did say, a single word to the prejudice of Dr. Griesbach's good name as a scholar and a critic. Did we not on the contrary speak of him as an honest man and a rigid critic? What higher commendation could his warmest admirers bestow upon him? But we did say, what we believe we may repeat, that it was possible his mind might be somewhat biassed on some points, and in particular that he might sometimes by reason of the common infirmity of our nature, forget that the manuscripts of the Scripture were prepared for a very different end than that noble one to which he and others have applied them. The reference which the Translator makes to Dr. Griesbach in the paragraph preceding that which we have quoted, is rather an unhappy one. Can the Translator tell us why it was that in the first edition of his New Testament Dr. G. gave the reading cos in 1 Tim. iii. 16, and altered it in his second edition into is? We do not profess to give a reason for the change, but we have at least heard Unitarians claim Dr. G. as a partizan on the ground of the alteration; while we have heard Trinitarians lament that in this instance at least he had merged the Critic in the Theologian.

We must confess that in writing the remarks referred to by the Translator we did not remember the injunction "Thou shalt not cook the calf in the milk of his mother," nor are we able even now it has been suggested to us to see its applicability to the matter in hand. We have thought of various interpretations and applications of it, but cannot satisfy ourselves with any of them. Does the Translator mean to compare Dr. Griesbach to a calf? But if so, then what is the archetype of the milk? or what of the cow his mother? The Translator may have had some idea attached to his words, when he made use of them, and of course he is not bound to furnish us with powers of understanding or imagination to apprehend the application of his tropes. But further on this subject, where did the Translator find this injunction? In what scripture? We deny that there is any such injunction contained in Scripture from Genesis to Revelation. Such a loose mode of quoting, and such a perversity in applying Scripture we deeply regret to see manifested by one who bears the honoured name of a Translator of the word of God.

Next to this comes the paragraph in which is pointed out our error in representing John v. 4, as one of the passages omitted in the translation. We have already referred to this error, and have expressed our unfeigned regret at its occurrence. We wish not now to qualify in the slightest degree that expression of regret. On the contrary, if we have not previously made the admission, we are willing now to make it, that the

mistake into which we fell was a culpable one. But we cannot agree in our Translator's opinion that the committal of this mistake vitiates either the whole of our former article or any portion of the present. Would the Translator not have deemed it cruel and unchristian if we had said that his letter and all that he may ever say or write hereafter is and will be vitiated by his declaring that to be Scripture which is not Scripture, and inferentially stating that that is the meaning of Scripture which is not the meaning of Scripture? The Translator might well have complained if we had done so, and we should have had cause to complain of ourselves if we had allowed ourselves so to belie our starting declaration, that our rule is to speak the truth in love.

The Translator seems to rest much on the authority of Drs. Tholuck and Olshausen. These are names which from our childhood we have been accustomed to hear with respect and admiration. The former especially is associated in our mind with the idea of all that is valiant in piety. And were the point at issue between us one regarding the grand doctrines or duties of the gospel we should have lamented grievously to find ourselves on the opposite side from these good, and learned and truly great men. But on such points as that at issue between the Translator and us, we feel less reluctance to differ with these respected men. One who writes, as Dr. Tholuck has done in his commentary on the Romans, such a sentence as the following, is not to be brought forward as a very high authority regarding the inspiration of any passage: "Whosoever (says he on Rom. i. 14) is inclined to seek in outward occasions the cause of a negligent construction, (the only source of which however was undoubtedly the liveliness of the Apostle's character) may imagine that Paul was here called away, and that upon resuming his pen, he supposed that he had began a new sentence with xa0ws!" We bless God that Tholuck is what he is, and that he has been enabled to do what he has done, but we must not forget that he too is a man.

