the list by an enumeration of them. 
 
 The first three instances of omission are more 
 immediately of a critical nature. That occurring 
 Matt. viii. 5. is certainly so far obviated by a re- 
 ference to Griesbach ; but the appeal made to that 
 critic, in the other two cases, is certainly the 
 strangest that ever was exhibited, subsequent to 
 the period of his being constituted an umpire in 
 regard to the various readings of the Greek New 
 Testament. It was shewn * that the words, ra ira- 
 poTrrw^aTo v/iwv, ''your trespasses," Matt. vi. 15. had 
 been omitted by Ali Bey. Now as these words form 
 an acknowledged and integral part of the Greek 
 original, every other person must have imagined, 
 that nothing was to be done in this case, but 
 simply to acknowledge that there was such an 
 omission, and, agreeably to the plan adopted by 
 the Committee, to direct that the page should be 
 cancelled and reprinted, or that, at least, the 
 words should be supplied in the table of errata. 
 But no such course is pursued. Professor Lee, 
 on the contrary, contends, that " in this omission 
 Ali Bey has done nothing contrary to the laws of 
 Biblical interpretation, or to the practice of for- 
 
 * Appeal, p. 44. 
 
257 
 
 in-er translators." Nay, he even asserts, that " in 
 his opinion the translator has preserved both the 
 sense and spirit of the original, much better than he 
 would have done, if he had given a translation of the 
 words in question *." Of this assertion I shall not 
 attempt any refutation ; but I cannot help express- 
 ing my apprehensions, that dreadful havock will 
 be made of the word of God, if a principle of such 
 boundless licence were once conceded to transla- 
 tors or editors of the Sacred Text. But what are 
 ** the laws of Biblical interpretation" which au- 
 thorize so bold a liberty on the part of a translator? 
 ** The fact is, the omission complained of, every 
 reader will supply in his own mind, by the ellipse f!" 
 That there exists such a figure of syntax as the 
 ellipse, is what I had some knowledge of before 
 perusing the Remarks ; but I certainly never 
 imagined that it was possessed of contrary powers, 
 now operating on what is contained in the text 
 of an author, and now upon what he has omitted. 
 According to the light in which Professor Lee 
 views it, whenever a translator (and why not an 
 editor 1) finds what he supposes is an ellipsis, he 
 is at liberty to insert the word or words in his 
 version, although the language of the version may 
 bear the ellipse as well as the original ; see pp. 
 123. 145. 147, 148 : and if, on the other hand, he 
 
 * Remarks, p. 1 40. t Ibid. 
 
 s 
 
258 
 
 find that he can render his version elliptical by 
 retrenching certain words or ideas which are fully 
 expressed in the original text, he is perfectly 
 warranted so to do ; " every reader will supply 
 the omission in his own mind, by the ellipse;" 
 p. 140. Guardians of the oracles of God ! Weigh 
 this principle well, and view it in all its bearings, 
 before you give it your sanction. 
 
 The other reason produced by the Professor in 
 justification of the omission is, I venture to say, 
 the most ridiculous and absurd that ever was ad- 
 vanced in the field of critical research. It is 
 neither more nor less than this, ** the practice of 
 former copyists and translators" in also omitting 
 some words, though not the words in question ! 
 Because " some of the manuscripts, and several 
 of the Oriental versions omit the preceding ra ira- 
 pairTto/uLara avrtav," their trespasses, therefore, a 
 translator may omit, if he pleases, the words to 
 TrapaTTTtDjuara viiwv, your trespasses, in the latter 
 clause of the verse ! What is there to be found in 
 the pages of John Bellamy to be compared to 
 this? 
 
 The next omission, the vindication of which is 
 attempted, is that of the words ftera tou Trorpoc /iov, 
 '' with my Father," Rev. iii. 21. "the effect of 
 which," I remarked*, *' is to leave the Moham- 
 
 * Appeal, p. 47. 
 
259 
 
 medan in the dark as to the throne on which the 
 Faithful and True Witness declares he was seated 
 after his victory." Professor Lee does not call 
 this an ellipse, but in his mind it amounts to the 
 same thing ; for he takes ** it for granted, that 
 every considerate reader (and such no doubt 
 abound among the Turks) will come to the same 
 conclusion with himself, namely, that a very cur- 
 sory perusal of the chapter, will shew the reader, 
 whether he be Turk or Englishman, that the word 
 God is the antecedent *." It may, on the contrary, 
 be affirmed with confidence, that few readers will 
 think of going back not fewer than six verses to 
 find the supposed antecedent ; and that they will 
 conclude from the words, ** To him that over- 
 cometh will I grant to sit with me on my throne, 
 even as I overcame, and am set down with him 
 on his throne," that some interchange of thrones 
 is meant, though they must be sensible that no 
 very distinct idea is conveyed by the passage. 
 
 The conclusion, however, at which the Profes- 
 sor arrived by this expedient, does not, after all, 
 appear to have proved very satisfactory to his 
 own mind, whatever he may have anticipated 
 respecting its weight with others ; and he accord- 
 ingly proceeds to justify the omission on critical 
 grounds. Let us next " enquire," says he, " whe- 
 
 * Remarks, p. 112, 
 s 2 
 
260 
 
 ther 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 Pi^inceps of the Greek Testament y 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 '\V\ 
 Doubtless, all this sounds well, and is very much 
 calculated to deceive the unwary ; though, I 
 believe, I shall not be singular in the opinion, that 
 even the authorities here adduced are inadequate 
 to support so important an omission, or, indeed, 
 any omission, in opposition to the great majority 
 of the best manuscripts and editions, all of which 
 exhibit the reading of the Textus Receptus, and 
 our own authorized version. Still, it will be 
 granted, they were entitled to some degree of con- 
 sideration. But instead of giving ourselves fur- 
 ther trouble about the question. Whether Ali Bey 
 had any authority or not for the omission ? Let us 
 propose another: What authority had Professor 
 Lee for making the above assertions ? I have no 
 
 * I only said the effect was that here described, 
 t Remarks, p. 143. 
 
261 
 
 doubt that many of his readers who are in posses- 
 sion of Griesbach, have not been at the pains ta 
 follow the advice so gravely given them, to turn 
 to the passage, but have taken the authority of 
 the great critic simply on the Professor's word ; 
 while such as have no access to any edition of 
 Griesbach's Testament, have been obliged, nolens 
 volensy to give him credit for the accuracy of 
 his quotations. But how then, it will be asked, 
 does the passage really stand in Griesbach ? Can 
 Professor Lee have totally misrepresented him, 
 and made him say, what he neither has said, nor 
 ever intended to say ? The text and note of the 
 London Edition of 1 8 1 8, are as follow : 
 
 Kai iKaOiaa fitra rov waT^og fxov iv t(o Bp6v<f) ai/Tov. 
 
 ^ 'Ev rw dp6v<f Tov irarpoc fiov Arm. Moyses in Epist. ad 
 Cypr. tv T<j^ Qpovif ahrov = lips. 6. 
 
 Nothing, as far as my perception goes, can be 
 deduced from this, more than the simple circum- 
 stances, which do not at all affect the words in 
 question, that the Armenian version, according to 
 Moses, in his Epistle to Cyprian, instead of the 
 words, ** with my Father on his throne," reads, 
 " on the throne of my Father;" and that, in a 
 Latin manuscript preserved at Leipsic, the words, 
 ** in his throne," are omitted, and the passage 
 reads only, ** and am seated with my Father." 
 Where then are the several valuable Greek Manu- 
 scripts, and the Editio Princeps of the Greek Testa- 
 
262 
 
 ment, and that of Arethas, and the others that omit 
 the words fxtra rov Trarpo'c fxov, '* with my Father ?" 
 Griesbach is entirely silent on the subject of these 
 authorities, which is the more remarkable, as he 
 happens to refer to them in the following note, 
 which relates, however, not to this verse, but to 
 a various reading in the first verse of the fourth 
 chapter of the Apocalypse. Perhaps the reader 
 will pardon my now adopting the concluding sen- 
 tence of the Remarks on this passage, only sub- 
 stituting the Professor's name for my own. " Pro- 
 fessor Lee, however, seems to disdain making 
 inquiry on any part of this subject, which may 
 seem to militate against his feelings; and, what 
 is more strange, he is cai'ekss as to his assertions^ 
 should his criticisms be true in other respects *." 
 From the reasoning in the Remarks, pp. 141, 
 142. it will be seen, that in the Professor's esti- 
 mation, it is ** of no importance," or " of little 
 importance," whether the reading of certain pas- 
 sages of the New Testament be *' God," or *' my 
 God;" or, indeed, whether ** God" be entirely 
 omitted ; as he conceives that the ingenuity of 
 the reader, the bearing of the context, and the 
 knowledge of Mohammedans, will furnish a suffi- 
 cient safeguard against any misrepresentation of 
 the passages in which the omission occurs. But 
 
 * Remarks, p. 143. 
 
