lager, have, for many ages, both lost that signification, and acquired others in which they do not in the least resemble one another. If the use in these languages should ever come to be very little known, and the history of the nations nearly lost, we may form a guess at the absurdities in explaining those terms, into which men would be misled by etymology." Doubtless my opponent will agree to all this when Dr. Campbell says it, just as he agrees to the very opposite when Horne Tooke says it. When he sells himself to two masters, he is for yielding implicit obedience to both, even when they are diametrically opposed to each other, and lead him into palpable contradictions and absurdities.

The absurdity of his preferring congregation to church, as a rendering of ecclesia, and then uniformly adhering to that rendering, will soon be evident. The word ecclesia is used to denote the place of worship, as well as the worshipping assembly. The word church has the same latitude of signification; but congregation has not. Paul says, "When ye come together in the ecclesia, I hear that there be divi. sions among you." Our Bible says, "when ye come together in the church." Of this Dr. Gill approves, and says that the word means "the place where the church met together to perform divine service," which exposition he proves by the context: Accordingly Dr. Macknight says "when ye come together in the church." As usual, my opponent alters the word church, and says, "When ye come together in the congregation."

In another instance, according to Doddridge, "The Sadducees say, there is no resurrection, neither [good nor evil] messenger," &c. What Doddridge calls angel in the next verse, my opponent calls "heavenly messenger," without enclosing the word heavenly in brackets, as he did the words "good and

evil" in the former verse. This way of translating leaves the common reader (whose benefit my opponent had supremely in view,) perfectly at a loss to know what is in Doddridge, what is in the original, and what the new translator would be at.

Another instance of the astonishing uniformity of my opponent's New Testament. There are four texts in which Doddridge, with some claims to uniformity, transfers the word mystery. In the first of these, my opponent agrees with him in transferring. In the second and third, he translates it secret. In the fourth he renders it hidden meaning.

Again: there are six texts in which Doddridge uniformly transcribes the words blaspheme, blasphemer, blasphemy, blasphemously. Only four of these are in those books of which he professes to give Doddridge's translation. In the first of these, my opponent transcribes blasphemers, as Doddridge does. In the second he translates detractions, in the third, abusive things, in the fourth railed, in the fifth slander, and in the sixth defamation. All this is for the sake of an extraordinary and scrupulous uniformity!

Once more-The word anastasis occurs four times in the compass of eight verses. In the first of these instances, my opponent's incomparable uniformity renders it future life, in the second resurrection, in the third that state, and in the fourth revival, where Dr. Campbell has it quickening. Now in all these places our translation, which is so much censured for its want of uniformity, uses the word resurrection, as Doddridge does. With this uniform rendering agree the Latin translations of Jerome, Castalio, Beza, and that of Junius and Tremellius: as do also the German, Italian, and French, of Luther, Diodati, and De Sacy, with a variety of others in different lan

guages. Even the Unitarian Improved Version, and the Universalist double-distilled version by Mr. Kneeland, render the word uniformly resurrection as our Bible does. My opponent's superfine is the only one which professes an unparalleled consistency, and he and his pattern, whom he has altered, are the only ones who have given four renderings to this word, in a passage of eight verses.

Let it be remembered that my opponent does not openly offer to the publick a new version of his own, but he proposes to give us the works of Drs. Campbell, Macknight and Doddridge. In his Appendix he says, "we were scrupulously intent on giving every word of the works proposed" It is true that in making this declaration, he may have had his eye upon the notes, in which, however, he has not given every word of the works proposed, as may be seen in the alteration last mentioned, and others without number. But if he had scrupulously given every word of theirs in the notes, would that justify him in imposing the work upon the community, as the "New Testament translated from the original Greek, by George Campbell, James Macknight, and Philip Doddridge, Doctors of the Church of Scotland?" He ought rather to have called it, the translation of one man, accompanied with the various readings of three others: or, at least, he should have given it such an honest title as that of the Unitarian translation; "The New Testament, in an Improved Version, upon the basis of Archbishop's Newcome's new translation, with a corrected text, and notes critical and explanatory.", The authors of this work did not dare to offer it to the British publick, as "the New Testament translated by Newcome, a Primate of the Church of England," but only a new version upon the basis of Archbishop Newcome's." What then would they think of a Unita

rian Baptist, who should publish a translation, purporting to be the work of three "Doctors of the Church of Scotland," and yet containing more variations from these Doctors, by three or four, if not ten times, than the Improved Version has alterations of Newcome's translation? Mr. Kneeland's New Testament is as good a copy of either Scarlett or the Improved Version, as my opponent's is of the three Doctors: yet he had not the audacity to palm it upon the publick as either of these works, but was satisfied with the puerile vanity of being the author of a new version, between which and its models there was no important difference.

