Editors in printing the word GoD in roman characters. They saw, would he have said, that the word God was wanting in the original. They saw more. They saw that by printing it in roman letters, their readers would be made to believe that the word God was a part of the original text, and thus the coment of the lowest and most illiterate of the Socinians shall be taken as forming a part of the original of the New Testament. This transcends Popery itself. This wilful corruption of the sacred text can only proceed from the Christ-denying apostates of Essex Street, whose missionaries preach up unbelief as essential to salvation. Where will you find any thing to compare with this in King James's translators? This is forging Scripture with a witness. It is not only inventing a translation for the text but a text for the translation. Such no doubt would have been the strain of the learned Dean's indignant invective, had the translation of the Primate been that of the Editors, and the translation of the Editors that of the Primate. But as Primates can seldom, if ever, do wrong, so it should seem that these unfortunate Editors can never do right. In the last clause of the text, the Primate's Version reads, "Much MORE we shall NOT escape, if we reject him WHO WAS from heaven."For which the Improved Version reads, “much LESS shall we escape if we reject him SPEAKING from heaven." This variation should have been acknowledged in the notes, especially, as by supplying the ellipsis differently, a considerable diversity is created in the sense. The original is, "him from heaven." The Primate by supplying the words, "who was," supposes a reference to Christ. The Improved Version supplying the word "speaking," and the Public Version, him who speaketh," refer the action to God, who formerly spoke on earth when he delivered the law to Moses: but who under the new dispensation speaks from heaven by the gifts and powers of the holy spirit. I shall now briefly recapitulate the facts produced by the Dean as far as they are substantiated by evidence, that the reader may judge how far they support the charge of fraud, of falsehood and of faithlessness, so vehemently urged by the Dean against the Editors of the Improved Version. 1. Luke i. 35. For, "THE Son of God," as it stands in Newcome, the Editors of the Improved Version have without acknowledgment substituted, "A Son of God." 2. John i. 12. For, "POWER TO BECOME children of God," the Editors have substituted, "AUTHORITY TO BE, &c." 3. John . 13. For, "the Son of. man who WAS in heaven," the Editors adhere to the Public Version [who 13 in heaven] including the word in brackets, without proper authority and without any acknow ledgment. 4. Rom. ix. 5. Newcome reads." "of whom AS CONCERNING THE FLESH Christ came:" for which, and without acknowledgment the Im proved Version substitutes, “of whom, BY NATURAL DESCENT, &c." Newcome 5. 2 Cor. viii. 9. Newcome reads with the Public Version, “ that THOUGH he was rich yet for your sakes he BECAME poor:" for which, and without any notice of the variation, the Improved Version substi tutes, "that WHILE he was rich he LIVED IN POVERTY." 6. Heb. xii. 25, 26. reads, If those escaped not who refused him THAT uttered THE ORACLES OF GOD on earth," for which the Improved Version substitutes, “ wHEN he uttered ORACLES on earth."-Newcome reads, " much MORE we shall NOT escape." The Improved Version substitutes, “much LESS shall we escape."-Newcome reads, "if we reject him WHO WAS from heaven:" the Improved Version substitutes, "if we reject him SPEAKING from heaven." Such is the prodigions birth_of which this labouring mountain after all its mighty and portentous throes has been at last delivered. The Editors of the Improved Verion profess wherever they deviate from the Primate's text, to mark the variation in their notes and to insert the Primate's words. This promise they have, generally speaking, fulfilled. whatever care they might take, they could not flatter themselves that they were exempted from oversights, or that in every instance they should escape from error. But Out of many 3 hundreds of texts, six instances of unacknowledged variation have, by the sagacity and industry of the Dean of Cork, been brought to light and these of comparatively little importance. And yet, upon these six cases, the Very Reverend dignitary has founded a grave and solemn charge of fraud and falsehood and faithlessness against the Editors of the Improved Version, and this charge he has prosecuted with unparalleled vehemence and malignity through an octavo volume of several hundred pages closely printed, and dressed out with no small display of critical erudition. It is hard to be lieve that the Dean himself can be serious in alleging charges so grave, upon a foundation so frivolous. But whether he is serious or not in alleg ing them, it is impossible that any individual in the united