263 
 
 lest I should be suspected of distorting his words, 
 1 shall here allow him to speak for himself: " The 
 next omission is in John i. 52. of the words row 
 Oeov ' of God ;' but here the word JiXU Malaklar, 
 Angels, necessarily includes of God, the Moham- 
 medans knowing of no angels, but the angels of 
 God ; the insertion of the words would be unnecessary 
 in the translation ; the omission is, therefore, of no 
 importance*.'' The latter part of this extract re- 
 quires no comment. On the former I may be 
 permitted to observe, that whatever may be the 
 ideas of a Mohammedan previous to his reading 
 the New Testament, he will be taught by it, that 
 there exist angels, who are not ** angels of GodP 
 but *' angels of the devil'' See Matt. xxv. 41. 
 Rev. xii. 7.9. Is it not of importance, that this 
 distinction should be known to Mohammedans as 
 well as to Christians ? 
 
 With respect to the reading ** God" instead of 
 " MY God," I believe few besides Ali Bey and 
 Professor Lee would deem the difference unim- 
 portant. '* Faith," says an eminent Scotch divine, 
 " will not quit its my's, though all the world 
 should say against it. The marrow of the Gospel, 
 as Luther observes, is in these words, my and our; 
 he bids us read these with great emphasis. Says. 
 another, take away property, and you take away 
 
 * Remarks, p. 141. 
 
264 
 
 God, take away Christ. It is the common dialect 
 of faith in Scripture, to vent itself in words of 
 appropriation ; it has a peculiar pleasure and 
 satisfaction in these words, my and owr, and rolls 
 them in its mouth like a sweet morsel. See how 
 sweetly David sings upon the string. Ps. xviii. 
 I, 2. No less than eight times in a breath doth 
 he repeat his appropriating my; yea, so tenacious 
 is faith in this matter, that it will maintain its my's 
 in the face of a hiding and frowning God. Ps. 
 xxii. 1. My God, my God, why hast thou for- 
 saken me* ?" Although in some points of view I 
 may not agree with this author on the subject of 
 appropriation, yet I deem it of no less importance 
 than he did, and should consider it no ordinary 
 act of sacrilege to erase one of its possessive 
 pronouns from the Covenant of God. To the 
 above extract, I shall only beg to add one from 
 Dr. Jebb, when expatiating on that most in- 
 teresting instance of cognate parallelism, Isaiah 
 Iv. 6, 7. He concludes his remarks thus : ** In 
 the last line, the appropriative and encouraging 
 title OUR God, is substituted for the awful name 
 
 of JEHOVAHf." 
 
 Professor Lee remarks on the addition to the 
 words of the Apostle, Rom. iii. 21. "Being 
 witnessed by the law and the. books of the pro- 
 
 * The Rev. E. Erskine in Brown's Gospel Truth, pp. 269, 270. 
 •f Sacred Literature, p. 38. 
 
265 
 
 phets, that 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, there- 
 fore, very properly supplied the ellipse of the 
 original*." The reader will at once perceive, 
 that this rule, in order to be valid, ought to have 
 been extended to the law also, and that All 
 should have written the book of the law, as well 
 as the books of the prophets ; nor can it escape his 
 notice, that if the conclusion here drawn be 
 right, then are not only our own translators, but 
 translators in general (I might have said, univer- 
 sally) chargeable with a culpable omission in not 
 having supplied the word, and thereby done what 
 was " very proper" to be done. Nor will Ali 
 Bey himself escape the general censure ; for 
 though it suited his whim, to insert the word 
 books before *' the prophets" in this particular in- 
 stance, he either forgot, or did not consider it 
 necessary, to supply any such ellipse, Matt. v. 
 17. vii. 13. xxii. 40. Luke xvi. 29. But the fact 
 is, whatever ideas the Professor may entertain of 
 its impropriety, the sacred penmen, in this in- 
 stance, only make use of a metonymy common in 
 all languages, by which the name or official cha- 
 racter of an author is substituted for his writings. 
 
 * Remarks, p. 145. 
 
266 
 
 By the same figure Jacob is put for the Jewish 
 people, because they were his descendants. Rom. 
 xi. 26. which passage, however, Ali Bey renders, 
 " And shall turn away ungodliness from the sons of 
 Jacob ;" thereby destroying the figure which he 
 might have preserved in this verse equally well 
 as in the 2nd and 7th verses of this same chapter, 
 and in many other passages where he designates 
 a people by the name of their progenitor. Yet, 
 here again the Professor vindicates Ali, and stig- 
 matizes my remark as absurd* ! 
 
 In giving the singular for the plural number in 
 the words ^^)f and cl>UaW Rom. x. 5. and xiv. 
 14. I was certainly guilty of an oversight; but 
 it does not in the least affect the question in de- 
 bate, excepting, perhaps, that in the former of 
 these instances it was accompanied by a partial 
 representation of the offence committed by Ali 
 Bey, which I thank Professor Lee for exhibiting 
 in its full enormity. The original is very pro- 
 perly rendered in our common version : " For 
 Moses describeth the righteousness which is of 
 the law. That the man which doeth these thitigs 
 {avTo) shall live by them." The Turkish version, 
 on the other hand, reads thus : " For Moses 
 writeth thus respecting the righteousness obtain- 
 able from the law, namely, the man who per- 
 
 * Remarks, p. 147. 
 
267 
 
 formeth the precepts of the law, shall live by them." 
 Whether, as my opponent asserts, ** Ali Bey has 
 in this instance done nothing more than it was 
 his duty to do," let the reader give verdict : only 
 recollecting, that if he acquits him, he will, by 
 that act, condemn every good translator, and fail 
 after all in bringing Ali in innocent, as numerous 
 instances may be 'produced from his translation, 
 in which he has translated the pronoun avra 
 simply by ^IJ^ bunlar, ox Ixi, »j hu sheilar, ** these 
 things'* without ** fully expressing the sense of 
 the preceding declaration," which every impartial 
 person must suppose the Apostle himself could 
 have done, had it been judged necessary. 
 
 One of the novel canons of Biblical translation, 
 broached by Professor Lee, is the principle, that 
 instead of simply giving the plain and easy 
 phraseology of Sacred Writ, translators may ex- 
 press the sense of such phraseology in those 
 terms which they may happen to find in lexico- 
 graphers and commentators. Thus, p. 147. be- 
 because Schleusner explains irpoaXafx^avtadt, Rom. 
 xiv. 1. by benigne et humaniter quoquo mode 
 tractate, the translation t-Ujdjtl J^' aLI v-iU lutf He 
 kabul eilun ** receive courteously is therefore cor- 
 rect," as if the Greek word were not sufficiently 
 expressed by ** receive" or take, which terms are, 
 of course, susceptible of a stronger or weaker de- 
 
268 
 
 gree of acceptation, according to the connexion 
 in which they stand. Perhaps neither Schleusner 
 nor the Professor would maintain, that the verb is 
 to be taken '* precisely" in the sense of courteous 
 treatment, Matt. xvi. 22. Then Peter took him, 
 (7r|OoaXa€ojU£voc avTov) and began to rebuke him, &c. 
 Thus again the addition Rom. xiv. 14. ** I am 
 persuaded by the teachings of the Lord Jesus," 
 instead of " by the Lord Jesus (kv KvpiM l-naov) is 
 maintained to be accurately translated by AliBey, 
 because this," according to ** the commentators, 
 is the true meaning of the passage." That is, 
 because accurately commented, therefore, it i& 
 accurately translated ! 
 
 We are farther told, p. 148, that Ali has correctly 
 translated tjjv kX^iv tov AauiS, *' the key of David.'* 
 Rev. iii. 7. by ^^^JJ^\ d^^d c:^ beiti Dawied 
 anachtarlari, ** the keys of the house of David," 
 because Drusius accounts for the ellipse, and 
 Grotius says it means: ** Plenissimum imperium 
 in domo Dei!" It will be generally allowed, that 
 in endeavouring to e.vpiaiti the passage, these two 
 commentators were in their proper province : 
 whether it be the province of a translator, is 
 another question. 
 
