he slept: then he brought one to his side whose flesh" (sc. uterus) "he had enclosed in her place."

But the last instance I would beg leave to quote in support of Dr. Henderson's rule, and to shew that, how much soever Mr. Bellamy's pages are neglected by a Professor of Arabic, they are both deservedly read and valued by others, is the well-known 22nd verse of Gen. iii. It is useless to pretend that in the LXX., the Vulgate, and our English Common Version, this verse has any but an absurd meaning. If any signification whatever can be attached to it according to these Versions, it must be, that "to prevent_man (who had become like God, to know the difference between good and evil) from living for ever, the Almighty banished him from the garden of Eden." But this version involves two glaring absurdities; for, in the first place, it states, that it was only after sinning that man became like God! - and, secondly, it maintains that the Almighty-notwithstanding the numerous assertions, both in the Old and New Testament, to the contrary-willed the death of the sinner, inasmuch as, by banishing 'him from Eden, he took measures to prevent his living for ever! In short, there is a manifest contradiction to the tenor of the whole word of God in the translation of this verse, as we find it in the Authorized and Common Versions. Let us now turn to the pages of Mr. Bellamy, so willingly neglected by Professor Lee, and we shall find a translation of the verse in question as beautiful as it is literal; a version, Mr. Editor, for which, had I a Doctor's hat-whether of Halle or any other university-I would cheerfully renounce it in favour of Mr. Bellamy; in short, a version which, as it shews that the original, instead of a curse, contains the first direct promise of eternal life to man after the fall, is and will be entitled to the gratitude of every sincere reader of the Bible who becomes acquainted with it. Mr. Bellamy's Version runs thus: "Moreover, Jehovah God said, Behold, the man was as one of us,

with the knowledge of good and evil; therefore, now surely he shall put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life; yea, he shall eat and live for ever!" Before, however, adding Mr. Bellamy's arguments in favour of this translation, I must beg leave to quote the version of Dr. Leander Van Ess, the well-known Ex-Professor of Marpurg, in his Version of the Bible in German, (Sulzbach, 1822,) wherein, although he differs somewhat from Bellamy, (the First Part of whose Translation, by the way, was published in 1819,) he yet agrees with him in giving the sense of the promise. Ver. 22: "Da sprach Jehova Gott: Siehe! der Mensch ist unsers gleichen worden, so dass er Gutes und Böses erkernt. Nun-soll er nicht die Hand aus strecken und noch dazu rom Baume des Lebens nehmen und davon essen und so ewig leben?" I have said that Mr. Bellamy's Version is literal. The Hebrew verb n', in the first clause of the verse, is strictly was, and no where in the Bible means is become. The words, as one of us, do not refer to God, but are applied by the writer to the human race at large; and the general meaning is, that man was appointed (as any one of us now, or as we all, are) to know both good and evil. The whole meaning of the se cond clause, which contains the promise of Jehovah, turns on the signi fication attached to the word ↑ which Bellamy proves, from various passages in the original, as well as on the authority of the learned Targumists, Onkelos and Jonathan, who, it must be remembered, wrote when the Hebrew was a living language, to signify verily, truly, indeed; and the subsequent verb now being in the future, gives the sense, surely he shall stretch forth his hand, &c. &c.

I fear, Mr. Editor, that I may have trespassed too much on your patience, and that of your readers, at one sitting: allow me, therefore, to apologize, and at the same time to request, that, if I may have erred in any thing I have advanced, one of your numerous correspondents will be kind enough to set me to rights.

D

ART. I.—Three Letters addressed to the Ven. and Rev. Francis Wrangham, M. A., &c. By C. Wellbeloved.

(Concluded from p. 44.)

begotten, is, in other passages, translated ayanηtos, beloved. Jer. vi. 26; Amos viii. 10. Hence it is probable, that, as the word ayaяηтoç, BELOVED, does not occur in John as a title of Christ, this writer uses the word povoyens, only

other Evangelists would use beloved.'Now, Sir, does Mr. Belshamn vouchsafe to inform us that ayanтos does not once occur in the New Testament; though you have vouchsafed to inform us that

