10 There is, in the appeal of the writer, a radical yets a common defect. Orthodoxy, he tells us, has been the ægis of Britain. That religion has benefited, and greatly be nefited this land, no one doubts. And as in the mind sof this writer, and of most people, religion and forthodoxy are identical, they ascribe to either indifferently the good they see to prevail. But the fact is, that whatever good has resulted from religion, has resulted, notbin consequence, but in spite of orthodoxy The evil of the cone has been hidden from sight by the abundant good of the other. The great and catholic the simple, yet all-powerful truths of Christianity these it is that have occasioned the blessings England owes to religion. For the evidence of this assertion, we appeal to the fact that every form in which Christianity is held, is found, upon the whole, to be beneficial, notwithstanding that errors, more or less baneful, are mixed up with most systems. How comes this to pass? Is it owing to what is peculiar in each system, or what is common to all? Clearly the latter; for how could principles, so diverse in their tendency and effect, as are the points on which the Christian world has been divided, have severally produced good, and good of similar character? It is impossible. To the common principles, then, of Christian verity, are we to ascribe the beneficial influences which have accrued from religion. Orthodoxy, therefore, in all its various shapes and in no two centuries has it been the same has not been the aegis of Britain. No: but Christianity-the few, simple, vital truths of the Gospel in other words, the principles of Unitarian Christianity. Orthodoxy, therefore, and every other system that deviates from the New Testament, may be scattered to the four winds of heaven, and man will be no loser; rather he will gain thereby gain, because he parts with human corruptions in order to possess the pure milk of the Word, and to hold fast the form of sound words. It is no common error, for men to assign that as a cause of a certain effect, which is no cause at all. In ancient times, if it thundered on the left hand, the magistrate thought that political calamity was at hand. If the sacred chickens refused to eat disaster would ensue, should the armies be led forth to battle. Did the Tyber overflow its banks, inundating the neighbouring country, and destroying the labours of husbandry-the Christians, by their new and blasphemous doctrines, had brought down on the 9 nation the anger of the gods. And in later periods, if the milk turned sour in the dairy-if the murrain infected the flocks if the limbs became paralytic-the poor, old, decrepidowidow, the /reputed witch, was straightway fac cused, and perhaps her life put in jeopardys How many persons are there, who have ascribed their recovery from illness to the medicine which they took, when, in reality, it retarded instead of accelerating it; or, if their dose was composed of several ingredients, saw in that which was really injurious, and not that which had benefited them, the means of their restoration to health. So is it with thousands of the orthodox community. They feel themselves amended by the power of religion, and ascribe that to orthodoxy which orthodoxy has impeded, and not advanced, overlooking those invaluable aud blessed truths of the pure Gospel of Christ, which have, in fact, wrought all the good, of which they have had experience. The cause of these prevalent mistakes, is to be found in that want of discrimination under which so many minds labour. It is no easy thing to separate in the mind,, the things which differ in reality, and yet there is no mental power of greater value. We could wish that our orthodox friends would study to attain thereunto, and they would then easily see, that the good of which they are conscious, results not from the peculiarities of their system, but from the great and simple truths of the Gospels ni 9GCS. to 2129 ÞÎ? 1990 đom routee oli 9od si est sout iBJIV 9lquiz weł edi-viicsiterƆ tud :0% Cistra to ang Ignorance of Scripture by Voltaire, &c. and Notes on a few Passages of Scripture, which one class of writers 80 in the Deistical controversy have not understood. 1910 JW 4800 008 097a9d to shot ad of bote od eff It cannot be denied, that a number of ingenious men, of extensive knowledge in certain examined this particular subject with a becoming respects, are sceptical with regard to religion. But then they have seriousness and impartiality. They have not thoroughly studied the various external and internal evidences which have been urged in proof of Christianity, and, especially, they have not searched into the Scripthemselves."Kippis." 35ster380 on base foi edi ne ba79brodi i li eo,ni: D9151 Sam. xxviii. 7, Then said Saul unto his servants, Seek me a woman that hath a familiar spirit. And his a servants said to him, Behold, there is a woman that hath a familiar spirit at Endor The rendering of the verse in the Vulgate, is singular and most erroneous: Dixitque Saul servis suis, Quærite mihi mulierem habentem pythonem. Et dixerunt servi ejus ad eum, Est mulier pythonem habens in Endor.” Assuming the correctness of this translation, Voltaire* would insinuate that the history before us was not written till the Jews traded with the Greeks, after the time of Alexander." No really "learned men" can hold such an opinion: persons of this character, will consult the original, and not satisfy themselves with a translation, which is comparatively modern. By the same medium," says Dr. Findlay,† “Voltaire might have argued, that the books of Leviticus and Deuteronomy were also written after Alexander's victories: for there, likewise, in the Vulgate translation, the obnoxious term Python is introduced, Lev. xx. 27, Deut. xviii. 