that his own sentiments and those of his brethren were what is usually called orthodox, although he did not enter into any minute explanation. With respect to Christ, he said he conceived of him as a 66 ray shot from the Father's glory, and to be absorbed again, as St. Paul intimates, 1 Cor. xv. 28. But," said he, "if I be asked whether he be co-eternal with the Father or not, and whether he be co-equal with him or not, I never have answered to these questions, and never will. It is a matter beyond the comprehension of angels, and what can feeble mortals do? I regard the disputes of Christians about the person of their Master, as the disgrace of Christianity. That he was entitled to worship," he said, "was evident from his so often receiving it. But even Seneca had perceived that the best worship is imitation, and Christ himself had required us to address our prayers to the Father in his name." I was gratified by his remarking to me at parting, that I was "the Englishman who had lived longest amongst them, and who understood better than any other their manners and present condition."

December 17th, my tenth and last Sunday among the Vaudois, I heard an interesting practical discourse from M. Bonjour, on the privileges of Christians, preparatory to Christmas-day. In conversing with him he used an expression which will long remain in my memory: "The manners of my countrymen call back the golden age; for of what do the poets sing but of honesty, purity, and justice ?"

In this narrative, I trust I have succeeded in shewing, first, that this ancient people exhibit, at the present day, the most edifying example of Christian excellence; and, secondly, that this distinguished excellence of character has for its support, not the peculiar sentiments which distinguish one sect from another, but that main pillar of the Christian temple, the sentence of its Founder, And this is life eternal, that they may know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.

P. S. The Editor and readers of the Monthly Repository will permit me to express the concern I felt, while visiting this interesting remnant of "the golden age" and of the primitive Christian church, that the Unitarians had not yet testified in any public manner their sympathy with them, and interest in their behalf. From the extreme poverty of a great part of the land which the Vaudois occupy, they are in general barely able to maintain their families, and must look to foreign assistance for the support of their pastors, the maintenance of their schools, churches, and hospital. Nothing can be more revolting to the prepossessions of a Baptist than their mode of baptizing infants, at eight days old, out of a small phial! Yet the "Baptist Society" have presented them with £200, in one sum, for the support of their various institutions. The translation into the French language of Mrs. Hughes' "Good Luck and Good Conduct" would, I will venture to say, form a highly acceptable present to them.

Venice, March 31, 1827.

SIR,

UNITARIANISM IN IRELAND.
To the Editor.

IT cannot but be a matter of heartfelt satisfaction to every lover of divine truth to observe the turn which religious discussion has of late taken in Ireland. We have at present the spectacle of the three ecclesiastical systems into which our Irish brethren have so long been divided, vying with one another in endeavouring in their respective spheres to maintain the bonds

of spiritual dominion, hostile in all its forms to the progress of inquiry and instruction. From this struggle has arisen a new and holier spirit. The rights of conscience from being attacked, are beginning to be asserted, and the pure light of simple gospel truth has burst upon the view of a benighted people. No one can read the recent admirable work of Dr. Drummond on "The Doctrine of the Trinity," and observe the intensity of interest with which it has been received in Ireland, without feeling the conviction that the time has arrived for active and useful exertion for the improvement of religious opinion and feeling. Let every devout professor of the "faith once delivered to the saints," come out from among the three powers, which to a certain extent bave had a common interest in stifling inquiry, and stand fast in the liberty wherewith Christ has made him free. A new and really Christian church may now arise. At such a time it is essential that its members should be so designated as to leave no doubt as to their objects and principles. They must openly profess themselves Unitarians, in the liberal acceptation of the term. The word Arian, like that of Socinian, is offensive to those who wish not to be considered as the followers of mere human authority. The term can only apply to a small and perhaps gradually decreasing portion of those who have abandoned the doctrine of the Trinity; it draws a limit at which religious opinion must stop, and it perpetuates divisions which are useless and mischievous. Dr. Drummond, in the work before referred to, properly "divides all Christians into two denominations, Unitarian and Trinitarian." In his preface to the second edition, the author says, "The title of Unitarian Christian is one to which we have the first and indisputable claim. We hope to see it more extensively embraced, and that those who have received the name of Arians or Socinians will lay aside those appellations, and assume that of Unitarian or Bible Christians, and not circumscribe themselves within a circle drawn by any uninspired mortal whatever, since one is our Master, even Christ. Let us stand on a space so broad that it will include all who believe in the strict unity of Jehovah, and in his only Son, Jesus Christ our Lord." It is pleasing to observe a growing conviction of the impolicy and absurdity of weakening the hallowed cause of pure worship, by creating or keeping up a subdivision among its professors, for which no adequate advantage can be offered, and which (though once sanctioned by a few names of authority) is now abandoned by the English Unitarians. That the great body of the latter are actuated by no sectarian or restricted views is not to be doubted, and they gladly hold forth the right hand of fellowship to every worshiper of "One God in one person." The British and Foreign Unitarian Association, under which so large a proportion of our societies have enrolled themselves, is founded on no narrow and exclusive principle; and the Monthly Repository, the organ of the body, commenced its "new series" with the resolution to draw no line of separation beyond that necessarily prescribed by Trinitarians themselves. Let Unitarians, therefore, whether in Britain or Ireland, combine in their practical opposition to what is of far higher importance than the minor points on which they may differ among themselves. Let them shew that no sectarian views enter into their contemplation, and let them unite above all things in resistance to all who would trample under foot the most holy of all rights, by erecting a barrier against the dictates of conscience and the commands of Jesus Christ himself.

