Sivut kuvina

stance that the Vulgate, having no verb, has no tenses. Now, as to the last point, he distinctly informs his reader that there is no verb in the Latin; and as to the former, he never appeals to the RENDERING of the Vulgate at all, but to the READING only. “How can this be?” I shall be asked; “ for the Archbishop cites his words, ' The Vulgate RENDERS the text,' &c.” True; but the Archbishop quotes him falsely; and the real words are, “ The Vulgate READS the text,” &c. Let the original and the citation appear side by side. Mr. Belsham's words.

Archbishop Magee's quotation. “ The Vulgate READS the text, “The Vulgate RENDERS the • The first man was of the earth, text, “The first man was of the earthy. The second man will be earth, earthy. The second man from heaven, heavenly.'

will be from heaven, heavenly.'"* “This is not improbably the TRUE READING.”

The verbs, in both clauses, Mr. Belsham has printed in italics, to indicate (in conformity with the usual practice in his work, and the Improved Version, as well as in our common translation) the absence of any corresponding words in the Latin text. This circumstance, which destroys the whole accusation, his accuser has suppressed.

And as to the “ preserving a profound silence throughout respecting any arguments in favour of the future tense in the second clause," it so happens that the “somewhat" which is observed “ upon the interpretation of Newcome, Whitby, and Alexander," is simply an appeal to these authorities on this very matter of the future tense, “ the single point on which the entire question rests."

On the whole, can our upright and learned opponents tell, whether “ in the annals of dishonest controversy, another instance like” the foregoing " is to be found ?" I can assure them, that from the same work, I could produce many more.

In our present controversy, our Rev. opponents have been misled by their reliance on this unscrupulous adversary of the Unitaria


• There is a possibility, which I think it right to suggest, of a difference between the two Editions of Mr. B's work; as, however, the accusation is still found in the newest Edition of the Archbishop's book, I conclude that this is not the case. Indeed, even if the Prelate's quotation had been verbally true, it would in spirit have been no less false : for, at all events, Mr. B. cites the Vulgate, to give evidence as to the text, not the translation; and had he used the word renders, it would only have been because the term naturally occurs when a VERSION is adduced to determine a READING.

[ocr errors][merged small][merged small]

and by not referring to his pages, bave taken his heavy responsibilities on themselves. In the first Lecture of the series, Mr. Ould has represented Dr. Priestley as saying, that the sacred writers produced " lame accounts, improper quotations, and inconclusive reasonings."* Dr. Magee has exhibited this sentence as a citation from Priestley's 12th Letter to Mr. Burn;t the fact being, that he wrote only six letters to Mr. Burn; and that neither in these, nor any where else, is such a sentence to be found. The first phrase, indeed, (“ lame account") was once applied by Dr. Priestley to the early chapters in Genesis ; but deliberately retracted with an expression of regret that it had been used. Let the learned prelate pass sentence on himself: he says, “ It is surely a gross falsification of his author, to give, as one continued quotation from him, (as the established meaning of the form here employed, unequivocally implies,) that which is an arbitrary selection of words drawn violently together from a lengthened context.”! I can assure our respected opponents, that their Lectures contain other citations, drawn from the same source, which, after the most careful search, I believe to be no less false. And is not an ungenerous use made of obnoxious writings, when we find enumerated and quoted among Unitarian authors, Evanson, whose scepticism received its most effectual replies from Priestley and his friends; and Gagneius, who was an orthodox professor of the Sorbonne, and preacher to Francis the First ?

For other instances of Archbishop Magee's flagrant injustice and misrepresentation, I must refer to the “ Examination of his charges against Unitarians and Unitarianism,” by my learned and venerated friend Dr. Carpenter, who has found it only too easy to fill a volume with the exposure of a mere portion of them. I have purposely taken fresh examples, not hitherto noticed, so far as I know; and it may be supposed that the earlier gleaning by Dr. Carpenter would naturally yield the most remarkable results ; so that the cases now adduced cannot be thought to be peculiarly unfavourable specimens.