kingdom, man, woman or child, who possesses an atom of common sense, can be serious in giving credit to them, or can hesitate to treat them with the most sovereign and superlative contempt. It is true that the Very Reverend accuser is pleased to allege, p. 481, that he has selected "but very few specimens out of the number that might be adduced :" and p. 693, that "examples abound of a quality yet more insidious and dishonest." The Editors are duly sensible of their obligation to the Dean of Cork, for his great lenity and forbearance, that half his strength he put not forth, but checked his thunder in mid volley. They disdain however to avail themselves of his condescension. Out of the many hundreds of variations which occur in the Improved Version, it is possible that through inadvertence, surely not wholly unpardonable, many other omissions may have taken place, almost as important as those selected by the Dean. But they defy him, with his utmost industry, stimulated by his utmost malice, to produce a single passage to which the charges of "insidious and dishonest" can be justly applied. They know the Dean of Cork too well, to give implicit credit to his professions of forbearance. And they entertain no doubt, that if by any means he could have discovered a single text in the Improved Version, which by the art and venom of his criticism could have been distorted to a signification more offensive to his readers, and more dis. reputable to the Editors, than any which he has already produced, he would have seized it with eagerness, and would have presented it to his admirers as the tonne lunche of his savoury repast. It may then be fairly concluded, that the six passages wh have been se lected from the Improved Version, are the most vulnerable which the industry and sagacity of the learned dignitary could discover. And surely it is no mean attestation to the attention and fidelity of the Editors of that work, that their most active, persevering and inveterate opponent, after having sat down to the investigation, for the express purpose of exposing the work and its Editors to the indignation and contempt of all good men, should be able to find no better foundation for his gross and unqualified charges of falsehood, dishonesty, and dishonourable violation of their word and promise, than what is contained in these six passages. This indirect and involuntary testimony to the character of the Editors, extorted so unwillingly from an enemy, and from such an enemy, cannot but be peculiarly gratifying to them, and must eminently contribute to raise the character of the work in the estimation of the public, which, after having already exhausted three large impressions, is now bidding welcome to a fourth, which has just issued from the press. The professed design of the Dean of Cork in his late publication, is to load with infamy the Editors of the Improved Version, as having wilfully and fraudulently broken their engagement with the public. But as the venerable dignitary is not remarkable for adhering closely to his subject, he has occasionally diverged fron his main design, in order to combat the rendering or the comments of the Improved Version. But though the Very Reverend ecclesiastic has made a marvellous display of minute criticism, and of lexicographical learning; though he has laid down his dictums with the tone of a pedagogue armed with the dreaded instrument of castigation for the trembling elves who should dispute his high authority; and though where argument fails, its place is abundantly supplied with the most vulgar and contumelious railing; the learned gentlenun will have the goodness to excuse the Editors both from adopting his amendments and retorting his calumnies. As to the former, they have too moderate an opinion of the Dean's qualifications as a Scripture critic, to be greatly influenced by his dictatorial decisions: with regard to the latter, they have too much respect to the dignity of their own character to imitate so disreputable an example. The interpretations which the Editors of the Improved Version have adopted, are in general supported by authorities of such high and established reputation in sacred literature, that they can have little to fear from the attacks of critics of such a scale as the learned digni tary. On one side we see the names of Faustus Socinus, of Slichtingius, of Crellius, of Wolzogenius, of Grotius, of Le Clerc, of Newton, of Locke, of Dr. Samuel Clarke, of Emlyn, of Sykes, of Law, of Jebb, of Tyrwhit, of Lindsey, of Wakefield, of Priestley, of Cappe, of Disney, and many other names which are an honour to learning and to human nature; and on the other side we have-the Very Reverend Dr. William Magee, Dean of Cork. Before I conclude, it may not be aniss to remark, that the absolute nullity of the most material of the charges exhibited against the Editors of the Improved Version, acknowledged as such