Our author himself, indeed, has favoured us with but few displays of his critical ingenuity.

so strenuously contend. Their version is of that convenient latitude, that a person may at the same time, admit its authority, and yet disbelieve almost every doctrine, and every important truth of the Christian Revelation. It is, in short, like the antient mantle of my country, a covering of such loose and wide dimensions, that the wearer may turn round and round in it, without disturbing its shape, or depriving himself of its shelter. And like that too, it has been used as a disguise to muffle the assassin, and to conceal the dagger.

The Editors of this work have not, it must be observed, conducted themselves in the publication of it, with that manly boldness, which they are at all times, so ambitious to put forward, as their distinguishing characteristic. They have on the contrary not scrupled to adopt one of those picus frauds, which they are pleased to consider the ordinary expedients of their orthodox opponents. The name of a Bishop of the Established Church was calculated to lull suspicion, and to contribute to a more extended circulation, and accordingly this Improved Version, which they have now sent abroad, they profess to found upon the basis of Archbishop Newcome's translation of the New Testament; whilst in truth they adopt no part of that translation, which in any degree shackles them in point of doctrine, but abide by it in such places only as are of a nature perfectly indif ferent. They have thus contrived to give a respectable name to their Unitarian blasphemies. They thus hold out deceit. ful colours to the unwary, and vend their poisons under a false label.

To give any adequate idea of the nature of this Improved Version within the narrow bounds of a note, would be im. possible. The reader may easily conceive that the whole G G

VOL. II.

Those few, however, prove him by no means

apparatus of "interpolations, omissions, false readings, mistranslations, and erroneous interpretations," on which, as we have seen above, Mr. Belsham places so firm a reliance, has been fully brought to bear, and has most thoroughly performed its work, in the forging of this last great production of the Unitarian foundery. A few particulars however, which may suffice to give some faint notion of the design and execution of the performance, I cannot but advert to.

In the introduction to the work (p. v.) we are fairly apprised, that it has been a principal part of its design, to "divest the sacred volume of the technical phrases of a systematic theology."-That is, in other words, we are told, that the great object has been, so to render the New Testament, as to empty it of all such expressions, as might give support to any of the received and peculiar doctrines of Chris tianity. This appears pretty manifestly to be what is here intended for agreeably to this, we find, that all those phrases, which in any way connect with the unscriptural notions, of the miraculous conception, the pre-existence, and the divinity of Christ,—the personal existence, divine nature and gracious influences of the Holy Spirit,-the existence of evil spirits and angels, &c.—are all completely swept away; and nothing left to us, but what perfectly agrees with Mr. Belsham's idea, that Christianity comprizes a good moral system, with indeed the knowledge of this one fact, that a man has risen from the grave.-In the next place, we are told, what sufficiently explains how this has been effected. It is stated, that it has not been the intention, "to exhibit a version critically correct in every minute particular": and that "verbal criticism had of course not been attended to in the degree that some might wish and expect." (p. vi.)— Thus we are fairly informed, that certain liberties are to be taken in the translation, to which the minuteness of verbal criticism might possibly present some impediment. That is,

unworthy of the cause which he supports.

in a work, whose very object is to ascertain the exact meaning of words, the exact meaning of words is not to be attended to, lest it might embarrass the freedom of translation, and force upon the translator a sense different from that which he chooses to assign. Of what nature are those freedoms in translation, which have grown out of the facilities, and are adapted to the objects which the Editors have here planned for themselves, I shall now give two or three slight specimens.

