The Epistles of Paul the Apostle translated, with an Exposition and Notes. By the Rev. Thomas Belsham, Minister of Essex Street Chapel. London, 1822. 4 vols.

8vo.

A GOOD translation of the Scriptures, is, we apprehend, preferable to an extended commentary on them. A translation of a part is also more desirable than a translation of the whole, by one indivi. dual. Were it possible to communicate the sacred oracles in the terms and phrases which the inspired writers would have employed, had they written in our language, such a version would be equally valuable with the Hebrew and Greek writings, and would, in a great degree, supersede the necessity of notes and comments. Though this cannot be expected without the aid of inspiration, we conceive that there may be such an approximation to it, as to leave the mere English scholar little reason to regret his ignorance of the languages long held sacred. The increase of critical and philological learning, the multiplication of the means and facilities of biblical illustration, the gradual diminution of party prejudices and scholastic refinement, and the removal of all those obstacles and impediments, by which the march of truth has long been impeded, and the glory of revelation obscured, encourage the hope, that we may one day see a version of the Holy Scriptures, faithful, without being literal; elegant without affectation; vernacular and modern in its idiom, and yet discovering its ancient and oriental origin.

We look for this most desirable work from individuals, rather than from collective bodies. We expect it as the result of personal

piety and learning, not of systematic combination, or state-interference. As a version of the entire Scriptures is too extensive and arduous an undertaking for any individual, however highly gifted, we welcome every labourer, who appears desirous of cultivating the biblical field. Nor are we so much afraid as some are, of the consequences resulting from the employment in this work of persons very differently minded. The various parties into which the Jewish and early Christian church were divided, were the means of preserving the purity of the original fountains of truth. Their jealousies of each other, though evil in themselves, were subservient to the interests of revelation. The operation of similar causes is still productive of the same effect. The conflict of critical discussion, and the collision of 'sects, are frequently, it is true, accompanied with no small portion of noise and smoke. But these are not the only effects. Many sparks of heavenly radiance have been elicited, which are destined to live, when their baser concomitants have perished, and will constitute a portion of the light and splendour of the latter day.

The private translators of the Scriptures into English, from the days of good old Ainsworth, with his rabbinical and Brownistical productions, down to Thomas Belsham, have all rendered more or less of service to the elucidation of the Bible. Friend Purver, with his pedantry, affectation, and bad grammar; Bate, with his Hutchinsonian cant and philosophy; Geddes, with his vulgarity, levity, and unwarrantable freedoms; Lowth, Blayney, Newcome, Wintle, and Horsley, with their critical emendations, and classical erudition,

have all done something towards bringing the Hebrew Scriptures into more readable and intelligible English. Of the New Testament, we have a host of translators. Wynne, Worsley, Wesley, Doddridge, and Haweis, all orthodox men, have gone over the whole, with various degrees of attention and success. Harwood has travestied it under the influence of Arian principles, and Nathanael Scarlett has dramatized the whole, and rendered various parts of it in a way favourable to universal redemption. The Socinianism of Mace and Wakefield are too offensive to be injurious. The Gospels by Campbell, and the Epistles by M'Knight, though very different in the principles on which they are constructed, and in their execution and practical tendency, are of inestimable value, for the light which they have thrown on many difficult and obscure passages. The diligent student of the Bible may derive assistance from all these sources. Nor do we mean to except even the "Improved Version," or "The Epistles of Paul the Apostle, by the Rev. Thomas Belsham."

How far the authors of these last productions are qualified for the task, is a question on which we shall soon express our opinion. We now say, that we are pleased to meet them as translators of the Scriptures. Advantages of various kinds will result from their attempts. They will enable the reading and religious public of Great Britain to form a correct estimate of those pretensions to superior learning and rationality, which have so long been claimed by the school of Socinus. The extent of their aberrations, from the generally received doctrines of the Christian church, and the character of their principles of devotion and obedience, will be more fully ascertained. Their honesty and consistency will be brought to

a decisive and intelligible test; and attention will be generally called to the strong and weak points of the great questions in debate.

Some of these advantages have already accrued. The publication of the " Improved Version," produced some of the ablest polemical and critical works, which have for a long time appeared in England. The works of Magee, Lawrence, Rennell, and Nares, not to mention the criticisms of the periodical press, did ample justice to the pretensions of the improvers, and have well nigh consigned the improvement "to the tomb of all the Capulets." Mr. Belsham avows himself to have been the leader in that enterprise. He considers it to be an honour to have been the editor of that work, the author of the introduction, and of the major part of the notes. That honour we do not envy him, either in a religious or literary point of view. There is a want of honesty in the title and construction of the version, which is fatal to its religious character; while its literary errors and blunders are no less subversive of the pretensions and vauntings of the authors as men of learning.

