we have two evils to avoid, both alike pernicious and deserving our particular attention:-the one, a total neglect of any kind of education;-the other, an education in the doctrines of a particular system of religion.

But to proceed. How is it, I would ask, that so few of our magnificent and spacious places of worship can boast of having spacious school-rooms appended to them? How is it that our public donation lists teem with items in favour of ministers and chapels, and almost every other praiseworthy object, and not a solitary one applicable to that of Sunday-Schools? Does not this seem to indicate that the Unitarian grants, tacitly at least, to his Trinitarian brethren the preoccupation of the vulgar minds of the lower classes of society to implant and cherish those very stamina which constitute his chief complaint, whose eradication is his greatest difficulty? Or that he permits the most vigorous portion of their existence to run out in the debasing, unregenerative torpor of "blessed ignorance," until they are incapacitated for the reception of any thing opposed to that prevalent but pseudo-proverb, "Vox populi vox Dei"?

And is not the large expenditure in the erection of chapels, and the education and support of ministers, like the providing of hospitals and physicians for the cure of a malady which timely exertions might have prevented?

Far be it from me, however, to depreciate the value or the respect of the ministerial office. But let not the

din of surprise, at the tardy progress of Unitarian Christianity, which I firmly believe to be genuine Christianity, be re-echoed in our ears, whilst we are furnished with so obvious a solution of its cause.

Does not, I repeat it, the existence of the above fact, viz., that of negligence in the education, and in the purity of the education, of the youthful poor, taken in connexion with the requirement of candour in a man's sentiments, manifest a discrepancy which no argument can reconcile, no doctrine justify, no liberality conceal? Cannot we here also trace a foundation; and is it not to be feared that, in some sense and to a certain extent, a too solid foundation, for that odium

which is so industriously levelled against Unitarians, that theirs is not the religion of those to whom the gospel is proclaimed to be peculiarly adapted, "the poor of this world"?

Before I take my leave, I beg to propose to my fellow-worshipers, and I could wish, fellow-workers, this simple question,—On what principle of reasoning, and from what motives can a Unitarian maintain an indif ference to the education of the youthful poor ?

Having trespassed so much on your columns, I would, in conclusion, express my earnest wish of soon finding the subject in better hands, believing it to be alike the cause of humanity, of religion and of God.

With an acknowledgment of my obligations for your kind accommodation, believe me, Sir, to be a friend to Unitarianism, and THERETORE,

A FRIEND TO SUNDAY.
SCHOOLS.

P. S. To obviate any misconception of the above remarks, I beg they may be taken with some limitation. There are, I am happy to admit, exceptions to their general application. And I cannot but name an honourable and exemplary one-BIRMINGHAM.

Necessity of an Improved Version of the Scriptures: a Vindication of Sir J. B. Burges and Mr. Bellamy from the Censures of Mr. Horne.

SIR,

fuable Miscellany as a kind of AM disposed to consider your va neutral ground, on which contending parties may meet with less restraint to adjust their differences, than they can be expected to do in any place assigned for conference within their own respective territories; and this reflexion, added to a very natural dislike of agitating questions in the midst of those who have for a long period ranged themselves on one particular side, determined to concede nothing, and even inclined to look upon a discussion as invidious and hostile, which may lead to a mere examination of the tenability of the post which they have assumed, has induced me to trouble you on the present occasion :

at the same time I deem it necessary to premise, that as my main object is to point out what appears to me to be a grave mistake on the part of a certain writer, I shall endeavour, as much as possible, to avoid falling into a similar one myself, and, in particular, be as guarded in expression as circumstances will permit.

I was much grieved a year or two ago on reading the second volume of Mr. Horne's "Introduction to the Critical Study of the Scriptures," to find, at pp. 259-264, an attack on two gentlemen who have greatly interested themselves in promoting a new translation of the Holy Bible, (the one, by actually commencing a new version himself, the other by urging the advantage and necessity of such a work being undertaken,) in which assertions are imputed to both, which, if actually used by them, would not only prove them to be in the main extremely ignorant indeed, but, what is worse, decided enemies also to the best interests of both Church and State. That I may not be guilty of any misstatement, I shall beg leave to transcribe the principal passage in which the attack here alluded to is made:

"Upwards of two centuries have elapsed since the authorized English Version of the Holy Scriptures, now in use, was given to the British nation. During that long interval, though many passages in particular books have been elucidated by learned men, with equal felicity and ability; yet its general fidelity, perspicuity and excellence, have deservedly given our present translation a high and distinguished place in the judgment of the Christian world, wherever the English language is known or read. Of late years, however, this admirable Version, the guide and solace of the sincere Christian, has been attacked with no common virulence, and arraigned as being deficient in fidelity, perspicuity and elegance; ambiguous and incorrect, even in matters of the highest importance; and, in short, totally insufficient for teaching all things necessary to salvation. The principal antagonists of this Version, in the present day, (to omit the bold and unmeasured assertions of the late Dr. Geddes and others,) are Mr. John Bellamy, in the prospectus, preface and notes of

་

his new translation of the Bible, and Sir James Bland Burges, in his Reasons in Favour of a New Translation of the Scriptures; both of whom, among other things, have af firmed that our authorized translation is insufficient for teaching all things necessary to salvation; and they declare that it is not made from the original Hebrew, but from the Septuagint or Greek translation, and from the Vulgate or Latin Version. The aasertions of these authors have been answered in detail, particularly by the Rev. Messrs. Whittaker and Todd, in their works cited below, to which the reader is referred. In refutation of the assertion that our version was not made from the original Hebrew and Greek, it is sufficient to refer to the account given of it in the preceding pages; we shall therefore conclude our notice of this admirable translation with a few of the very numerous testimonies to its value, which have been collected by Archbishop Newcome and Mr. Todd, and shall subjoin two or three others that appear to have eluded their researches."

Mr. Horne follows this up by quotations from the works of eleven writers, some of whom speak in favour of the fidelity of the authorized Version, and others in praise of the style in which it is drawn up; but as I have an opportunity of adverting to them hereafter, it is unnecessary to dwell further on them at present.

may

The extraordinary expressions here put into the mouth of Mr. Bellamy and Sir J. Bland Burges, the latter of whom has been long known to the public as an elegant and, I may add, pious writer, and who, as may be remembered, was for a considerable period connected with one of the chief departments of the government of this country, staggered my belief of the actual fact, and naturally created in me a wish to satisfy myself by ocular demonstration, whether either or both of these gentlemen had any where incautiously asserted in the phraseology of Mr. Horne, (twice repeated,) that the present authorized English Version of the Holy Scriptures is totally insufficient for teaching all things necessary to salvation, or whether the Reverend Author of the Introduction had not, on the other hand, been mistaken in ascribing to them

expressions which they never used, and which were no where to be found in their writings.

As Mr. Horne has limited himself in his charge against Mr. Bellamy to the prospectus, preface and notes of his New Translation of the Bible, I might have been also fairly excused from reading any more of that gentleman's works, to satisfy my mind on the object of the present inquiry; but the interesting subjects which he has discussed, the new lights which he has thrown on many perplexed passages, and even doubtful occurrences in Holy Writ; joined to a natural curiosity to see in what manner he answered those opponents, of whom Mr. Horne has obligingly given a list in his work, led me further than I intended at first to go; so that, beginning with his Bible, I have carefully perused whatever has hitherto issued from his pen; not forgetting, at the same time, the writings of his adversaries. Mr. Bellamy's "Translation of the Bible, from the original Hebrew only," of which no more than the Pentateuch has as yet been published, is undoubtedly his principal work, to which, in fact, all his other writings, as his " History of all Religions," his "Ophion," occasional "Biblical Criticisms" in the Classical Journal, and, though last, not least, his " Anti-Deist," are respectively subservient. I have read and re-read his new translation of the five books of Moses, with its Preface, Introduction and Notes, as well as the prospectus issued previous to their publication, and although, individually, I could have wished that in many cases he had been somewhat more courteous to the translators of our present authorized Version, yet considering the immense and novel mass of biblical information which he has brought forward, the intimate acquaintance which he displays with the original Hebrew, unshackled by the opinions of preceding translators, commentators, or even grammarians, and the clear and distinct views which his writings unfold of the communications of Jehovah to man, and of his dealings with his people of old, as deduced from the sacred original, (being in the strictest accordance, unless I am miserably deceived, with the sentiments of the best and most learned divines of the Church of En