even by the accuser himself; the absurd and laboured exaggeration of those that remain, which give a cast of ridicule to the whole indictment; and the palpable self-contradictions which have been detected in the course of the preceding remarks, plainly shew either that the Dean of Cork's intellectual perceptions upon theological questions are so uncommonly din, or that his controversial morality is of so very lax a kind, as may justly induce a man of "a sound understanding and an honest heart," to pause before he gives entire credence to his unqualified assertions and his virulent declamation: and upon the whole to "believe what he shall prove, rather than what he shall say." The worthy dignitary as he approaches the conclusion of his labours, takes occasion to regret that his evil destiny should have imposed upon him so wearisome a task. In truth," says this pains-taking writer, p. 689, "it is scarcely possible for any person who has not submitted to the odious labour of examining for himself, an odious labour I can truly aver it to be, to form an adequate idea of the mode in which the sacred word has been abused and falsified by the Unitarians," &c. &c. The Dean is right. Nothing can be more odious than the labour of compiling such a publication as that of Dr. Magee, excepting the still more wearisome task of reading it. Nothing surely can be more disgusting to an enlightened and liberal mind than to toil through a work so chaotic, so mis-shapen, so indigested so wholly deficient in precision, in elegance, in perspicuity, in urbanity, in liberality of spirit, in comprehension of views, in every quality which is requisite to constitute excellence in coinposition: so full of vanity, of pedantry, of peddling criticism, of unprovoked abuse, of improved accusation, of foul and malignant calumny. The composition of such a work must have been a drudgery to which few would have submitte I but the Dean of Cork. Nor is it to be believed that even Dr. Magee himself could have endured the labour and the shame of so disgraceful an undertaking, had he not been supported, like many good men before him, by "RESPECT UNTO THE RECOMPENCE OF REWARD." T. BELSHAM. Essex House, Mar. 1, 1817. P.S. It is worthy of observation that the Improved Version of the New Testament, upon which and upon its Editors so much unsparing abuse and unfounded calumny have been lavished by Dean Magee and others, does not from beginning to end contain an expression of asperity or disrespect against any individual, or body of Christians, on account of difference of opinion iu theological doctrine. The Editors calmly and plainly express their own sense of the disputed passages; they assign their reasons, and commonly allege their authorities, leaving the reader to form his own judgment; and refraining from all unbecoming censure of others who interpret the Scriptures differently. Whether this temperate style of writing or the acrimonious invective of their adversaries best indicates a good cause, a sincere love of truth, and the genuine influence of Christian principles and a Christian spirit in their inquiries after it, may be left to the judgment of the serious reader. The unprovoked personal abuse of so humble an individual as myself, with which the Dean is pleased to load his pages, is altogether unworthy of notice. It is however somewhat surprising that the Very Reverend dignitary does not seem to be aware that extravagant exaggeration defeats its own purpose. The Dean of Cork does not leave me a particle of learning, a particle of science, a particle of biblical knowledge, nor even a particle of common sense or common honesty. With such an opinion of me, it is surprising that he could condescend to waste so much of his vaJuable time in writing down my pub lications. Be that as it may, it is a satisfaction to know that every body is not of the same way of thinking with the Dean of Cork. This will appear from the following extract of a letter from a person who is as much superior to the Dean in rank and station, as he is in sound learning, in urbanity of manners, and in every estimable quality of the mind and of the heart. After animadverting with some degree of animation upon certain passages in my writings which had unfortunately incurred his disapprobation, his Lordship adds, "I certainly have risen from an impartial study of the Scriptures with a conviction on one essential point entirely contrary to your own. But I never on that account entertained the least unfriendly feeling towards you, or the less highly esteemed your talents, your learning, or your sin cerity." The New Morality. T. B. R. MALTHUS, in his book on the Jew: nay, it appears that it was rather a reproach not to have children. Polygamy was certainly permitted, and provision was made in the law that the eldest son of the less beloved wife should not be deprived of his inheritance by the son of the more