by Isqúf (a corruption of Bishop), and 1 Pet. ii. 25, again by Nigahbán.

3. Alákovos, Deacon, he has translated in most places by Khadim, but in John ii. 9, by Chákar, 1 Cor. iii. 5, by Khidmat karnewálá, Gal. ii. 17, by Sabab; in the important passages of 1 Tim. iii. 8, 12, which refer to the official character of Deacons, by Khidmat karnewále!

4. Пpeo BUT Epos, Elder, he has translated in Matthew v. 2, by Mutaqaddim; in Luke vii. 3, Acts xi. 30, 1 Tim. v. 1, 2, 17, 19, Tit. i. 5, 1 Pet. v. 5, Revel. iv. 4, v. 5, 6, 8, 11, 14, vii. 11, 13, xiv. 3, xix. 4, by Buzurg; in Acts xiv. 23, xv. 2, 4, 6, 22, 23, xvi. 4, xx. 17, xxi. 18, xxiii. 14, xxv. 15, by Peshwȧ; John viii. 9, Acts ii. 17, by Burhá, and James v. 14, and 1 Pet. v. 1, by Qasis; in all other places by Masháikh.

Пper Buréptov, he has translated in Luke xxii. 66; Acts xxii. 5, by Mashaikh; 1 Tim. iv. 14, by the plural of Qasis.

Thus he has called the presbyters of the Jews' synagogue by three names, viz. Mutaqaddím, Buzurg and Mashaikh; and the Presbyters of the Christian Church also by three names, viz. Buzurg, Peshwá and Qasís!

II. Mr. Bowley's translation of the Gospel of Mark and John. Published by the Calcutta Auxiliary Bible Society, and to be had at their Depository.

I have the highest respect for Mr. Bowley's Missionary character. He has done more for the Hindustání language by his translations of tracts and books than any other man. The whole Missionary body in Hindustán is under the highest obligation to him. He first opposed the pedantry of the Hindustání style and wrote such easy Hindustání as to be understood by all, for which he was once greatly abused by all parties, but he remained firm. His version of Mark and John is good, but some of the terms are very objectionable. He has translated ¡epov and vaòs, temple, by Girjá, the Portuguese Igréjá, which according to Shakespear is a corruption of EKKλnoía; lepeus, priest, by the Portuguese or Roman Catholic term of Pádrí, i. e. Father, from the Latin Pater; apxiepevs, the high-priest of the Jews by Sardár (w, head and affix dár, headman, chief), Pádrí, literally, the headman or chief of the Fathers, which in the language of the Portuguese or Roman Catholics of India means the Pope of Rome, but the Natives of Hindustán do not apply it to that individual ; πρεσβυτερος by Buzurg, Elder ; γραμματευς by Likhnewálá, writer or Scribe.

Here is a specimen of the Version from Mark xiv. 53.

Tab we I'sá ko Sardár Pádrí ke pás, jáhán sab Sardár Pádrí aur Buzurg jama the, le gae. Aur Patras dúr dúr us ke píchhe píchhe Sardár Pádrí ke ghar men áyá, aur naukaron ke sáth baithke ág tápne lagá. Tab Sardár Pádrí aur sári majlis qatl karne ko Isá par gawáhí dhundhte the, par na páí. Agarchi bahuton ne us par jhúthí gawáhí dí, par un kí gawáhíán na miltí thí. Tab bázon ne uthke us par yih jhúthí gawábí dí ki Ham ne use kahte suná ki Main háth ke banáe húe is Girjá ko dháúngá, aur tín din men ek dusre ko baghair háth se khaṛá karúngá. Us par bhí unkí gawábí na milí. Tab Sardár Pádrí ne bích men khará hoke use púchhá, &c.

Here is a literal and faithful English version of the above in which I have deviated from the authorized translation as little as possible.

"Then they led Jesus away to the Chief Father, with whom were assembled all the Chief Fathers and Elders and Scribes. And Peter followed him afar off, even into the house of the Chief Father: and he sat with the servants and warmed himself at the fire. And the Chief Father and all the council sought for witness against Jesus to put him to death; and found none. For many bare false witness against him, but their witness agreed not together. And there arose certain and bare false witness against him saying, 'We have heard him say, I will pull down this Church that is made with hands, and within three days, without hands, establish another.' But neither so did their witness agree together. Then the Chief Father arising in their midst asked him," &c.

III. The Gospel of Luke and the Acts translated by "the Banáras Translation Committee." Published by the Calcutta Auxiliary Bible Society, and to be had at their Depository.