gland,) I, for one, at least, feel well inclined to excuse a lack of compliment. Although now become a warın admirer of Mr. Bellamy's new translation, on the grounds just mentioned, which lead me to predict that it will sooner or later maintain a distinguished post in the library of every sound divine and critical Hebrew scholar in this country, (even as the late lamented Dr. Edward Clarke, of Cambridge, was heard to say, that during his life-time he assigned it a prominent place in the University Library,) yet, as an impartial examiner, I owe it as a duty both to him and the readers of Mr. Horne's "Introduction" to declare, that, neither in the prospectus and preface, nor in the notes to Mr. Bellamy's New Translation of the Bible, have I found any expression which could be tortured, unless by the grossest and most wilful perversion, into an assertion that the present authorized English Version of the Holy Scriptures is totally insufficient for teaching all things necessary to salvation. Perhaps, however, mere negative proofs may not be sufficient for your readers, and hence I shall endeavour to shew, by a quotation from Mr. Bellamy's "History of all Religions," which, though published prior to his new translation, is yet frequently quoted and confirmed in the latter, that his opinion of the present authorized Version, with all its errors and mistakes, is, that it is decidedly sufficient for teaching all things necessary to salvation. Under the head of The Christian Religion," p. 167, 2d ed., Mr. Bellamy says, and it must be remembered that the texts quoted or alluded to by him, are taken from our present authorized English Version,

"We now come to treat of those things sacred to every Christian, when, to fulfil the ancient promise, that the seed of the woman should bruise the Serpent's head, Messiah, the Redeemer of the world, left the glory of the Father, which he had with him before the world was, became man for our salvation (at whose coming the sacrifices appointed to be observed under the Mosaic dispensation were to cease for ever), and promulgated the truths of our holy religion.

"The fundamental principles of the Christian religion appear from what

is said by our Lord and his disciples to consist in REPENTANCE, FAITH, and UPRIGHTNESS OF LIFE; LOVE TO GOD and CHARITY TO MAN. Here is the groundwork on which the spiritual temple is to be raised for the reception of heaven in man; ye are the temple of God. REPENTANCE whereby we forsake sin, and FAITH whereby we steadfastly believe the promises of God,' which, if it be a genuine faith, will produce a life in conformity thereto, a conscience void of offence towards God and towards man.

"Unlike all the churches which preceded, the Christian church was not to be a representative church; no types, no figures were necessary, when the great founder of our religion made his appearance. He came to abolish the sacrifices and ceremonies of the Jews, which were all representative of him the GREAT SACRIFICE; and to shew man that the sacrifice of a contrite and broken spirit, operating in a life agreeably to the commands of God, is the most acceptable sacrifice to him. Wherewith shall I come before the Lord, and bow myself before the high God? Shall I come before him with burnt-offerings and calves of a year old? Will the Lord be pleased with thousands of rams? or with ten thousand rivers of oil? Shall I give my first-born for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul? He hath shewed thee, O Man, what is good; and what doth the Lord require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God? This is summed up in those ever-memorable words of the Christian Redeemer, which comprehend the substance of true religion: Matt. xxii. 37, 39: Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart and with all thy soul and with all thy mind: Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself!"

If the reader is not contented herewith, let him further turn to Mr. Bellamy's short but able answer to Levi in proof of Christ being the true Messiah, pp. 323-367, of the same work, which is only an echo to the sentiments perpetually recurring in the notes to his new translation.

Having thus stated the reasons which lead me to conclude that Mr.

Horne laboured under a heavy mistake when imputing to Mr. John Bellamy the obnoxious assertion above alluded to, I might pass on to the consideration of his worthy coadjutor the Baronet, did I not conceive that having once introduced Mr. Bellamy so pointedly to your readers, a brief emuneration of his controversial tracts might not be unacceptable here. If I am not in error (and more than one of your correspondents can set me to rights if I be), Mr. Bellamy's first polemical writing of any note (independent of his criticisms in the Classical Journal) consisted of letters under the signature of "Biblicus," addressed in conjunction with those of Vinder and Candidus, to the Rev. G. D'Oyly, then Christian Advocate of Cambridge, in answer to his second attack on the dipus Judaicus of Sir William Drummond, who, himself, furnished a preface thereto, which exhibits one of the happiest specimens of irony extant in the English language. After an interval of several years, during which the first and second part of his translation appeared, we find him again entering the arena with his old antagonist, whose articles in the Quarterly Review were severally met by a first and second