The first which I shall mention, relates to the doctrine of the Incarnation, which is at once thrown off, by rejecting from the beginning of the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Luke, the whole of what belongs to the miraculous birth of our Lord. This has been done, it must be allowed, with sufficient boldness: for it is fairly admitted, that these portions of the Gospels 66 are to be found in all the MSS. and versions now extant."-Now it is actually amusing to observe, what is the leading evidence, by which the Editors conceive themselves justified, thus to expunge from the ca non of scripture, what has come supported by the testimony of all the Manuscripts and all the versions. With respect to the passage in Matthew, they tell us, that the Ebionites did not read the two first chapters in their copy of his Gospel; and with respect to St. Luke, they tell us, that Marcion, a heretic of the 2d century, did not admit the two first chapters of his. Therefore, it follows, that since the sect of the Ebionites, and the heretic Marcion of the 2d century, are against all the Manuscripts and all the Versions, it is impos sible that these last can be received as true. The argument is certainly quite intelligible. But let us enquire a little about these irrefragable witnesses. And, first, as to these Ebionites, we are informed, that their canon of the New Testament rejected the three last Gospels, and all the Epistles

The two passages, which expressly ascribe the

of St. Paul. And next as to this Marcion, we find, that he rejected the Old Testament, and every part of the New which contained quotations from the Old, and that he used no Gospel but that of St. Luke, expunging from this also whatever he did not approve: and we are told these things too, upon the very authority, on which the Editors build, respecting the omissions from St. Matthew and St. Luke.-Why then have not these admirers of Marcion and the Ebionites, received the testimony of such unimpeached witnesses throughout? Why have they not, on the authority of the latter, rejected all the New Testament except St. Matthew; or, on the authority of the former, rejected the entire of the Old Testament, and all of the New excepting a part of St. Luke and some of the Epistles: or, on the authority of both together, why have they not rejected the whole Bible, both Old and New Testament?-But it seems, that these witnesses are to be brought up and turned down at pleasure: they are both good and bad, according as may serve the present purpose. For, not only do we find, that they are not believed, by the party producing them, in any part of their testimony except that which relates to the beginnings of the two Gospels; but we find that even in these they are believed, only so far as is convenient: our Editors themselves admitting, that the Ebionites had mutilated the Gospel of St. Matthew, by taking away the genealogy; that is, by taking away the first 16 verses of the first chapter. And therefore, respect. ing these first 16 verses, the Editors reject the testimony of the Ebionites as being convicted of a mutilation of the Gos pel; but as to the remaining verses of the first chapter and the whole of the second, they hold the testimony of these same Ebionites to be good, against all gain-sayers, against all Manuscripts, and against all Versions.-All this is put forward honestly and without any attempt at disguise. The Ebionite witnesses pronounced, on one side of a leaf,

office of intercession to Christ, are, (Rom. viii.

as not credible, from their acknowledged mutilation of the sacred text; and upon the other side of the same leaf, main tained to be witnesses of such repute, as ought to be relied upon, in opposition to all the MSS. and all the Versions of the New Testament in the whole world.

But that we may form a better judgment of the value of this Ebionite testimony according to the shewing of its Unitarian abettors, let us attend to a few more particulars on this head. The gospel of the Ebionites began, it is said, with these words, It came to pass IN THE DAYS OF HEROD KING OF JUDEA, that JOHN CAME BAPTIZING with the baptism of repentance in the river Jordan. This the Editors distinctly state, in their third note, from the authority of Epiphanius; whilst, in the very note which precedes, they reject the text of St. Matthew, expressly because it places the birth of Christ before the death of Herod; which event, they contend from Luke iii. 23. must have taken place two years at least before Christ was born. Thus, the gospel ascribed to Matthew is spurious, because it fixes the birth of Christ before the death of Herod; and yet the gospel of the Ebionites, which fixes it not less than thirty years before that event, (inasmuch as it represents Herod to be alive at the commencement of the Baptist's ministry) is notwithstanding to be relied on as a genuine and indisputable document.-Yet farther, for the Editors seem ambitious to make an overpowering display of the riches of their criti cism on the first opening of their work,-they inform us, from Epiphanius, that Cerinthus and Carpocrates argued from the genealogy at the beginning of the Gospel, that Christ was the son of Joseph and Mary; whilst, at the same time, they acquaint us, that the gospel, which was used by Cerinthus and Carpocrates, was the gospel of the Ebionites, to which they admit no genealogy was prefixed, or from