In some important instances my opponent agrees with these corrupt versions, in opposition to those whom he promised to copy. It is well known that the Unitarians endeavour to fritter down the interview between Paul and the jailer, to little more than a consultation about temporal safety from civil punishment by the Roman government. This has been attempted, I am told, by Dr. Holley, in Lexing ton. With a view to this, the Unitarian Improved Version makes the gaoler say, "Sirs, what must I do to be safe?" And it makes Paul and Silas answer, "Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be safe and thine household." To the word safe, they append a note informing us that Newcome has the word saved in accordance with our translation: after which the note says, Mr. Wakefield explains it, to avoid punishment for what has befallen the prisoners and the pri

son."

"This," he adds, "is beyond all doubt the sense of the passage; though Paul, in his reply, uses the words in a more extensive signification: a practice common in these writings." Kneeland copies the translation and the note without giving credit for either. My opponent translates, "O Sirs, what must I do that I may be safe?" And they

said, "Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be safe, and thine house." As there is nothing

about this passage in the margin, and as there is no note referring from this or any other part of the chapter to the appendix, any reader, who has not been accustomed to catching eels, would take it for granted that Doddridge had given the above translation, in accordance with the Unitarian and Universalist versions. But on examining the Appendix, half of Doddridge's translation is found wedged in between notes to which reference is

made from the preceding and succeeding chapters. In connexion with this half-reading, he gives the reason why he had thus hidden Doddridge, and "given the most conspicuous place to that [Unitarian] version, which appeared to deserve it." This reason is given

in the words of Wakefield the Unitarian, as follows, viz. "The jailer meant no more than, what shall I do to be safe from punishment? for what had befallen the prisoners and the prison? This is, beyond doubt, the sense of the passage; though Paul, in his reply, uses the words in a more extensive signification; a practice common in these writings." These words in the Appendix are preceded and followed by the name of Wakefield, as the author of the translation and note. Thus, while there is a happy agreement between Doddridge and our translation, there is also a sweet harmony between the Socinian version of London, the Universalist of Philadelphia, and the Arian Baptist of Buffaloe Creek.

2. Narrative of a Tour through Hawaii, or Owhyhee; with Remarks on the History, Traditions, Manners, Customs, and Language of the Inhabitants of the Sandwich Islands. By William Ellis, Missionary from the Society and Sandwich Islands. London. 1826.

a correction, from the pen of the In our last number we promised Rev. Mr. Stewart, of some misstatements in the abovementioned artiWe did not make that promise cle of the British Quarterly Review. lightly. Mr. Stewart had prepared a and had engaged to complete it on his part of the article under our own roof, way to Boston, and to transmit it to us by mail. But he met in the dent, by the upsetting of the carvicinity of Princeton with an acciriage in which he was travelling; and jured, he wrote to us from that place although he was not seriously in

that he was not able there to com

plete what he had intended, but rival in Boston; and that we should would do it immediately on his arnot fail to receive his communication in time for our July number. After waiting with a good deal of anxiety, we received on the 28th of June a short letter, of which the following is an extract.

"Portland, Saturday, June 23d, 1827. "My dear and venerated Friend,-You have probably been expecting to hear from me before this date

I have been unwell ever since I wrote to you from

Princeton-so much so as to be detained a fortnight in New York, on my way to Boston-most of which time I was in bed. I only reached Boston in time to set off with Mr. Evarts, notwithstanding my indisposition, to meet a series of appointments in New Hampshire and Maine. The consequence of the whole is, that I have been unable to finish the article in answer to the Quarterly. The Prudential Committee were very desirous of having it out by the Advocate of next month; and I doubt not the delay will be as great a disappointment to yourself as it is to them. I will not promise any thing for the future, but if I take up the subject at all, it ton, the first week in July, and you shall will be immediately on my return to Boshave a copy as soon as it is finished. My

health is so much impaired that I shall be obliged to relinquish my agency, for a month or two in the heat of summer."

The letter from which this extract is taken, was put into our hands a few minutes after we were favoured with the company of Mr. Elisha Loomis, the Superintendant of the missionary printing establishment at the Sandwich Islands. He left those islands in January last, and was, with his family, on his way to Boston, from Baltimore where he landed. He remained with us a short time, and we resolved to avail ourselves of his aid in preparing an answer to the Quarterly Review. We found Mr. L. in all respects well qualified to give the information which we needed. He was not only the bearer of the most recent intelligence from the Sandwich Islands, but had been a resident there, intimately acquainted with every thing relative to the missionaries, from the time of their first arrival, about seven years ago, till the time of his departure-a departure occasioned by a declining state of health, and the hope of being able to print for the mission more advantageously in this country than at the islands. His integrity too, was as unquestionable as his intelligence. His piety and uniform good and exemplary conduct at the islands, was attested by a unanimous vote of all the missionaries; who, it appeared, had also united in the opinion that his return to his native land was necessary and proper. At our request, he first read over attentively by himself the whole Review in question, and marked the parts which impliedly or explicitly contained any censure of the missionaries. He then went over with us each part separately, and we took down in writing his remarks. He afterwards reviewed our notes deliberately and carefully, and made such additions and alterations as he saw proper. He likewise read to us, and we afterwards inspected for ourselves, the whole of an extensive cor