"You do not always treat your own oracles with due respect; but you can misrepresent your friends, while accumulating your misrepresentations of those whom you so bitterly oppose. In page 62, heaping your sarcasms upon the modern Unitarian interpretation of the Logos, in the first chapter of John, according to which, you say, an attribute (wisdom) was povoyens, the only-be. gotten; or, to adopt the Improved Version, the dearly-beloved,' &c.; you add in a note on this word, Used, as Mr. Belsham states, for ayarros, which he vouchsafes to inform us, does not once occur in the New Testament, whereas it occurs, at least, six times! (Nares.) But Nares, from whom you profess to derive this note, is not guilty of the blunder here palmed upon him. He does not assert that a word occurs in the New Testament at least six times, when a glance upon the column of his Schmidius would shew him that it occurred at least SIXTY. Nares's remark is, It is not true that the word ayantos does not occur in the writings of St. John. It occurs in these writings at least six times.' But you, perhaps, served him right to misrepresent him; for he has in this very passage misrepresented Mr. Belsham, and again misled you. Mr. B. vouchsafes no such information as that which, on the supposed authority of Dr. Nares, you ascribe to him. The passage on which Dr. Nares animadverts, is in the Calm Inquiry, p. 166, 2nd edit., and is as follows: It (the term μoyoyevns) is often metonymically used to express dearlybeloved. See Heb. xi. 17. And the same word, in the original Hebrew, which by the LXX. is rendered μovoyens, only

this word, which occurs there above sixty times, occurs at least six? But thus it is that the writings of Unitarians are misquoted and misrepresented, and then, on the strength of their adversaries' blunders or artifices, they are branded as sciolists and shallow theological critics, and denied the possession of common sense, common honesty, or the learning of school-boys!"-Pp. 70-72.

What shield can Archdeacon Wrangham employ which shall protect him from the shafts of his antagonist, and from his own?-One further extract shall be made from Mr. Wellbeloved's Reply on the subject of the Improved Version:

«Those,' you say, who wish for farther evidence of the accumulated tricks exemplified in the Improved Version, may find them λ τ Ovλan in Magee's, Laurence's, Nares' and Renuell's admirable strictures written expressly on that subject.' True, Sir, your readers will find a sack full' of accumulated tricks in the possession of every one of those to whom you refer them, but they are all their own; not one of them ever was the property of the Editors of the Improved Version. I will confidently refer our readers (if, indeed, I should have the good fortune to reckon among my readers any who have been yours also) to that Version itself; and, though they may find some mistakes, and many things in the text, and more in the notes, of which they may disapprove, I will venture to say, they will not find a single trick; any thing which can justify the suspicion of disingenuousness or artifice. I may be allowed again to say, that I am better acquainted with the Improved Version than you, to whom I suspect it is known only through the medium of the authorities you have cited; and I affirm without hesitation, that, though I am far from regarding it as a faultless work, either

are

We perfectly agree with the author of the "Three Letters" in his estimate of the character of the Improved Version, and of the motives of its Editor. The work possesses many and great, though of course not unalloyed, excellencies; and we persuaded that it has been highly useful. One beneficial purpose it has served, which perhaps was little contemplated: it has been the experimentum crucis, in respect of the theological learning, the critical skill and knowledge, and, we must add, the candour and probity, of the Archbishops, Archdeacons, and other dig nitaries and academics who have made it the subject of their attacks. He who shall contrast the present race of divines in the Established Church with their predecessors, must deeply regret the degeneracy now exhibited, in point of fair dealing, as well as of professional attainment. The fact is too notorious to be denied: the writer of the "Three Letters" has placed it in the clearest light; and the causes and tendency of a change so lamentable, suggest many observations, for which we cannot here find room. We are speaking, be it observed, of the class of men who have been mentioned, not as general scholars, but solely as divines: the acknowledged eminence of several of them in literature and science, is far from lessening the dishonour which attaches to them in the characters of theologians and polemics.

Mr. Wellbeloved advances to the last crimination in his antagonist's Charge that requires particular notice:

"In page 11, you say, Among the principal grounds of the creed or nocreed professed by Socinians, may be ranked (as it has been remarked) the accordance of its dogmas with philosophical prejudices. By philosophical prejudices are meant the prejudices of men of taste and science on the subject of religion. Accustomed to revel in the riches of the intellect, and the pleasures created by the magic of genius, they feel a strange and adverse descent when they are summoned to receive the peculiar

We will endeavour to lay before our readers, in a condensed form, the reply of the author of the "Three Letters :"

