TO ALISON. EDINBURGH, 9th NOVEMBER, 1829. COME hither, my beloved one, Oh! thou wast once a sickly thing, Fast overcam'st disease, and grew In loveliness and strength. Twelve long, long years I've been away— And in that weary time Thy little image solaced me. In many a distant clime; And I had hoped-but let that pass- Not distant, when I yet may do I left thee a mere child-and now Thou art a woman grown; Aye, hide thy blushes there, my sweet, 'Tis bliss to feel thy cheek once more Thy cradle once, and now thy home- W. B. H. SIR, MINOR CORRESPONDENCE. TRANSLATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. Dec. 7, 1840. In answer to the inquiry of W. W. in your No. for December of this year, in reference to the number of Translations of the New Testament since King James's, stated by me to about fifteen, I beg to offer the following list, taken chiefly from Archbishop Newcome's "Historical View of the English Biblical Translations." Dublin, 1792. King James's Bible was published in 1611. N. T., Gr. and English, with a Paraphr., &c., by Ed. Wells. 1719. N. T., Gr. and Eng., transl. by Wm. Mace. 1729. N. T., by Fra. Fox. 1722. N. T., according to the ancient Lat. Ed., by Wm. Webster. 1730. N. T., from the Lat. Vulg., by R. Wetham (Douay). 1730. N. T., Rhemish. 1738. N. T., Whiston's Primitive. 1745. N. T., by Doddridge. Published, first intermixed with the Paraphrase, 1759; and afterwards separately, in two vols, 1765. N. T., translated by Ric. Wynne. 1764. N. T., Rhemish (a new translation). 1752. N. T., translated by Archbp. Newcome. N. T., Newcome's, considerably changed, by T. Belsham. 1808. N. T., translated by John Sharpe. 1840. N. T., conformed to Griesbach's Text, but in the Common Version. Boston, 1830. Remarks. Though at the end of his very interesting and extensive List of Biblical Translations in the above-named work, the Archbishop put the following notice "Those articles only are inserted, in which the translation differs from the received one"-yet I cannot say they are all original and independent translations. I have not the opportunity of seeing several of them. Indeed, King James's translation was not, properly speaking, original. It followed in a great measure what was called the Bishops' Bible: and that was perhaps one reason why it was generally adopted with so little opposition. The question, however, of a new translation was agitated under the government of Cromwell. This I say from memory, and cannot give a reference. I am aware the above list is imperfect, though exceeding fifteen: I will, therefore, add a few particulars. I notice several editions of Beza's Bible and New Testament between 1603 and 1616. The Bible was translated by Anthony Purver, in 1764; comprehending, I suppose, the N. T. Whether the "New Testament, with Notes, by John Wesley," in 1755, be a corrected translation, I cannot decide. There was a translation of the N. T. by Worsley, in 1770. I do not remember to have seen either Beza's Bible or New Testament; but I infer from the date of the different editions-1603 to 1616—that it continued to be used by the Presbyterians both of Scotland and England, for some time, though probably not long, after the publication of the Version now in use. I refer generally to the work mentioned in the beginning of this communication, which cannot be perused by those who are interested in the study of the Holy Scriptures without considerable instruction and gratification. W. J. P. S. I should have added, that Translations of different books and portions both of the Old and New Testament have been very numerous. SIR, TRINITARIAN HYMN ASCRIBED TO BOWRING. ON looking over a Collection of Hymns by JOHN ADEY, Minister of Ebenezer Chapel, Ramsgate, 2nd ed., published by Westley and Davies, London, 1831,-I noticed the following Trinitarian hymn ascribed to BowRING; the description of the Deity being printed in capitals, as in the copy sent herewith. I am not aware that any person of the name of BowRING has composed Hymns, except Dr. BOWRING, the noble-hearted Unitarian Christian, whose pious and irrevocable vow, as recorded in all our churches, isThou art my God, and Thou alone, The Sole, the Undivided One! For thou art One; Thou wilt divide If the hymn in question was composed by another person, there ought, I think, to have been an initial prefixed, as it is otherwise calculated to mislead. If, on the contrary, the composition be really Dr. Bow RING's, and has been brought into its present state by mutilation, the fraud ought to be exposed. Poplar Institution. J. BATEMAN. 111. 7s. The Song of the Cherubim.-BOWRING. 1. See th' glorious Cherubim Thronging round th' ETERNAL's throne. Praise-eternal praise to thee! 2. Rest, ye worldly tumults, rest! Praise-eternal praise to thee! 3. Heav'n-directed spirit, rise Praise-eternal praise to thee! SIR, UNITARIAN WORSHIP UNATTRACTIVE: WHY? Paisley, Nov. 18, 1840. I FEEL convinced, from the conversations I have had with men of different creeds and countries, that the fundamental principle of Unitarianism is far more prevalent than is generally believed. Press the majority of Trinitarians as to whether they actually believe that he who declared that he was "the sent of God," was actually the Eternal and Omnipotent Creator, they will generally pause and probably say, No, not exactly; but-and so on, endeavouring to mystify the matter as much as possible, and escape after the manner of a certain fish that has the power, when too closely pursued, of "muddifying" the water, and so finds safety. But if the principle is so prevalent, how comes it that the congregations of the Unitarian chapels are generally so small? I venture to reply, that it is This in a great measure owing to the lack of moral courage among men. remark applies particularly to a town like this, where the place of meeting is a small room in an obscure street. How can it be expected that many will leave their well-cushioned seats-forego the pleasure of hearing a fine organ, &c.-run the risk of losing a customer or two, perhaps (a powerful damper)-in order to declare their belief in common with a few poor individuals? I have been led into this train of thought by two circumstances which occurred lately, and which I shall briefly relate. I had persuaded an individual to accompany me one Sunday morning to the place of worship before alluded to, and he came willingly enough until he found that the entrance was through a dark passage, and that the visitors were gaped at as the followers of something very strange. This was too much for his nerve; and it was only by considerable coaxing and a threat of going alone, that Í got him to enter.