Of Dr. Olshausen's history we do not know so much, but it is somewhat remarkable that just two or three days before the Translator's letter was printed, we met with the following passage in a translation of one his writings: "Some will rejoice not a little, if they seem to themselves to have made out, at least with some plausibility, the spuriousness of nearly all the sacred books: others fear lest the least trace of suspicion should attach to any the least book of the New Testament, as if the foundations of Christianity depended on the integrity of the New Testament, which, notwithstanding, flourished gloriously when the New Testament canon was not in existence." Now

is a man who virtually states that there is no occasion for very much exertion to preserve the integrity of the New Testament, since Christianity flourished gloriously in the days of the Apostles before the New Testament was written at all-is this the man whose authority is to be much set by as to the genuineness of any passage in the inspired gospel? What is it to him whether John's gospel contains 13 verses less or more? Christianity flourished gloriously when John's gospel was not in existence !

It is an ungracious task thus to make abatements from the character of men whom we so highly esteem. Besides we are of opinion that, while the Translator in several places quotes the very words of these commentators, he has unintentionally failed, by being under the necessity of greatly abridging their remarks, to give a correct idea of the general spirit of their remarks.

We think any one reading the Translator's account of the sentiments of Drs. Tholuck and Olshausen would suppose them to have decided unconditionally against the passage in question. Now we apprehend that the only point on which they are completely agreed, is that the passage does not stand in its proper place; but we do not think Tholuck denies that it is of evangelical deliverance," while Olshausen gives full weight to many of the arguments in favour of the passage, though he thinks that the arguments of a contrary kind are stronger.

66

The Translator asserts that the Roman law was not applied to Judea at this time, and therefore that death by stoning, the punishment awarded by the law of Moses to certain classes of adulterers, might have been inflicted by the Sanhedrin with consent of the Roman procurator. On this point we beg to refer our readers to Lardner's Credibility, Part I. Chap. 2.

We must hasten to a conclusion, and shall therefore only further call attention as briefly as possible to a few sentences and expressions in the letter of the Translator.

"I cannot possibly divest myself of the pleasing idea that our opinion is just as good as his." See Rom. xii. 10, last clause, and I Cor. viii. 2.

"Christians belonging to the Roman Catholic and Greek Churches will not use Protestant versions. So none can be made at present for the universal church." Where did the Translator learn the phrase "the Roman Catholic Church?" It was not in Scripture.

As to the postscript to the Translator's letter, we think it better to make no remarks. In our estimation it had better never been published, containing as it does an unprovoked attack upon a body of Missionaries; and doing any thing, as it seems to us, rather than speaking the truth in love.

T. S.

IV.-Short description of the Netherlands' Territory on the West Coast of Sumatra, 1837.

BOUNDARIES, DIVISION AND POPULATION.

(Continued from page 209.)

In a former number we considered the districts of the northern division, we shall now enumerate those of the central division. They consist of,

1. Tiekoo, divided into two districts Mongoppo and Gragahan. This district is governed by one Raja and five Panghooloos, and contains altogether a population of about 4,000 souls. We have our northern possessions in this division. This place has the advantage of a good harbour for ships and small craft, which may safely anchor here at about a mile from the shore and be sheltered from all winds, with a good strand which is easily approached. It is also very well situated for communication with the interior.

2. Danauw, consisting of ten districts, named the six and four Cottas, with ten principal and a great number of inferior chiefs, and a population of about 10,000 souls.

3. Duablas Cottas, otherwise named the Tiegalooras, ampat dengan Gassang, has a population of about 8,000 souls and is governed by three Orang kayas-(one of whom is appointed by the government,) sixteen chief Panghooloos, many lesser Panghooloos and Orang kayas.

4.

Lima Cottas has a population of about 4,000 souls, and is governed by one Raja and six Panghooloos.

5. Siekara di Ooloo, or Barras, or also Mangong, has a population of about 1,000 souls, and is governed by one Raja and six Panghooloos. The above named five provinces make a separate division, which is named by the natives Tiega Sare, ampat dengan Mangong. Here follows another division named Lima Tumpoo, consisting of the following districts.

6. Priaman with a population of about 2,000 souls, has one Raja and six Panghooloos. We have here our second possession in the interior of the central division.

