I have shown above that no other English books are printed in so careless a manner as Bibles and Testaments. Were this a suitable occasion, it would be no less easy to prove that no ancient writings are published in this country with so little regard to the accuracy of the text as the writings of the Evangelists and Apostles. Hence, acknowledged interpolations and gross corruptions are continued in almost every edition. Sordid commercial interests are alone consulted, and thus the Received Text, as it is called, but as it ought no longer to be called, almost universally keeps its ground. The names of Knapp, Schott, and Vater, as editors of the Greek text in a corrected state, are never even heard; and Griesbach himself would be almost equally unknown but for the Unitarians.

An honourable exception presents itself in that article of the "Eclectic Review" to which I have before referred. Its learned and upright author bears his testimony in the strongest terms to the superior accuracy and value of the text of Griesbach, insisting that it "has a just title above every other yet published to be received as a standard "text," and that it ought to be in the hands of every one who would "justify himself to his conscience or to the "public, as a satisfactory interpreter of the Scriptures, "and a competent defender of Christian truth."

66

The opposition of the Right Rev. Dr. Marsh, the present learned Bishop of Peterborough, to Bible Societies and Lancasterian Schools seems to be a sufficient pledge that he is no friend to Unitarianism. Nevertheless, in the earlier part of his life, by spending some years in Germany, and by diligent and judicious study, his Lordship made himself master of this branch of theological learning in mature age he rendered an inestimable service to sacred literature by his Translation of Michaelis: and in a later period of his life he has added to the benefit by the few, but excellent lectures which he has delivered and published as Margaret Professor of Divinity in the University of Cambridge. In the eighth of these lectures, delivered in 1810, as well as in his notes to Michaelis, he speaks the truth in regard to the claims of Griesbach's text to attention and preference, observing "that his diligence was unremitted, that his caution was extreme, "that his erudition was profound, and that his judgment was directed by a sole regard to the evidence before

66

"him." "The edition thus minutely described," says he," is the most important, which has been hitherto pub"lished: nor is it probable, that during the lives even of "the youngest of my hearers any other critical edition "should supersede it."

Since Bishop Marsh published his Lectures nothing has, I believe, been done conformably to the spirit and tendency of his observations, except the publication in London of two editions of Griesbach's text, and of those editions of the "Improved Version," for circulating which our Association is censured, and its members declared by your Honour unfit to be managers of a religious trust. Indeed, for the last hundred years I cannot recollect that anything material has been done or said in this country towards introducing or recommending a correct text of the Greek Testament, except the instances which have been mentioned, together with the Oxford editions of the MosoGothic Gospels, and of the Syriac Version of Philoxenus, and the publication of fac-similes of three very ancient and valuable manuscripts. On the other hand, I observe in the two Universities, among the clergy of the Church of England, among many of the orthodox Dissenters, and among the superintendents of classical education and the masters of our endowed schools, an almost constant and uniform effort to thrust the labours of Griesbach into obscurity, to hold out the idea that the Received Text is as good as need be, to cloud over all discussion with the supposition that two centuries have done nothing of any moment towards establishing a more correct standard, and thus to treat the original records of the Christian Revelation with a degree of unfairness and disrespect, which is practised in regard to none of the remains of antiquity besides.

II. In the second place, the publication of the “Im"proved Version" does a great service to all biblical students by making them better acquainted with Archbishop Newcome's version.

Had His Grace lived in the time of James I. it may be regarded as almost certain that he would have been employed by the Head of the Church of England as one of the translators of the Bible. But because he had the benefit of the accumulated learning and information of 200

years, his "Attempt towards Revising our English Trans"tation," as he modestly calls it, has been treated with little consideration, or rather with neglect from one party, and with censure from another. Even he himself, although he had the work printed four years before his death, yet, having attained the age of sixty-six years, declined to have it published during his lifetime, because he wished to die in peace. See the Memoir above referred to, in the “Gene

"ral Biography."

King James's translators took as their basis the last preceding translation, called the Bishops' Bible. In like manner, the few Unitarians who early in the present century formed the design of publishing an improved version of the New Testament, chose as their basis the last preceding translation. They chose it, however, not because it was the last, but because they thought it the most accurate and faithful; and they assign their reasons in the Introduction. In the fourth edition, circulated by the Unitarian Association, the Variations from Newcome are noted, so that by using this, and to a great degree by using the fifth or smaller edition, any reader may make himself acquainted with Newcome's translation as commodiously, and almost as accurately, as if he had the rare and expensive volumes of Newcome by his side. In short, but for the Unitarians of England, and especially the members of the British and Foreign Unitarian Association, the labours of Newcome to elucidate the evangelical writings would be almost unknown.

