« PreviousContinue »
doing. Rev. E. Lynch has preached the doctrine here for many years. There are from twelve to twenty societies. A society of Trinitarian Universalists was established not long since in Charleston, where a house of worship is about to be built.
GEORGIA. Of this state we can say but little. There are Universalists within its limits, in Augusta and various other places, and we believe two or three clergymen, though we have heard nothing from them of late. Universalism has been preached to some extent in the northeastern part of this state, by Rev. Allen Fuller, of South Carolina.
ALABAMA has two or three societies; one preacher, at least, Rev. W. Atkins, of Montgomery county; and scattering Universalists in different parts of the state.
LOUISIANA. Of this state we can say nothing, except that we know there are Universalists in New Orleans, and other places; but there is no organization, nor are there any preachers.
WESTERN STATES. Ohio has been set down in some of the Journals as having twenty-five preachers. There is one Convention, and three Associations. The number of societies may be forty or fifty. Indiana has at least one Association, and several societies. The Sentinel and Star in the West,' issued weekly, is published in Philomath, in that state, where the Universalist Seminary is established. Of Illinois we have no information. Kentucky has a few Universalists, and one or two meeting-houses, but no preachers. Louisville, in this state, has a large body of Universalists. In Tennessee we have knowledge of a few Universalists; and the same remark may be made of the remaining Western States.
MICHIGAN TERRITORY. There are several preachers of Universalism in this region, but we will hazard no opinion as to the number. A society was not long since formed in Pontinac; and there are others in different places. A large proportion of the male inhabitants are decidedly friendly to the principles of Universalists.13
CANADA. Universalism has prevailed in both the Canadas, but principally in the Lower province. There are two
13 It should here be observed, that a General Convention of the United States has been proposed, and measures preparatory to its formation have been adopted. Should this succeed, it is probable it will take the place of the General Convention of the New England States and others."
or more preachers here, and several societies, which are in fellowship with the (Vermont) Northern Association. There are many subscribers in these provinces to the New England Universalist publications. It is stated in the secular journals, that the Universalists of the Lower province have presented a petition to the Government; but we are not apprized of its object.
NEW BRUNSWICK AND NOVA SCOTIA. There are no preachers of Universalism in these provinces, and, we suppose, no societies; but there are not a few believers. Those with whom we are acquainted are gentlemen of talent and intelligence. They have frequently expressed their wishes that faithful and experienced preachers might visit them, on whom they would bestow something more substantial than a cordial welcome. Many of them are subscribers to the New England Universalist periodicals, and they have made 'themselves acquainted with the larger works. So much has Universalism spread, it has been made the subject of a spirited attack, in one of the orthodox magazines.
The foregoing will give the reader a tolerably satisfactory view of the present condition of Universalism in North America. Our desultory observations will convince every one, that the Universalists are suffering for the want of regular statistics of the denomination. We know not, and we cannot know our strength, until some system is adopted, whereby, at stated times, full accounts shall be published. This may be easily done. Let the boundaries of the Associations in any state, be so fixed, that they shall together include the whole state; and then, let every Association report once a year, to the State Convention, if there be one, and if not, to the public, through the journals, the number of societies and preachers in its limits, and the number of members. This may be incorporated into the respective circulars; the labor would be trifling, and the advantage would be very great. Should the State Conventions be generally formed, and the proposed United States General Convention go into practical operation, the various streams of information might be mingled in a common channel.
Having thus finished what we have to say, in regard to the rapid increase, and the present condition and prospects of our cause in America, we pass to offer a few remarks on the state of Universalism in Europe. England, Scotland, and Ireland, are
the only places in Europe in which the Universalists have ever existed, to our knowledge, as a distinct sect. In England they arose in two bodies, the Rellyans and Winchesterians. The latter long since mingled with the Unitarians; and the former, always feeble, have for some time sustained a precarious existence. The Universalists in Scotland have not prospered; they met with adversities in a clergyman they invited from England, which probably disheartened them. From the little band in Ireland we have heard nothing for a long time. But the sentiment of Universal Restitution is not lost. It is now more predominant in Europe than it ever was before. The Unitarians in England and in Scotland have generally embraced it. Dr. Lant Carpenter, in his reply to Magee, says, 'Most of us Unitarians believe that a period will come to each individual, when punishment shall have done its work, . . . . when he who must reign till he hath put all enemies under his feet, shall have put down all rule, and all authority and power. The last enemy, death, shall be destroyed. Every tongue shall confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father, who wills that all men shall be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth,-that truth which sanctifies the heart, that knowledge which is life eternal: and God shall be all in all.' It is not to be supposed that in this denomination alone, are to be found those who embrace the doctrine; for from the well-known liberality of the Church of England on this point, we should be led to expect it would prevail to some extent among her clergy. The public has already been furnished with the evidence of the very general disbelief which prevails among the ecclesiastics of Germany, on the subject of endless misery. That country is renowned for its deep theological learning; and it is not to be supposed that this change could have taken place within the last century there, without having had a sensible effect on the Protestants in Prussia, Austria, Switzerland, France, and more particularly in Holland. The doctrine of endless misery has been going out of date in the natural course of things; and the Protestants on the continent of Europe, appear fast coming to that state, in which it will be a matter of indifference, whether a divine shall hold the tenet of endless misery, or reject it.
