OUR readers have heard with general satisfaction of the successful termination of that important suit in Chancery which for three years has excited the attention of the religious public. We intend to publish in an early number, the history of the origin and progress of this litigation, which has occasioned so much research and involved so many interests.

We are happy to be able to present our readers with an authentic report of the judgment of Lord Lyndhurst and his judicial associates. As that decision, however, confirmed the previous one of his honour the Vice Chancellor, which we omitted to publish in our journal when it was pronounced, we now insert it, that our pages may contain both those documents, that will prove to every candid inquirer how futile the charge of persecution is, which the soi disant Presbyterians have recently brought against the orthodox Dissenters. The first proceedings were opened on the part of the relators in the Vice Chancellor's Court by Sir Edward Sugden, on Tuesday the 17th of

VOL. XIX. N. S. No. 136.

December, 1833. The following day Mr. Knight and Mr. Romilly put in various documentary evidence, and addressed the Court in support of the information. On Thursday, Mr. Pepys (now Lord Chancellor,) commenced the defence of the Trustees, and was followed by Mr. Rolfe, on the same side. Monday, December 23, Mr. Booth also appeared for the Trustees, and Sir Charles Wetherell for the Rev. C. Wellbeloved, one of the sub-trustees, who was assisted by Mr. Duckworth. Sir Edward Sugden replied, and HIS HONOUR immediately after delivered his judgment as follows

Before I state my opinion upon the trust, I must first of all say, that I should be extremely sorry if any person should entertain an opinion that I think harshly of the Unitarians as a body; because it has happened to me to have had intercourse, from the earliest part of my life, with various persons who are of that persuasion, and with whom I have lived in great cordiality and friendship; but it does this case to be determined is, whether not appear to me that the question in they are properly called Christians or not; but, whether it is consistent with

2 E

what appears on the trust deeds of Lady Hewley, having regard to such evidence as has been produced of what her sentiments were, that the Unitarians can be allowed to participate in the benefit of her charity; she having stated that the first trust is for " poor and godly preachers, for the time being, of CHRIST's holy Gospel ;" and then repeating phrases which evidently show that she alluded to the same sort of persons, who might happen to be widows of persons, or exhibitioners, and so on, as would fall under the first denomination.

"The will of Sir J. Hewley has been put in, which commences with the following words: This is the last will and testament of Sir J. Hewley, who being, of God's mercy, of perfect memory,' and so on, "first committing my spirit to God who gave it, hoping to find mercy to me a sinner, and to be saved only by the merits and mediation of Jesus Christ, my alone Saviour and Redeemer.' I must here remark the manner in which the will is witnessed. 'Witness my hand and seal, 24th of June, in the year of our Lord God 1682;' and, therefore, I consider that the will testifies, from the beginning to the end, his belief in the divinity of THE REDEEMER.

"I must now refer to the words of the will of Lady Hewley :-I, Dame Sarah Hewley, widow, having first committed my immortal soul into the hands of my REDEEMER, to be washed in his blood, and made meet to be partaker with the saints,' &c.; she then proceeds to make her will. The natural inference from this will is, that she not only believed in the divinity of the REDEEMER, but looked for salvation, through his merits, in that sense in which the Church of England understands that he is the Redeemer, that he has paid the price, and that for the price which he has paid, God will be pleased to forgive the sins of all that turn unto him.

"The next document is the will of Dr. Coulton he also has used similar phrases: I commit my immortal soul into the hands of Almighty GoD, my Creator, and which I beseech him mercifully to look upon, not as it is in itself, polluted with sin, but as it is redeemed and purged with the precious

blood of his only beloved SON, and my most sweet Saviour JESUS CHRIST, in confidence of whose merits and mediation alone it is that I cast myself upon the mercy of God, for the pardon of my sins, and the hope of eternal life.' He, it is to be remarked, was one of Lady Hewley's trustees, and was the person that preached at St. Saviour's Chapel, where she attended during her life, and he preached her funeral ser

mon.