This Committee was formed about five years' ago, and originally composed of Messrs. Buyers, Mather, Shurman, of the London Society; of Messrs. Smith, Leupolt and the late Mr. Knorpp of the Church Mission; of Mr. Smith of the Baptist Mission, at Banáras; of Mr. . Bowley at Chunár, and Mr. Start at Patna. Mr. Bowley, Mr. Smith, of the Baptist Mission, and all the Missionaries of the London Society* at Banaras have withdrawn, and Mr. Start, I believe, has not joined it again since his return from England, but I cannot speak positively on this point. The correspondence in the name of the "Banaras Translation Committee" is, I believe, carried on at present by the Church Missionaries at Banáras and Mr. Mather, of Mirzapur, alone. In this version ἐκκλησιά and ἐπισκοπος are left untranslated. Πρεσβυτερος is translated Buzurg when it refers to the Jews' synagogue, and left untranslated when it refers to the Christian Church. This is very objectionable. In every able treatise on Church Government these questions are discussed. I. Was the Government of the Apostolic Church, taken from the synagogue? II. Was the office of a Presbyter in the synagogue corresponding to that of a Presbyter in the Church? III. Was the office of a bishop different from that of a presbyter, or do both terms denote one and the same office, the one being more consonant to the mode of speaking among the Jewish converts, and the other more consonant to the mode of speaking among the genuine Greek and Gentile converts? I cannot discuss these questions in your Observer, nor will I even go so far as to express my own opinion for fear of transgressing your rules, and having my article sent back "bearing," and getting blamed on the cover of the Observer in your Editorial Notices; but so much I may venture to say, that in the discussion of these questions, the version of the Banaras Translation Committee" will not bear us out,-a reference to the Greek becomes necessary, which is very undesirable, and can easily be obviated by leaving the term in all places untranslated, as the Missionaries of the London Missionary Society at Banaras have done in their version of the New 3 Q

VOL. I.

86

Testament, or by translating it in all places as the Calcutta Baptist Missionaries have done in their translation of the New Testament.

There is, however, a more serious objection to this Banáras version. They have entirely obscured in the sixth Chapter of the Acts, the important institution of the diakovía in the Apostolic Church. They have determined to leave the terms of bishop and deacon untranslated when, in their opinion, they express certain offices, as in Phi. i. 1, in which verse the Apostle Paul greets the bishops and deacons of the Church. Now, as they in the Epistles will leave the term in some places untranslated, they ought, in my humble opinion, to have rendered the important passage in Acts vi. in which we read a detailed account of the institution and purporse of the diakovía as the Missionaries of the London Society at Banaras have done in their version, viz. "Aur un dinon men, jab shagird ziyáda hote the, Yúnání log Ibráníon se yih takrár karne lage, ki Tum log roz roz kí diyákúní men hamári bewon kí khabar nahin lete ho. Tab un bárah ne shágirdon kí jamaat ko ikaṭthe buláke kahá, ki Ham ko achchhá nahín lagtá ki Ķhudá ke kalám ko chhorke mezon kí diyákúní karen. So, ai bháo, tum áp men se sát muạtabar mard, jo Ruh i Quds aur dáuáí se bhare howen, chuno, ki ham unhen is kám par muqarrar karen; aur ham bandagi aur kalám kí diyákúní men mashghúl rahenge." In this version the institution and purpose of the diakovía in the Apostolic Church are as clearly expressed as in the original Greek. When in the Epistles of this translation instructions and exhortations are addressed to the deacons, every man, woman and child will know from this passage what the duties of the deacons were and are. No explanation, no interpretation, no expounding is necessary. Now "The Banáras Translation Committee" have used in this passage two Hindustání terms for the Greek diakorian namely, khabargirí and khidmat, and when they in the Epistles leave SIakovos untranslated, no reader will a possibly can know what the duties of his office were and are. Teachers of Christian Churches who adopt this version will be obliged to say, that, in the original Greek there is but one word for the two in the translation, namely, diakovía, which means the office and work of a deacon, and that the translation is obscure and wrong in this particular instance at least, and that this fact proves the desirableness, and even the necessity of studying the Greek language. But the translators of this version might say, We will translate in the Epistles diakovos by khádim, then this matter will be right." Not quite so. In this case they ought not to have khabargírí, and ought also to have translated ISKOTоs as the Baptist Missionaries have done in their version. All the terms referring to Church Government should be translated in an uniform manner in all places. I think the best plan is to translate all the words, and the best Hindustání terms, are, in my humble opinion, the following:

1. EKKAnoia, Hebrew, congregation, assembly, can in all places of the Old and New Testaments be translated by Jamáat. Bishop Anthony, of Agra, has in his Catechism of the Christian Religion, which is before me, invariably used Pák Kátuliki Jamáạt.

2.

Zvvaywyn, congregation, assembly; place or house of the assembly. It is synonymous with EKKAŋoid for which James ii. 2, uses it. It

can in all places be translated by Mahfil which means a meeting and a meeting-house.