Mr. Belsham is certainly endowed with some of the qualities, which are necessary for maintaining the cause in which he is engaged. He is a man of courage. Undismayed by the array of authorities, testimony, and argument, which is opposed to his views, he presses boldly forward, and frequently shouts victory where a less skilful tactician would have acknowledged, as well as experienced, defeat. He is never involved in difficulty by his modesty or consciousness of weakness. He contrives to forget, or at least to pass over the unanswerable reasonings with which he must be acquainted, and with which he is aware he cannot grapple. Of this

unjustifiable mode of proceeding, a specimen presents itself in his version of, and remarks on, Rom. ix. 5. “ Who is over all, God blessed for ever." This expression (ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ παντων θεὸς εὐλογητὸς eis Tous aiuvas). Mr. B. persists in rendering," whose is the God over all, blessed for ever." Part of his note is" vò for ó wv. "This most probably is the true reading, agreeably to the judicious conjecture of Sclichtingius, Whitby, and Taylor, though it is not authorised by any manuscript version, or ecclesiascal authority; but the context seems to require it." Now, not to insist on what Mr. B. must acknowledge the impropriety of correcting the Greek text by conjecture, in opposition to all the existing manuscripts, versions, and ecclesiastical authorities; and that because the sentiment of the text is in the way of Mr. B.'s doctrines, and only seems to be required by the context: he is aware of the very full examination of this text, which had been furnished by Bishop Middleton and Dr. Smith. Mr. B. disingenuously conceals that the arguments adduced in support of the conjectural emendation, or the equally forced translation of the received text, have been demolished by these two writers. He repeats almost the same language he had employed in his "Calm Inquiry," although the perfect destruction of it in the work of Dr. Smith, we believe, must have been in his mind, if not before his eyes. Dr. Middleton declares," that the conjecture, though it ranks among the happiest efforts of Socinian criticism, obtrudes on the passage an argument which is improbable, and Greek which is impossible." (Doct. of the Greek Article, p. 456.) Dr. Smith still more decidedly shows, that "this conjec. ture, boasted of as so ingenious, happy, and plausible, is not only without evidence, but is contrary

to all evidence, grammatical and critical, external and internal." (Script. Test. vol. ii. p. 689.) Our author feels and cares for none of these things.

However culpable is this conduct, it is not in the least degree surprising. When we perceive how Mr. Belsham treats the holy men of God, who spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost, we cannot wonder that he should treat the distinguished scholars and christians of modern times with contempt. That our readers may not accuse us of treating Mr. Belsham unjustly or severely, we shall furnish them with a selection of passages, in which will be seen what he thinks of the inspiration and reasonings of the Apostle Paul; and from which it will appear, that the alliance between the school of Socinus and that of Paine and Gibbon is exceedingly close.

"That all the arguments used by the Apostle Paul in the Epistles to the Romans and the Galatians, to establish this principle, (the admission of Gentiles to equal privileges with the Jews,) were inspired, or even that they were all conclusive, cannot reasonably be maintained." (Vol. i. Diss. p. xxviii.) "The Apostle, probably without any particular reason, set down these passages, (quoted Rom. iii.) as they came into his mind; and repeats them as descriptive of the Jewish nation collectively, and by no means as appli cable to any individual." (Vol. i. p. 66.)- How far the Apostle's argument is strictly logical, may be doubted." Ib. p. 69." Probably he knew no more of the Mosaic history of the fall than we do." Ib. p. 110.-" Such is the train of the Apostle's reasoning, the defect of which need not be pointed out." Ib. p. 112.-" His argument, if it proves any thing, proves." Th. p. 123. Such no doubt was the Apostle's meaning, if he has any

--

66

meaning at all."-"The Apostle's design is excellent, but some of his arguments are problematical." (Vol. ii. p. 103.)—"In every light in which I can regard this argument, it appears to me irrelevant and inconclusive." Ib. p. 105."The Apostle argues, that as Jesus ascended, he must first have descended: the inference, perhaps, is not perfectly logical." (Vol. iii. p. 229.)—“ Such is the nature of the Apostle's argument; which, to state the truth, is of no great weight, and will hardly bear him out in his conclusions." (Vol. iv. p. 196.)— "He (Luke) never carries his allegorical reasoning to that great, and I had almost said, extravagant extent, in which the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews indulges." Ib. p. 422." There is nothing that is more open to objection than his reasoning concerning Melchizedec." Ib. p. 528.

These are a few specimens of the flippancy with which Mr. Belsham treats the man who was perfectly instructed in the mystery of Christ, and who, in the exercise of that legitimate authority with which he was vested as the ambassador of God, enjoins, "If any man think himself to be a prophet or spiritual; let him acknowledge, that the things which I write are the commandments of the Lord." To be sure this professor of mood and figure, who vaunts so loftily about his superiority, considers the Apostles to have been plain men, who were not intended or qualified for instructing the world in logic or metaphysics. We question much, if Paul would have been deemed worthy to occupy a chair at Hackney, or the pulpit of Essex Street. At all events, he must have been sent to school to be freed from his Jewish prejudices, and to learn to frame syllogisms; that under a cooling regimen, the ardour of his enthusiasm might be subdued, and that with all sobriety he might

become capable of defending his own system.