beloved wife. Such were the views of this divine legislator on this subject: but the Christian dispensation clearly points another way. Polygamy is there utterly exploded: a virtuous celibacy is preferred to the married state, botir by Jesus Christ, as his discourses are recorded in the Gospels, St. Paul in all his writings, and St. John's Revelation. Marriage is permitted only to avoid fornication, and celibacy recommended to those who are able to support it in a course of virtuous abstinence. So that although marriage be permitted to those to whom it is necessary, it seems to be considered as a state of less perfection in a Christian than a state of celibacy; and accordingly in all the early Christian churches, the virtuous single persons were held in the highest estimation. But yet riches are never assigned as a reason for the permission of marriage amongst Christians, nor poverty as a reason for not contracting marriage. It is permitted amongst Christians in all conditions in life, to avoid immorality, and is so permitted for this cause only. Mr. Malthus's scheme is to prohibit the poor from contracting marriage, and their marrying according to his scheme is the greatest immorality. Here is no allowance made for difference of constitution, or, as the Scripexpress of each having M the principle of Population (a his own gift of God. This one that work worthy of the greatest attention), seems to think that it is the first duty of the poor not to marry, and traces all vice and misery to this source. This may be called a new morality, to shew which I shall take the liberty to state the doctrine in this respect of the Old and New Testament. I begin with the Old Testament. It is most evident from the whole tenor of the Mosaic institution, and all the previous history he has given, that no discouragements then were thrown in the way of mar riage. An increase of the people appears to have been an object of desire to this great legislator, and to be married was then certainly no reproach to call the new morality. He says the two great evils of human life are promiscuous commerce and large families, which all may avoid if they please. This is going farther than the apostle of the Gentiles, who does not consider that all may live without marriage if they please. Now if this great apostle be right in his view of human nature, and if Mr. Malthus be right in stating the marriage of a poor man and woman to be a great immorality, Mr. Malthus's system wants one essential member to make it complete and practical-death is certainly to be chosen rather than vice and misery. Now this system of morals would be complete if it allowed -of suicide; for as man is forced into SIR, February 24, 1817. THE papers are continually inform ing us that the English gentlemen at Rome are particularly assiduous in paying their attentions to his pretended Holiness, to whom they are admitted in all due form, and from whom they receive every inark of distinction which he can confer upon them. This is a new feature in our history, and shews that the ardour of Protestantism is not a little diminished amongst us. I am for one exceedingly sorry for it, and should be rather pleased to hear that our countrymen viewed "the throne of the beast" with the spirit of their ancestors. It might have been some excuse for these gentlemen, if any disposition had appeared in this restored court to correct the superstition of atcient days, and to abolish the mummeries with which in that corrupted capital religion is disgraced. But nothing of this kind has appeared. Superstition is presented in all its ancient mockeries, and the Diario Romano now upon my table presents a list of the same follies, the same absurdities, the same blasphemous expressions, that though suspended for a few years, are now re-established in all their hideous forms. The Diario Romano, or Account of the Rites to be performed every Day in different Churches, Chapels and Streets in Rome, for the Year 1816, is contained in forty-eight pages, closely printed, with numerous abbreviations, which would make above double that number of an octavo volume among us in common use. The first seven pages give us rites performed at different places during the whole year. As for example: In S. Anna alle 4 Fontane si espone il Venerabile ogni ma'tina e si de la Benedizzione la sera. "At St. Anne's the venerable is exposed every morning, and the benediction is given in the evening.” By il venerabile is meant the wafer god, or pretended holy presence, the wafer having been by their leger demain trick called transubstantiation, transformed into the real body of Christ, whom they in common with the great body of Protestants believe to be God. Before this pretended god the deluded votaries bend their knees with the same devotion that the Protestants offer up their prayers to the two gods which they call God the Son and God the. Holy Ghost. |