We turn now to the subject of religion. Our readers are, we presume, prepared for some curious disclosures under this head. Miss Martineau declares herself a Unitarian. (Vol. II., p. 354.) It is not easy to understand, from her book, what her religious opinions really are. Her definition of religion we have in the following passage:

"Religion is, in its widest sense, 'the tendency of human nature to the Infinite;' and its principle is manifested in the pursuit of perfection in any direction whatever. It is in this widest sense, that some speculative atheists have been religious men; religious in their efforts after self-perfection, though unable to personify their conception of the Infinite. In a somewhat narrower sense, religion is the relation which the highest human sentiments bear towards an infinitely perfect Being.

"There can be no further narrowing than this. Any account of religion, which restricts it within the boundaries of any system, which connects it with any mode of belief, which implicates it with hope of reward or fear of punishment, is low and injurious, and debases religion into superstition.-Vol. II., pp. 314, 315.

This definition is rather shadowy and unintelligible; but if it is correct, then, of course, the "pursuit of perfection" in the art of rope-dancing is religion. The French atheists professed to be unable to believe that there is a God; and their creed was quite pure from any tincture of a "hope of reward," or "fear of punishment." They may, nevertheless, according to Miss Martineau's theory, have been very religious men. They, too, disliked the bondage of matrimony; and they pursued and reached a high degree of "perfection" in the licentious practices to which such notions lead.

that

It is quite in character, that Miss M. should speak with bitter scorn of "the insanity of camp meetings and revivals." (Vol. II., p. 333.) She says, that woman "has liberty to get her brain turned by religious excitements." (Vol. II., p. 227.) She calls Boston the "head quarters of cant," and asserts, all the houses of worship, and even the other public buildings, are guarded by the dragon of bigotry, so that even faith, hope and charity are turned back from the doors." (Vol. II., p. 326.) This is a somewhat sweeping judgment. There is, however, one cheering symptom in Boston. "A large building is about to be erected for the use of all, deists not excepted, who may desire to meet for the purposes of free discussion."

Miss M. thinks that there is not much true religion in the United States. Though there is an "almost universal profes

sion of the adoption of Christianity," there is, she charitably adds, "no evading the conviction, that it is, to a vast extent, a monstrous superstition that is thus embraced." She speaks more favorably of the Catholics than of most other denominations. "The Presbyterians preach a harsh, ascetic, persecuting religion; the Catholics dispense a mild and indulgent one.” (Vol. II., p. 323.) She thinks, that there is very little freedom of opinion in America; for there would else be "an adoption by many of the principles of natural religion otherwise than in and through Christianity."

Miss Martineau very naturally thinks missions among the Indians useless. She visited Mackinaw, and she describes with enthusiasm the beauty of the scenery. She, apparently, had no desire to see any of the missionaries there, and she evidently knows nothing of the real state of the mission; yet she ventures to say:

"There is reason to think, that the mission is the least satisfactory part of the establishment on this island. A great latitude of imagination or representation is usually admitted on the subject of missions to the heathen. The reporters of this one appear to be peculiarly imaginative. I fear, that the common process has here been gone through, of attempting to take from the savage the venerable and the true, which he possessed, and to force upon him something else, which is to him neither venerable nor true."—Vol. I., p. 282.

The meaning here seems to be, that the Indian is safer and happier in his savage state, than with the gospel, as taught by the missionaries. With her views of religion, this is not strange; but no travellers among the Indians, except such brilliant dreamers as Chateaubriand, have discovered any thing either "venerable" or "true" in the vague superstitions of the poor savages. Perhaps Miss Martineau derived her information about missions from some philanthropic white trader, who found the missionaries inconvenient obstacles to his "pursuit of perfection" in the art of cheating the Indians.

Miss Martineau does not deal wholly in abstractions. She gives two or three examples of her beau ideal of a Christian. One of them is the case of a poor girl, who, having been abandoned by her seducer to die with the cholera, refused to disclose his name. This, in our author's estimation, was a most sublime act of virtue! She believes, that the "very spirit of the gospel was in this humble creature,” and that 66 none but those who would dare to cast her out for her fall

would feel any anxiety as to how she received the facts of the gospel." (Vol. II., pp. 327, 328.) That is, the mere fact, that she would not name her betrayer, a refusal which might have sprung from various motives, is a proof that she was an excellent Christian, whether she believed, or not, "the facts of the gospel." Now, the New Testament makes a right reception of the facts of the gospel indispensable to salvation, wherever the Bible is known. "He that believeth not

is condemned already." John 3: 18.

Our author is a great enemy to superstition. She pities us for our narrow Puritan ideas about the sanctity of the Sabbath. She is indignant, that the youths in Boston have been taught, that it is wrong to ride into the country for amusement on the Sabbath. She sneers at the clergy for their superstitious weakness, in refraining from dancing and playing cards. She would not, it is evident, blame them for attending the theatre; though she thinks them excusable for abstaining, because this "grand means of intellectual exercise," as she calls it, (Vol. II., p. 343), is deplorably degraded here. It does not appear, that she has any objections to the drama, as it is exhibited in the great theatres in England, where the "freest moral action" is said, on good authority, to be enjoyed in its perfection.