Reply." To these succeeded his "Critical Examination" of the objections made to his translation by Mr. Todd, in the "Vindication of our Authorized Version," &c., and by Mr. Whittaker, in his "Historical and Critical Enquiry into the Interpretation of the Hebrew Scriptures," &c.; and lastly, "A Reply to Mr. S. Lee, Professor of Arabic in the University of Cambridge," in answer to his "Remarks," &c., in which also he notices the Vindicia Hebraica of Mr. Heyman Hurwitz. Having already expressed myself favourable to Mr. Bellamy's new translation, it can hardly be supposed that I should feel inclined to find fault with any attempts made by him to defend the same; in fact, a careful perusal of his opponent's works in connexion with his replies, has only tended to increase my opinion of his merits; nor shall I pretend to conceal the truth that for more reasons than one I could have wished, if it were once for all deemed necessary to impugn the new translation, that the task of combating it had been

entrusted to critics of a very different stamp than those who have figured away on the occasion, but whose writings cannot for a moment be allowed to possess any weight either with the Hebrew scholar or the mere logician. Where, during the warfare carried on, may I ask, was the Bishop of Peterborough? Was he asleep at his post, or only cautiously waiting the result of the fray? Was the Bishop of St. David's tired at the very outset; or, is his silence the result of conviction? Will no one take up the gauntlet which Bellamy has publicly thrown down, and translate and apply the various passages of Scripture propounded at different times in his pamphlets; or, has Bellamy's answer to Professor Lee silenced not only him but all the Doctors of both Universities? I ask not these questions in a tone of taunting or reproach, but rather of surprise; my object, I trust, is the acquirement of truth, and sorry should I be, indeed, if I were so bigoted to any one system, or to the translation of any one particular author, as to be unable to give it up, on arguments being adduced sufficient to convince me of the superiority and greater truth of another: but, if after a patient reading of the new translation with an application of such a knowledge of the original Hebrew as I happen to possess, I find on a comparison instituted between it and our present authorized Version, that the former, at least in my humble opinion, deserves the preference, as having elucidated much hitherto left uncertain, doubtful, and even contradictory in the latter, something more is surely requisite to cause a change in my opinion than a pamphlet or two replete with invective and sarcasm, but mainly deficient in sound argument and a critical knowledge of Hebrew. The last separate work which has come from Mr. Bellamy's pen, is, I believe, the " Anti-Deist," in two parts, the third not having yet been published. According to his own account, it was written at a period when the country was inundated with Infidel and Deistical publications, and was intended to be a complete refutation of them. There is a curious circumstance connected with this work, to which Mr. B. has alluded in one of his pamphlets, where he states that

he was induced to write it, at the suggestion of a worthy prelate of the Establishment, who afterwards saw and approved of the MS. How a Bishop could well countenance a work which pretends to answer the objections of Deists, by shewing, in many instances, that the grounds of their cavil are not to be found in the original, but only exist in the modern translations of the Bible, and consequently in our authorized Version among the rest, appears somewhat extraordinary, and can, perhaps, only be satisfactorily accounted for, by supposing that it was the same prelate, who, on another occasion, when B. presented him with a part of his translation, emphatically exclaimed to those present "magna est veritas et prævalebit!" Be that, however, as it may, certain it is, (as may be gathered from the newspapers of the time,) that an association was actually formed towards the close of the year 1819, for the refutation of Infidel publications, with Sir J. Bland Burges at the head, which commenced its proceedings by a vote for the immediate printing and circulating of a large edition of Mr. Bellamy's "AntiDeist." How that association was dissolved" at a moment when," to use the chairman's subsequent words, "not a prelate, not a clergyman had stood forward to stem the tide of blasphemy which threatened the subversion of our religion and government," was never, I believe, publicly known. Not being myself in the confidence of the party most concerned, I cannot satisfactorily solve the question; for, although a report has prevailed that the venerable Society in Bartlett's Buildings took up the cause, which induced Sir J. Bland Burges's association to resign, yet the circuinstance of the former's having only republished a series of old tracts, which, though excellent in their way, were by no means calculated to answer in detail" the perpetually repeated cavils of the opposers of Divine revelation," would seem to argue against the truth of such a report. Mr. Bellamy's "Anti-Deist," however, was duly published, though I have been given to understand at his own cost; and should there be a Deist in the kingdom left, sufficiently able to cope with the author in He