a

purport; and indeed it is allowed by the writer to be the foundation of his whole argument. Surely it is time for the real friends of the Bible Society, and of religion, to take the alarm at such statements as these; which poison the streams of the pure water of life, and render the holy Scriptures of no avail to the comfort and edification of the church. Here are no fewer than ten books of the Bible, placed by an anonymous writer in the same class of composition with Tobit, and Judith! and that-not by any rational declaration of the grounds of his unbelief in the Jewish canonbut by a mere flippancy of statement, unsustained by a single argument. How much more manly would it have been, to have made the correctness of the canon subject of separate discussion; than to have assumed doubts as to its integrity, in propping up a weak and bad cause. Even the Romish church itself is more correct in its doctrine, than this writer; for though the Council of Trent has added some books to the canon, it has never denied the inspiration of a single book which has been handed down to us as the word of God. It is not surprising that those who entertain such loose sentiments as these, should plead for the circulation of adulterated Bibles! With similar consistency, it is maintained that the annexation and the intermixture of Apocryphal books, with the sacred text, is "a mere question of preference!" (p. 3)-" a point of arrangement!" (p. 8.) Let every pious member of the Society mark well the fatal consequences which must be produced by his countenancing the distribution of Bibles, in which the distinction between the word of God and the writings of man is merged. I implore every committee throughout the kingdom, to hasten to set their stamp of re

* He does not, indeed, specify ten; but his remarks apply to all the books of the "Hagiographa" except the "Psalms."

probation upon this practice, by a temperate but firm address to the Parent Society.

This is not the place to enter upon a discussion on the purity of the Jewish canon. I would just observe, however, that it is a great mistake to imagine that the inspiration of Scripture is a matter which falls more within the range "of human opinion and private judgment," than does the interpretation of Scripture. It cannot be more binding upon the conscience to admit the divine authority of a doctrine, than to allow the divine origin of the Book containing that doctrine. In fact, the one implies the other, But the real question at present agitated in the Bible Society is this-not, whether particular books in the canon may be added "without peril of the soul," by those who sincerely believe them to be Scripture, (as may be thought the case with the Romish and Greek churches,) but whether Protestants, who discredit the pretensions set up for these books, can safely send them forth as the Divine Oracles.

II. In pointing out several MISREPRESENTATIONS made by this writer, I wish it to be understood that I do not charge him with any discreditable intention.

1. He has misrepresented the Reformers, in stating that they "preferred to circulate the English Scriptures with the Apocrypha, rather than endanger their rejection, by disturbing the popular prejudice in favour of what had so long passed for an integral part of the holy writings. I have shewn ("Statement," pp. 13-18) that they did disturb, and did protest against, this popular prejudice in favour of the Apocrypha, as "an integral part" of the word of God; since they warned their readers, in their preface to these books, to "take heed and proceed by the living and pithy Scriptures." I admit, however, that they would have done well had they altogether

cut off these writings from the volume of the Bible. But it is not for those who now apologize for an intermingled Apocrypha, to taunt these holy men with want of" courage," with not "acting up to their full convictions of propriety," and with their "half measure," (pp. 4, 5). What is the proportion between the faith, and courage, and consistency to conviction, of the puny men of modern times, and of those champions for the truth who delivered us from the bondage of Romish fetters? Wicklif, though standing alone, in the midst of popish darkness, would not yield to "popular prejudices," when he set forth his English Bible, "rather than endanger its rejection' (p. 5); but boldly declared that the apocryphal writings were "no books of belief!" Lonicerus, Luther, Calvin, Cranmer, Latimer, would hear of no compromise on the canon of Scripture, for the sake of promoting its circulation among the Romanists of their day; and the martyr was willing to go to the stake, with the Bible suspended to his girdle, rather than even seem to countenance Romish error, as to the supreme authority of the Divine Testimony! But many Protestants of the present day,

-a day oflight and knowledge a day of liberty and toleration-have neither the faith, nor the courage, even to tread in the path of these venerable men; much less to advance a step beyond them, (as bound to do by their superior privileges) in their zeal for maintaining the integrity of the Divine Word.

