216 
In these, the author, instead of giving 
his own opinion, states the views of the 
principal commentators who had written 
before him, as fully as appears to have 
been consistent with a proper regard to 
the bulk of his volumes. 
You ask, 3dly, Were it not better to 
leave the pure text to speak, in all naked 
simplicity, for itself ?—I answer, that to 
give a faithful translation of the Scrip- 
tures, without any commentary what- 
soever, would be to render a great ser~ 
vice to the public, and to the interests 
of religious truth; but that to accom- 
pany such a translation with suitable (c) 
explanatory remarks, increases the be- 
nefit. I shall also observe, that the 
mere task of translating cannot be faith- 
fully performed without the addition of 
notes. (d) . They must be appended, in 
order to give a view of the several trans- 
lations, which, in the same passage, may 
be equally or almost equally eligible, 
where either the reading-of the original 
text, or the proper mode of rendering 
it into English, is doubtful. 
Your’s, &e. 
Birmingham, 14th Feb. 1825. 
NOTES. 
(a) Explanations of this description, 
elucidating customs, may undoubtedly dis- 
play much learning, furnish a great deal of 
curious information, and be highly interest- 
ing to the historical antiquary ; but. what 
instruction do they furnish, in a moral and 
religious point. of view? Of what practi- 
cal utility are they to the multitude? Is 
our faith, or our piety, better assured, whe- 
ther we understand that the crowing of the 
cock mean the resounding of the clarion 
of the hen-roost, or of the crowing of the 
trumpet from the citadel ? 
(b) That the comment upon disputed 
passages should “ contain a just account of 
all the interpretations given by different 
critics,” may be possible ; but how far is it 
probable? We can only say, that in no con- 
troversial survey, of whatever subject, did 
we ever find it practised ; and in theological 
controversy we have found it least of all. 
Besides, if at large, how voluminous must 
be the commentary! if compressed, must 
not the compiler inevitably abbreviate least, 
what appears to him most’ important— 
that is to say, what most coincides with 
his own views? Strictly speaking, an im- 
partial abstract is a moral impossibility. 
No human limbeck is sufficiently pure for 
such a distillation. Give the multitude, 
therefore, the pure text, we say, in its 
nakedness, and keep the drapery of com- 
mentaries and readings variorum, for scho- 
lasties. ; 
(c) What can possibly be meant by ac- 
companying a faithful translation (of the 
TAN 
Remarks:.on Steam Conveyance. 
[April 1, 
inspired yolumes—the volumes of divine 
revelation) ‘ with suitable explanatory re- 
marks,’ but superadding to it such remarks 
as the commentator thinks suitable ?—that 
is, such remarks as are suitable to his views 
and opinions? It is then a Bible fora sect ; 
not a Bible for Christians. It becomes a 
part of a controversial library; and, as such, 
may be valuable; but it has become unfit 
for a universal manual—unfit for the pur- 
poses of the multitude. 
(d) To say that “ the task of translat- 
ing” the sacred writings “‘ cannot be faith- 
fully performed without the addition of 
Notes,” appears to us something like say- 
ing that the revelations of inspired writers 
cannot be understood without the assistance 
of uninspired expositors : which throws us 
back from the authority of heaven to the 
mere authority of man. We are aware, 
however, that there are sects of Christians 
who do not admit the inspiration of the 
writers of the books of the Old, or even of 
the New Testament — who look upon 
those books as the human records of divine 
events ;—and, with such, we hold no con- 
troversy. If such opinions are the result 
of their own diligent examination of inter- 
nal or external evidence, so long as they be- 
lieve in what appear to them to be the facts 
and doctrines of those books, they have ‘as 
much right to eall themselves Christians, 
and to be so considered, as any other sect, 
although established by a thousand laws. 
All that we contend for is, that a Bible, for 
popular use, should neither be encumbered 
with their commentary, nor the commen- 
taries of their antagonists ; that, whatever 
be the authority of those books, that au- 
thority is weakened when we rely upon the 
commentary instead of the text ; and that 
the unlettered multitude are puzzled, not 
enlightened, when they are told, that what 
is necessary to’ be believed and practised 
by all, can only be understood by the learn- 
ed few. Again, and again, we say, compile 
for the learned as many commentaries and 
illustrations as you please ; but give to the 
multitude the naked text; or you give 
them not the authority of the scriptures 
but of the commentator. —Ebir. 
—<— 
To the Editor of the Monthly Magazine- 
Sir: 
flames ei ae to my former com- 
munications in your Magazine for 
the months of June and October last, 
I crave your attention to the following 
observations : 
The arguments hitherto advanced 
against rail-roads have been altogether 
so puerile, as to render any remarks 
upon them unnecessary. That certain 
individuals may find this scheme en- 
croach upon their estates, cannot be 
éenied; but I know of no individual, 
however exalted by rank or oe 
wha 
