Version, or hear its name. During a five years' course of study at the college where I received my education for the ministry, I do not remember any mention of it in the theological classes, and only two in the Greek classes: both of which were condemnatory; one, of the introduction of the English indefinite article to indicate, in certain cases, the absence of the definite article in the original; the other, of the rendering of the preposition dia, with the genitive, by the word "for." The fact that most ministers of our persuasion, subscribe to the British and Foreign Unitarian Association, which has succeeded to the property in the improved version, and continues to circulate it, no more makes them responsible for its criticisms, than a contribution to the Bible Society makes a clergyman accountable for the forgery of the "heavenly witnesses." The one aids in distributing a possibly defective, the other a certainly interpolated, copy of the Christian records. Let us apply another test to this imprudent parallel between the established clergy, and the Unitarian ministers. In the United States of America, no one, I presume, could take holy orders in the Episcopal church, without pledging his assent to the thirty-nine articles; and should he cease to approve of them, his ordination vow would require him to resign his preferment. But in that country are hundreds of Unitarian ministers, who know nothing of the Improved Version; and would be as much astonished to be told that they were bound by it, as would Dr. Tattershall to

hear that he must answer for the Oxford Tracts.

a

But the mere fact, that within a year after the publication of this work, a Unitarian divine, a subscriber to the Unitarian society, in Unitarian periodical, submitted it to a criticism far more searching

and elaborate than that which an acumen,

sharpened by theological hostility, is now able to produce, is sufficient to set in its true light the statement which I have quoted. I beg to call the attention of our Reverend opponents to the following enumeration of the points, to which the censures of the Reviewer (Dr. Carpenter) are directed. (1.) The selection of Newcome's Revision, instead of the author

ized version, as a basis.

(2.) The departure, and without any intelligible rule, from Griesbach's text, which, in the introduction, had been mentioned in a way to excite the expectation of its invariable adoption.

partures, a complete table is given.

Of these de

(3.) The neglect of proper acknowledgement, and defence of these

departures.

(4.) The professed employment of brackets for one purpose, (to indi

cate words which, according to Griesbach, were probably, though not certainly, to be expunged,) and the actual use of them for another; as, for example, in the introduction of St. Matthew's Gospel, which is thus enclosed.

(5.) The use of italics (intended to indicate doubtful authority) without adequate evidence of doubtful authority, and in violation of the apparent intention to repudiate critical conjecture. And in particular, the use of this type in the introduction to St. Luke's gospel ; which "the evidence is far too little to justify;" and in the introduction to St. Matthew's gospel. Both these examples are considered by the reviewer as instances of conjectural criticism.

(6.) The unwarrantable license allowed in general to conjectural emendation of the text; of which, particular cases are adduced; as the transposition of verses, John i. 15, 18; and, in a lower sense of the word conjecture, the omission of dià tŷs níσtews, Rom. iii. 25; and the ka in 2 Tim. iii. 16.

(7.) The departures from the received text without notice. Of these departures, a complete table is given.

(8.) The departures from Newcome's Revision, without sufficient notice; of these, a list was given, and a synoptical table has since been published in the appendix to Dr. Carpenter's reply to the "unanswered" Archbishop Magee.

(9.) The use of the English indefinite article, in certain cases, where there is no Greek definite article. For example, the Centurion's exclamation at the crucifixion, Matt. xxvii. 54; in his remarks on which, Mr. Byrth will perceive that he has been anticipated by

the reviewer.

(10.) The introduction of doctrinal notes, which the reviewer thinks ought to have been entirely excluded.*

The culpable omission of the epithet, "Unitarian," from the description of the "Society for promoting Christian Knowledge," in the title page of the first edition, has since received the censure of the same friendly but just critic.t

If then, all that is original and "orthodox," in the recent assaults on the improved version, be the sarcasm and extravagance; and all that is "candid" and "scholar-like" was long ago anticipated by a Unitarian divine, (to whom Dr. Nares awards the praise of being " the very learned and dispassionate reviewer,") with what propriety can

• See Monthly Repository of Theology and General Literature, 1809, pp. 97, seqq.; 152, seqq.; 274, seqq.; 384, seqq.