3. Zvvedptov, session, council, can in all places be translated by Majlis.

bán.

4. ETIOKOTOS, Overseer, can in all places be translated by NigahIn the Khiradafroz and other native works, kings are addressed by this title, which is a certain proof, that those persons are in the wrong, who say that Nigáhbán means nothing but a common chokídár. 5. ELOKOTη, oversight, can in all places be translated by Nigáhbání.

6.

ETιokоTE, to oversee, can in all places be translated by Nigáhbání karná. 7. Alákovos, a servant who serves volantarily, can in all places be translated by Khádim.

8. Alakovía, service, can in all places be translated by Khidmat. Διακονέω, to serve, can in all places be rendered by Khidmat

9.

karná.

10. Прerẞurepos, elder, senior, can, I believe, in all places be translated by Buzurg.

11. ПpeσBUTEPLOV, an assembly of presbyters, can in all places, be translated by Buzurgon kí majlis, or by the plural of Buzurg.

12th June, 1840.

Yours,

CONCORDANCE.

VIII.-Notice of "An Abridgment of the History of Bengal, under British administration. By Chas. J. S. Montague." Calcutta, 1840.

There is no branch of unrevealed knowledge more practically useful than history, which as it has been said, furnishes the young with the experience of the old, and is, as it were, a compensation furnished by a merciful God for the boon of longevity which by our sin we have forfeited. This is clearly pointed out by the highest of all authority in the fact that the greater part of the inspired volume consists of narrative. After that history which God has selected to be written by his own inspiration, the history of our native land ought in fairness to occupy the next place in the historical department of a useful education, and therefore it is that, watching as we do with so intense an interest over every thing that is connected with the education of the people of this vast country, we do not like to allow any school-book to appear without at least a passing notice.

But there are reasons why the Natives of this country-(we use the term in a wider sense than is usual and include all whether aboriginal or not whose nativity has been placed and whose education is to be conducted in this land)-we say, there are reasons why the natives of this country should be made acquainted with its history which do not apply with the same force to the people of any country in the world. If we could afford an article we might well bestow it upon these reasons, but we must content ourselves with the most cursory glance at them.

British India is a conquered country. It is subject to a power whose seat and centre are far away, therefore it were not surprising that the people, exercising their human right of inquiry and discussion might imbibe a spirit of discontent and long for the chimerical restoration of their ancient native dynasties. But unlike almost any other conquest, that of India has been a great blessing to the people. They are governed as freemen and not as before as slaves; they are treated as subjects of a free government instead of being used as they were before as the serfs and vassals of capricious despots. How great then is the importance of letting this be actually known to them, so that instead of being deluded with the name of liberty and self-government, they may prize their privileges and honour their rulers, as indeed in the strictest sense ministers of God to them for good.

But further. The conquest and the retension of India by great Britain are phenomena of a class distinct from all others recorded in history. It is a standing miracle evidently produced by the finger of God for the sake of producing higher and greater ends than any that have yet been attained. Whether we look at the instruments by which it was achieved -a company of humble merchants; or whether we consider the mode in which our eastern possessions were forced upon us, we must come to the conclusion that there was from first to last a high and mysterious providence at work in order to give Christian Britain so vast a moral influence over idolatrous and degraded India. Let all this be taught to the natives of the country, and let them be accustomed to reflect upon it and it will, by the blessing of God, operate most powerfully to wean them from their superstitious prejudices and cause them to cease their opposition to that mighty enterprise which Heaven designs to accomplish by the subjugation of India to the British sceptre. Let each native be accustomed to look upon it not only in the gross but with a personal application to himself. Let him be led to think that this has been done, that thrones have been overturned and ancient dynasties overthrown in order that from day to day the gospel might be preached without let or hindrance to me: so let him be taught to consider his own personal conversion to Christianity as actually a matter dictated by the finger of Providence, as well as the word of inspiration and the warm appeals of the gospel. Thus again we see the vast importance of making the History of India a branch of our scholastic course.

Mr. Montague has a formidable competitor for the countenance of the Teaching community in Mr. Marshman, whose History of Bengal and other school books, have been so extensively used in India. As we do not think these books by any means the best possible, we are glad of any thing that may have the effect of producing emulation and in the end furnishing one good book. Before Mr. Montague, however, can compete with Mr. Marshman, he must labour hard to attain correctness and simplicity of diction, accuracy of narration, and soundness of inference. If we might offer him any advice we would venture to suggest that the value of the book as a school book would not be diminished by the omission of the concluding Essay. We have no doubt that if a second edition of the work be called for, the author profiting by the strictures of our contemporaries and our own kindly hints, will render it a much better book in many respects than it is now. As it is, it is a respectable compilation.

T. S.