It might be supposed, that a man of such high pretence to perspicacity and logical acumen, must have furnished, in these ponderous volumes, some of the rarest specimens of mental vigour, and profound ratiocination. He has done so; and he will feel obliged to us for furnishing our readers with an illustration of his superiority to Paul as a reasoner. We have just stumbled on the following luminous paragraph:

"Two purposes were to be accomplished by the abolition of the ceremonial law:

the reconciliation of Jews and Gentiles it is so completely effected, that the great to each other, and to God. As to the first, body of believers now forms one mystical person, of which Christ is the head; and of this body, the several parts and limbs, in their respective places, live and act together in perfect harmony. This mystical person, consisting of Jesus, and his faithful disciples of all nations and parties, is reconciled and consecrated to God, not by any formal initiating rite, or ceremonial institute, but by the death of Jesus."

Now, we call the attention of our readers not to the monstrous perversion of christian doctrine contained in this passage, but to its absurdity.

We ask them to put a meaning, if they can, on the last sentence, which does not contain a contradiction. The body of Jesus consists of Jesus himself, and his followers, and this united body is reconciled by the death of Jesus! Let Mr. B. produce any thing half so absurd as this from the writings of Paul, and we consent to surrender them to his castigation.

If, from the style of treating the reasonings of the apostles, we proceed to Mr. B.'s bold denial of the authority of the inspired writers, even in their statements of matter of fact, our readers will find still more decided evidence of the licentiousness of the Socinian school. The Mosaic account of the fall, Mr. B. assures us "is precarious,

and cannot be received as an historic fact." (Vol. i. p. 123.) Of the transaction recorded in the 22d of Genesis, and the apostle's reasoning on it in the 11th of the Hebrews, he speaks as follows: "It is an idea so improbable, so revolting, so unlike any thing and every thing in the divine character and dispensations, that a father should be required to sacrifice his own son upon the altar, that notwithstanding the testimony of the book of Genesis, appealed to, as it is, by the author of this epistle, whose authority, however, is of little value, I must acknowledge that I feel great doubt as to the reality of the fact." (Vol. iv. p.649.) The authoritative testimony of the apostles, that Christ is appointed to be the judge of the living and dead, a fact, and not a matter of reasoning, and which we had been accustomed to think had been most surely believed among all Christians, is questioned in the same style by our author. In his paraphrase he seems to admit that "Christ may perhaps, in some unknown and inconceivable manner, preside in person as judge upon this solemn occasion;" but in his note he tells us, "the meaning may be no more than that the world will be judged, and the final state of mankind decided agreeably to the solemn declarations of the Gospel." (Vol. i. p. 45.) Consequently Christ will be no more judge than Paul, and Peter, and John, or indeed than christians generally. The passages which speak of the existence of the devil, Mr. B. considers only so many personifications of the principle of evil; and, as to his power over death, he demands, "What evidence is there that he possesses it in the least degree." (Vol. iv. p. 466.)

When we add to these, our author's doubts or disbelief of the existence of angels, of an intermediate state of bliss or suffering,

of heaven as a place where the divine glory is peculiarly manifested, and of the eternity of future misery, the non credenda become neither few nor small. Our readers are aware that, besides and above all these, the doctrines of the divinity, atonement, and priesthood of Christ, the personality and influences of the Holy Spirit, original sin and justification by faith, are rejected with abhorrence by Mr. B.; we would ask, in the name of common sense, what claim, in the proper meaning of the term, can he have to the character of a Christian? If all these doctrines or sentiments be excluded from christianity, what is there of importance that remains? What is it that renders it worthy of all acceptation? Where is its adaptation to human guilt, and human misery? How is it entitled to be considered the perfection of the wisdom of God? If Mr. B.'s views and interpretations be correct, we have no hesitation in declaring that it does not deserve to be regarded as a revelation from heaven. Its authors were weak, ill-informed, narrow-minded men; pretenders to inspiration, and yet bunglers in reasoning. Their writings are so constructed as to mislead, and actually have misled, on the most important points, the great body of persons who have for eighteen hundred years been employed in diligently searching into their meaning. In the exercise of the most solemn and deliberate conviction of the guilt attaching to the author of this work, we know not any language which may more suitably be addressed to him, than what was pointedly said to an ancient adversary by the writer of the epistles, which he has so dishonourably perverted-" O full of all subtilty, and all mischief, thou child of the devil, thou enemy of all righteousness! wilt thou not cease to pervert the right ways of