er a solitary advocate in this righteous cause a fellow-labourer has appeared; and, though not a Unitarian, I hail his appearance with joy. For, while it is individually encouraging to myself, it is a proof of a growing correctness of feeling on this point in the Dissenting body; and we have, besides, other indications of the fact in this able production. For the author says, that he has frequently directed the attention of orthodox Dissenting ministers to the subject, with a view of eliciting an expression of their sentiments; no individual of whom attempted to justify the present law, or even to vindicate the tacit acquiescence of uniform, uncomplaining submission." (P. 5.) What cannot be justified or vindicated, is in a fair way of being sooner or later exploded. Witness the Slave Trade, the Test and Corporation Acts, the civil disabilities against Catholics, and, now, that iniquitous system of bartering in the representation, which has so long been the disgrace and curse of the British nation. The evil complained of in the present instauce-that "flagrant infringement of religious liberty," which is so aptly expressed by the author in his preface, will share the same fate. And nothing can be better calculated to accelerate its doom, thau this powerful Appeal to Dissenters, which has elicited these remarks.

The writer, as a Dissenter, takes a comprehensive view of his subject. He founds his whole argument on the great leading principle of dissent-that the civil magistrate has no right to interfere in religion-and that, when he attempts to impose religious rites and ceremonies, he usurps the authority of the ouly Master of Christians, and ought not to be obeyed. The argument is conducted in a very able manner; and I know not how any consistent Dissenter can resist its force. Would that all would consider it with that attention which the importance of the subject so justly demands! Then would they be resolved to "staud fast in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made them free."

The remarks of the author apply to Dissenters generally. But Unitarians have additional and still stronger objections to the ceremony, from the very nature of the ceremony itself; as recognizing, in their honest conviction, gross corruptions of Christianity,—the Trinity, and the deification and worship of a creature of God, as God himself," the man Christ Jesus." The writer, therefore, caudidly admits, that "the grievance presses with aggravated weight on Uni

tarians;" and he says, that "for several years, in spite of many difficulties, they prosecuted an arduous struggle for their natural, civil, and religious rights," in reference to this question. (P. 3.)

He does not, however, justify their conformity, or even the conformity of auy Dissenters. In fact, he clearly shews, that it is not to be justified; for he says, that the service is an "imposition," and "a burden oppressive on conscience;" and "conscience," he adds, “is sacred, and for no consideration to be violated; its ultimate decision is ever to be regarded as the voice of the Supreme Ruler, whose claims to obedieuce are paramount to those of any humau authority." (P. 13.) Dissenters, therefore, in general, are unjustifiable in their submission to this religious imposition of the civil magistrate; and Unitarian Dissenters more particularly than any others; for they are more seriously aggrieved. Accordingly, the author observes, "Even Unitariaus, while they profess to object for reasons of conscience,* do not regard submission as absolutely unlawful. Whether actual compliance can be reconciled with the sincerity of such a profession, appears, however, justly questionable.” (P. 16.) And in another place he represents them, in this conformity, as " abjuring a grand article of their creed, the Unity of the Divine Nature" (P. 93); which, surely, is a very serious and awful consideration.

Of the expedient of protesting-conformity, which originated, I believe, with the Freethinking Christians, the writer thus expresses himself:-" Of the protests occasionally presented to officiating clergymen by persons of the former class," (that is, Unitarians,)" we dare not trust ourselves to speak; for the accounts occasionally appearing in the public newspapers, always excite in our mind mingled emotions of indignation and disgust, which no measured terms will serve to express. We will only venture to say, such scenes are disgraceful to a Christian country; and posterity will scarcely believe that they could occur in the metropolis of the British empire, at the advanced stage of improvement which the nation had reached when they were recorded." (P. 44.)

Examining the arguments of those Dissenting writers who have endeavoured to justify Dissenters in conforming to this service, our author observes," As a

It is the whole drift of the author's argumeut, that Unitarians ought to “object for reasons of conscience."

general remark, applicable to all of them, we may mention, that while they undertake to vindicate the conduct of their brethren, the writers betray a secret consciousness that they are not treading on sure ground; for their style of writing, and the summary manner in which they dismiss the subject, indicate that they themselves regard submission rather as the effect of constraint than as the deliberate result of well-informed judgment. They more resemble persons in quest of reasons to satisfy their own minds, than persons fully persuaded' of the propriety of their conduct." (P. 53.)