AN ENGLISH UNITARIAN.

SIR,

ON THE COMMAND OF JOSHUA.
To the Editor.

BEFORE satisfying the wish of your correspondent J. C. M., (p. 734,) respecting Mr. Bellamy's version of Joshua x. 13, 14, which is the main cause of my now addressing you, I would beg leave to say a few words on the arguments brought forward by him against my objections to the passage of the sun and moon standing still, as it is rendered in our Authorized Version, without reference to those founded on the Hebrew original.

In the first place, I will readily concede to J. C. M. the advantage he claims in respect to the supposed miracle being performed during the combat between the Israelites and the Amorites, and shall waive for a moment my right to collect from the account in the Common Version that it was a subsequent occurrence. But, will J. C. M. gain much thereby? Does the concession here made speak more in favour of the necessity of the miracle? I apprehend not. The general reason assigned for it (if I am not greatly mistaken) is, that it was done to enable the Israelites to obtain a longer space of time by day-light, for the purpose of conquering the idolatrous Amorites, agreeably to ver. 13 of the authorized translation: "And the sun stood still and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies." But, how can this be made to tally with the 11th verse, in which the winding up of the discomfiture of the Amorites is thus related in our present version: "And it came to pass as they fled from before Israel, and were in the going down to Beth-horon, that the Lord cast down great stones from heaven upon them unto Azekah, and they died: they were more which died with hail-stones, than they whom the children of Israel slew with the sword." Here the final defeat of the dispirited and exhausted Amorites is ascribed to the providence of God in sending a grievous hailstorm upon them; but surely no one will have the hardihood to assert that for this purpose, or even to enable the Israelites to ascertain their victory, it was necessary for the sun and moon to stand still, or in other words, as far as the moon at least is concerned, for the course of nature to be changed. I am perfectly aware, Sir, that I am here treading on tender ground, and that I may be told by persons like J. C. M., that if the Almighty is recorded (of course only in our Authorized Version) to have performed a miracle, it ill befits me or any one else to inquire into the cause of it, much less to dispute its actual performance; but as I have given the reasons in my former paper why I consider Mr. Bellamy's Version to be strictly conformable with the Hebrew, (in which no such miracle is recorded,) in opposition to our present translation, I feel myself compelled, with every courteous allowance for J. C. M.'s candid avowal of his ignorance of the sacred language, to shelter myself from obloquy there.

J. C. M. next asserts that Joshua did not perform the miracle in question by his own sole power, as pretended by me (i. e. if the miracle were performed at all); and as a proof of this, he says, "in fact we have an intimation that, previously to performing the miracle, he addressed the Supreme Being, though the words of his address are not given." A little explanation may perhaps here be necessary to shield J. C. M. from the dilemma of a perfect non sequitur. By addressing Jehovah, he certainly means offering up prayers to him, and he most probably supposes that in answer to these prayers the Almighty authorized him to command the sun and the moon to stand still. Now here I feel a little disposed to quarrel with J. C. M. for having stated in the introduction of his essay that my objections which he

intended to notice "had no connexion with verbal criticism." Independently of my shewing from Mr. Bellamy that the words, " And Joshua said to the Lord," are erroneously rendered in the Common Version, I have expressly added that one of my strong objections to this miracle is the absence of the wonder-working Hebrew formula which precedes every other miracle effected through the agency of man, in the books of the Old Testament, prior to Joshua, namely DN, and by this I must of necessity make my stand, thereby still expressing my conviction that the supposed miracle not being commanded by Jehovah, it rested solely with Joshua, and consequently could not take place.

But J. C. M. attacks me (I had almost said with a degree of pleasant bonhommie) on my objecting to the "unphilosophical" manner in which the historian describes the miracle of the sun and moon standing still. He then proceeds to say, that "the account is in conformity with the astronomical system of that day," and thinks that "the moon's standing still is a grave argument for the reality of the miracle," (I thought it had formed chief part of the miracle itself,)" inasmuch as, although there was no occasion for it when the sun was shining, it was, according to the modern and true theory of the celestial bodies, a necessary consequence of the cessation of the earth's diurnal rotation, in which," he presumes, "the miracle ex

isted."

