such a despicable garb." Nay our author can scarcely "restrain the most distressing feelings of indignation," at seeing" the sacred word of God himself so basely, so shamefully, so sacrilegiously defaced, debased, and perverted." Surely the Serampore missionaries must here feel something like conviction amidst all their stupidity; -indeed they should scarcely outlive the confusion with which this analysis ought to cover them. Our Author too expresses his sentiments on the subject " with candor and without hypocrisy," as he was "requested so to do." Quere, is he accustomed to express them without "candor" and with "hypocrisy," when no particular request is made to the contrary?

Let these dolts now meekly receive the Abbé's just though severe castigation. He begins it with prefixing its due title; "A literal translation of the Canada version of the first chapter of the Book of Genesis." Let us examine this title, however; "of the first chapter of the Book of Genesis?" This then has nothing to do with any version of the Serampore missionaries: neither in the "Canada" nor Kurnata language have they ever published a single verse of the Old Testament! Is this then our Author's ingenuousness? And after thus holding up the Serampore missionaries to public derision, and representing their versions as "low,"-"vulgar"-" spurious"-"unintelligible;" does he bring forward to substantiate all this, a Malayan version of the Gospels made by Dr. Buchanan's direction' in 1806, a Telinga version of St. Matthew by a young missionary whose untimely death prevented his duly revising it, and a few chapters of Genesis in the Kurnata language, by some young missionary, an infant perhaps when the eldest of the Serampore missionaries began studying the Indian languages? And is it the act of a

"candid," "impartial" man, first to vilify their versions, and then passing them all by, to bring forward for criticism OTHER versions with which they have never had the least concern? This course renders all reply from them totally unnecessary,

A

Such then is the sum total of the proof which our Author brings in support of all his revilings. Hence it may possibly happen, that after all he has said, these missionaries were not so perfectly devoid of common sense and capacity, as, with their opportunities, to send forth the Sacred Scriptures in a translation “ low,” and "vulgar," and "unintelligible," when it was the highest wish of their hearts to exhibit them in a style correct, simple, and perspicuous, so as to attract universal love and veneration. It is possible that these versions after all, while capable of much improvement, may be sufficiently correct to make men wise unto salvation! When our Author has brought nothing forward against any one of them, it is even kind to him to infer that he has never seen one of them, although it would imply, that all he has said respecting them is quite gratuitous, and that he is not wholly uninterested in the wise man's declaration, "He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him."

But kind as would be the supposition that he has never seen one of them, from the benefit of it he has excluded himself, by declaring that he HAS seen them, for in his note p. 37, he says respecting" these twenty spurious versions,"-" with some of which I am acquainted." Is he indeed! and after examining them, could he find nothing in even one of them, which he could hold up to censure? This is passing strange ; but still for his bringing forward nothing, two reasons may be assigned. He may have found nothing that he could venture to bring

before the public, or his regard for the Serampore missionaries may have been such that he could not bear the thought of wounding their feelings. Now although love, whose royal law we wish ever to obey, "believeth all things," and even "hopeth all things," when unable to believe them; we are almost afraid to flatter ourselves with the idea that the Abbé has so high a regard for us, as to suppress palpable facts merely for fear of injuring our feelings: for had such a regard pervaded his mind, we think it would have prevented his using epithets when speaking of the versions printed at Serampore, which scarcely come within the limits of common sense. We do not here refer to "low," or "vulgar," and other epi. thets of the same class; for these, although they do (discover no great regard to feeling, are still good English when properly applied. But the term "spurious" with which he has honoured those versions, is a little outré, and seems to convey the idea of the Serampore missionaries having falsified themselves! A version conducted at Serampore may be low, vulgar, incorrect, and even unintelligible; but a "spurious" "Serampore version," seems to verge a little on the extravagant; and at any rate it does not breathe that delicate regard to the feelings of those to whose work it is applied, which would justly warrant their thinking, that had he found any thing in their versions he could have held up to ridicule, he would have restrained himself merely from motives of delicacy and affection.

Facts therefore constrain us to believe, that if he is "acquainted with some of these versions," (to doubt which after the information he has given us, would be to question his veracity,) he found nothing that he could safely bring before the public against them; and that in consequence when speaking of them, he confined

himself to those general terms, which, scurrilous as they may be, scarcely admit of refutation; and when constrained to bring forth some specific version after such a load of general censure, he dexterously contrived to adduce as proof of the worthlessness of the Serampore versions, the Malayan gospels, (metamorphosed into the whole New Testament,) done by Dr. Buchanan's command on the coast, before the Serampore missionaries had published a single version beside the Bengalee, St. Matthew done by a young man whose lamented death cut off all opportunity of his bringing it through the press, and four chapters of Genesis in the "Canada" alias Kurnata language, done by a young man probably an infant when the eldest of the Serampore missionaries began his study of the Indian languages, and regarded perhaps by himself merely as a subject of correction, Such a mode of proof needs no comment: it speaks louder in behalf of the accused, than a host of witnesses adduced by themselves.

We must confess however, that we are somewhat astonished at our Author's critique on this" Canada version." On perusing his larger Work we saw evidently from the names given of the Hindoo idols and the various technical terms and phrases used in the worship of the Hindoos, that his acquaintance with Sungskrita, if any at all, was little beside the name. These phrases, being pure Sungskrita, are the same throughout India, there being no more variation as to termination, &c. in these, than in the Latin ecclesiastical terms used throughout Europe, which every scholar knows to be in reality none. Hence when we found them so mangled as to be scarcely capable of being recognized, we at once saw that our author was acquainted with them only through the medium of the

vulgar dialects spoken around him. But we still supposed that a man who had said so much about "low," "vulgar," "spurious," "unintelligible," translations, must at least have some taste for correct translation, as well as a thorough acquaintance with the vulgar dialects current around him. Indeed we can scarcely see how it is possible that a missionary of thirty years standing, can be deficient in a knowledge of these. His criticism on this young man's translation into the " Canada" language, however, the only instance in which he has ventured, to mention any thing specific, is so wretched, and discovers such an ignorance of the very nature of translation, as fills us with astonishment. We never could have believed that he could have been so unacquainted with its nature, had he not favoured us with this specimen. Amongst a number of instances

we will adduce three.

t

In his critique on the first verse of this young man's "Canada" translation, he insists that "heaven" ought to be rendered by the term "para-loka.” These two

words are Sungskrita, and are common to nearly all the dialects of India, both as used separately and as forming a compound. Loka, means a world, people, &c. hence Deva-loka, denotes the residence of the gods, and Munoosya-loka, the earth, or the residence of men. The word "para," literally means "other" or "another." Hence para-strée, means "another's wife," and “paradhon;" another's wealth. When para is united with loka, the compound para-loka thus formed, is always used to signify "the other, or the next world," the state of those departed, and who of course have no further intercourse with this world. Hence when spoken of the good, it means "heaven," or the "other state" of happiness. Now had our author been at all accustomed to transla