--The other circumstance was, that a celebrated Unitarian orator having announced his intention to preach in the Exchange Rooms here the other day, hundreds of respectably-dressed people attended and joined in praising the Great Supreme. The members of the poor chapel could hardly be perceived in the throng, they were "so few and far between" -also strikingly illustrating the poet's words, "Tis thus the spirit of a single mind Makes that of multitudes take one direction." But as the same eminent preacher is to lecture at the regular place in the course of the winter, we shall see what influence "place and pomp" have on these gude people: however, as the lectures are to be in the evenings, when it is dark, some will no doubt venture. Sheep are, I believe, accounted the most stupid of animals, but I cannot help thinking that there is in some points a resemblance between them and the lords of the creation; both must go in herds, both will follow the leader, and the leader with them is not the Truth, but Fashion! A. B. ON JOSHUA xxiv. 19. THE passage of Joshua, so far as the new translation which Silurus perseveres in recommending is concerned, is as an : and the word on which it rests, is 15. This is evidently in the tense which has been variously called future, present, imperfect and aorist, and which, with the negative before it, (rarely, if ever, ,) is translated as an imperative. This tense is of frequent occurrence-not fewer than 130 times-and seems to have generally the sense of may, can, or be able, followed by an infinitive with. Of the passages I consulted I shall refer to five, which occur in the book of Joshua, as shewing the usage of the writer. These are, Josh vii. 12, 20, "they could not stand;" vii. 13, "thou canst not stand;" ix. 19, "we may not touch them ;" xv. 63, "could not drive them out;" xvii. 12, "could not drive out;" the disputed passage, "Ye cannot serve"-according to Silurus, "Cease not to serve"-where he makes in the imperative mood, though the negative is 5, not . If the verb signifies to cease in one passage, we should have a corresponding meaning in other passages in which the same tense is used; and, that difference of person may not give trouble, I will refer to the only two other passages in which in itself occurs, viz. Judges xiv. 13, where it has preceding it, and Jerem. xiii. 23, where it has not. The former of these is in E. V., "If ye cannot declare it (the riddle) to me." The other, "Then may ye also do good," &c., which would be, according to Silurus's explanation of the word, "Then will ye also cease to do good, who have been accustomed or taught to do evil." I have examined many other passages, which it would be tedious to enumerate, and find them all rendered in the English translation conformably to those quoted, with very slight variation, and not one translated cease, or, as I conceive, admitting of such signification. After comparing these passages, I consulted the Lexicons of Castell, Buxtorf, Gesenius, and one of his translators, Gibbs, Eichhorn's Simonis, Lee, Leopold, Parkhurst, Newman, the notes of Rosenmüller, the ancient translations in Walton's Polyglott, and the translation of Bellamy ; and all, without exception, concur with the received translation and the modern translations, which Silurus admits to be against him. Now, however high the authority of Silurus might be, if known, it is unreasonable to expect that we should admit a new translation against all these authorities on his sole assertion. If he had not distinctly said that his translation was not taken from a conjectural reading, I should have supposed he had adopted a conjecture of the learned Hallett's, which a friend pointed out to me, on my noticing the new version as a strange and unnecessary one; but, as it is, I can only suppose that he has referred the word ton, signifying to complete, &c., which in the Pihel conjugation has the sense of finishing to do, leaving off, but which is mostly translated by an adverb fully, or to that effect. I do not think that any use of this verb would justify Silurus's translation, without laying any stress on the points; nor could be formed from n after any system. Indeed, I should not have referred to this, or supposed that any man of Silurus's attainments (judging of him from his letters) could have adopted such a notion, only I was unable otherwise to account for his translation.—Till he bring forward something stronger than a general attack on the Septuagint, and his own unsupported assertion respecting the Hebrew, I must adhere to the received translation; and I do not think that it offers any difficulty which should make any one anxious for a new version. Δ. SIR, NEW VERSION OF JOSHUA xxiv. 19. I AM Sorry that Silurus (VII. 784) should have replied to my remarks on his new version of Joshua xxiv. 19, as if he supposed that he has found a personal opponent in S. H., instead of a sincere coadjutor in the pursuit of scriptural truth. I assure him that my single object was and is to contribute, according to my ability, to the just interpretation and understanding of the Scriptures, without any view to mere controversy, and without the slightest idea of encountering only sarcasm and dogmatism, instead of argument, where I happened to differ from him or others. After quoting my opinion of the correctness of the common version, in translating the Hebrew of the text in question, Silurus goes on to write as follows: "Yet, with all this correctness in the English version, he (S. H.) refers us to the Septuagint, as an authority in a matter of punctuation, and then coolly assures us that the Septuagint is to be preferred, as it does not involve any conjectural emendation of the original text!'” I am not quite sure that I understand the charge which is here brought against me. I am not aware of any valid ground of objection to the use of the punctuation of the Greek version, if the meaning of the original may be more clearly expressed by this means; nor do I see that the adoption of this or of any other punctuation is in any degree inconsistent with the position, that the words of the original Hebrew are faithfully translated in the English version. And if Silurus means to object, that the adoption of the mere punctuation of the Septuagint is, in fact, "a conjectural emendation of the original text," I would remind him, (he cannot require to be informed,) that the punctuation forms no part of the original text, and that his objection is groundless. I have reason to object, however, that Silurus has quoted my letter incorrectly, not to say uncandidly. I said nothing about "the Septuagint being preferred, as it does not involve any conjectural emendation of the original text." I represented my view of the text in question as preferable to his, on |