Friend of India,' No. 23, for May, 1820, in which the Editor attempts to defend himself from the charge of calling Ram Mohun Roy a Heathen, that Reformer having accused him in the use of this term of violating truth, charity and liberality.' The Editor's defence is, that this was the first hint that he had received (and he calls it an obscure one, though it is surely plain enough) of Ram Mohun Roy's wish to be denominated a Christian; and that he (the Editor) could not admit any one to be a Christian unless he acceded to certain points of his own creed. As we belong' (he says, p. 133) to that class who think that no one can be a real Christian, without believing the Divinity and the Atonement of Christ, and the Divine Authority of the whole of the Holy Scriptures, while we most cordially wish that he were altogether such, we could not term him a Christian without a violation of our own principles.' Here Mr. Ivimey may see that his Baptist Brethren in India refuse the Christian name to Ram Mohun Roy-not because he does not believe in the divine mission of Jesus Christ-but because he does not receive also the doctrine of Christ's personal deity. From certain expressions in his letter, I am happy to conclude that your correspondent would not establish so narrow a test of Christianity.

" I should now be justified in asking Mr. Ivimey, whether he knew, or not, of this passage in the Friend of India'? and in remarking that, if he were acquainted with it, his charge of Paganism against Ram Mohun Roy is scarcely ingenuous, (not to use a harsher word,) and that if he were not acquainted with it, his study even of the writings of his Baptist brethren at Serampore, is not such as to authorize him to undertake the office of Censor with regard to the ecclesiastical news of Bengal. But, leaving this topic, I proceed to observe, that a very little time will probably determine the merits of this controversy, as far as relates to the Hindoo Reformer, and that whatever may be the tenor of further information from India, it has not been without evidence that I have ranked that distinguished man amongst Christians, and vindicated his claim

to the right hand of Christian fellowship. With my views of the case, I cannot be sorry that the English Baptists are about to publish Dr. Marshman's part of the controversy with Ram Mohun Roy, on the doctrine of the Trinity; although I cannot help thinking that it would be more equitable to the latter, and more serviccable to the cause of truth, to lay before the public the controversy entire, instead of an ex parte statement. Still there may be no reason for long-continued regret: if Mr. Ivimey and his friends will not furnish us with the whole controversy, others may be found to supply what they omit, and when the dispute is fairly before the world, the impartial reader will be able to determine on which side is the weight of argument, as well as the balance of Christian temper.

"The accusation against the Hindoo Reformer of reviling miracles will be found, I have little doubt, to be either a forced inference from some, perhaps unguarded, expression of his, or, at least, to be deduced from some of his writings antecedent to his arriving at the conviction of Christian truth.

Having read several of this extraordinary man's works on Hindooism, I was not uninformed (as Mr. Ivimey seems to suppose) of his hypothesis, that this system was originally simple Unitarianism, and that it has been reduced by successive corruptions to gross Polytheism; but it would be egregious trifling to draw from this hypothesis the sweeping conclusion that the modern Hindoos are Unitarians. The well-founded appeals that the Baptist Missionary Society is perpetually making to the liberality of the public, proceed upon the principle that this people are Polytheists, and upon the notorious fact that they are idolaters.

"Your correspondent writes concerning Mr. Adam, the late Baptist Missionary, and present Unitarian Minister at Calcutta, under evident irritation of feelings, for which great allowance ought to be made, since he and his friends have been (to use his own expression) awfully disappointed.' But there are limits to the venial indulgence of resentment, and to others of your readers besides myself, he may possibly have appeared to go far be

and a dungeon, by one of those underlings of Church and King, a "Suppression of Vice" Society, or a "Constitutional Association."

To return to your correspondent's letter. I regret to perceive that Mr. Taylor is able to give but a poor character of "the Constitution of New Jersey" in which a just and liberal policy has yet advanced no further than to render "every Protestant sect eligible to offices," as if the distinction of sects, or any question respecting the world to come, had any concern with the proper objects of civil convention; the fair possession and usufruct of the present world's advantages. Nor has your correspondent fully explained the " blasphemylaw" as laid down in "the Mayor's Court of Philadelphia." If the "persons prosecuted" were punished "for interfering with the rights of others," no punishment could have been more just or beneficial, because thus a Jew or a Mahomedan, a Deist or an Atheist, would be equally protected; unless it be maintained, as if dominion were really founded in grace, that Christians only have civil rights. There is, indeed, a glimpse of the antichristian "alliance between Church and State" in Mr. Taylor's concluding paragraph. "The civil power" does not merely protect "the peace" and "the rights" of the civil community, his only proper occupation, but "he as God sitteth in the temple of God," to define and to punish "profane and impious ribaldry."

1 take this opportunity to remark, that the "translation" quoted by your respectable correspondent, (p. 523,) is probably one of the two mentioned in Lewis's "History of the English Translations of the Bible," (ed. 1739, pp. 196, 197,) as published in 1553.

The first he describes is "the quarto edition of Coverdale's Bible, printed at Zurich, (1550,) republished (1553) with the addition of a new title-page." The other is a new edition of the Great Bible, by the King's printer, Edward Whitchurche, in folio," probably "the last that was printed" in the reign of Edward VI.