Of the clergy, Miss Martineau speaks, in the common infidel tone of hostility and contempt. She thinks, that it is owing to superstition, that "an ecclesiastical profession still exists." (Vol. II., p. 365.) She declares, that the clerical profession is opposed to the spirit of the gospel," and cannot "outlive long the individual research into religion, to which the faults of the clergy are daily impelling the people." She says:

My final impression is, that religion is best administered in America by the personal character of the most virtuous members of society, out of the theological profession; and next, by the acts and preachings of the members of that profession who are the most secular in their habits of mind and life. The exclusively clerical are the worst enemies of Christianity, except the vicious."-Vol. II., P. 364.

The most heinous fault of the clergy, in the estimation of Miss Martineau, seems to be, that they generally attend to their own business, and mingle very little in political and other excitements. She accordingly charges them with a want of moral courage, and with the guilt of treacherously concealing unpopular truths. We believe this charge to be-we had al

most said—a scandalous libel. The American clergy have never been wanting in the spirit of bold, self-sacrificing devotion to duty. The temperance reform would have been impossible, if the clergy had not borne it onward. The American revolution could not have been triumphantly carried through, if the ministers of the gospel had not, by their prayers, and their spirit-stirring appeals, breathed new courage into desponding hearts, and kept alive, on a thousand altars, the flame of patriotism.

But we cannot spend more time in examining this bold and perverse book. Its career of mischief must be short. It will soon take its place in that Limbo, to which many preceding books of travels in America have been consigned. We wish Miss Martineau well. May she live to renounce her errors, and repair, by future services to truth, the evil which she has done! May it be long, before another English radical shall come over, to reform our political institutions; a mature spinster, to instruct our wives and mothers; a deaf woman to criticise our orators, and a freethinker to teach us religion !

EDITOR.

ARTICLE VIII.

PRINCIPLES OF TRANSLATION.

THE recent measures of the British and Foreign Bible Society, and of the American Bible Society, in relation to the versions of the Scriptures made by Baptist missionaries, have turned the attention of many persons to the principles on which translations ought to be made. This subject will, we think, gradually force itself on the public mind. It is one of great importance, and it may be one of the beneficial results of the discussions which have arisen, that right principles will be adopted by all who shall be engaged in the responsible work of giving the word of God to the heathen. It seems to be impossible, that serious Christians can entertain essentially different opinions on the subject. The principles which the Baptists maintain, and on which their missionaries act, in rela

tion to translations, are so manifestly just, so fully in harmony with reason, with sound canons of criticism, and with the fundamental maxims and policy of Protestants, that they cannot fail to secure, in due time, the concurrence of all Christians. Sectarian feelings cannot long pervert the views and mislead the practice of those who are sincerely engaged in spreading the glorious gospel over the earth.

With a view to aid in diffusing light on this subject, we propose, in this article, to present extracts from several documents. Some of our readers have already seen them in other publications; but they, we presume, will be gratified with having them recorded in a permanent form on our pages.

Some doubts have been expressed respecting the practice of Dr. Carey and his coadjutors at Serampore. The following extract of a letter from the Rev. Mr. Yates to the Rev. Dr. Sharp will settle this question. The letter is dated Calcutta, Sept. 12, 1836:

"Your first query is, Did the Serampore missionaries, from the first, in their early translations of the Scriptures, translate or transfer the words baptizo, &c.? They translated them. I have seen their first and their last edition, and in each the word is translated. I have been a reader of their versions now for three and twenty years, and I have never seen one yet in which the word is not translated.

"Next, If they translated, was it by a word which signified exclusively to immerse? It was. The word used by Dr. Carey was doob, which has no other meaning than that of dipping.

"Thirdly, Have they never varied from the first to the present time? I may confidently say, never. Attempts were made by individuals to induce Dr. Carey to alter and transfer the term. To whom he gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour.

"Lastly, Was it a matter of controversy between them and the Episcopalians? Mrs. Y. having been at Serampore from the commencement of the mission there, I have inquired of her, and she informs me, that previous to my arrival in the country, there were frequent discussions on the subject between them and Mr. Brown, the clergyman at the mission church. I am inclined, however, to think, that these discussions were rather about translating than transferring the word; for since that time, the Episcopalians have translated the word,-Thomason in his Arabic, and Martin in his Hindostanee and Persian versions. With the exception of one version, made by a gentleman who understood neither Latin nor Greek, it is a well-known fact, that every version, by every denomination here, had the word translated. With one solitary exception, therefore, the present resolution of the Bible Society will be the undoing of all that has been done from the beginning by all parties! When I was in England, after my visit to America, Mr. Hughes conversed with me on the subject, and wrote also upon it to Dr. Carey. In

VOL. II.-NO. VIII.

76