"Then, looking at the words of the deed, I am necessarily driven (inasmuch as the rules are directed by the deed to be observed) to a consideration of Bowles's Catechism, which, according to the rules, the poor almspeople are to repeat; and for the purpose of determining the question before me, I am bound, not merely to consider the questions and answers, but also the texts in the margin, which are manifestly referred to in support of the answers. One question is

What was the sin of our first parents? Eating the forbidden fruit. "What was the fruit of that eating? It filled the world with sin and

sorrow.

"In what condition is the posterity of our first parents born? In a sinful and miserable condition.'

That last answer comprehends all the posterity of Adam.

"Wast thou born in that condition? Yea, I was conceived in sin and am by nature a child of wrath as well as others.

"What is Jesus Christ? The Son of God manifest in the flesh.'

"Now this answer refers to that very singular verse at the end of the third chapter of St. Paul's first Epistle to Timothy, which, according to the translation of the Scripture used at that time, could not leave a doubt in the mind of any person as to the divinity of the REDEEMER, because, according to the received translation, it is put in this way :

66 6

And, without controversy, great is the mystery of godliness; God was manifested in the flesh, justified in the spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.'

"Now, no man can doubt that this text was intended to convey the only

conclusion that can be formed, which is, that not merely the office and mission of our SAVIOUR is divine, as stated in the answers of the defendants, but that his person is divine also.

"It then goes on in another part"In what order doth GoD work faith by the word? First he shows men their sins, and then their Saviour. "Why does he observe this order? That Christ may be the more precious to the soul.

"How doth faith work love? It lays hold upon the infinite love of Christ, and works a mutual love in us.'

"Now that expression, the infinite love of Christ,' of necessity conveys the notion that he is divine, for none but a divine being can have infinite love. Persons may appeal to their own common reading and observations of what passes every day, and I appeal to the testimony given before the committee of the Lords and Commons upon the state of Ireland, for proof of this proposition, that the Presbyterians do hold that the only effectual view of religion, for the purpose of softening the hearts of men, and turning them to GOD, is the view of the Father's love in sending his SON to appear upon earth, and suffer as a man. That was the very view which was taken by a pious Presbyterian minister, who was examined before the Lords' Committee, with regard to the Regium Donum at Belfast.

"Now the first donation in Lady Hewley's trust is to poor and godly preachers of CHRIST'S holy Gospel.' I cannot but suppose, as she was not a Conformist, that she meant those persons, not being members of the Church of England, who did entertain, among others, the firmest belief in the divinity of our REDEEMER'S person, in the necessity of the sacrifice he made, because of the universality of sin, commonly called original sin; and that she would, as Sir Edward Sugden has stated with great propriety, have shaken with horror at the notion of her charity being to the sustenance of persons who not only disbelieve these two doctrines, but who actually preach against them. It has also been argued (and I must say I do not remember a case which has been argued with more in

genuity and ability by all the members of the bar concerned in it) that the principal object of this lady was to support poor ministers, widows of poor ministers, and the other persons included in her trust-deed, who would themselves be the supporters of what was called the great doctrine of the Presbyterians - that sort of unrestrained method of disseminating the faith which will not submit to be bound by any test or creed, or by any thing except the words of scripture.

The book mentioned in the catalogue of books at the end of the Sixth Report of the Unitarian Society, which is called an Improved Version' of the New Testament, affords a strong inference that persons who would assist in the publication of it cannot come under the description of poor and godly preachers of Christ's holy Gospel,' even according to the view which has been taken of these words by the defendants' counsel. Surely it is immaterial whether a creed is expressed in a form of words, or whether a thing called a translation is propounded to mankind which refuses to give the literal sense of words, and in lieu of words expressing the literal sense of the words in the original text, substitutes other words. Where the literal meaning of a word is doubtful, translators may place one word in the text of the translation, and another in the margin, in order that a choice might be made; and many cases may be imagined in which the idiom of the English language will not permit the literal rendering of word for word from the Greek or the Hebrew; but where persons have obviously and systematically gone out of the plain way, and have chosen not to give the literal meaning, but to give an assumed and arbitrary meaning for the purpose of misleading the ignorant reader, those persons must be considered as in effect imposing a creed upon the reader, and not giving him the benefit of judging for himself by the means of the pure word of Scripture. I make this observation in consequence of the translation given in that book of the first chapter of the Epistle of St. Paul to the Hebrews; for it appears most clearly, that the persons who composed the translation