In concluding this examination, he sums up the whole thus:-" It appears, therefore, that the apology offered for submission to this imposition of a religious formulary, is the assumed fact, that they do not consider the occasion on which it is used as properly religious. They regard marriage, on the contrary, notwithstanding the constrained observance of a solemn rite as the mode of toleration, to be merely a civil transac tion, and submit to that observance solely as a requisition of the civil magistrate, who may appoint any form he pleases. Thus, to justify ourselves from the imputation of abandoning our consistency, compromising our principles, aud surrendering our liberties, by performing a religious action merely because commanded so do by act of parliament, we are compelled to adopt a plea implicating us in the more serious charge of profaning the name and trifling with the worship of God. We are, by the confession of our own advocates, placed in the situation called a dilemma. One of our great principles is, that the magistrate has no right to interfere with religion, by prescribing modes and forms for the regulation of divine service. This, unquestionably, he has done in the case of marriage in England. For, unless we admit that such is the necessary effect of legislative interference with the mode of its celebration, we are compelled to maintain a most untenable position, that the matrimonial service prescribed in the Book of Common Prayer is not a religious form. If we grant this, we must, to vindicate our couformity, abandon the principle for which, at other times, we strenuously contend, that religion is not the magistrate's province; and that, if he attempts to dictate to conscience by positive enactment, a paramount obligation to the Supreme tribunal forbids compliance with such unwarrantable imposition. But for our quiet submission in this case, what excuse do our advo

cates invent? The same employed by a late Alderman of London to justify his conduct in submitting to the Sacramental Test,-that he regarded his participation of the sacred elements as merely the performauce of a common indifferent action, enjoined by act of parliament to be a qualification for holding a certain secular office, not as the observance of a religious institution. The cases are not, perhaps, entirely parallel; greater amount of evil being unquestionably involved in abusing, to secular purposes, one of the holy ordinances of the Christian religion; but both proceed on the same principle-a profanation of solemn worship. The plea resorted to in either case involves the confession of an offence highly displeasing in the sight of God, mocking him by formal, hypocritical devotions, making a solemn approach into his immediate presence, taking his venerable name upon our lips, not for purposes of worship, with a sincere desire to render homage and service to him, but merely for civil purposes, for our temporal accommodation or secular advantage. We observe a religious rite of human invention in a transaction entirely civil, or solely regarded as such, considering it sufficient excuse that we are not profaning a ritual institution of God's own appointment, although he has repeatedly declared, that worship performed merely in compliance with the traditions or injunctions of men is vain and criminal, uuprofitable to the performer, and offensive to the object professedly addressed. To insult the Majesty of Heaven may not, indeed, be our fixed intention or deliberate design. In general, probably, Dissenters do not previously consider the solemn nature of the religious act in which they are about to engage, or the precise effect of the words they are about to repeat. We regard the whole service as a dead office,' an unmeaning ceremony, retained merely in compliance with long-established usage; that is, according to the apt expression of our great Milton, we present God with a set of stale and empty words.' But surely it becomes us on all occasions to remember that the Searcher of hearts, who cannot be deceived by specious appearances or plausible pretences, will not be mocked with impunity. The times of this ignorauce' and inconsideration, God, it may be hoped, has overlooked; but now, after light has been diffused in all directions, can we persist in this course without incurring his displeasure?" (Pp. 67-69.)

With regard to the conduct which

Dissenters should pursue in their peculiar situation, the writer says, "If the Established Church has determined to remain satisfied with a reformation left unfinished, let us nobly resolve not to rest content with an imperfect toleration." (P. 94.)

In the mean time, he gives the following excellent advice: "The only safe, as certainly it is the only consistent, mode of proceeding, is to imitate the conduct of that peaceable, inoffensive body, the Society of Friends; never, on any pretence, either of expediency or of necessity, to make a voluntary surrender of the least portion of our rights as meu and Christians; nor give place by subjection, even for an hour,' to the exercise of usurped and unlawful authority over conscience, by whomsoever claimed; but in all seasons and circumstances to stand fast in the liberty wherewith Christ has made us free;' and, regardless of consequences in matters of religion, that pertain solely to his jurisdiction and prerogative, to obey his apostle's injunction, Be ye not the servants of men.'" (Pp. 41, 42.)

In conclusion, I cannot forbear expressing my warmest thanks to the author for his excellent work. And if it be any gratification to a writer to know that he has been the means of encourag ing an individual engaged in the same righteous cause to which he himself is devoted, that gratification, in the present instance, he may enjoy complete.

I never doubted the goodness of the cause, or despaired of its final success. And my only fear now is, that it may come too soon-before desert. Should it be so, it will be another instance, among countless millions, that the bless ings of God's Providence are not of works, but of grace. To his most wise and beneficent determination it becomes all to bow with perfect acquiescence.

FRANCIS KNOWLES.

P. S. Should a second edition of this excellent work be published, it would, I think, be well to omit such passages as the following: "it is no part of his" (the author's) "design to infuse doubts or scruples as to the lawfulness of compliance;" and, "the writer offers no opinion on this delicate point." (Pp. 13, 14.) Such expressions appear to me to be calculated to neutralize, in some respects, the writer's arguments, and are besides, in my opinion, opposed to the whole design of his work; which, if I mistake not, is decidedly opposed to conformity. If it be right to conform,

why say any thing against it? If it be wrong, charity does not forbid us to say so; but rather requires from us the most open and ingenuous declaration. In such a spirit, the writer of this article hopes that these suggestions are offered.