Your correspondent has not quoted the 8th verse, so that it is uncertain whether, as in the authorized English version, there is the variation from "three are one" to "three agree in

one." In the Vulgate, as is well known, this now sufficiently ascertained forgery in the 7th verse does not appear to have been made subservient to the purpose of a Trinity, though, as Sir 1. Newton remarks on this verse, in his letter to Le Clerc, it is

now in every one's mouth, and accounted the main text for the business." In that translation, verses 7 and 8, notwithstanding the variation in the Greek, alike end with hi tres unum sunt, evidently referring in each to testimonium. So I observe in Il Nuovo ed Eterno Testamento, printed in Lione, 1551, as translated from the Greek, for the Protestants of Italy, (which I had occasion to mention p. 74,) the close of both verses is thus exactly alike: i quai tre, sono una medesima coso.

In the French Testament printed at Mons, by the Jansenists, in 1710, both verses close with "et ces trois sont une même chose." A note, however, to the 7th verse, has "par essence," and to the 8th, " par rapport."

In the French Testament printed at Charenton in 1668, the variation in the two verses is fully accommodated to the purpose of a Trinity; ver. 7 ending, "et ces trois-là sont un;" ver. 8, "et ces trois-là se raportent à un." Such also is the conclusion of the 8th verse in the edition of the Wetsteins, 1710, while the 7th verse ends with "et ces trois-là ne sont qu'un." In "Le Nouveau Testament," à Paris, 1764, avec approbation et privilège du Roi," the Catholic translator closes the 7th verse with "et ces trois ne sont qu'un," adding in a note, "un seul et même Dieu en trois personnes;" while the 8th verse ends exactly like the transla tion of Mons, with this sense given in a note, "s'unissent pour attester une même vérité."

It is to be regretted that Le Clerc had not the magnanimity to omit the heavenly witnesses, in his Nouv. Test., 1703. He renders the 7th verse like the translation of Mons, concluding the 8th with "et ces trois se réduissent à une même chose." In a note he discovers his perfect conviction of the forgery, and, in the following conclusion, his want of the courage to explode it possessed by a much earlier Reformer: "Néanmoins ce passage étant reçu dans nos Bibles, on n'a pas

crû devoir l'omettre, comme Luther l'avoit fait dans sa version.”

It is still more surprising that "Les Pasteurs et les Professeurs de l'Église et de l'Académie de Genève" should, after the further discussions of a century, have sanctioned this forgery, in their "Nouveau Testament" now before me, in the edition à Londres, 1803, reprinted from the Geneva edition, 1802. This is the more extraordinary, as they profess, in a prefatory advertisement, to have availed themselves of MSS, justly remarking that "à mesure que le texte original a été mieux connu par la comparaison des variantes-les traductions sont devenues plus correctes." They render the conclusions of the 7th and 8th verses exactly according to the translation of Charenton in 1668.

It is well known that the earliest printed editions of the Greek Testament entirely omit the heavenly witnesses. Such is the case with one in my possession, printed at Strasburg, Argentorati, apud Vuolfium Cephalæum, Anno 1524;" described by Dr. Harwood, in his View, (ed. 2, p. 120,) as a very curious edition." 1 se pri tetin préface, nephowledges The printer, Wolfius Chephalaus, in a short

his obligations to his relation, Fabritius Capito (an account of whom forms the first article in Sandius): "Fabritii Capitonis consanguinei mei tum industria tum consilio opitulantibus." A former, and as may be conjectured from the appearance of the writing, a very early possessor of this Greek Testament, has written, where he missed the heavenly witnesses, to whom, probably, he had been familiarized by the Latin Vulgate, "hic desiderata verba quædam."

account of Turgot's classical taste and literary amusements, may gratify some of your readers.

"Un Commerce de Lettres avec M. [Adam] Smith sur les questions les plus importantes pour l'humanité, avec le Docteur Price sur les principes de l'Ordre Social; ou sur les moyens de rendre la révolution de l'Amérique utile à l'Europe et de prévenir les dangers où cette République naissante étoit exposée, avec un Evêque de l'Eglise Anglicane qu'il détournoit du projet singulier d'établir des Moines en Irlande, avec M. Franklin sur les inconvénients des Impôts indirects et les heureux effets d'un Impôt territorial, lui offroit encore une occupation attachante et douce."

Give me leave to add an earnest request to such of your readers as are subscribers to Dr. Priestley's works, that they would favour me with their very early attention to a notice which will appear on the cover of your current number.

English Editions of the Bible.

A zine for the present October

makes some sensible observations upon the variations in the different editions of our English Bible. He refers to a pamphlet, printed in 1821, but not sold, entitled "The Expediency of Revising the present Anthorized Translation of the Holy Bible, considered in a Letter addressed to the Right Hon. the Earl of Liverpool:" this letter he says is evidently the work of a good Hebrew scholar, and is attributed to an eminent dignitary of the Church of England. He makes the following extract from p. 6,-" A few alterations were made, sub silentio, by Dr. Blayney, I believe, when he revised the printed University copies of our Bible in 1769. For instance, more was substituted for mo or moe, impossible for unpossible, midst for mids, owneth for oweth, jaws for chaws, and alien for aliant. But these are matters of trifling importance, though more perhaps than any corrector of the press, or individual, ought to have done without authority, In an 8vo. edition of our authorized Bible, printed at Cambridge, 1793, in