merous are the instances, doubtless every where, of persons who, from various motives, would read on our side of the question, had they the means, but the expense and difficulty of procuring Unitarian publications, often is equivalent to a total prohibition. Of the great value of such libraries for the use of those who could not otherwise meet with our theological works, the experience of the one attached to the room is ample proof. Methodists, Catholics, &c., frequently apply for publications which are never refused even to entire strangers, and

80

little has this confidence been abused, that not more than two or three books have been lost, although seldom less than from 50 to 80 are in circulation. The eagerness with which applications are made sufficiently proves a very considerable desire to read, and in a short time most of our modern Unitarian books and tracts will be familiar to a numerous body of persons, who, till lately, could scarcely have heard of their existence.

On the whole, enough has been done to shew not only the practica. bility, but the very great advantages of this scheme for disseminating pure Christianity, though it remains to pursue, with unabated perseverance, the path which has so far led to happy results. Those who expect much in a short period, would do well to remember the difficulty of the task before them, which is no other than preparing, by a succession of efforts, the minds of men to discard that which for ages has been held sacred, and to receive what they are accustomed to hear spoken of with scorn and contempt. Neither ought we to be discouraged if the fruits of our labours do not become immediately apparent. Truth, though slow in its developement, is yet certain in her progress, and we should constantly bear in mind, that those are neither the most serious Christians, nor the most valuable members of society, whose opinions give way without a great deal of study and reflection.

The importance of the subject will, I trust, plead in my behalf for thus occupying your pages, not that I am insensible of the opinion of certain persons as to the superior practical consequences to be derived from such exertions to lead others to embrace our views of Christianity. But do

these suspect that the cause of piety is not benefited by that state of mind engendered by a taste for theological pursuits and the investigation of Scripture? Can they point to the moral tendency of that temporizing policy which would lead us to believe there is little value in principle? I agree with Dr. Priestley, that " our zeal to make proselytes ought, certainly, to be in proportion to our ideas of the importance of the truth for which we are advocates." With him, I should profess "no other view than to make converts, without which there can be no rational object in exertion at all," and if nothing is to be gained to the cause of virtue and holiness when "in understanding we become men," then have the wisest of our race been led away by the specious deceptions of theory, and the far-famed maxims of antiquity and the boasted perfectibility of man been none other than "an idle tale."

SIR,

A BEREAN.

Tess of Matthew i. ii. which HERE is one proof of the spurihas not, I think, been sufficiently noticed. Chap. iii. 1, in our common copies is, And in those days came John the Baptist," &c. It is evident that this cannot be correct. For those days would mean the time spoken of in the conclusion of the last chapter, that is, the time when John was quite an infant, at least 28 years before the beginning of his mission. It is therefore clear, that there has been some tampering with this passage, and that the person who added the first two chapters, in his attempt to join them to the third, with which, probably, the book originally began, has made utter nonsense of the first verse of the third chapter. Epiphanius says, that the Gospel of the Ebionites, that is, the Hebrew copy of Matthew, which never had the first two chapters, began, "It came to pass in the days of Herod, king of Judea, that John the Baptist came," &c. It seems to me most probable, that the words "of Judea" have been inserted by a mistake perhaps of Epiphanius, and that the Gospel of Matthew originally began, "It came to pass in the days of Herod the king, that John the Baptist came," &c. Herod Antipas, though properly

SIR,

T. C. H.

THE aspirants after episcopal honours and ecclesiastical emoluments, are infinitely indebted to the Editors of the Improved Version of the New Testament. In a book written by one of these gentlemen, I find great indignation expressed at the rendering of 2 Tim. iii. 16, All Scripture given by inspiration, &c. Not that I suppose these gentlemen are angry in reality, any more than a sportsman is angry with a hare or fox which he kills, though killing seems in one case the expression of wrath, and calumny in the other seems to indicate displeasure. My object, however, is not to expatiate on this mode of warfare, but to make some remarks on the text in question, and another somewhat connected with it.

The only two views of the text above named that I have seen, are that in our Common Version and that in the Improved Version. Neither of them appears to me satisfactory. It would seem a somewhat superfluous observation from the apostle to tell Timothy, that the inspired part of the Scriptures was profitable, &c. He had just before reminded his young friend, that from a child he had known the Holy Scriptures, which were able to make him wise unto salvation; where, then, was the necessity of adding that such parts of Scripture as were divinely inspired were profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness?

The objection to the Common Version is, that it is not quite in unison with the language of the original. In the preceding verse he calls the Scriptures τα ιερα γραμματα ; in the verse in question he uses πασα γραφη. Now by this expression he must mean every scripture, and it is hardly supposable that he would use language so indefi

nite as to assert that every individual scripture or passage is conducive to this variety of mental action afterward stated; and if he had intended to say that all the Scriptures were divinely inspired, he would most likely have said Tavra ypaμpara, or ai zaca; урафи.