did not intend, when they made what they called a translation, to render that first chapter literally, but did intend to infuse a CREED. A comparison of the text in Griesbach with the new version' will make this plain. The text begins thus: Πολυμερῶς καὶ πολυτρόπως πάλαι ο Θεός. And the translation is God, who in several parts and in several manners formerly spake to our fathers by the prophets.' Now, I do not mean to say that they have not translated the word Toλvμεows properly; it might refer to many parts of space, or many parts of time. Our authorized translation, is God, who at sundry times.' These new translators, however, thought proper to give themselves the character of extreme accuracy, by not adopting that which was good enough, but apparently selecting something which they thought better. The translation then proceeds: • In the last of these days hath spoken to us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, for whom also he constituted the ages. Now, the words in the original, are (according to Griesbach)—δι οῦ καί τούς αιώνας εποίησεν. Feeling themselves, therefore, a little hard pushed when they translated δι ου " for whom,' they have recourse to a note, by which it appears that two or three persons had fancied that that might be the proper translation. Supposing it to be so, it appears to show a very great intention to be extremely correct, though it certainly is not the received translation; nor do I think that any Greek scholar, unless he were previously biassed in favour of a particular theory, would dream that such was the proper translation. The original text then proceeds:—Ος ων απαύγασμα τῆς δόξης, καὶ χαρακτὴρ τῆς υποστάσεως αυτοῦ And what is the pretended accurate translation of these words? 'Who, being a ray of his brightness, and an image of his perfections'-xapaкrip Ts VπOOTάGEWC AVтoù, an image of his perfections!!! I was perfectly astonished, and could hardly have conceived it possible before I had read it, that any person could have ventured to call this an improved version' of the Scriptures which has rendered the word voorάois perfections.' It was perfectly plain, in that passage, the

parties never meant to give a translation, but that they meant to fetter the understanding of the reader by impo sing their creed in the shape of a translation. They then say- and ruling all things by his powerful word,' Φέρων τε τὰ πάντα τῳ ρήματι τῆς δυνάμεως αυτού. They might as well have said, by the word of his power;' but they did not choose to give the literal translation; they chose rather to substitute words of their own, which may express the sense, but which, it is quite clear, do not express the literal meaning. To this they annex a meagre note, in which they first give their view of the meaning of the words, and then add the literal translation of the Greek. The translation then proceeds: for to which of those messengers spake God at any time, Thou art my Son, this day I have adopted thee?' The passage they meant to translate is, Τίνι γὰρ εἰπέν ποτε τῶν αγγέλων, Υιός μου εἴ σύ, εγώ σήμερον γεγεννηκά σε There is not the slightest pretence to translate the word yɛyévvŋka, ‘I have adopted.'

"The defendants' counsel has read passages from Locke's Essay on the Reasonableness of Christianity, in which he states, that by the terms 'Son of God' the Jews understood the Messiah. And so they did: for in the second Psalm it is said, 'The rulers take counsel together against Jehovah, and against his Messiah.' And shortly afterwards: 'I will declare the decree: Jehovah said unto me, Thou (art) my Son; this day have I begotten thee.' The word in the Hebrew which thus represents something incomprehensible with regard to the Divine nature, but which of necessity conveys to the human mind the notion of the relation that subsists between Father and Son, is uniformly translated in the Septuagint by the word yɛyέvvŋka when applied to a father. It is the word which several times occurs in the fifth chapter of Genesis, in which there is a detailed account of the births of all the antediluvian patriarchs given in succession: the very verb used in the second Psalm is the very verb in that chapter, and the word used in the Septuagint is quoted by St. Paul.

"The gentlemen who have trans