 All the other versions render the words. Rev. 
 iii. 12. TToiriaiJj avTov arvXov I "1 will make him a 
 pillar in the temple of my God ;" but this figure 
 
269 
 
 appearing rather too bold to Ali Bey, he inserted 
 the word " like"—" I will make him like a pillar.''' 
 In doing so, Professor Lee assures us, he does 
 nothing " more than supply an ellipse, without 
 which, even the original itself cannot be under- 
 stood, and the Turkish would be perfect nonsense" 
 p. 149. How this should be the case with the 
 Turkish more than any other language, I am at a 
 loss to discover ; but except my opponent ex- 
 plain himself on this point, to the satisfaction of 
 the public, they will, I fear, be inclined to accuse 
 him of inconsistency in being so closely connected 
 with an Institution, which, according to the doc- 
 trine here taught, will scarcely be able to repel 
 the charge of distributing perfect nonsense in up- 
 wards of one hundred and thirty different lan- 
 guages or dialects ! 
 
 I shall relieve the reader from the long and 
 severe penance to which he has been obliged to 
 submit in going over these criticisms, after ad- 
 verting to one additional instance of perverted 
 Biblical taste. It was observed. Appeal, p. 47, 
 that ** an objectionable addition of frequent oc- 
 currence, is the prefixing of the word u-ajJi 
 * Sheriff,' noble, ea^cellent, sacred, &c. to certain 
 substantives, which seemed to deserve, or to want 
 the aid of this embellishing adjective. Thus 
 Matt, xxvi.42. sjy^^\ C^j^ *i^j^ * thy sacred will 
 
270 
 
 be done.' Mark i. 1. c-wyt JasJ) 'the sacred 
 
 Gospel.* Rom. i. 5. ^J^j^ ^^ ^^'^ * His sacred 
 
 name.' 1 John i. 7. u-aj^ ^li * precious blood,' &c." 
 
 The reader must judge, whether the reasons set 
 up in defence of this liberty, be in any measure 
 satisfactory. They are briefly these: First, " The 
 taste of the Orientals differs very widely in this, 
 as well as many other respects, from that of Dr. 
 Henderson." Secondly : The objectionable word, 
 and even the phrase ivr^tX atpp[<^ the sacred Gospel 
 is found " in the Preface to the Turkish Psalter," 
 published " by the Metropolitan of Angouri him- 
 self;" from which it is concluded, that the 
 practice of adding this word Sheriff y " is not con- 
 fined to the Mohammedans, but is used by the 
 highest authorities in the churches of Turkey T 
 Remarks, p. 149. On all this I have simply to 
 remark, that I believe, no very great difference 
 of taste will be found to exist between Asiatics 
 and Europeans, relative to the use of such 
 phrases ; for I find our own translators making 
 use of similar combinations, such as " God's sacred 
 word," and " God's holy truth ;" but as they were 
 merely combinations of their own, and not StSa/crot 
 HvtvfxaToq, they only employ them in the Preface, 
 not daring to introduce them within the thresh - 
 hold of the divine text. In this they have the 
 
 10 
 
271 
 
 suffrage of all other Biblical translators, Ali Bey 
 alone excepted ; and I feel rather confident, that 
 how strenuously soever Professor Lee has exerted 
 himself to justify the innovation here reprobated, 
 his cause w^ill find but few abettors, and must 
 indeed be held in abhorrence by all who would 
 lay any claim to an influential reverence for 
 
 THE WORD-OF GoD. 
 
CHAPTER XI. 
 
 Authorities in the Appendix. Neither British nor German 
 Orientalists consulted. French Orientalists incompetent 
 to give a Decision on Questions of this Nature. The 
 Absurdity and total Inconclusiveness of their Opinions. 
 The Opinion and Specimen of the Rev. Mr. Renouard 
 noticed. Disingenuousness of Professor Lee in Regard to 
 AH Bei/s Version of the Old Testament. 
 
 On turning to the Appendix subjoined to Pro- 
 fessor Lee's Remarks, the first thing that must 
 strike the reader, is the list it contains of not 
 fewer than thirty-one Meetings of the General 
 Committee of the British and Foreign Bible 
 Society, and of the Sub-Committee for Printing 
 and General Purposes, in which the subject of 
 the Turkish Testament is stated to have been 
 brought under consideration. The effect designed 
 to be produced by this list, and the exhibition of 
 the names, some of them of great celebrity and 
 respectability, of the persons to whose judgment 
 the business was submitted, is the conviction, 
 that it was proceeded in with that delay and 
 caution which the nature of the case seemed to 
 require ; and, that after so grave an inquiry had 
 been instituted, and such numerous testimonies 
 obtained in favour of the version of Ali Bey, the 
 
273 
 
 Committee were fully justified in coming to the 
 ultimate resolution, December 29, 1823, of re- 
 moving the suspension which had partially 
 arrested the circulation of the copies. 
 
 All this is certainly exceedingly specious, and 
 greatly calculated to soothe the mind of the public 
 in general ; but to such as are more intimately ac- 
 quainted with the real nature of the proceedings, 
 or to those who have perused the preceding 
 chapters of the present publication, it must ap- 
 pear a most melancholy and mortifying considera- 
 tion, that after so many meetings held, so many 
 judges consulted, and so many inquiries insti- 
 tuted, and after obtaining " the best information 
 in their power," a result should be brought out so 
 directly at variance with the real merits of the 
 case. If, after all this investigation, and all this 
 overwhelming mass of authorities, it appear, that 
 the New Testament in question is still totally 
 unfit for circulation by the Society, the fact must 
 convince the public, at least, that the Committee 
 ought no longer to put that exuberant faith in 
 great names by which they have been misguided 
 on the present occasion, and that measures of a 
 very different nature must be resorted to, if they 
 would secure the word of God against that cor- 
 ruption to which it is exposed, in passing into 
 new languages through the hands of erring and 
 sinful men. 
 
274 
 
 In consequence of a letter received from me in 
 the spring of last year, " strongly censuring and 
 condemning tlie Paris edition," it is stated*, that 
 a series of queries was drawn up and forwarded 
 to " the learned Orientalists in France and else- 
 where,*' in order to obtain their opinion upon the 
 subject. 
 
 The reader will, perhaps, wonder why these 
 queries were not particularly submitted to British 
 Orientalists, and also to the Orientalists of Ger- 
 many, the latter of whom have, more than any 
 other scholars in this department in the present 
 day, successfully applied Eastern learning to the 
 illustration of the Sacred Volume, and are, there- 
 fore, peculiarly qualified to give verdict in a 
 question so purely theological as that under con- 
 sideration. That these gentlemen have not been 
 consulted, I conclude from the circumstance, 
 that no documents from them appear among the 
 authorities cited in the Appendix. 
 
 When I stated in the Appeal, p. Q6, that " to 
 suppose Great Britain to be destitute of scholars 
 capable of taking up the question, and fairly 
 deciding upon its merits, would be to derogate 
 from the honour of my country," I little imagined, 
 that at that very moment steps were taking in 
 regard to it, which tacitly implied, that no com- 
 
 * Appendix, B and C. 
 
275 
 
 petent British scholars were to be found, to whom 
 reference could be made on the subject. And is 
 it actually at last come to this ? Is it possible 
 that England which once could boast of a Walton, 
 a Castell, an Usher, a Pocock, a Lightfoot, a 
 Greaves, a Hyde, a Wheelock, a Clarke, a Loftus, 
 and a Heath, who all flourished contemporane- 
 ously, and are of universal and established repu- 
 tation for their skill in Oriental literature, should 
 not now possess one son, the solidity and extent 
 of whose knowledge in Biblical and dialectical 
 learning, can be depended on in such a case as 
 the present ? Those were indeed the golden days 
 of Oriental literature m England, in which there 
 was no lack of men to employ in editing with due 
 care and circumspection impressions of the Holy 
 Scriptures, in any of the Eastern languages, or to 
 whom an ultimate appeal might confidently be 
 made on the subject of any new translation. 
 But why should there be such a paucity in the 
 present day ? Is it impossible any longer to af- 
 ford encouragement to men who devote their 
 talents, and a great portion of their time, to the 
 cultivation of such studies ? Or has a fatal 
 apathy seized our schools and Universities? Do 
 those who fill the situation of public teachers 
 of religion no longer care to drink deep at the 
 fountain of sacred lore, or excel in elucidating 
 the sacred pages from the numerous and invalu- 
 
 T 2 
 
276 
 
 able Oriental sources, preserved in our public 
 libraries? Must foreigners (long may they be 
 welcome) discover and publish to the world 
 what lies within a step of our own salaried 
 Professors ? 
 