Allow me to suggest another rendering. The words scripture and writing have in our language a distinct meaning. There was not such distinction in the Greek; the Greeks had ypapn for writing, pappa for a thing

written; the books of the Old Testa

ment were called emphatically the Writings, or the Sacred Writings; we may, therefore, very naturally suppose Paul to have said to Timothy, "Thou hast from a child been acquainted with the Holy Writings, which are able to make thee wise, or instruct thee to salvation. All writing, (i. e.) the art of writing, is of God, and is profitable for the several purposes of instruction in the first rudiments of knowledge, didaσkania; for the higher branches of science or argument, λeyxos; for direction in moral conduct, exavopes; and lastly, for instruction or initiation into the highest duties of religion, παιδειας εν δικαιο own." The indefiniteness of xara ypady will admit and, indeed, seems to require this.

This leads me to an interpretation of a passage in the second Epistle of Peter iii. Î6, "which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other Scriptures, to their own destruction." Is it not better to say, "which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do other writings, to their destruction," i. e. to the destruction of the writings or the total perversion of their meaning. If the apostle had meant the destruction of themselves, he would have used davray, as in Rom. iv. 19, To laUTS owpa, his own body; or omitted aurav, as in Rom. xiv. 4, te digo kupio, to his own master: but pos TY IDIAN αυτών απωλειαν means to the entire destruction of them, referring to the writings. A similar meaning of may be found in Sturgii Lexicon Xenoph:

5) Certus, verus, perpetuus, Z. 8, 13, avanda. Possis etiam vertere peculiaris.

I merely suggest the above as que

be said to excite more; for in former times it was chiefly confined to divines, or to men of great learning; but now its merits are known to many who are not professionally led to the study of polemical divinity.

Of this I have had a very palpable proof in a dialogue on the subject in question, of which I happened to be an auditor, at the house of a literary friend with whom I was lately spending a few days. It was about the time of Carlile's trial, which from its being detailed and commented upon in all the daily newspapers or other periodical publications, was obtruded, as it were, upon the notice of almost every body, and consequently much talked of. A small party had one day dined at my friend's, and the topic of the trial was, as might have been expected, introduced in the course of the evening, which was devoted to conversation. It suggested unavoidably the leading doctrines both of Deism and of Christianity, some of which were partially discussed without exciting any particular interest. But when the doctrine of the Trinity came to be mentioned, two of the company were soon found to have espoused very different opinions concerning it; and as each of them seemed desirous to convince his antagonist of error, the field of controversy was immediately left clear for them. The one was an orthodox Trinitarian, and the other a Unitarian of the modern school; but as the latter was professionally a physician, and the former an under-graduate of the University of Oxford, I will for the future designate them by the respective appellations of Medicus and Oxoniensis. How the discussion originated, I cannot now distinctly recollect; but what first attracted my particular notice was the following question put by Medicus to his opponent:

Med. Will you have the goodness to point out to me any text or passage of Scripture, in which the doctrine of a Trinity of persons in the Godhead is directly affirmed?

Oxon. There is, perhaps, no passage of Scripture in which a Trinity of persons in the Godhead is directly affirmed, but there are many passages in which it is evidently implied. One of the most direct is that of St. Matthew xxviii. 19, "Go ve, therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the

name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost."

Med. I admit that a Trinity of persons seems to be involved in the text; but I see no authority for supposing that they all subsist in the Godhead.

Oxon. It is not to be believed that our blessed Saviour, in the institution of the holy sacrament of baptism, would have associated any name with that of the God and Father of all, unless it had been of equal dignity and importance.

Med. If the mere association of a name were enough to elevate any person to the rank of divinity, then I could produce proofs from Scripture to shew that there are other persons in the Godhead besides those you mention; for in the noted overthrow of the Midianites, by the three hundred men that lapped the water with their tongues, do we not read of "the sword of the Lord and of Gideon ;" but who from thence will infer that Gideon is a person in the Godhead?

Oxon. If we had no further evidence beyond that of the text which I have quoted, the doctrine of the Trinity would indeed be left doubtful; but we have abundance of other proofs to shew that each of the persons here associated with the Father, is also God.

Med. I shall be glad if you will specify some of those proofs.

Oxon. The first proof I shall specify is, that Christ is called the Son of God, and claims that title.

Med. That is indeed true; but how does it prove Christ to be God?

Oxon. Because the Jews regarded his calling himself by that title to be the same as calling himself God; and such, consequently, must have been the import of the phrase among them at the time.

Med. If the Jews regarded Christ's claiming the appellation of the Son of God, to be the same with his claiming to be God, that was only their mistake; for Christ meant no more by the appellation than merely that he did the works, or obeyed the will of God. This is evident from what he says of the Jews, when they put in their claim to be the children of God: "Ye are of your father the Devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do❞— whi completes the parallel, or rather the contrast between them and Christ, who did the works of his Father, that