Here we close our rapid sketch. The public may expect a continuation of the Review of the Denomination, every half year.
King James' Translation of the Bible.
THE learned and intelligent, among all sects in religion, admit that a new and better version of the Scriptures would be of essential service to the community. Since our common version was made, great improvements in the English language have taken place. Besides, the translators in many places erred, in not conveying the sense of the original writers. Archbishop Newcombe says, 'were a version of the Bible executed in a manner suitable to the magnitude of the undertaking, such a measure would have a direct tendency to establish the faith of thousands.' Blackwell, in his Sacred Classics, observes, 'innumerable instances might be given of faulty translation of the divine original.... An accurate translation, proved and supported by sacred criticism, would quash and silence most of the objections of pert and profane cavillers.' In Waterland's Scripture Vindicated, it is said, 'our last English version is undoubtedly capable of very great improvements.' Pilkington, in his Remarks, observes, many of the inconsistencies, improprieties, and obscurities are occasioned by the translators misunderstanding the true import of Hebrew words and phrases: showing the benefit and expediency of a more correct and intelligible translation of the Bible." Professor Symonds also remarks, whoever examines our version in present use, will find that it is ambiguous and incorrect, even in matters of the highest importance.' Dr. Kennicott, the great Hebrew scholar, says, 'great improvements might now be made, because the Hebrew and Greek languages have been much cultivated and far better understood, since the year 1600.' Blaney, in his Preliminary Discourse to Jeremiah, thus writes, "the common version has mistaken the true sense of the Hebrew in not a few places. Is it nothing, to deprive the people of that edification which they might have received, had a fair and just exposition been substituted for a false one? Do we not know the advantages commonly taken by the enemies of revelation, of triumphing in objections plausibly raised against the divine word, upon the basis of an unsound text or wrong translation ?? Purver also remarks, 'it is necessary that translations should be made from one time to another, accommodated to the present use of speaking or writing. This deference is paid to the hea
then classics, and why should the Scripture meet with less regard.' And to conclude this testimony, the Rev. John Wesley says, 'the common English translation, though the best I have seen, is capable of being brought, in several places, nearer to the original.'
Such are a few, out of the many writers that might be quoted, who have expressed their opinion respecting our common English translation, and the advantages which would result from a new and improved version of the Scriptures. It appears from the present state of religious sects, that the day is not at hand when they would all agree to adopt a new version, were it made. Perhaps no one sect would consent to adopt universally a new version, if it were even made by the most learned and judicious of their own body. The rival sects are jealous of each other, lest they pervert the Scriptures to favor their own opinions; and most people in all the sects have a veneration for the common version, amounting almost to superstition. Under these circumstances the mass of readers, in order to obtain a more correct understanding of the Scriptures, must avail themselves of translations and criticisms made by individuals. Various versions of the Scriptures have appeared; and a great mass of critical matter has been accumulating, which must be of great use when a new public translation shall be made.
In remarking on translations of the Bible, let us,
FIRST, notice the translations of the Hebrew Scriptures. The first version from the Hebrew is that of the Greek, commonly called the Seventy or the Septuagint. It is said to have been made, 3501 years before Christ. The next in order, are the Chaldee translations; but properly speaking, these are rather paraphrases than translations. They were made by different persons, and few, if any of them, were known before the Christian era. The old Syriac translation is said to have been made within the first century of the Christian era ; and the Latin translations, not before the introduction of Christianity into Rome.
Before the art of printing was discovered, translations of the Bible were rare, and very expensive. From the very nature of the case, they were in few hands. None but people of some wealth possessed a copy of the Scriptures. Admitting
1 Rather, about 270 years before Christ; and it was not completed till long afterwards. Ed.