H

produced, I, in the name of those Editors, as publicly aver to be unfounded and unproved. I further aver that the charge is totally false, malicious, and calumnious. I challenge the reverend accuser to produce a single proof of wilful and deliberate perversion of the Scriptures in the whole of that voluminous work. If he can prove his accusation, let the names of the editors be blasted with everlasting infamy. But if he cannot make good a single charge, and I am sure he cannot, let the unjust accuser redeem his own character in the best way he is able.

Had the accusation been merely a charge of ignorance or inattention, had blunder upon blunder been detected and exposed, the Editors of the Improved Version might have borne the reproach in silence, and ought thankfully to have corrected the error of which they had been convicted. But when they are publicly and rudely charged with purposely and fraudulently falsifying and corrupting the Scriptures, in order to support doctrines which they know to be unscriptural and erroneous, and when they are thus accused by persons of some character and estimation in the world; conscious of their perfect innocence of all and of every part of the foul and scandaLous imputation, they have a right to repel it with indignation, and to call upon their unprovoked

and ungenerous adversaries to make good their allegations, or to retract their false accusations, and to retire with disgrace.

But that I may not incur the blame which I attribute to the reverend Lecturer, of imputing charges which he cannot substantiate, I shall select a few passages from the Discourse before me, to justify the statement which I have made, and which will show to what a degree of abasement and self-degradation a gentleman and a scholar -for such I presume Dr. Moysey to be-may sink, when bitten with the demoniacal phrensy of religious intolerance.

"ob

Page 165." The Unitarians," says he, ject to the plenary inspiration of the scriptures, "not on account of such passages as evidently do "not require particular inspiration, but because "in disavowing the inspiration of the Bible they

open a way, as they imagine, for the rejection,

or alteration, or mutilation of any texts of scrip-· "ture which militate most strongly against their "system. Like the Pharisees of old, they make the "commandment of God of none effect; and by "an art more unjustifiable even than theirs. The "Pharisees had indeed a tradition, which set it"self up to oppose, and even to overrule, the "written law. But they never presumed to

change or falsify the words of that law. They

F

"did not presume to call that the word of the "Lord which they had substituted for his word. "But these Unitarians, as they call themselves by way of distinction, avowing respect for the go

spel, seek, by impeaching its integrity, to un"dermine and overthrow it; and being fully aware that its doctrine opposed theirs, ARBITRA"RILY cut down, disguise, and pervert its pecu"liar and essential truths. They profess at the "same time to publish a more true and correct "version of that which they cannot possibly be

ignorant that they have corrupted and mutilated "in the most audacious, fraudulent, and unjustifi"able manner. Strong as these expressions may "appear," [strong indeed, good Dr. Moysey,] "I doubt not but that every one who shall at all "have examined into their New and Improved "Version has found them to be not only justified

by the treatment which the word of God has "received at their hands, but rendered absolutely "necessary by the deceitful professions which they "hold out, to draw in those who are not aware of "their dishonest arts."

Again, p. 168. "The Version of the Archbishop "whom they profess to follow is in few hands; " and it might be believed by those who have not "seen it, that all their alterations are copied from "thence. This is obviously their reason for hold

ing up his version as their model, when, in truth, they have departed even from it in many VERY "MATERIAL instances, without any notice given of "such variation. Nor have they dealt more faithfully with the Greek text in that edition which they profess to hold in such estimation."

65

Again, p. 170. "There is too much reason to suspect that they selected Griesbach's Text for "the same reason as Archbishop Newcome's Ver

sion, and that they professed to follow both, be"cause they were less generally known, and there"fore their deviations from them less likely to be "detected. If we may judge from the actions of "this sect, we shall discover but little reverence "for the word of God, which they presume to "set aside in so many instances, that they may "find a place for their own opinions in contra"diction to it. Nor can it be too much to assert

this, when we find them departing from that "which is received, and which they profess to "receive as the genuine text, whenever it suits "their purpose so to do, on their own single au

66

thority, and frequently without any notice of such "variation. Such conduct, when we consider the professions held out by them, of always giving "intimations of any departure from their models, " can be accounted for nothing better than wilful and fraudulent deception."

I confess I cannot read and transcribe these passages without feeling the greatest astonishment that a writer, who has any character to lose, can commit himself to advance charges so gross and so unqualified; and that he can repeat and insist upon them again and again, without producing, or being able to produce, a shadow of proof. Surely the reverend writer has himself forgotten his own solemn admonition, (p. 140,) which he

say's

ought never to be forgotten, and can scarcely be enough impressed, that a christian must be meek " and lowly in heart." What, then, are Bampton Lecturers not christians? or is there an exception in their behoof? Be it so. I do not envy them their privilege. And I trust that how much soever my indignation may be excited by the virulence of such a writer as Dr. Moysey, it will never provoke me to a retaliation of abuse. In the present case I shall only expose the learned Lecturer's conduct, let others give it what name they please. He alleges no proof: but I know where he thinks that his great strength lies. I can assure him, however, that he will find that he is leaning upon a broken reed. But of this hereafter. At present we are only stating the indictment; the defence will follow.

It is surprising that it should not have occurred to the reverend accuser, that the Editors of the