Reply to Magee, p. 302.

we be held responsible, as Unitarian ministers, for the peculiarities of the work, and called upon to defend it from strictures, produced at second-hand in Christ Church, and originally published among ourselves. If Dr. Carpenter had been minister in Liverpool, instead of Bristol, would he have been bound to come forward and answer himself?

I by no means intend to charge the clergymen engaged in this controversy with plagiarism. Their great authority, Archbishop Magee, so completely withheld in his postscript, all notice of his obligations to the Unitarian Reviewer, that a reader may well be excused for not knowing that there was such a person. Nor do I at all doubt the competency of our respected opponents to originate whatever they have advanced, without the aid of any one's previous researches. I simply affirm that they have been anticipated, in a quarter, and to an extent, which disprove their assertions respecting the acceptance and influence of the Improved Version among Unitarians.

For the very same reason, however, that we are not bound to praise this work when faults are fairly attributed to it, neither are we bound to be silent, when merit is unjustly denied it. With the corrections introduced in the fourth and fifth Editions, it has the exclusive honour of accomplishing the following important ends:

(1.) It exhibits the text of the New Testament in the most perfect state, being conformed to Griesbach's second Edition.

(2.) It enables the English reader to compare this critical with the Received text, all their variations being noticed.

(3.) It places before its possessors Archbishop Newcome's Revision, which otherwise would have passed into unmerited oblivion. Wherever it departs from its basis, and advances any new translation, the Primate's rendering is given also; so that the whole extent of the innovation is seen, and free choice afforded to the reader.

When the advocates of the common version shall exert themselves to bring it into accordance with the true text, they will attack the Improved Version, from asafer position. But so long as they leave with this heretical work, the sole praise, among British translations, of showing what the Evangelists and Apostles really wrote, and content themselves with circulating a version containing words and passages, without mark or warning, which they know to be spurious, and in more than one case, to be ancient theological allies of their creed, they are too much open to the charge of availing themselves of detected forgeries, to be entitled to read lectures to others, about reverence for the text. Dr. Tattershall enforces well the duty of preserving the Canon of

Scripture in its integrity." Will he permit me to remind him of the duty of preserving it in its simplicity: or is there, in the bare proposal of curtailment of the volume, a sinfulness which does not exist in the practical and persevering maintenance of known interpolation?

B.

On the Ebionites and their Gospel.

The argument of Mr. Belsham against the authenticity of Matthew's account of the miraculous conception appears to me very unsound : but Dr. Tattershall's criticism upon it, I must think to be altogether unsuccessful; if at least, amid its intricate construction, I have really apprehended the points to which its force is applied. In rejecting this portion of Scripture, Mr. Belsham relies on the authority of the Nazarenes and Ebionites, or early Hebrew Christians: who are affirmed by Epiphanius and Jerome, to have used copies of Matthew's Gospel, without the introductory passages in question.

As the value of this argument depends altogether on the character of the attesting parties and documents, Dr. Tattershall calls in question the respectability of them all; and disparages, first, the ancient Nazarenes and Ebionites themselves; secondly, the testimony, in this matter, of Epiphanius and Jerome; thirdly, the Hebrew gospel or record, which they describe. The positions advanced under every one of these heads, appear to me to be erroneous.

I. Nothing, it is said, can be more incorrect than to admit the claim of the Nazarenes and Ebionites to be regarded as the original, or main body of Hebrew Christians. They were a sect, at first united, then divided into two; successors of the Judaizing Christians; and after Adrian's destruction of Jerusalem (A. D. 132), separated from the general community of the Christian Church.

