ter than that of the Pagans, who were "without Christ, without hope, and without God in the world ;" (Eph. ii. 12.) and straining into the " cup of salvation" the distilled venom of Socinian blasphemy. This fatal draught is hande about with incessant assiduity, and put to the lips of the unthinking, that they may "sleep the sleep of death." All this under the modest and respectful guise of, "an improved version of the New Testament." The precedent of such treachery was set long ago. Its au thor is "gone to his own place." But the " improved version," with its accompaniments, show that his treason has not perished with him. "Betray ye the Son of man with a kiss."

REMARKS ON THE ABOVE PASSAGE,

DEAR SIR,

IN A LETTER TO A FRIEND.

THE extract you have favoured me with from the Christian's Magazine is indeed a curiosity in its kind and has given occa sion to some reflections, which, in return, I take the liberty of communicating.

You and I will, I suppose, agree with the writer of these paragraphs in reprobating all attempts to amend the Bible; but what that Bible is, which ought to be secure from all such unwarrantable freedoms, is a subject on which there would probably be a great divergency of opinion. It is our wish to obtain, if it were possible, the scriptures in the same unadulterated and ungarbled state as when they came from the hands of the writers. But, sensible of the vast difficulties that are to be surmounted before an end so desirable can be attained, we view with lively interest and fervent wishes for their success, the labours of men of learning, abilities and integrity in this important and arduous undertaking. As to the New Testament in particular, the late discovery and careful collation of a great number of manuscript copies, have thrown light upon many passages heretofore obscure, and have exposed to view interpolations, alterations, and other supposed improvements upon the origi nals, from which it is highly necessary to clear the sacred volume; and, far from stigmatizing such men with opprobrious epithets, or suspecting them of unwarrantable designs, we look upon them with veneration and gratitude; we hope that by their means a criterion may at length be established for distinguishing truth from errour, and the word of life be exhibited in all its native purity and lustre.

f

For his standard of perfection, our magazine-writer seems to look to a quite opposite quarter-to have fixed upon one out of the almost innumerable translations of the scriptures into modern tongues as the ne plus ultra of accuracy, and to deviate from which, he accounts a kind of treachery no less atrocious than that of Judas himself! That this is the translation in common use among us may be concluded without much danger of mistake. But what are its claims to such a pre-eminence? Without the least wish to detract from its real merit we must refuse to acknowledge its infallibility. It will be difficult even to allow its impartiality when we consider that it was made at the command of an arbitrary and pedantick monarch, whose theological notions the persons employed did not dare to contradict, and when we read the nauseous piece of adulation with which it was prefaced. It is obvious that it must have wanted the light which later discoveries and improvements in sacred literature have furnished. It has even been allowed by persons who agree with our writer on many points of religious faith, that several passages by which they appear to be supported ought either to be altered or expunged, in particular that (1 John v. 7.) respecting the three heavenly witnesses, against which the evidence is acknowledged to be decisive and incontrovertible. The utility, not to say the necessity of a version, in the fidelity of which all denominations of Christians might agree, is readily acknowledged; but the only chance for arriving at an end so desirable, is to give the fullest scope to inquiry, to afford the requisite encouragement to every respectable and well-intended endeavour to make all men acquainted with the Scriptures, under every translated sense which they will fairly bear, and to call upon the world at large to read, compare, and judge. There is a sure testimony of the Lord which makes wise the simple-there is a pure com.mandment which enlightens the eyes; but it must be presented to mankind in its certainty and purity before it can produce these happy effects.

Very different is the plan of which we have here the outlines. Assuming those magisterial airs at which I have often smiled in such self-erected directors of the publick opinion, and putting comparative merit entirely out of the question, this gentleman, with exemplary impartiality, affixes on every

effort of this nature, the brand of invariable suspicion, and would persuade his readers that they are too unlettered and too simple to entertain truth under any character but that in which he thinks proper to introduce her. But not deeming this suffi-. cient in the case of the Improved Version of the New Testament lately published, he steps at once from suspicion to denunciation, takes care to be beforehand with those who might accuse him of audacity, and transporting himself in imagination into the chair of Saint Peter, deals out his anathemas in terms for which its archives alone can furnish a precedent.* His accusation is of nothing less than an "attempt to explain dway the whole Gospel of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ; absolutely stripping it, with the single exception of the doctrine of the resurrection, of every principle which makes it glad tidings to a sinner." See, my friend, how an infuriated zeal overshoots its mark--Can you conceive how the doctrine of the resurrection can stand when all the rest of the Gospel is explained away? How this insulated point can remain, when, under the pretext of explanation we have set aside the appearance, the discourses, the miracles, and even the death of Christ? for not an iota of the Gospel is to be suffered to remain except the resurrection! But hold!--suppose we suffer our learned antagonist to explain away his own assertion, and by taking a distinction between Gospel facts and Gospel doctrines to give colour to the charge of its being stripped (absolutely stripped) of every principle which makes it glad tidings to a sinner. This allegation, sweeping and unqualified as the former, falls to the ground if we can produce, from the Improved Version, a single line, or even word of comfort to those who are turned aside from the way of peace; and such off-book talk is sufficiently refuted by a reference to the xvth Chapter of Luke's Gospel preserved whole and entire in the work in question without any comment except the following note, "This parable shews how graciously God receives sinners, and how great the displeasure of the Jews was at the reception of the Gentiles into the evangelical covenant."