 I may be told, that British Scholars have been 
 consulted on the subject of the Turkish Testa- 
 ment; and the query has been put: ** If Professor 
 Lee and Mr. Renouard are bunglers, where, in 
 Britain, are learned Orientalists to be found*?" 
 It appears, however, from the Appendix, that, 
 much as the skill of these Gentlemen in such 
 matters has been boasted of, their judgment was 
 deemed insufficient to decide the point at issue, 
 and accordingly its ultimate determination was 
 made to rest upon the opinion of the French and 
 some other foreign Orientalists, of inferior note. 
 These authorities are : — 
 
 M. le Baron Silvestre de Sacy. 
 M. Jaubert, Second Interpreting Secretary to 
 the King of France for the Oriental Lan- 
 guages, Professor of the Turkish Language 
 at. the Royal Library of Paris, Author of a 
 Turkish Grammar, and formerly in the ser- 
 vice of the French Government in Turkey, 
 Egypt, and Persia. 
 M. Garcin De Tassy, Author of several Orien- 
 tal Works, who has for some years devoted 
 
 * Eclectic Review, June 1824, p. 535. 
 
277 
 
 himself especially to the study of the Turkish 
 Language. 
 M. Langl^s, Conservator of Oriental MSS. in 
 
 the Royal Library of Paris. 
 M. Andrea de Nerciat, late Interpreter at Con- 
 stantinople, and formerly in Syria and Persia. 
 M. Caussin de Perceval the Younger, late In- 
 terpreter- at Constantinople, and in Syria, 
 and now Professor of Modern Arabic at the 
 Royal Library of Paris. 
 M. Bianchi, one of the two Assistant Inter- 
 preting Secretaries to the King of France 
 for the Oriental Languages, and late Inter- 
 preter at Smyrna. 
 M. Desgranges, Assistant Interpreting Secretary 
 to the King of France for the Oriental Lan- 
 guages, Colleague of M. Bianchi. 
 M. Petropolis, late Turkish Secretary to the 
 
 Greek Patriarch. 
 M. Er6mian, Interpreter to the Danish Lega- 
 tion at Constantinople. 
 If high-sounding names and imposing profes- 
 sional titles were adequate to command acqui- 
 escence in the sentiments expressed on any 
 literary topic, we have, certainly, in the present 
 case, a superabundance of authority. And, per- 
 haps, not a few will be disposed to give the 
 Eclectic Reviewer* due credit for the following 
 
 • Ut sup. 
 
278 
 
 strong and pointed query in relation to it: "What 
 but the intoxication of spleen or arrogance could 
 lead a man to speak with contempt of the follow- 
 ing individuals, to all of whom a series of ques- 
 tions was submitted on the subject of the alleged 
 errors in this version?" But how, it may be 
 asked, in reply, could I possibly speak contemp- 
 tuously of persons, most of whom I never knew to 
 be in existence ; and with respect to the rest, I 
 had no information before it was supplied by 
 Professor Lee's Appendix, that they had had any 
 such series of queries proposed for their consi- 
 deration ? The charge proceeds upon the assump- 
 tion of my perfect knowledge of what was going 
 on relative to the whole affair ; whereas, in fact, I 
 was kept completely in the dark ; nor did I ex- 
 pect, after what had taken place, that any further 
 communications would be made to me upon the 
 subject. 
 
 But why drag these individuals into public 
 view;, and expose their character by constituting 
 them judges of what does not lie within their 
 province; or supposing it did, whose daily official 
 and multiform avocations prevent them from de- 
 voting to it that share of their time and attention 
 which a subject of such grave importance de- 
 mands? Bring before their tribunal a question 
 purely grammatical, or one relating to the history, 
 the geography, the numismatology, the politics. 
 
279 
 
 the diplomacy, or the poetry of the Orientals, 
 and of Silvestre de Sacy, at least, it may con- 
 fidently be affirmed, that he will give a decision 
 worthy of such an accomplished scholar and so 
 experienced a veteran in the field of Asiatic re- 
 search. But to appeal to men of totally different 
 habits of study, as umpires on the subject of 
 Biblical translation ; to call in the aid of their 
 taste, which has been formed on totally different 
 models, to fix the manner in which the esta- 
 blished phraseology of Sacred Scripture should 
 be expressed in the desecrated jargon of Moham- 
 medan unbelievers; and to leave it to French 
 Orientalists to determine points of theological 
 inquiry, is just about as preposterous as it would 
 have been, about fifty years ago, to solicit the 
 advice of as many of the leading men in the 
 British dependencies in the East, relative to the 
 practicability, and the best mode of translating 
 the Scriptures into the languages of India. 
 
 Anticipating something like the result here re- 
 ferred to, I observed in the Appeal *, that, *' in order 
 to qualify any man for passing a critical decision 
 on the subject, it is requisite, not merely that he 
 be versed in what may be termed the profane 
 departments of Oriental literature, but that he be 
 more or less disciplined in the established prin- 
 ciples of Biblical science. His acquirements may 
 
 * Pp. 64, 65. 
 
280 
 
 have been amply sufficient to carry him through 
 all the philological difficulties connected with a 
 diplomatic or military career, and to procure for 
 him a distinguished reputation in the field of 
 Asiatic research, while, after all, he may be la- 
 bouring under a complete destitution of the prin- 
 ciples of sacred taste, and a most lamentable 
 ignorance on subjects intimately connected with 
 the interpretation of the Holy Scriptures. I have 
 heard of an Oriental scholar, who found fault with 
 a translator of the New Testament, for rendering 
 the word publican by ' tax-gatherer,' because, 
 forsooth ! in colloquial English it signifies, an 
 * inn-keeper /' To commit the decision of such 
 points to gentlemen of purely secular habits, is 
 just as preposterous as it would be to rest the 
 merits of a question relative to naval or military 
 tactics on the opinion of those who are simply 
 addicted to objects of theological pursuit." 
 
 But what is the amount of the evidence pro- 
 duced from these Oriental authorities in the 
 Appendix ? It was very judicious in Professor 
 Lee not to lay them before the reader in an 
 English translation ; but we shall presently fur- 
 nish him with a few passages by way of speci- 
 men, from which he will be able to form some 
 idea of the spirit and tendency of the whole. 
 
 The first document, and deservedly the most 
 worthy of regard, is that from M. le Baron Sil- 
 
281 
 
 vestre de Sacy. According to his own statement, 
 however, the examination to which he submitted 
 the version, was extremely limited; a circum- 
 stance naturally to be expected from the vast 
 multiplicity of business with which that distin- 
 guished scholar is overloaded, partly by the 
 offices of high trust and responsibility with which 
 he is invested by his Royal Master, partly by an 
 extensive correspondence carried on with literary 
 societies and individuals in all parts of the world, 
 and partly by his own private and favourite 
 studies. The greater part of his communication 
 is taken up with criticisms on certain passages in 
 Ali Bey's version, some of which go to corroborate 
 the objections which we made to particular ren- 
 derings, and only prove what we might have ex- 
 pected from M. le Baron, had he entered fully 
 into the subject, and furnished us with a decision 
 formed upqn proper rules of Biblical interpre- 
 tation. 
 
 The next authority is that of Professor Jaubert, 
 who enters pretty fully into the question relative 
 to the predominance of Arabic and Persic words 
 in the version, but, like all the other individuals 
 here referred to, avoids entering on any of the 
 main points, with the exception of that relative 
 to the circumlocutory and diversified manner in 
 which the divine name is expressed. In addition 
 to the quotation formerly given from his letter, 
 
282 
 
 recommendatory of the adoption of the received 
 forms of speech, as the most natural and proper 
 by which to express the phraseology of Scripture, 
 we shalt only adduce here the following observa- 
 tion : ** Far from having incurred any censure, 
 the author seems to deserve praise for having 
 employed these forms (Court of Victory, Most 
 High, &c.) ; without them his version would have 
 appeared cold, monotonous, removed from the usual 
 style of language, and consequently kss proper to 
 answer the end to be attained*.'' . That the commu- 
 tation of the established diction of the Spirit for 
 the gaudy and varied combinations of the Otto- 
 man style, is rather to be praised than condemned, 
 is a sentiment in which I believe few will coincide; 
 and I am also inclined to think, that those who 
 relish the simple truth, and are acquainted with 
 the sovereign energy with which it affects what 
 the most elegant and finished specimens of human 
 eloquence have never been able to accomplish, 
 will be far from agreeing with M. Jaubert, when 
 he affirms, that a version done in close imitation 
 of the original, and rejecting these high-sounding 
 epithets, would be cold and monotonous, and 
 little fitted to answer the end to be attained. To 
 