I certainly had conceived that this quæstio vexata of ecclesiastical history, might be considered as set at rest, since the controversy respecting it, between Bishop Horsley and Dr. Priestley; and still more, since the production of many additional loca probantia from the Fathers, by Eichhorn, Olshausen, Bertholdt and others, who have engaged in the enquiry respecting the origin of the three first gospels. If, however, the subject is still open to discussion, the principle on which it must be conducted is evident. If, as Dr. Tattershall states, the Nazarenes and Ebionites did not embrace in extent, the main body, and in time, the original societies, of Jewish believers, it is incumbent on him to find some clear traces of other or earlier

D

Hebrew Christians, denominated by some different term, or at all events excluded from these. Until such persons are discovered, in the primitive history of the church, the Nazarenes and Ebionites must remain in undisturbed possession of their title as "The early Hebrew Christians." Meanwhile, in direct proof of their claim to be so regarded, I submit the following considerations :

(1.) Their name is applied, in a direct definition, to the whole of the Jewish Christians. Origen says, Those from among the Jews

66

who received Jesus as the Christ," were called Ebionites.*

(2.) The characteristic sentiments of this sect," are ascribed to the early Hebrew Christians generally. These were, the persuasion of the continued obligation of the Mosaic law, on persons of Jewish birth, and the belief that Christ was a creature, some considering him as simply human, others as preexistent.† Origen says, "Those from among the Jews who have faith in Jesus, have not abandoned their ancient law; for they live in conformity with it, deriving even their name (according to the true interpretation of the word,) from the poverty of the law; for Ebion, among the Jews, means poor."‡ Origen again says, "And when you observe the belief respecting the Saviour, held by those from among the Jews who have faith in Jesus, some supposing that he was of Mary and Joseph, and others that he was of Mary alone and the Holy Spirit, but still without the notion of his Deity, &c."§

(3.) The characteristic Gospel of this sect (under its frequent title "Gospel according to the Hebrews") was used by the Hebrew Christians generally. Eusebius says; "In this number, some have placed the Gospel according to the Hebrews, which is a favourite

* Καὶ Ἐβιωναῖοι χρηματίζουσιν οἱ ἀπὸ Ἰουδαίων τὸν Ἰησοῦν ὡς Χριστὸν παρα değάuevoi.—Contr. Cels., lib. ii. c. 1. Op. tom. i. pp. 385 C. 386 A. Ed. Delarue. Paris. 1733.

† Οὗτοι δε εἰσὶν οἱ διττοι Εβιωναῖοι, ἤτοι ἐκ παρθένου ὁμολογοῦντες ὁμοίως ἡμῖν τὸν Ἰησοῦν, ἤ οὐχ οὕτω γεγεννῆσθαι, ἀλλ ̓ ὡς τοῖς λοιποῖς ἀνθρώποις.—Contr. Cels. lib. v. c. 61. Op. tom. i. p. 625 A.

† Οἱ ἀπὸ Ἰουδαίων εἰς τὸν Ἰησοῦν πιστεύοντες οὐ καταλελοίπασι τὸν πάτριον νόμον· βιοῦσι γὰρ κατ' αὐτὸν, ἐπώνυμοι τε κατα τὴν ἐκδοχὴν πτωχειάς του νόμου γεγενημένοι. Εβίων τε κάρ ὁ πτωχός παρὰ Ἰουδαίοις καλεῖται.—Contr. Cels., lib. ii. c. 1. Op. tom. i. p. 385.

§ Καὶ ἐπὰν ἴδης των ἀπὸ Ιουδαίων πιστευόντων εἰς τον Ιησοῦν την περὶ του σωτῇρος πίστιν, ὅτε μεν ἐκ Μαρίας καὶ του Ιωσὴφ οἰομενών αὐτὸν εἶναι, ὅτε δὲ ἐκ Μαρίας μὲν μόνης και του θείου πνεύματος, οὐ μην καὶ μετα τὴς περὶ αὐτου θεολογίας, ὄψει TŵS OUTOS & TUPAÓs réyei, &c.—Comment. in Matt., tom. xvi. c. 12. Op. tom. iii. p. 733 A.