7. Tudjoo Cotta with a population of about 6,000 souls, has one Raja, one Pamontja and six Panghooloos.

8. Ulahkan, with about 1,500 souls, has one Raja, four Orang Tooas, and six Panghooloos. The Raja of this province has, through the influence of the government, obtained some degree of authority over the following minor provinces, namely:

Soonoor, having one Raja, one Pamontja, six Panghooloos and a population of about 800 souls.

Cooretaday, with one Raja one Pamontja, six Panghooloos, and a population of about 1,500 souls.

Pacomca, having one Raja, six Panghooloos, and a population of about 250 souls.

Bentungan Tengy, having one Raja, six Panghooloos, and a population of about 200 souls.

Toba, having one Raja, six Panghooloos, and a population of about 800 souls.

Tapakie, having one Raja, four Orang tooas and five Panghooloos, with a population of about 800 souls.

Sugel Labong, with one Pamontja, six Panghooloos, and a population of about 600 souls.

Kapalla Cotta, with four Panghooloos and a population of about 500 souls.

9. Pakandangan or negen Cottas, is under the authority of one Orang kaya, with a populatiou of about 4,000 souls. It has some degree of supremacy over the following minor provinces:

Gade with four Panghooloos; Cottamerape with seven Panghooloos ; Pariet Melintong with six Panghooloos; Sungie Assam with five Panghooloos; Looloopadang with five Panghooloes; Tooboo Betooa with five Panghooloos; Cheencheen of Kopalla Illayang with eleven Panghooloos, with a population of about 2,000 souls; Cayoo Tanam de Ooloo and de Lelier with eleven Panghooloos and a population of 2,000 souls.

10. Sintoo Lubawalong has twelve Panghooloos, with a population of about 2,000 souls.

11. Padang, where the seat of the Residency is established, has one Twankoo Pangaliema (governor), one Bandhara and seven Panghooloos, who rule over the following provinces, namely:

Nangallo with six Panghooloos; Nan Dupuloo with twenty Panghooloos; Lima Mamis with five Panghooloos; Looboo Kielangan with six Panghooloos; Bungoos with ten Panghooloos; Tiendakie with one chief and four Panghooloos; Tellok Cacang with one chief and four Panghooloos. This whole territory, including the capital, has a population of about 1,400 souls.

12. Pau has fourteen Panghooloos, who are named nan Sambelan and nan Lima, in consequence of a separation which exists in the government of this province: it is bounded in the interior by Tiegablas Cottas, and has a population of about 4,000 souls.

13. Cotta Tenga situated between Pau and Padang, has ten Panghooloos and a population of about 3,000 souls. The chiefs of this province exercise supremacy over the neighbouring minor province named Gas

ang.

14. Trupan has one Raja and four Panghooloos, who exercise supremacy over the following minor provinces, viz. Baroong Maloonte with eight Panghooloos; Sie Guntoor with one chief and four Panghooloos; having together a population of about 4,000 souls. Now follow the provinces which are under the jurisdiction of the postholder of Pula Chinko, named the Sapooloo Boo Bangohar.

15. Boyang with fifteen Panghooloos and a population of 2,500 souls. 16. Saliedo with one Raja and eight Panghooloos, who exercise supremacy over the following minor provinces, viz. Tambaugan with one Raja and four Panghooloos; Saliedo kicheel with one Raja and four Panghooloos, having together a population of about 2,000 souls.

17. Pagnan has one Raja and three Panghooloos, and a population of about 3,000 souls.

18. Battang kappé or Delapan Cotta has 35 Panghooloos, of which four are principal and 31 inferior; population 3,000 souls.

19. Tallo has one Kapala, and four Panghooloos; population about 500 souls.

20. Taratta has seven Panghooloos, and a population of about 500 souls.

21. Sierantie has one Raja, seven Panghooloos and a population of about 1000 souls.

22. Priangpara or Ampingpara with one Raja, four Panghooloos, and a population of about 500 souls.

23. Kambang or Simbalan Cotta has one Raja, four Panghooloos, and a population of about 2500 souls.

24. Palanyai has one Raja and four Panghooloos; and a population of about 200 souls.

25. Sungie Toonoo has four Panghooloos, and a population of about 2,500 souls.