 * " Loin d'avoir encouru aucun blame, I'auteur parait meriter 
 des eloges pour avoir employe ces formules ; sans elles sa 
 version eut paru froide, monotone, 61oignee du style usuel et 
 par consequent peu propre a remplir le but qu'on voulait at- 
 teindre." Appendix, p. (17). 
 
unbelievers of all nations, the Scriptures must 
 ever be expected to appear, more or less, in this 
 light ; and it has been the constant endeavour of 
 human vi^isdom to hide this supposed deformity, 
 and render them palatable to the carnal mind. 
 But the effect of all such attempts has only been 
 to " daub the wall with untempered mortar," and 
 adulterate the Word of God with the meretrici- 
 ous embellishments of human folly. On this, as 
 well as every other point connected with the 
 Gospel of Christ, the declarations of Paul will be 
 found to hold true : " The foolishness of God is 
 wiser than men, and the weakness of God is 
 stronger than men. For ye see your calling, 
 brethren, how that not many wise men after the 
 flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, arc 
 called: but God hath chosen the foolish things of 
 the world to confound the wise ; and God hath 
 chosen the weak things of the world to confound 
 the things which are mighty ; and base things of 
 the world, and things which are despised, hath 
 God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to 
 bring to nought things that are ; that no flesh 
 should glory in his presence." 1 Cor. i. 25 — 29. 
 
 The same remarks apply to the paper furnished 
 by M. Garcin de Tassy. " The usage of the 
 Orientals," says he, "is always to join to the name 
 of God and of the prophets a form of betiediction ; Ali 
 Bey could not depart from it ; and, in ray opinion. 
 
284 
 
 he would have been greatly to blame, if he had 
 lopped off these forms. It is said that they give 
 to the Turkish New Testament a Mohammedan teint. 
 So much the better. It would have been desirable that 
 the teint had been still stronger: his version being 
 destined for the special use of Mohammedans 
 who are unhappily prejudiced against our sacred 
 books, from the persuasion that we have al- 
 tered them *." Such, reader, is the judgment of 
 another of our French Orientalists on the subject 
 of what he is pleased to call ** slight additions," but 
 which consist of words and phrases never be- 
 fore introduced into the Holy Scriptures by any 
 translator, either ancient or modern. From what 
 is here stated, it is clear, that if the Turkish ver- 
 sion had been put into the hands of this Gentle- 
 man to prepare it for the Turks, we should have 
 been favoured with it in the most perfect state of 
 Musulman colouring, and dressed out in all the 
 tawdriness of Ottoman bombast, instead of being 
 put off with the mincing manner in which, after 
 
 * " L'usage des Orientaux est de joindre toujours au nom de 
 Dieu et des prophetes, une formula de benediction ; Ali Bey ne 
 pouvait s'en ecarter et Ton aurait en grand tort, ce me semble, 
 de retrancher ces formules. On dit qu'elles donnent au N. T. 
 Turc une teinte Musulmane. Tant mieux. II serait a desirer 
 que la teinte fut encore plus forte, cette traduction 6tant destinee 
 specialement aux Musulmans qui malheureusement sent prevenus 
 contie nos saints livres, persuades (luc nous les avons alteres." 
 Append. (20). 
 
285 
 
 all, it would seem poor All has executed his task. 
 If the Oriental usage be to affix always a form of 
 benediction to the name of God and the prophets, 
 then certainly our translator has frequently been 
 " guilty of a gross infraction of the laws of his 
 language ;" for, he has actually departed from 
 that usage; he has, in numberless instances, lopped 
 off the objectionable forms ; and, in no instance, as 
 far as I have found, does he join any form of bene- 
 diction to the names of the prophets, understanding 
 by that name Adam, Noah, Job, and others, to 
 whom the Mohammedans give this character. 
 What then does M. Garcin de Tassy mean, when 
 he says that Ali Bey could not depart from such 
 a practice ? After perusing the present controversy, 
 the religious public of Great Britain will doubt- 
 less be of opinion, that a sufficiently strong teint 
 of Mohammedanism has already been given to this 
 ill-fated version, and few I believe will join the 
 learned foreigner in the wish that the teint had 
 been deeper and more conspicuous. 
 
 We next come to a document from the late M. 
 Langl^s, which chiefly relates to the use of Arabic 
 and Persic words, and with which, therefore, I 
 shall not detain the reader longer than while I 
 place before him a Persian fact, adduced in justi- 
 fication of the use of ei^;-a»- Haezret, " Illustrious." 
 *' In regard," he says, *' to the epithet HazrH 
 c^^^^to. which is given to Jesus Christ, ,^s*«ju: c>^.i*. 
 
286 
 
 it is so consecrated, that a Persian Ambassador 
 or Envoy, Myr Daoud Khan, to whom I gave the 
 title of Hazret, replied, * that word is never used 
 of any but Jesus' *." It may safely be affirmed, 
 that a more barefaced falsehood never issued from 
 the lips of any of the Persian race. Yet, M. 
 Langl^s writes, and Professor Lee publishes this 
 hollow piece of flattery as evidence in favour of 
 Ali Bey's Testament, although this same Testa- 
 ment convicts the witness of untruth ; the word 
 Hcczret being, as we have seen, applied in the 
 very first chapter to the Virgin Mary, and after- 
 wards to Abraham and Solomon I 
 
 An extract from the communication of M. An- 
 drea de Nerciat has already been laid before the 
 reader. I shall here insert the passage more at 
 length : " I cannot by any means regard as a fault 
 the variety of expressions employed to render the 
 Divinity, because this variety is not so great as to 
 become a fatigue, even to the grossest intellect. 
 With respect to the honorific epithets which ac- 
 company the name of our Lord, nothing but ig- 
 norance of the religious spirit of the Orientals in 
 general, can render it possible for us, not to feel 
 
 * " Quant a I'epithete de Hazret ULij,a»- qu'il donne a Jesus 
 Christ, M*xz (JLijA:»-, elle est tellement consacree, qu'un am- 
 bassadeur ou envoyee Persan, Myr Daoud Khan, a qui je donnais 
 le titre de Hazret, me repondit, • On n'emploie ce mot-la que 
 pour Jesus.' " Append. (22). 
 
287 
 
 the enormous want of decency of which we should 
 be guilty, in pronouncing this sacred name in a 
 cold dry manner ; and as our preachers never ex- 
 press it without taking off their cap, in like manner 
 the Orientals cannot write or articulate it, without 
 prefixing the word ejyis. (HcezretJ, or accom- 
 panying it with the epithets ,^^3^ ^^M^ 'c/^^V 
 ^\m (Merciful, Blessed, Sacred, Most High) and 
 a thousand others, derived from the infinitude of 
 the perfections which emanate from his Divine 
 Essence. In this respect, usage has removed 
 every difficulty in the East. It is the style of the 
 priests when they instruct the people from the 
 pulpit *." 
 
 • " Je ne saurais non plus regarder comrae ime vice la variete 
 d'expressions employees pour rendre la Divinite, parceque cette 
 variete n'est tellement grande, qu'elle devienne une fatigue meme 
 pour I'intelligence la plus materielle. Quant aux epithetes hono- 
 rifiques qui accompagnent le nom de Notre Seigneur, il faudrait 
 ne point connaitre I'esprit religieux des peuples Orientaux en 
 general, pour ne point sentir I'enormite de I'inconvenance que Ton 
 commettrait, en pronongant tout sechement ce nom sacre ; et ainsi 
 que nos predicateurs ne le proferent jamais sans otcr jusqu' a leur 
 calotte, de meme les Orientaux ne sauraient I'ecrire ou I'articuler, 
 
 sans le fair preceder du mot O-fto-, ou sans le faire suivre des 
 
 I- 
 epithetes de JUJ ,,^ jJU jCJ^lx* i^^/>^J ^t milles autres, qui 
 
 naissent de I'infinite de perfections qui emanent de sa Divine 
 Essence. Et cet egard, I'usage a leve toute difficulte dans I'Orient. 
 C'est le style des pretres qui enseignent le peuplc du liaut de la 
 chaire evangelique." Append, p. (23). 
 