"These disclosures you assume to be the doctrines maintained by the Established Church of this country, and other sects usually denominated orthodox. The grounds of a creed, I should imagine, would be generally understood to denote the foundation on which it professes to be built; the principles contained, or supposed by those who frame the creed, to be contained, in the Scriptures. But if I am not greatly mistaken, you confound these with the motives by which some at least-you cannot mean to say all-who maintain that creed, have been induced to adopt it, after it has been framed. If you do indeed intend to say that the creed of Unitarians has been framed on philosophical prejudices,' by men of taste and science, I deny the fact, and without any hesitation assert, that it was the creed of the illiterate, though inspired, apostles of our Lord; and that in all succeeding ages it has been held, with various modifications and corruptions indeed, by those who have not generally ranked among the wise and learned. If you mean that the continued existence of this creed is owing to the countenance it receives from men of taste and science, I deny that also to be the fact; and I would advise you to lay aside duce some sufficient proof of what you all unmeaning declamation, and to proassert; and, at the same time, to reconcile this assertion with your censure of Unitarianism as a school of sciolism. If you mean to say that men of taste and science, in general, are prejudiced against religion, and betake themselves to Unitarianism to shroud themselves from the imputation of infidelity, permit me to ask, how are you borne out by experience?"-P. 75.

Thus is Archdeacon Wrangham suspended on the horns of a dilemma! If he persist in affirming that Unitarianism is a school of sciolism, how can he venture to tell us that its dogdices, or with the prejudices of men mas accord with philosophical prejuof taste and science, on the subject of religion? On the other hand, if Unitarianism recommend itself to men of taste and science, how can it be a school of sciolism? Does this reverend gentleman write first and think afterwards?

- But he goes much further: he is calumnious as well as inconsistent. According to the Archdeacon of Cleveland, Unitarianism "conciliates not only the Pyrhhonist, but the profligate." Here he sacrifices truth, and his own character for candour and discernment, to the love of alliteration. A false and perverted taste will eagerly combine together the Pyrhhonist and the profligate and the play upon the words shall be so much the easier to the disputant, if his pen be dipped in the gall of the odium theologicum. We suspect that Lord Calthorpe has known a great deal more of Unitarians than has fallen to the lot of Archdeacon Wrangham; and though the creed and its professors are not exactly the same thing, there is still a shrewd presumption that they do not vastly differ from each other. Now Lord Calthorpe (we say nothing of his theological qualifications or decisions) was pleased to bear his testimony in favour of the moral charities and deportment of Unitarians. Certainly, he did not describe them as profligates; and in expressing his opinion of their creed, he was too honest and honourable to maintain that it conciHated the profligate. Something he assuredly knew of their character and reputation in society: nor was he unjust to his own convictions, and to their humble and, we will add, unforfeited, pretensions. The dignitary before us, outrages decency and common opinion:

"It is impossible," remarks Mr. Wellbeloved, "for any conscientious Unitarian, who experiences the animating and the purifying influences of his faith, to read this passage without feelings of indignation. I hesitate not to avow that such are my feelings; but they are mingled with sentiments of deep regret, that one, from whose extensive learning, correct taste, enlightened understanding, and general urbanity of manners, every thing fair, and candid, and honourable, might have been justly expected, should thus violate truth and charity, in the service of a party, and afford the sanction of his authority to the revilings and the calum nies of ignorance and bigotry."-Pp. 76, 77.

After convicting the Archdeacon of Cleveland of a misapprehension, or

• Mon. Repos. XIX. 246.

more than misapprehension, of passages in Dr. Priestley's writings, the author of the "Three Letters" admifably vindicates the memory of that great and much-injured man from vulgar calumny. He appeals to incontrovertible facts, in proof of his supreme love and value of the Scriptures; he confidently invites serious and candid persons to read his devotional and practical works, and even those of a controversial and speculative nature, as illustrative of his excellent spirit. Speaking of him in his polemical character, he justly says,

"He was no bickerer, no skirmisher. He engaged in what he felt to be a momentous and an arduous contest, in defence of genuine Christianity; and he engaged in it with all his might, fairly, honourably, and, I will add, not without success-success as distinguished and as merited as any that attended his physical speculations. Virulence belonged not to him. His language may be occasionally

strong, but it is not bitter; and the betray no resentment or malignity, but severest expressions he ever employs, only a virtuous indignation against groundless suspicions, misrepresentations, and calumnies, tending at once to injure his own character and to impede the progress of truth.”—P. 93.