10." "Upon the same principles upon which Mr.Voltaire reasons here, a person might, with success, undertake to prove, that the Hebrew book of Genesis was not written till the Saxons invaded Britain, because many words which are used in the English translation of this book, are of Saxon etymology and derivation. For why should not the English version have weight in deciding the era of a Hebrew book, as well as the Latin one?” In this reasoning Mr. Farmert entirely concurs. After noticing, that those who were anciently called ventriloquists had subsequently the name of phonesses, and that Python is the word used by the Vulgate version in 1 Sam. xxviii. 7, 8, he adds, " But in the original Hebrew no such word as Python is used (as Mr. Voltaire himself knew), but a term so remote in sound from it as ob. And for the credit of learning, one would hope (what I really believe to be the case) that Voltaire is the only learned man, who ever undertook to determine the date of a Hebrew book, from the use of a word in a Latin translation, made many hundred years after it, and not to be found in the original." Nor is a criticism so extraordinary overlooked in the Lettres De Quelques Juifs, &c. A. M. De Voltaire.§ The * Philos. of Hist. ch. xxxv. p. 165. Vindication, &c. [Glasgow, 1770] p. 389, &c. For the credit of his moral character, I hope that he did not know it, $ Tom. iii. [Ed. 5. Paris, 1781] p. 402, &e. The author of these excellent Letters, to which it is not easy to do justice in a translation, was the Abbe Guenee. In the last vol. is an admirable view of the more prominent statutes of Moses. Commentary there given on that author's Text, is the followingas anoded messcodiny vacuurme Jacť,nows bus garge *ff Connu des Juifs du temps de Saul, &c. Le mot de Python, qui est Gree, et bas Grec, qui loin de se trouver dans le Texte Hébreu, ne se voit pas même dans la Version Grec des Septante, qu'on ne lit enfine que dans la Vulgate; ce mot connu des Juifs du temps de Saul! Assurément rien ne seroit plus etrange lo stezroq Mais d'où savez-vous, Monsieur, que ce mot leur ait été connu du temps de Saül? Et comment une idée si bizarre vous est-elle venue à l'esprit? man ad. vI n Plusieurs Savans! Un seul, Monsieur, vous, et nul autre. Concluent, &c. Quoi! de ce que le mot de Python se trouve dans la Vulgate, ces savans concluent que le Texte Hébreu, ou il ne se trouve pas, ne fut ecrit que quand les Juifs furent en commerce avec les Grecs, apres Alexandre? Voi la, Monsieur, d'excellens Dialecticiens, d'admirables raisonneurs." ghat? Ef at #s #3 201 vio Prov. xxiii. 31; “Look not thou upon the wine when it is red, when it giveth its colour in the cup, when it moveth itself to and fro."tope. * On this passage, Mr. Voltaire says, "I very much question whether drinking glasses were made in Solomon's time: the invention is but modern: the ancients drank out of wooden or metal cups; and this single passage betrays the book to be the work of some Alexandrine Jew, and to be written long since Alexander." Now, Dr. Findlay replies, that, be the date of the invention what it may, the author of the Proverbs is silent concerning glass; "though the Vulgate Version hath turned the clause, Cum splenduerit in vitro color ejus.””† beHere, then, is another example of Voltaire's implicit reliance on the Vulgate Bible, and of an ill-considered objection founded on that reliance. The Jews, in their Letters to the author, expose his rashness with keen and polished sarcasm: "Voilà de l'érudition, Monsieur; mais souffrez que nous vous le disions, vous n'en faites pas un emploi fort judicieux." After maintaining the high antiquity of the invention of glass, they add "Il n'est pas nécessaire d'entrer ici dans ces discussions 7 * Dict. Philos. Poetat. Art.-Salomon. + Vindication, &c. 463. Tom. iii. 324, &c.) savantes: pour renverser votre raisonnement, une réflexion suffit. C'est que ce raisonnement suppose, que dans le Texte original il est question de verre a boire, de coupe, de gobelet de verre. Or, quoique vos traductions Françoises et votre Vulgate aient rendu le terme Hébreu par verre, ce terme ne signifie ni verre a boire, ni gobelet de verre, mais un gobelet, une tasse de quelque matiere qu' elle puisse être. Voici donc à quoi se réduit votre pré tendue démonstration. A-t on jamais raisonné de la sorte, Monsieur? Voyez à quoi l'on s'expose, lorsque on se mêle de critiquer un ouvrage, sans avoir sous les yeux le Texte original..ou sans l'entendre."tr Matt. xxviii. 7: - behold, he goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him." &tum cum ei ål -Paine quotes the clause in the following manner, "Be hold Christ is gone before you into Galilee;" upon which mode of citing it, Bishop Watson* remarks, with becom ing seriousness and great effect, I know not what Bible you made use of in this quotation: none that I have seen render the original word by he is gone; it might be properly rendered, he will go, and it is literally rendered, he is going. This phrase does not imply an immediate setting out for Galilee; when a man has fixed upon a long journey to London or Bath, it is common enough to say, he is going to London or Bath, though the time of his going may be at some distance.”vd ng von jon This remark completely overthrows one of Paine's attempts to impugn the historical evidence for Christ's resurrection. #ky to sedmet 9 it 260 ur tid Peoita, Matt.x2-5: The names of the twelve Apostles are these," &c. ftili suit Certainly, that of Luke does not occur in the catalogue'; though more than once he is so considered by Paine. You ought," observes Bishop Watson,+to have known, that Luke was no apostle inima **N. SIR, To the Editor of the Christian Pioneer. 1 LONDON, June 2, 1830. THE Contests which have recently taken place in the north of Ireland, have drawn the attention of the I |