 13 
 
288 
 
 The testimonies of M. Caussin de Perceval and 
 M. Bianchi are to the same effect, all agreeing 
 most unanimously in their avowal, that these epi- 
 thets cannot be omitted without irreverence ; and 
 the evidence is concluded by M. Desgranges in 
 the following style : *' It is further complained, 
 that the names of God and Christ are embellished 
 by diiFerent epithets, and rendered by several 
 circumlocutions. I avow that the charge is well- 
 founded, and that these epithets, and these circumlo- 
 cutions are not found in the original: but the author 
 of the translation wished thereby to conform to 
 the custom of all the Oriental Christians, for it 
 would be as extraordinary not to say in Turkish 
 or Arabic, his excellency Jesus, as it would 
 be singular to use such an expression among us. 
 
 " To conclude, I am of opinion, that the greater 
 part of the faults charged upon Ali Bey's Turkish 
 version of the New Testament, do not exist, and 
 if they did, the work would not, on this account, 
 be less worthy of high recommendation, and fit to 
 spread the knowledge of sacred Scripture in the 
 East*." 
 
 * "On se plaint encore de voir les noms de Dieu et de Jesus 
 ernes de difFerentes epithetes et rendus par plusieurs circonlocu- 
 tions. J'avoue que le reproche est fonde, et que ces epithetes, et 
 ces circonlocutions ne se trouvent pas dans I'original : mais par la 
 I'auteur de la traduction a voulu se conformer a la coutume de 
 tous les Chretiens Orientaux, car il serait aussi extraordinaire de 
 
289 
 
 Not to advert to the criticisms of Messrs'. 
 Eremian and Petropolis, which appear to have 
 been altogether unfit to meet the eye of the pub- 
 lic, and of vv^hich, therefore, only some garbled 
 notice is given in the Appendix, I would now 
 simply ask the judicious Scripture critic, and all 
 who are sensible of the importance of '' holding- 
 fast the form^ of sound words," whether any con- 
 fidence can be placed in the judgment of men 
 who can avow such sentiments as the above on 
 the subject of Biblical translation? If they admit 
 of, and defend such liberties with '* the oracles 
 of God," of what avail is their testimony to the 
 version of Ali Bey, as possessing *' scrupulous 
 fidelity," being done with *' exactitude ;" that it 
 is " an excellent translation ;" *' a production 
 equally serviceable to literature and religion," 
 &c. &c. These expressions are all merely relative, 
 and must be interpreted agreeably to the capa- 
 bilities of those who use them, and their acquaint- 
 ance with the subject to which they are applied. 
 
 On the letters of the Rev. G. C. Renouard, I 
 
 ne pas dire en Turc ou en Arabe, son Excellence Jesus, qu'il serait 
 singulier de s'exprimer ainsi parmi nous. 
 
 " En dernier resultat, je pense qui la pluspart des fautes re- 
 proches a la version Turque d'AIi Bey dii Nouveau Testament, 
 n'existent pas, et que si elles existaient, cet ouvrage n'eii serait 
 pas moins tres recommandable et propre a repandre dans I'Orient 
 la connaissance de I'Ecriture Sainte." Append, p. (29). 
 
 V 
 
290 
 
 would only remark, that some of the statements 
 they contain have already been refuted in pre- 
 ceding parts of this work. With respect to the 
 rest, it is unnecessary to offer any comment upon 
 them, as they clearly go to support my side of 
 the question, and shew what developements 
 would have been made by the learned Rector, if 
 he had only entered sufficiently into the subject. 
 He admits the use of the objectionable epithets, 
 and acknowledges, that " the objections grounded 
 on the introduction of unusual words, when more 
 common ones might have been used, are not 
 e7itirely U7ifounded ;" that " Persian words are, per- 
 haps, too often introduced, but that was the fashion 
 in AH Bey's time, and the Insha's or Formularies 
 for letters, &c. of that age, are now considered 
 as improper models of style, solely because they 
 abound in phrases borrowed from the Persian ; 
 and that it also appears true, that a greater variety 
 of words to express the same idea, has been used by 
 the tr-anslator than by the 07'iginal write7^s*." 
 
 On the specimens of translation, extracted from 
 AH Bey by that gentleman, I shall only observe, 
 that any person who will take the trouble to com- 
 pare them, either with the original Greek, or our 
 own authorised version, must at once perceive the 
 numerous discrepancies and the absolutely false 
 
 * Appendix, pp. (30, 31.) 
 
291 
 
 renderings with which they abound. Of these, the 
 following are adduced in proof: Matt. xi. 6. " How 
 blessed is he who doubteth not in me." Mark viii. 
 33. *' Thou hast not perceived the things which 
 pertain to God, but peixcivest the things which 
 pertain to man." xii. 32. " Thou hast well said 
 that God is one." 34. *' Kingdom of heaven.'" 
 xvi. 6. ** Ye -are seeking Jesus of Nazareth who 
 was crucified but Jiath been bi^ought to life ; he is 
 not here." Ver. 7. Go, " tell Peter and his dis- 
 ciples.'" Rom. iv. 20, 21, 22. " Gave praise and 
 glory to Almighty God.'' ** And he knew certainly 
 that the Lord of Truth is able to perform the pro- 
 mise which he hath made. Therefore was his 
 faith counted in the place o/' righteousness." ix. 11. 
 " The fore-ordained decree of Almighty God."" Gal. 
 ii. 19. " For by the law, I was dead unto the 
 law, until I lived unto the Most High God." 20. 
 I was crucified, and am living ivith Christ. And 
 now / am living that life which / have lived in the 
 body." 21. ** If it be by the righteousness and 
 strength of the law," &c. Ephes. i. 4. *' As he 
 elected us {in him omitted) before the foundation 
 of the world." I now leave it with the reader to 
 form his own opinion respecting Mr. Renouard's 
 prefatory remarks. " I hope the short extracts 
 which I now add, will serve at least to shew that 
 Ali Bey was tolerably faithful. I scarcely ever 
 looked at the Greek, because my object was 
 
 u 2 
 
292 
 
 to ascertain the meaning of the Turkish, but 
 when I did, I had occasion to adrnire Ali Bey's 
 eucactness* ,'' ui 
 
 At the close of his Appendix, Professor Lee in- 
 troduces a specimen of the manner in which he 
 wishes to make the reader believe Ali Bey exe- 
 cuted his translation of the Old Testament ; but I 
 am sorry in being obliged to say, that in so doing 
 he is not only guilty of a gross misrepresentation 
 of the real state of the case, but of an act of great 
 injustice towards me, and the most shameful im- 
 position on the public. ** As Dr. Henderson," 
 says he, *' has thought proper to throw out some 
 insinuations, (p. 19.) prejudicial to the character of 
 Ali Bey's translation of the Old Testament, I have 
 thought it might not be amiss to give, in this 
 place, a literal translation of a very important part 
 of the Book of Genesis, which may, in some de- 
 gree, enable the reader to form an opinion on that 
 part of the translation." 
 
 Would it not be supposed from this advertise- 
 ment, that what follows is a literal translation of 
 the Turkish version as it came from the hands of 
 Ali Bey, and, consequently, that it was a manifest 
 calumny in me to insinuate, that a translation so 
 simple, and, on the whole, so accurate as that 
 exhibited by the Professor, could possibly contain 
 * Appendix, p. (33.) 
 
293 
 
 any such faults as those imputed to it ? But 
 what will the reader say, when he is informed, 
 that this specimen is not done either from Ali 
 Bey's MS. or the edition of the Pentateuch, 
 printed at Berlin, but from the text as corrected 
 by Pi^ofessor Kieff'er, agreeably to the following- 
 resolution of the Sub-Committee for Printing and 
 General Purposes, held August 9, 1821. 
 
 ** That in preparing the copy for the press, he 
 (Professor KiefFer) begin with the Old Testament, 
 and PURIFY the text of every thing extrane- 
 ous OR supplementary, as far as the genius 
 of the Turkish language will admit." 
 
 What influence my insinuations, as Professor 
 Lee is pleased to call them, had in bringing about 
 this resolution, I pretend not to determine ; but 
 it must appear, to every candid and impartial 
 mind, to be in the highest degree unfair, to pro- 
 duce as evidence against me, not the text on 
 which I animadverted, but one to the purity of 
 which these very animadversions, made in 1820, 
 materially contributed. Neither is it equitable 
 to transfer to Ali Bey the meed of praise which is 
 due to Professor KiefFer by whom the version has 
 been at last brought into some degree of con- 
 sistency with other translations of the Word of 
 God. That the reader may be able to form some 
 idea of the difference between the style of the 
 third chapter of Genesis, as exhibited by Pro- 
 fessor Lee, and that of Ali Bey as he appears 
 
294 
 
 in the Berlin Pentateuch, I subjoin the following 
 collation of the manner in which the Divine 
 Names are given. 
 