* See the Bull of Leo X. against Luther, wherein much is said of the poisonous nature of his doctrines, and their dangerous effects on the minds of the simple. (Roscoe Vol. IV. appendix.)

Nor are the editors of the Improved Version, and those who patronize it, under great obligations, to this writer for allowing even the resurrection to remain a part of their creed, he was himself probably aware of the fatal dilemma in which this admission would fix them. Although he restricts them, apparently in such absolute terms to this single article, he does not mean to separate it from its immediate and allowed consequence, a retribution to all according to their works. Giving therefore no credit for possible mistake or innocence of intention, but imputing aggravated and premeditated wickedness committed under the certain expectation of an account to be rendered hereafter, he places them at the bar of the Judge, either self-condemned, or impudently lifting up their faces and looking for the sentence of approbation from his lips, laden with guilt enormous as that of the traitor who delivered him into the hands of his murderers! Does the writer believe that himself shall stand at the same righteous tribunal, and is he not afraid of incurring the condemnation of him who judges his brother, and sets at nought his brother? At such language and conduct in a professed advocate of Christianity, and a writer for a Christian magazine, how does that Charity which thinketh no evil hang down her head in astonishment and confusion!

He speaks of a morality little if any better than that of the pagans, substituted in the Improved Version in the room of redemption by the blood of Christ. This charge is quite of a piece with the rest. The morality, enjoined or recommended in the New Testament stands in the Improved Version without alteration in the text or depreciation in the notes; and if this be little if any better than heathen morality it is no fault of the editors'--they have substituted nothing of their own in its room. Perhaps indeed the writer may be disposed to deny that the New Testament feaches any morality at all--it is however at all events a barren morality. This is a combination of terms altogether new! If morality, good dispositions, and good works mean the same thing (which I suppose will not be denied) these are always represented as the effect and product of some internal principle, just as the species, the soundness and healthfulness of a tree are evidenced by the fruit it bears, and thus it seems to me that it would be as rational to talk of barren figs,

or barren grapes, as barren morality. If his meaning be to represent every thing of this kind as useless and ineffectual, he certainly is 'at war with the positive declarations of Christ and his apostles. They tell us indeed of a profession which is unprofitable, of a faith which is dead, and of course barren; but good works and their concomitant qualities are represented under the emblem of good fruits, acceptable to God and profitable to men; and where they appear, the profession is said to be" neither barren nor unfruitful." I am not willing, whatever be the case with our writer, to think that Christian morality is little, if any, better than that of the pagans; but I believe that in every nation he that feareth God and worketh righteousness according to the measure of the light he `enjoys, is now, and was in all former ages accepted of him. To such, Paul's observation Eph. ii. 12. was never intended to apply, in the sense here contended for.

When it suits a writer's purpose to deal in declamation and rhetorical figures, he is not very scrupulous about confining himself within the bounds of truth and consistency. Here we are presented with the Improved Version under the similitude of the cup of salvation, full of adulterated and soporiferous ingredients-handed about with laborious and incessant assiduity-thrust into the hands of the unlettered and the simple, and put to the lips (it is well he did not say, poured down the throats) of the unthinking, that they may sleep the sleep of death! What idea does this idle rant convey, unless it be that persons are hired to go about the country and distribute the book gratis among those who are too ignorant to read, too careless to reflect, or who want a substitute for a dose of laudanum? A very harmless mode, one would think, of perpetrating such a mighty mischief! It is true that liberal subscriptions were entered into for defraying the expense of publication, and that it was printed in three several forms for the convenience of readers in different classes of life, but the purchase was left, for any thing I ever heard to the contrary, as open, as fair, and as voluntary as that of any other work. Perhaps in some instances it was given away, though of this there is no evidence, but be these things as they may, it was intended in every case, and contrary to the assertion here made, for those who were disposed to think, to inquire, to reflect-" to sup