Good-humour and pleasantry may in many cases suffice to cover a multitude of sins, and in this instance they may be permitted to shroud what severer critics might honour with no very dignified appellation in your correspondent J. C. M.; but it is necessary for the information of others into whose hands this essay may fall, to point out the inconsistencies of the foregoing assertions.

We have in the book of Job and the Pentateuch, (I mention these only, on account of their being of an earlier date than the book of Joshua,) direct evidence to shew that the Israelites were intimately versed in astronomical science; and from a mass of collateral evidence which has recently been established by one of the most learned men of the present age, this is further confirmed beyond the shadow of a doubt;* the argument, therefore, of J. C. M., that the description of the sun and moon standing still, in Joshua, is in conformity with the astronomical system of that day, is not only wholly futile, but little better than a libel on the sacred writings which he attemps in so injudicious a manner to defend. I have no doubt but J. C. M. considers the writer of the book of Joshua to have been inspired; but, if it be admitted, as J. C. M. wishes us to do, that by the sun and moon standing still, he meant to record that the earth and moon stood still, what is this else than admitting that the author of the book of Joshua is guilty of a gross mistake; and what then becomes of the divine inspiration in his case, with which error and falsehood are surely incompatible? And if we once begin to account for the absurdities of our own and other modern versions, by attributing them to the ignorance and mistakes of the original Hebrew writers, to what fearful and appalling results will not this procedure eventually lead? Surely every serious Christian must tremble for the conse

quences.

As to J. C. M.'s assertion that the moon standing still is a grave argument for the earth's standing still also, I confess myself utterly unable to compre

For a great variety of information on this head, the reader is referred to the Dissertations of Sir William Drummond on the Zodiacs of Esneh and Dendra, in Nos. XLVII.-L. of the Classical Journal, and to Vol. II. Book iv. Ch. vi. of Origines, recently published by the same author.

hend the force of his reasoning, or to guess at the rules of his logic by which so notable a deduction is obtained; and as I have carefully abstained from noticing in my former essay the results which must have infallibly been produced by the miracle recorded in our Common Version, had it actually taken place, so I hope I may be excused from detailing those which J. C. M.'s improved miracle could not fail likewise to have effected, had it existed any where else than in his own imagination. Some hints, however, on the subject may be gathered from Michaelis's remarks on the miracle of the sun going back ten degrees on the sun-dial of Ahaz, and to these I refer J. C. M. and your readers. There is one inference which must necessarily be drawn from the foregoing, which it may not be amiss to state here: it is this, that both the Septuagint and the Vulgate Versions of the book of Joshua (from which all our modern European translations have chiefly emanated) must have been made at a period when astronomical science was at a low ebb; when the degenerate political state of the ancient Egyptians and Jews manifested (as is ever the case with fallen nations) a corresponding degeneracy, or rather absence of true science and learning; and when a string of childish systems was founded, not on the result of philosophical experiment and accurate observation, but on appearances only. Why we should still persist in adopting versions like these, the authors of which have swerved from the original because they could not comprehend it, and have in many places substituted error for truth out of sheer imbecility and ignorance, may be left to their champion J. C. M. to account for. It might be done here, but courtesy forbids the attempt.

I come now to what your correspondent is pleased to term my grand objection, and which consists briefly in this, "that as God is immutable, so are the laws by which he governs the universe." In denying this, J. C. M. defines a miracle to be "a departure from the laws by which the Supreme Being governs the universe," although in a few lines afterwards he considers it to be synonymous with "a departure from the usual mode in which he conducts the operations of his providence ;" and, leaving the reader to reconcile as he can the vast difference between both definitions, he proceeds to assert that an attempt to charge the Almighty with mutability in occasionally departing from those laws by which he governs the universe, does not derogate from his glory so much as the hypothesis which would limit his omnipotence by making him the slave of his own decrees. Ah! Mr. Editor, had my pen originally traced these lines, well might I blush, and well might I incur the just reproach of J. C. M., not only of not having used " more guarded and moderate language," but also of not having spoken with that reverence which it becomes a mere mortal when treating of an all-perfect, all-wise and omnipotent Being. "All nature" (in the energetic language of a sage of the present day)" is but the expression of the will of God," and if the Divine Will, as manifested throughout all his works, and in the laws by which he governs the mighty whole, agree in perfection with him, the Supreme Being, who is the essence and fountain of all perfection, as it needs must, how can the possibility of a change be for a moment supposed? Or, in other words, how can the "unphilosophical idea" of perfection in Omnipotence becoming imperfect be at all tolerated? To assert, then, that the perfect laws of an all-perfect Being are immutable, is surely not asserting, as J. C. M. will have it, that an all-perfect Being is, or can be, the slave of those laws. The latter are the expression of the will of the former, and as such cannot but be perfect, harmonious, and, like their Author, immutable.

From the preceding it may be gathered that I differ not a little from your