respondence between the missionaries and the foreigners at the Sandwich Islands, who are, or were, their avowed opposers; a correspondence which issued in a meeting of the parties, in the presence of Captain Jones, commander of the United States sloop of war Peacock, together with several of his officers.The result of this interview between the missionaries and their accusers, we shall presently state. Mr. Loomis finally furnished us with a statistical account of the comparative quantity of native produce, furnished in different years to the ships which arrived at the principal port of the islands; and also showed us the originals of letters from nearly all the principal chiefs, stat ing their opinion of the missionaries; and of several of those letters, all of the same import, he read us a translation. The whole of the letter from the most influential man in the islands, Kalaimoku, usually styled Wm. Pitt, he permitted us to copy; and also an extract from the letter of Captain Jones, voluntarily addressed to the missionaries, after they and their adversaries had been confronted in his presence. The materials thus furnished us by Mr. Loomis, we shall use as we shall find them demanded in the course of our review..

We have made the foregoing statement, because we wish our readers to understand distinctly in what manner we came into possession of the information we shall communicate, and the authority on which it rests. We do hope that Mr. Stewart will yet favour us with the assistance which we have expected from him; and we are perfectly satisfied that nothing will prevent it but his want of health. Should he fail, however, we are now prepared to go on with the investigation by ourselves; using the verbal information which we have already received from him, in connexion with that obtained from Mr.Loomis. Nor shall any thing pre vent this, but the want of health on

our part. The sacred cause of Christian missions is concerned, and it is our determination, so far as we are able, to vindicate this cause; and to lay open, without fear or favour, the sources of that unchristian and deadly hostility, by which it has been, and still continues to be assailed.

In our present number we shall insert what we consider as decisive proof, that the charges brought against the missionaries have been utterly false and groundless; and we shall afterwards examine, in some detail, the specifications and insinuations contained in the British Quarterly Review.

In the Boston Daily Advertiser was first inserted the following address, or appeal, of the missionaries at the Sandwich Islands; introduced by a note from the corresponding secretary of the American Board of Commissioners the board by which those missionaries were originally sent out, and by which they are still supported. We quote the whole

from the Boston Recorder and Telegraph of the 22d of June.

SANDWICH ISLANDS.

SIR-The Rev. C. S. Stewart, late a missionary at the Sandwich Islands, now in Boston, this morning received a circular letter, issued from the mission press at those islands, and distributed freely among foreigners resident there, and occasional visiters. I send the document herewith, and request that you would insert it in your next paper. I would ask permission to introduce it by one or two

observations.

There have been not a few insinuations, of late, that the missionaries at the Sandwich Islands have interfered with subjects which did not belong to them, and that they were doing no good to the natives. These things are very often asserted on the spot, much in the same way as it is often said among ourselves, that religion does no good in our own country, and that all profession of religion is hypocrisy The assertion is entitled to equal credit in both cases.

The circular was designed to meet the principal allegations against the mission, without formally quoting and refuting them; and is signed by men who hold themselves responsible to the world for

every word they have written. The six first signers are ordained missionaries, who embrace within the circle of their of our colleges, the professors of our personal acquaintance, several presidents highest theological seminaries, probably more than five hundred among our most respectable clergymen, and many thou

sands among our most respectable citizens.

Mr. Chamberlain is the superintendent of secular concerns. He went from Boston, where he is known to the members of several of our churches, and to many others. Mr. Ruggles is a teacher of youth, formerly of Brookfield, Con. whose labours have been very useful on the island of Tauai (or Atooi). This reference to the acquaintances of the missionaries is made for the purpose of enabling any man, who is ignorant of their character, to satisfy himself as to the degree of reliance which may be placed upon their representations.

I am, Sir, yours respectfully,

JEREMIAH EVARTS, Cor. Sec. of the A. B. C. F. M.

Boston, June 15, 1827.

SANDWICH ISLANDS, Oct. 3, 1826. To the Friends of Civilization and Chris

tianity.

Whereas differences of opinion have arisen respecting the objects and operations of this mission, we feel it incumbent

on us to state publickly the ends at which we aim, the means which we use to accomplish them, and the effects actually produced by our various operations.

The general object of the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Mis. sions, was early stated to the publick to be, lands, by supporting missionaries, and dif"To propagate the Gospel in heathen fusing a knowledge of the holy scriptures." In the year 1812, the legislature of Massachusetts gave their legal sanction to this object, and made a forfeiture of the funds of the Board, the penalty for unfaithfulness in the prosecution

of it.

mittee of said Board, to their different The instructions of the Prudential Commissionaries, have developed in full, the particulars of the object, which was only expressed in general terms in the act of incorporation.

the members of this mission, were given in The instructions and charge given to publick, and have been widely circulated for the inspection of the world. In these we are commanded to "aim at nothing short of covering these islands with fruitful fields and pleasant dwellings, and

• More properly a forfeiture of the charter.