Improved Version of the New Testa

ment.

To the Editor,

SIR, June 6, 1831. IT is much to be regretted that one great object, which has been the aim of Unitarians ever since they began to associate as a body in this country, should still remain to be accomplished-I mean the introduction of such an Improved Version of the New Testament as can be commonly used among us.

Whilst we are busy in circulating books and tracts for the elucidation of the Scriptures, the latter are still presented to the common reader in a form that every lover of divine truth must deplore. Why cannot we begin at the right end, and do that for which our brethren are well prepared and earnestly call? It is far from my purpose to undervalue the "Improved Version" published by the late Unitarian Society; but it must be obvious that this work, whatever other ends it has answered, can never come into general use, even among Unitarians. In America an attempt has recently been made (and to a certain extent with success) to introduce a version which, as far as it pretends to go, is an approximation to what is required. We must proceed a step farther than our transatlantic brethren, and finish what they have begun. We want, in short, the Common Version of the New Testament, not only "conformed to the standard Greek text of Griesbach," but corrected in all cases of notorious mistranslation. Such a work, without note or comment, would encounter none of the objectious (among Unitarians) made to versions differing widely and unnecessarily from the authorized one. It would at once find its way into our pulpits, our schools, and our families.

In a cause like this, no merely trading considerations should be permitted to stand in the way; but it may be well to observe, that the most important edition of the "Improved Version" is now out of print. It is therefore for the trustees, and the committee generally, of the Unitarian Association, to consider whether the time is not arrived when this subject ought to be brought before them. The successful result, in a pecuniary sense, of

the publication of the Improved Version, is at least an earnest that another with less pretension and of a more popular kind would amply repay itself. On the plan proposed, so little remains to be done, that the mere labour would, 1 conceive, form no obstacle to its execution. What available funds there are for such an object, I know not; but they ought to be such as in no way to trench upon the too limited resources of the Unitarian Association. Were a prospectus to appear, I have no doubt of ample means being forthcoming, and in no better hands could they be placed thau in those of the trustees of an Improved Versiou, already appearing in the list of officers appended to the Reports of the British and Foreign Unitariau Association.

Our brethren in Ireland, in the first report of the "Unitarian Christian Society" there, state," that the theological information which they seek to diffuse must meet with serious obstructions so loug as the Authorized Version of the Scriptures continues to be the final appeal of the English reader in matters of controversy." The state of the funds of this infant Society at present prevents the attempt at a corrected version, au object the Committee have much at heart. Why cannot we help our weaker brethren? Why not unite and do that, once for all, which shall add lustre to the Unitarian name, and be an inestimable service to enlightened believers wherever found? Such a work, proceeded in with the concurrence and cooperation of the leading ministers of both Associations, would be a bond of union, strong and imperishable.

I will no longer occupy your valuable pages than to express the earnest hope that no inferior considerations may interpose to prevent the speedy fulfilment of the most important trust now left confided to the hands of Unitarians.

T.

very much mended in many important particulars, and might, in its general style, to the great relief of unlearued readers and the lasting benefit of religion, be rendered compatible with modern Euglish idiom, has been confirmed by the perusal of an old “Essay ou the Bible," which I picked up lately at a book-stall. Among many excellent suggestions which it contains is the following: "We find in all Versions a fault which borders on blasphemy. The disciples of our Saviour, or his nearest relations, are represented as going to lay hands on him, and saying, He is beside himself. Mark iii. 21. Some interpreters, seeing that this is injurious to our Saviour, think the words may be rendered, He is in a swoon; others attribute this saying to his enemies; others, that it signifies only, He is gone out. But all this is not capable to remove the difficulty; we must, therefore, consider that St. Matthew, relating the same history, observes that it was the multitude who were beside themselves, and ravished with admiration at the sight of our Saviour's miracles; and St. Luke makes the same remark, employing a word which signifies to be ravished with admiration. This verse then should be translated, "Those who belonged to him, seeing this, went out to suppress them (the multitude), for they said, They are beside themselves."

In this, Sir, you may see that there is nothing militating against idiomatic or grammatical construction; since autov may well stand for the noun of multitude οχλος, while εξε η may refer to οχλος as its subject, aud be fairly translated, as by the Essayist, in the plural number. Besides, vers. 19 and 20 imply, that Jesus and his twelve elect had just gone into a house, when the oxλos thronged them so that avtovs (Jesus and his apostles) could not take the refreshment for which they entered the house. How then could οἱ παρ' αυτε οι περί αυτόν, with whom, as the words imply he then

him? I might say more on this as well as other passages, but I will not be redundant or prolix.

While sending this scrap, I beg to inquire whether, from the silence of your correspondents and yourself on the subject of my last, I am to infer that my hints on the non-authorization and inexpediency of "Reverend Individuals" (to use the term of G. P. H.) are substantial; and, if so, whether it be not the duty as well as the interest of the Unitarian body to relinquish their present system and adopt that simple, effi