"Rome should be received as giving the meaning "of Scripture: but the Council of Essex-Street "ordains that the Comment imposed by the "Church which denies Christ, shall be received as

ἐσ

દ

part of the Scripture itself. That the word is

printed in italics is but a poor evasion. The "common and uninformed reader, the unlearned "man of sound understanding,' whom they se"lect as the proper arbiter of their criticisms, but "little attends to, and is for the most part igno"rant of this distinction."* Presuming, no doubt, upon this ignorance, and expecting to escape detection, though the Editors have printed the word in italics, the Dean has cited it in roman capitals, thus making it appear, to those who

* In the Introduction to the Calm Inquiry (p. 5), it is stated that the question concerning the person of Christ "is 66 an inquiry into a plain matter of fact, which is to be deter❝mined like any other fact by its specific evidence--the evi❝dence of plain unequivocal testimony, for judging of which no other qualifications are requisite than a sound understand"ing and an honest mind.”

66

This assertion has given great offence to those gentlemen who think that a man cannot be a judge of the truth of doctrines which lie at the foundation of the Christian faith, unless he is a profound Greek scholar. This is the cause of the many sarcastic allusions to these expressions in some late writers. Bishop Burgess is particularly sore upon this subject; and Dr. Magee, his humble friend, thinks that he ought to be very sore too.

do know and attend to the distinction, as part of the text.

The very reverend dignitary proceeds:-" Let "it for a moment be supposed that the Received "Version, instead of reading him who speaketh,' "had substituted Christ in his divine nature' for "the word him,' would the Unitarians conceive "that King James's translators had dealt fairly "with the public? Would they not, on the contrary, clamour loudly against this as a dishonest attempt to impose the Trinitarian comments as "the text of Scripture? Would there be any end "to the outcry which would be raised against in"terested priests?" &c. &c.

"The fact is, they plainly saw that the text "as it stands must unavoidably lead the mind "to Christ as the speaker. They saw more:

they saw that it not only introduces Christ "as the speaker now, but as the speaker be"fore, both in giving the law and in uttering "oracles through the prophets. They saw in

66

truth, that not only the præ-existence but the divinity of Christ was obviously deducible "from this passage, and with the wisdom be"longing to their generation they have made "the requisite alteration in the text. They "have been compelled not only to invent a new "translation for the text, but also to invent

"a new text for the translation*. Examples " abound of a nature similar to that which has "been just adduced, and many of a quality yet more insidious and dishonest,"

And now, what have these daring innovators, these seers of sights, the Editors of the Improved Version, to offer in favour of this novel, most insidious, and most dishonest corruption of the sacred text? a corruption which finds no parallel but in their own corrupt writings? a forgery and a fraud which far transcends all example in ancient and in modern times; which exceeds Popery itself; and which, as the Dean emphatically assures us, cannot be matched in the performances of his own holy brotherhood, viz. supplying the ellipsis in the text by the word GOD printed in italics?

In truth these unfortunate Editors have but very little to say for themselves; and that little can only afford satisfaction to men of "sound un❝derstandings and honest hearts:" so that they

*This jingling and scandalous charge, though limited by the Dean to this one particular passage, has been charitably extended by the Bampton Lecturer (who, for the credit of his veracity, it is to be hoped never saw the Improved Version,) to the whole work. See p. 94. To call upon him for proofs might be

thought unreasonable. The whole tenor of his Discourses b plainly manifests that such an uncourtly demand was never in his contemplation,

M

entertain very faint hopes of giving content to the Dean and his very learned friends. The truth, however, must come out: and here it is.

In the twentieth chapter of the Book of Exodus, at the first verse, it is thus written: "GOD 66 SPAKE ALL THESE WORDS TO THE CHILDREN OF “ISRAEL."

The Editors, therefore, of the Improved Version did not conceive that they committed an unpardonable offence when they supplied the ellipsis with the word GoD, "whose voice" it was which "then shook the earth." And I am confident that when the venerable Dean produces equal authority for his proposed amendment, "Christ in his "divine nature," they will most readily and thankfully receive it into their text. And if the Church of Rome herself can establish her doctrine upon similar ground, I may vouch for it that the Christ-denying Church of Essex-street will admit that doctrine as an article of faith.

But the matter must not rest here. The Dean of Cork has produced this passage, this very clause, "See that ye refuse not God who speaketh," as a "specimen of important, unacknowledged depar "ture from Newcome's Version, not to be ac"counted for from mere accident." He has marked the variation in capitals, to attract notice: he has printed the word God in roman characters,

not as the Editors of the Improved Version have done in italics, so that those of his readers who understand distinctions are naturally led to believe that the Editors have forged the text, an offence of which indeed the Dean distinctly accuses them; and that they, by not acknowledging it, have made the Archbishop responsible for it. It is impossible for those who read the charge alleged by the Dean against the Editors (p. 481 of his last vo, lume), to form any other conclusion.

Now, Mr. Dean, permit me with all humility to ask two or three plain questions. Did not you know at the very time when you exhibited this charge against the Editors of the Improved Version in a form which necessarily led to this and to no other conclusion, that every word of this conclusion, the inevitable conclusion from your own statement, was erroneous and unfounded? Did you not know, though poor illiterate Unitarians might be ignorant of it, that the word GOD, which you have printed in roman characters, was by them printed in italics, for the express purpose of showing that this word was not in the original, but that it was introduced by them to supply the ellipsis? And knowing this, was it quite " ho“nest” and “fair" in you to print the word God in roman letters, and then to accuse the Editors of inventing the text? Did you not know that the