 The Version of AH Bey as The Text as corrected h\f 
 contained in the Berlin Professor Kieffer, and 
 
 Pentateuch. exhibited hy Prof. Lee 
 
 1. Tengri God Most High. 1. Lord God. 
 
 Supreme Creator. God. 
 
 3. Coui^t of the Creator. 3. God. 
 
 5. Supreme Creator. 5. God. 
 
 Like Angels. Like gods. 
 
 8. The Creator God Most High. 8. Lord God. 
 Tengri God Most High, Lord God. 
 
 9. Te7igri God Most High. 9. Lord God. 
 11. The Court of Victory. 11. God. 
 
 13. Tengri God Most High. 13. Lord God. 
 
 Prof. Lee, Lord. 
 
 14. Tengri God Most High. 14. Lord God. 
 
 If the renderings " Court of the Creator'* and 
 " Court of Victory" should be called in question 
 by any Oriental scholar, I must beg him to re- 
 collect, that they are those contended for by 
 Professor Lee, but for which circumstance, I 
 should have translated the original words by 
 " Glorious Creator," and *' Glorious Majesty," as 
 I have already, in part, done in the Appeal. 
 
CONCLUSION. 
 
 If we take a review of the points discussed in 
 the preceding chapters, it will appear, that the 
 question at issue is not, whether the version of 
 Ali Bey may not be corrected, nor whether a 
 diversity of opinion may not obtain respecting 
 the rendering of particular passages, such as may 
 exist relative to every other version ; neither is it 
 contended, that the Paris edition of the New 
 Testament should be suppressed on account of 
 each blunder it contains, taken singly, as Pro- 
 fessor Lee perpetually insinuates : but it is this, 
 whether it be warrantable in the Bible Society to 
 give circulation to a work exhibiting a manifest 
 relinquishment of those forms of Jewish and Chris- 
 tian phraseology, which have acquired an esta- 
 blished and classical authority in all public 
 translations besides, and whether the critical 
 principles, on which its defence is undertaken, 
 be entitled to admission not merely in reference 
 to this individual version, but in their application 
 
296 
 
 to Biblical translations in general, and more 
 especially to such as are prepared for the first 
 time in the languages of Mohammedan and 
 Pagan nations ? 
 
 While Professor Lee maintains, that, in trans- 
 lations of the Sacred Scriptures, the phraseology 
 of the originals must be rendered by that in use 
 among the people for whom they are designed, it 
 has, on the contrary, been shewn, that such a 
 principle would completely mould the forms o-f 
 divine speech in accommodation to individual 
 fancy and conceit, and bring it into accordance 
 with such prevailing phraseology as has origi- 
 nated in, and is expressive of, the different ideas 
 of idolatry, superstition, or unbelief, which obtain 
 in the unevangelized world. It must, therefore, 
 be pernicious in the extreme, to recommend the 
 free or liberal mode of translation, which, although 
 it professedly furnishes a faithful representation 
 of the sense, gives an uncontrollable licence to 
 the translator, and departs widely, and, in num- 
 berless instances, entirely, from the style and 
 manner of the original. The authorities of Jerome 
 and Dathe, produced in support of the free hypo- 
 thesis, have been proved to be totally irrelative 
 to the subject ; and some rules have been laid 
 down with a view to determine the manner in 
 which every version of the Holy Scriptures, de- 
 signed for popular use, ought to be executed. 
 
297 
 
 The different charges of mistakes, respecting 
 the meaning of Oriental words preferred against 
 me by the Professor, have been repelled by an 
 appeal to unexceptionable lexicographical au- 
 thorities, to the usage of Ali Bey, and to the 
 manner in which the words have been rendered 
 by himself and the French Orientalists in his 
 Appendix. In defending the translations found in 
 the Appeal, it has been shewn, that the accepta- 
 tions given to the words by my opponent, so far 
 from rendering their use less objectionable, tends 
 most forcibly to prove their total inadmissability 
 into versions of the Sacred Scriptures. .y,^ 
 
 The arguments adduced by Professor Lee, in 
 defence of the varied and high-sounding adsciti- 
 tious epithets given by Ali Bey to the Deity, 
 have been demonstrated to be absurd in them- 
 selves, and fraught with consequences to be de- 
 precated by all who entertain a sacred reverence 
 for the Word of God. His reference to Scripture 
 usage, the style of Mohammedan books, and the 
 practice of the Christians in Turkey, is shewn to 
 be false or inconclusive ; and the use of these 
 circumlocutory titles is proved to be incapable of 
 vindication, from the inconsistencies of Ali Bey's 
 own practice, from that of the Professor in editing 
 versions in other languages for the use of Moham- 
 medans, and, especially, from the fact, that, in 
 preparing the text of the Old Testament for the 
 
298 
 
 press. Professor Kiefter is purifying it from this 
 foreign gibberish, in direct opposition to the 
 opinions avowed in the Remarks. Nor must it be 
 forgotten, that although Professor Lee finds it 
 convenient to advocate the use of these titles in 
 the New Testament, because its publication **has 
 been attended with so much labour and expense *," 
 he was, nevertheless, one of those who assisted 
 the Sub-Committee of the Bible Society with 
 his advice on the memorable 9th of August, 1821, 
 in consequence of which it was resolved to ^'purify 
 the ted't of the Old Testajiient of every thing e.vtrane- 
 ous or supplementary, as far as the genius of the 
 Turkish language would admit. '^ Could any thing 
 be more perfectly inconsistent than seriously to 
 undertake the defence of what he had thus 
 pointedly assisted in condemning ? And was it not 
 highly disingenuous to endeavour to turn my ob- 
 jections into ridicule, at the very moment it must 
 have been known to himself and the Committee, 
 that these objections had attained their end in so 
 far as the Old Testament was concerned, and that 
 this portion, at least, of Sacred Writ, was now 
 printing in a style agreeable to the principles 
 laid down in my Appeal ? "■ 
 
 The charges relative to the annihilation of cer- 
 tain proofs of the Divinity of Christ, have been 
 
 * Remarks, p. 23. 
 
2d9 
 
 fully substantiated in opposition to the assump- 
 tions and reasonings by which Professor Lee has 
 attempted to invalidate them. I have here proved 
 that his assertions are entirely destitute of foun- 
 dation, and shewn, by reference to acknowledged 
 native authorities, that the Arabic word <ljj Rahh, 
 " Lord," is not exclusively applied to God, as he 
 contends, but is also used in application to merely 
 human masters. I have also pointed out in what 
 manner the doctrine of our Lord's Divinity is 
 affected by the interchange of the words God 
 and Lord, a fault of serious import and of frequent 
 occurrence in the version of Ali Bey. 
 
 The important distinction between ^1 or cjl] Ilah 
 " a god," and ^Jll Allahy "God," has been esta- 
 blished by the suffrage of the lexicons, the Koran, 
 Ali Bey himself, the Christian translators, and 
 Professor Kieffer ; in consequence of which, Ali's 
 rendering of Rom. ix. 5. is shewn to be decidedly 
 Socinian. In weighing the authority of Professor 
 Kieffer, it must be remembered, that as it was 
 recommended to him by the Committee, " before 
 coming to a final decision respecting doubtful 
 or difficult cases, to consult Baron Silvestre de 
 Sacy, and correspond with Professor Lee," there 
 is every reason to presume, that his changing oJJ) 
 Ilah into ^idil Allah, was not done without the ad- 
 vice of that eminent Orientalist, although our 
 
300 
 
 Cambridge Professor tells us in a note, p. 108, 
 that he believes the alteration was unnecessary. 
 
 It has been further shewn, that the positions 
 assumed in the Remarks, in defence of the use of 
 synonymic combinations, have either no bearing 
 at all on the subject, or are perfectly untenable; 
 and under this head, a charge has been fully made 
 out against certain renderings in the version of 
 Ali Bey, which go to subvert the doctrine of justi- 
 fication by faith alone, and loosen the bands of 
 moral obligation. 
 
 Particular attention has been paid to Professor 
 Lee's vindication of the various instances of false 
 translation alleged against Ali Bey, and arguments 
 have been advanced in refutation of it, which, it is 
 hoped, will prove satisfactory to every one com- 
 petent to judge on such subjects. Having set out 
 with the principle, that the Turkish version " con- 
 tains no passage, which can fairly be construed as 
 opposed to the mind of the Holy Ghost, or sub- 
 versive of any Christian doctrine*," the Professor 
 was bound to put forth the whole of his strength 
 to save such parts of it as had been attacked ; and, 
 I must do him the justice to say, that he has 
 not spared himself any trouble in endeavour- 
 ing to defend even those which he felt himself^ 
 
 * Remarks, p. 17. 
 