Mr. Wellbeloved is naturally led to make an estimate of Dr. Priestley's controversy with Bishop Horsley: this he does at some length, and with much accuracy and fairness; and the result he thus states:

"On one or two points of minor im portance, I allow that he was foiled: but on every leading question, and especially on that which formed the chief topic of discussion, the existence of a church of Orthodox Hebrew Christians at Elia, he was decidedly and triumphantly victorious."--P. 99.

Our author does not close the second of his letters without briefly adverting to Archdeacon Wrangham's attack on Mr. Belsham for having "in an unguarded burst, which it is painful to transcribe, represented the promised Messiah as a man constituted in all respects like other men, subject to the same infirmities, the same ignorance, prejudices, and frailties! appearing even to insinuate that his 'pri

In which undertaking he shews that Archdeacon W. is a stranger to Dr. Priestley's writings.

vate life' might possibly have been less pure and unimpeachable than his public conduct!"-Pp. 104-108.

These, be it considered, are the words of the Archdeacon of Cleveland; and this is the charge which he now prefers against Mr. Belsham, who shall therefore speak for himself: we quote from the former edition of the Calm Inquiry, pp. 190, 191:

"The moral character of Christ, through the whole course of his public ministry, as recorded by the evangelists, is pure and unimpeachable in every particular.

"Whether this perfection of character in public life, combined with the general declarations of his freedom from sin, establish, or were intended to establish, the fact, that Jesus through the whole course of his private life was completely exempt from the errors and failings of human na ture, is a question of no great intrinsic moment, and concerning which we have no sufficient data to lead to a satisfactory conclusion."

We make this citation for two reasons: first, to convince our readers that what Mr. Belsham has written, refutes, and should have obviated, Archdeacon Wrangham's gloss and animadversion; secondly, that we may appeal to them, whether Mr. Belsham has here done justice to his subject or to himself. His proposition, we think, is not enunciated with the precision and distinctness which usually characterize him. We have no doubt that by "errors and failings," errors and failings not sinful must be intended; and the epithet not sinful should, accordingly, have been added. Of our Saviour's perfect virtue and piety in every relation of life, who that reads the memoirs of him, can harbour a suspicion?

In the third of these "Letters," Mr. Wellbeloved examines the Archdeacon of Cleveland's defence of the creed of the Established Church, so far as it relates to the doctrine of the Trinity. The dignitary exclaims, "Shall we not teach them [the Unitarians] that what they simply regard as their exclusive and self-evident tenet, the Unity of the Godhead, depends for its certainty upon the testimony of the Scriptures; and that the unity of design which pervades the natural world, proves only-to adopt the defi

nition of our own luminous PALEY— a unity of counsel ?"

Now the testimony of the Scriptures, is one thing; the definition, or rather the conjecture, of Paley, is quite another. Where can we discover evidence that the Scriptures put any distinction between the Unity of the Creator and the unity of a mere creature? Independent proof must be given of the doctrine of the Trinity, before such comments are admissible. Let it be established that three persons actually co-operate with each other in a design and undertaking, previously to an attempt at shewing that these persons form only one being. The author of the "Letters" before us, properly speaks of Paley's definition, or concession, as relating rather to the question "between Monotheists and Polytheists, than to that between Unitarians and Trinitarians." This, it would seem, is its true and natural reference. Not that Paley so employed and limited it: there can be little doubt that he glanced, at the Trinitarian controversy; and our highly, valuable correspondent Mr. Cogan, whose powers of estimating and of conducting metaphysical and moral reasoning, have rarely been surpassed, has in this view, completely destroyed Paley's inference.*-Pp. 109. 110.

Archdeacon Wranghamn asks, "Why are plural appellations so frequently employed, in the original Hebrew, to designate the Godhead?" He informs us too, that “in the very first page of the Bible we meet with terms applied to the Supreme Being, which inseparably combine the ideas of Plurality and Unity; terms which gratuitous hypotheses of Orientalism, of the ordinary style of royal proclamations, or of the association of angels, in the actsand decrees of Omnipotence, are vainly adduced to explain."

If, after what we have already perceived, we could be astonished that the Archdeacon of Cleveland relies on an argument like this; if, under such circumstances, we could exclaim, "Hæc non modo mirabilia sunt, sed prodigii simile est, quod dicit!" our wonder, nevertheless, would give place to our gratification at the opportunity with which Mr. Wellbeloved has been furnished, and of which he has availed

• Mon. Repos, XVIII, pp. 694, &c.