III. In the third place, the circulation of the "Improved "Version" renders a service to all theological inquirers, by showing them to what extent Mr. Belsham saw reason to alter the Primate's version, and thus informing them of the peculiar interpretations given by many of those Christians who agree with Mr. Belsham in maintaining the doctrine of the simple humanity of Jesus Christ. Every student of the New Testament who cherishes a candid and inquiring disposition will assent to the remark in the Bishop of Cloyne's letter, above quoted, that "it is always "pleasing to see the sentiments of a respectable scholar, " and the ingenuity with which he supports them." To all who have embraced Unitarian sentiments, and especially to those Unitarians who reject the popular ideas of

theology to so great an extent as Mr. Belsham, it is of course a matter of interest to know how the most important passages are translated and explained by those critics who entertain the same general views with themselves.

If Your Honour had looked immediately beyond the title-page of the pamphlet which you quoted, you would have found the following statement of the design and objects of the British and Foreign Unitarian Association.

"I. The Association is formed for the promotion of the principles of Unitarian Christianity at home and abroad— "the support of its worship-the diffusion of biblical, theological, and literary knowledge on topics connected with it"and the maintenance of the civil rights and interests of its professors."

Thus the Committee, in publishing the "Improved Version," act agreeably to the professed plan, the rules, and the spirit of the Society.

After all that I have written I need scarcely add that the idea of our attempting to impose the "Improved Version" upon the unlearned as a creed, is altogether a dream. I believe that no such sentiment ever entered into the mind of any Unitarian, and that Your Honour has an undisputed right to it as your own original invention.

In the remarks which I have above offered on the First Chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews, I have freely exercised my own judgment upon it, as every other member of the Association would endeavour to do, and as we all wish every reader to do into whose hands the book may pass.* I have expressed assent where I approve, doubt

*

* Sir Edward Sugden, in his able speech on behalf of the relators, endeavoured to point out the dangers and dreadful consequences of encouraging this "liberty of prophesying" among private persons. At the same time I could not help being struck with his own statement of the orthodox doctrine of the Deity and incarnation of Christ, a statement which he made with the utmost solemnity of countenance, voice, and manner. It was as follows: that God the Son, the second person of the Trinity, became man, and having exhibited Divine power by working miracles, having suffered on the cross, and done all that was necessary for the salvation of mankind by paying the price of their redemption, then became God again. Such was Sir Edward Sugden's statement upon this awful subject. Whether he had received a lesson in divinity from the relators' solicitor, or whether these were the recollections of the nursery, I cannot tell. But it is certain that Sir Edward's statement was more like a story in Ovid's Metamorphoses than anything that was ever pretended to

where I hesitate, and disapproval where I differ. From its first publication the work has been generally treated by Unitarians in the same way. Certain members of our Association published the first and some of the most searching critiques upon it. Out of their armoury the orthodox champions of your Church furnished themselves with weapons to demolish it. With Unitarian materials they ingeniously constructed the ladder for their own ecclesiastical elevation. Of this matter, which is a curious piece of literary history, Your Honour may see an account, written by one of the most candid and conscientious of men, in Dr. Carpenter's Reply to Magee, pp. 308–310, 399-401.

be Christian. I cannot even find that any of the ancient heretics in the second and following centuries held such an opinion.

In the same speech Sir Edward contended that Unitarians are not entitled to the name of Christians. In Moore's Zeluco (for I will not send Sir Edward to the Fathers, or to any writers of polemical theology) he will find a definition of a Christian which, it is probable, will exactly suit himself.

""Yet I have expressed my meaning very plainly,' said the Phy"sician; "I really do not think with propriety you can be called a ""Christian.'

66 6

"Jesus Maria!' exclaimed the Portuguese, you fill me with ""horror! Why, Sir, I take the Holy Trinity, the Blessed Virgin, ""with St. Joseph her husband, St. James, and all the host of heaven to witness, that I attend mass regularly, and have always 'from my infancy believed in every article of faith which our holy "Mother Church requires; and I am ready to believe twice as much “whenever she is pleased to exact it: if this is not being a Christian, "I should be glad to know what is.'"-Vol. I. Ch. 22.

Was ever religion treated with greater insult and mockery than it is now in England? A system is forced upon the clergy and upon the people by Acts of Parliment, so mysterious, so remote from all practical application, so teeming over with contradiction and absurdity, that almost any sensible member of either branch of the legislature would be sorry to be supposed really and cordially to assent to it; and at the same time a public anathema is commanded to be pronounced in the religious services of the Lord's Day upon those who do not keep it "whole and undefiled," and who are, moreover, compelled to pay dearly for the privilege of being thus cursed by their neighbours and relations; and yet the most learned and able men in the country, who are put forward to be its advocates, and who in Parliament would have protested against the slightest alteration of it, do not at all know what it is, and, when they attempt to state it, fall into the most ridiculous blunders. Is it then to be endured, that, when we talk of Church Reform, we should aim at reforming the Church only so as to save our pockets, and not with a view to make religion more respected, the Church of England more comprehensive, its laity better informed, more charitable, and more moral, and its clergy more sincere, more rational, and more free?