If our reverend opponents, having read this Prelate's work, really think my charge against him, of “ abuse the most coarse," an“ unwarrantable attack on the reputation of the dead,” I cannot hope to justify myself in their estimation : there must be an irremediable variance between their notion of " coarse abuse” and mine. I regret that

[blocks in formation]

we cannot agree in a matter of taste which, to say the least, borders so closely on morals as to be scarcely distinguishable from them, and to be connected with the same strong feelings of approbation or disgust. With what levity must a writer sport with moral terms, what indistinct impressions must he have of moral qualities, who having pronounced an opponent (I quote the language of the Archbishop of Mr. Belsham) "incapable of duplicity,'* can yet proceed to charge him with “ artifice and dishonesty,"t with “ huddling up a matter,”: with filching away a portion of evidence,"s with “ direct violations of known truth,”|| and with bad faith, unchecked by learning and unabashed by shame!" I cannot wonder at the spirit pervading Mr. Byrth's letter to my friend and colleague Mr. Thom, when I find that he sees nothing coarse or abusive, but only the expression of “ departed greatness,” in accusing an opponent of “ miserable stupidity,”** of “ downright and irremediable nonsense,”+t of " proposing” a suggestion“ (as he AVERS) with great diffidence," ## of furnishing“ twenty-eight pages of the most extraordinary quagmire ;"'$$ in begging him to “ rest assured, that to know the Greek language it must be learned ; ” || in proclaiming that he “stands in a pillory"IT erected for him by a Bishop; that he belongs to “ the family of Botherims in Morals and Metaphysics," and is “connected with that of Malaprops in Mathematics ;"*** in ridiculing the idea of publishing his portrait; ttt in asking him whether he has“ lost his senses;"#*? and hinting that, whereas he knows not “ how to choose between two bundlesof evidence, he is an Ass.$99 Are we to consider it a condescension in this distinguished Prelate, that he bends from his Episcopal dignity to console the Dissenting ministers in their " contemplation of the advantages of the national clergy,” and assures them that they have “not only more of positive profit,” but," in addition to this,” “the indulgence of vanity, and the gratification of spleen,-qualities which, time out of mind, have belonged to the family of Dissent;" nay, further, that in preparation for their ministry, they have a much lighter“ outfit” “in point of expenditure,” since among Nonconformists, in some cases at least, “the individual is his own University ; confers his own degrees and orders; and has little more difficulty in the way of his vocation, than to find a new hat, a stout pony, and pair of saddle-bags.”|ROL This is very smart, no • Vol ii. p. 387. – Vol. iii. p. 248. I p. 203. p. 210. || p. 296. + P. 249.

tt p. 239. p. 82. 8 p. 91. All p. 132. 11 p. 64.

*** p. 242. 177 p. 275. 111 p. 66. $$$ p. 145.

!!!!ll pp. 275, 276.


[ocr errors]

doubt; but does the Church exclude us from the Universities, that her Bishops may enjoy the entertainment of making us their laughing-stock, and inditing lampoons against us? Does she injure us first, that we may be insulted afterwards ?

Mr. M`Neile speaks of the late Archbishop's work as “ a barrier in the way of Unitarianism."* It is so; and if its influence were only that of fair argument, we should wish the barrier to stand in all its strength. But the book has become a standard authority for every kind of false and malignant impression respecting Unitarians, and prevents, instead of advancing, the knowledge of what we are. To be held up as entertaining “ the cool and deliberate purpose of falsifying the word of God;" | as guilty of “machinations” to “subvert through fraud what had been found impregnable by force;"I as "staking” our “ very salvation on the adoption of a reading which is against evidence;" as distinguished for “ steady and immoveable effrontery,'|| and “shameful disingenuousness;'( as discerning in our Lord “that one hated form on which we are terrified to look ;'** as so “determined to resist and subvert one great truth;that we “set but little value on every other,” and make a “prevailing practiceof “DIRECT AND DELIBERATE FALSEHOOD:”tt to be thus slandered by one, for whom his station and accomplishments have procured, from the party spirit of the age, a credit denied to any possible learning or excellence of ours; this, being a grievous wrong to the character of Christianity as much as to our own, we confess to be a trial hard to bear: and we may well feel like the good man under successful calumny, which wounds himself a little, but truth and virtue more. Meanwhile, injury may have its compensations; and since, to prove his accusations, even this distinguished Prelate had occasion to tamper with the evidence, we have a fresh presumption that our cause is one, against which learning and acuteness, under the restraints of justice, find themselves of no avail.

[blocks in formation]
« EdellinenJatka »