301 
 
 after all, obliged to give up as incapable of justi- 
 fication. 
 
 The principles on which the " Omissions and 
 Additions" are vindicated, will, it has been pre- 
 sumed, be repudiated by all who possess the 
 smallest share of acquaintance with the art of 
 criticism. With the exception of a single in- 
 stance, the. Professor's reference to Greek ma- 
 nuscripts has been shewn to consist in misrepre- 
 sentation;- — the fruit of that carelessness of in- 
 quiry, and want of accurate attention to the 
 minutiaB of circumstances connected with his 
 arguments, of which numerous specimens occur 
 in the Remarks. 
 
 To conclude ; the Paris edition of Ali Bey's 
 Turkish New Testament is not only chargeable 
 with most of the errors and faults adduced in the 
 Appeal, even after several leaves have been can- 
 celled, and a table of errata prepared, but the dis- 
 cussion to which it has given rise, has indirectly 
 brought to light other errors scarcely less objec- 
 tionable; and it may confidently be maintained, 
 that, if it were to be carefully examined from be- 
 ginning to end, and all the departures both from 
 the sense and manner of the original, carefully 
 noted down, the results of such an investigation 
 would fill a volume of no ordinary dimensions, 
 and present to the view of the reader a pile of 
 
302 
 
 discrepancies, with which even the Socinian New 
 Testament (some of the grosser errors abated,) 
 would sink in the comparison. 
 
 And can the Committee of the British and 
 Foreign Bible Society possibly be determined to 
 persevere in circulating such a production as part 
 of the pure word of God ? Can they be willing to 
 risk the reputation of the Institution, its effective 
 influence, and the enjoyment of the Divine bless- 
 ing on its operations, by pursuing a line of Con- 
 duct which must tacitly imply their adoption of 
 Professor Lee's lax and licentious principles of 
 Biblical translation, and inspire the public with 
 the belief, that they are resolved to give their 
 sanction to versions executed agreeably to the 
 advice tendered by that gentleman and the French 
 literati, how contrary soever their opinions may 
 be to sacred criticism, and the established rules 
 of Biblical interpretation ? Except they publicly 
 rescind their resolutions, and totally suppress the 
 circulation of the remaining copies of the obnox- 
 ious edition, such must inevitably prove the re- 
 sult, — a result, which no one will deprecate more 
 highly than the individual who first called their 
 attention to the subject ; the sincere desire of 
 whose heart is in unison with that of the Apostle 
 Paul, when he thus addressed the church at Co- 
 rinth: Now I pray to God that ye do no evil; not 
 
 12 
 
303 
 
 that we should appear approved, but that ye should do 
 that which is honest, though we be as reprobates. For 
 we can do nothing against the truth, but for the truth. 
 For we are glad, when we are weak, and ye are strong, 
 ajid this also ive wish, even your perfection. 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 Just as the last proof sheet is passing through my hands, 
 I am favoured with a copy of the twenty-first Report of 
 the British and Foreign Bible Society, in the Appendix to 
 which is the following remarkable passage, p. 73. 
 
 " I would therefore suggest to the Committee the ex- 
 pediency of authorizing the Professor (Prof. Kieffer) to 
 have two thousand extra copies of the (Turkish) New Tes- 
 tament struck off, because this edition, after having under- 
 gone so much criticism and revision^ will doubtless be supe- 
 rior to thejirst in many respects. 
 
 " The Professor is very desirous of rendering the work 
 as perfect as possible, and spares no labour to attain this 
 desirable object. At the same time, he feels its infinite 
 importance and his own deep responsibility as editor. 
 These two considerations make him diffident ; and, on this 
 account, he has expressed a wish to -me, that the Commit- 
 tee would request the Rev. Mr. Renouard carefully to 
 peruse the Epistles, with the view, not to amend the style, 
 but to render them as accurate and conformable to the 
 original as possible. Should he be able to read the four 
 Gospels and the Acts also, it would be desirable." 
 
306 
 
 In reference to what is contained in this extract, I sim- 
 ply propose the following queries : 
 
 First, Are the copies of the disputed Edition still cir- 
 culated? And, are they nearly all disposed of? Where 
 have they been distributed ? And, who have received 
 them ? 
 
 Secondly, Is the demand for copies of the Turkish New 
 Testament so great as to call for the additional two 
 thousand ? 
 
 Thirdly, Is it not directly implied, that the version of 
 Ali Bey, was, in many respects, an inferior edition, pre- 
 vious to the " much criticism and revision," which it has 
 already undergone, or may yet undergo from Mr. Re- 
 nouard ? 
 
 Fourthly, What is meant by the restrictive clause, 
 " NOT TO AMEND THE STYLE ?" Mr. Rcuouai'd avers, that 
 what was the fashion in Ali Bey's time, is now considered 
 as an improper model of style ; yet, he is " not to amend" 
 it ! Is it not evident, by the Committee's acceding to this 
 proposition, that the New Edition will contain Lady Mary, 
 His Majesty Jesus, Court of Victory, Sweet-meats 
 OF Omnipotence, &c. &c. &c. just as the former did? Will 
 the Members of the British and Foreign Bible Society 
 really tolerate this ? I add no more. If the eyes of the 
 public are not opened to discover the perfect incongruity 
 of giving circulation to a book composed in such a style, 
 under the character of the simple word of God, I must 
 for ever despair of removing the film. 
 
 THE END. 
 
 Printed by R. Gilbert, St. John's Square, London. 
 
ERRATA. 
 
 Page 11, line 22, read quotations 
 18 9, will not 
 
 121* 3, "' 
 
 represents 
 
 observation 
 
 Revelation 
 
 tranthitori' 
 
 Brunton. 
 
 139, 
 
 2(i, 
 
 152, 
 
 1, 
 
 1S4, 
 
 19, 
 
 202, 
 
 8, 
 
 
 17, 
 
 219, 
 
 6, 
 
 222, 
 
 4, 
 
BY THE SAME AUTHOR. 
 
 1. AN EXPOSITION of such of the PROPHECIES of 
 
 DANIEL, as receive their Accomplishment under the New 
 Testament ; together with a Comparison between them and the 
 Apocalypse, as explained by the late Dr. Bengelius. By the 
 late Rev. Magnus Fred. Roos, A. M. Superintendent and Pre- 
 late in Lustnau and Anhausen. Translated from the German. 
 8vo. Edinburgh. 1811. 
 
 2. A DISSERTATION on HANS MIKKELSEN'S (or 
 the first Danish) TRANSLATION of the NEW TESTA- 
 MENT. 4to. Copenhagen. 1813. 
 
 3. ICELAND ; or the Journal of a Residence in that Island 
 during the Years 1814 and 1815; containing Observations on 
 the Natural Phenomena, History, Literature, and Antiquities of 
 the Island ; and the Religion, Character, Manners, and Cus- 
 toms of its Inhabitants. With an Introduction and Appendix. 
 Illustrated with a Map and Engravings. Second Edition. 
 Edinburgh : Printed for Waugh and Innes, Hunter Square ; 
 and T. Hamilton, J. Hatchard, and L. B. Seeley, London. 
 Price 16s. boards. 1819. 
 
 4. An APPEAL to the MEMBERS of the BRITISH and 
 FOREIGN BIBLE SOCIETY, on the Subject of the Turkish 
 New Testament, printed at Paris in 1819 ; containing a View 
 of its History, an Exposure of its Errors, and palpable Proofs 
 of the Necessity of its Suppression. London: Printed for B. J. 
 Holdsworth, 18, St. Paul's Church-Yard. Price 3s. 1824. 
 
 PREPARING FOR PUBLICATION. 
 
 1. THE INSTITUTES of BIBLICAL TRANSLATION. 
 In Three Parts. Part I. On the Qualifications of Translators. 
 Part II. Helps for facilitating the Translation of the Sacred 
 Scriptures. Part III. Canons of Biblical Translation. The 
 whole illustrated by numerous examples from the Ancient Ver- 
 sions and Modern Translations, and interspersed with Remarks, 
 Critical, Philological, and Bibliographical. 
 
 2. BIBLICAL RESEARCHES and TRAVELS in RUSSIA, 
 includintx a Tour in the Crimea, and the Passage of the Caucasus. 
 
 13