tion, or acquainted with its nature, he would have seen that this compound could not have been used for heaven even in the first verse of Genesis; since, " In the beginning God created the other world (or the next world,) and the earth," would have been no better than the rendering which he censures. But in the 17th verse this rendering of the material heaven by para-loka, would quite obscure the sense; "And God set them in the firmament of the other world or of the next world, to give light upon the earth!"

Nor is his substitution of the word pracasa for "light" at all more happy. If the word given by the young author of this translation, really signify "brightness," it must be nearer the sense than the word our Author recommends. Pracasa is also a Sungskrita word found in nearly every Indian dialect. Its meaning is, "display" or "manifestation." It is the verb constantly used to signi fy publishing the gospel, pracasa as a verb denoting to "display, manifest, or publish." The negative upracasă, is" secretly," "not openly;" and pracasa-roope, is “publicly, openly, manifestly." The third verse therefore with the Abbé's emendation, would read; "And God said let 'display or manifestation be made;' then manifestation was made!"

1

Even his substitution of passoovoo pranei, in the twenty-third verse, is scarcely less exceptionable. Passoovoo is another Sungskrita word equally common in the dialects of India; but instead of signifying "cows," it really denotes "animals in general." It may indeed signify "cow" in the same manner as the word "beast" would signify a cow, in such a vulgar English phrase as "the beast market," for "the cow market." Few would argue from hence however, that "beast" so -particularly means "a cow," that it cannot be used to

signify animals in general without another word added for this purpose. Indeed our author's amendment itself speaks against him. "Pran," one of the most common words in the Indian languages, denotes "life;" and pranei," possessed of life." If then as he affirms," passoovoo" signifies "horned cattle,” passoovoo pranie, will signify "living horned cattle;" and the translation in verse the 23d would read thus; "In this manner God created the several tribes of beasts on the earth; the several tribes of horned cattle possessed of life, and the several tribes of insects moving on the ground."

In point of taste and judgment respecting translation, we certainly think even this young missionary much his superior. After all the pains he has taken to caricature the style of this chapter, and his adding as a note in one place when he could point out nothing amiss, “It is not the exact meaning of the text," as though his English reader would not have known this unless he had added this note, still seven years more of knowledge and experience, (twenty are not needed,) would make a far better translation than our Author's emendations. When due allowance is made for the language in which he has chosen to express that which he has not ventured to bring out to the light, it is easy to perceive that it requires only a more judicious choice of terms, a more accurate application of the pronouns, and a neater arrangement of phrases, all of which a few years more of study could easily secure, in order to make even this a pretty accurate version. But as for our Author's emendatory translation after spending thirty years in India, since he cannot be supposed to be ignorant of the language of the people with whom he has conversed during this period, had he possessed the least ability or taste for translation, he would never have so com

66

mitted himself as to give "the other world," or " the next world," for the heaven with which the firmament is connected, "manifestation" for "light;" and " living -horned cattle" for "beasts." Had the Serampore mis sionaries made three such palpable blunders in one chapter in any Indian dialect they had studied for fif teen, instead of thirty years, they could never have had the face afterwards to sit in judgment on the translations of others, and hold them up to the public as wretched without adducing a single instance in support of such assertion! But the "candor and impartiality" displayed in thus reviling their translations, and then bringing forward as evidence three with which they never had "the least concern,-they cannot sufficiently admire.

We might here close our observations on the Abbé's Work altogether, as nothing further remains to be refuted. Still as every one may not be able at the moment of reading his Letters, so to apply the principles thus adduced from Scripture, as instantly to see the fallacy of what our Author has advanced with so much boldness and so little acquaintance with the subject; it may not be time wholly lost if we now take a cursory view of his whole book, and bring it to the test of real fact, and - the unerring word of God. We will begin with his First Letter, which will occupy more of our time than any of the rest, as the others contain little more than a repetition of the same ideas.

The Abbé Dubois's First Letter examined.

His predecessors' dissimulation. His account of Hindoos' losing Cast. His stabbing the character of the Serampore missionaries. His structures on the Hindoos' reading the Scriptures-on Translations-on the time for the Hindoos' Conversion having passed away.

WE are particularly struck with our Author's comment on Francis Xavier's want of success, which made him "leave the country in disgust after a stay in it of only two or three years." On this he observes," the disappointment and want of success of Xavier, ought to have been sufficient to damp the most fervent zeal of the persons disposed to enter into the same career." Indeed! what, when in these two or three years so many proselytes were made by that "apostle" that "the cast of fishermen at Cape Comorin still pride themselves on being the offspring of these first proselytes made by him?" Yet says our Author," when a man of his temper, talents, and virtues, had been THUS BAFFLED in his endeavors to introduce Christianity into India, his successors could scarcely flatter themselves with the hope of being more fortunate." Is this common sense? Is not our Author here actually dealing in burlesque? But St. Francis Xavier was not a common missionary. He was an "apostle" says our Author. Let us then call in the testimony of another apostle, to decide the question respecting his success. Whence does saving faith arise? Says Paul, "faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God." But did our Indian apostle possess the gift of tongues? We think not. We have heard of his raising one or two persons from the dead; but none of his biographers have ventured to assure us that he

positively had. the gift of tongues; and they were not disposed to overlook such a marvellous gift, had it been really possessed. How many of these various dialects then did Xavier so perfectly learn in two or three years as to make these poor heathens clearly comprehend the word of God? Let it be remembered too that these Hindoos were not in the state of St. Paul's hearers at Antioch, at Thessalonica, at Berea, at Iconium, whom he could direct to the scriptures of truth then in their hands in Greek, that they might see with their own eyes "whether these things were so." To these Hindoos, the whole was mere chaos and darkness. How many of their languages then could our Indian apostle have learned so perfectly in this period as to shed light on this chaos? We doubt whether he could have so learned one, as in this time to convey just and clear ideas of the word of God to heathens in this state of ignorance. Yet såving faith cometh only by the word of God.

But did our Indian apostle carry to them the word of God? Here we are constrained to doubt. While his jesuit brethren in Europe were so busily employed in burning, (in some instances with their bibles about their necks,) those obstinate heretics who were madly bent on reading the divine word, though so solemnly assured that it would lead to the perdition of both body and soul; pure pity alone might have prevented our Indian apostle's placing such certain means of perdition within the reach of these ignorant heathens! Accordingly we hear nothing of even a gospel preserved by the descendants of his first proselytes as translated by "their apostle;" nor of his having once called them together before ho left the country in disgust, and addressed them with, "Now I commend you to God and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up and to give you an