2. The Book of Common Prayer is misrepresented, as sanctioning the indefinite use of the term holy Scriptures, by which the expression is extended to the apocryphal writings. That the Thirty-nine Articles should be incorrectly referred to, in this view, by Dissenters, is not surprising, since the example has been set them by clergymen of the Church of England during these discussions. I scruple not to reaffirm, what I have said in my

Statement (pp. 14, 15), that the language of the Sixth Article expressly excludes such an extension of the term Holy Scriptures. It is an illiberal remark, that " the distinction is there laid down, with all the nicety of casuistry," and is "such as no plain man would comprehend." (p. 4.) It is laid down in the very words of St. Jerome; but there is a certain class of writers who never fail to seize every opportunity of degrading the Offices and Articles of the Established Church!

σε

"What," this writer asks, are the holy Scriptures "appointed to be read in churches'? In answer to this question, he "appeals to the English Prayer-book, to shew that the apocryphal writings are included under this description." (p. 9.) I wish that he had quoted the part of the Prayer-book upon which he grounds his appeal; which is made with no want of confidence, but with great deficiency of correctness. "The Old and New Testament" are strictly those writings which were 66 appointed to be read in churches." Other things are, also," appointed to be read;" but it is a singular kind of logic which would conclude that, therefore, they are included under the name of Holy Scriptures. If the Sixth Article is not considered as sufficiently distinct upon this point, what will the writer say to the following passage from the preface to the Book of Common Prayer? "Nothing is ordained to be read, but the very pure word of God, the Holy Scriptures, OR that which is agreeable to the same;" where the compilers disavow the idea of giving either a false name or authority to the public lections; simply maintaining that, whenever any thing besides the holy Scriptures was to be read, they had endeavoured to make a selection conformable to the truth of the Divine Word.

3. The Church of England is misrepresented, as maintaining "a stiffness of prejudice" "similar" to

objection to the Apocrypha being annexed?" (p. 3.) I have simply abstained from entering into that part of the argument. I do not consider it indeed justifiable to withhold the Word of God from those who "at their own expense" choose to add the Apocrypha. (Statement, p. 30.) But the Reviewer cannot " go further than" myself in deprecating even its annexation * to the Scriptures; and I should consider the application of the funds of our Society to this purpose, as a sad misappropriation.

Again, with regard to an intermingled Apocrypha, distinctly acknowledged to be such by being accompanied by St. Jerome's prefaces and notes, as a Protestant individual, I could "safely give it circulation," (Statement, p. 3,) rather than withhold the Word of God from the Roman Catholics; but as a member of the Bible Society, I should oppose the practice as contrary to its laws and principles (Statement, p. 62.) Where is the inconsistency?

I am misrepresented in "the price of co-operation" which I require from those who associate in the Bible Society. (p. 9.) I might perhaps have better obviated cavils, had I stated the principle of our Society to require "an agreement in the inspiration of those books which we unite in circulating." That I meant this practical agreement, and not any abstract acknowledgment of the same "canon of Scrip

* The Reviewer has grossly mistaken the meaning of that passage in Lightfoot, where he speaks of the Apocrypha as "chopped in by the Papists, between Malachi and Matthew." Dr. L. does not allude

to its intermediate typographical place, but to its intermediate authority as "Canonical Scripture," and the assumed intermediate

time of its inspiration, between the period of Prophets and Evangelists. He could mean nothing else; for, in point of fact, the Papists do not, literally, "interpose it "between Malachi and Matthew." But the apparent argument to be derived from the mere sound of the words was too tempting for the reviewer.

ture," or "conformity to a theological tenet," (p. 9,) is clear from my proposal that we should unite with Roman Catholics in the distribution of the New Testament, or of those parts of the Old which we mutually acknowledge. But this, it is added, "is to be made a condition, not of uniting in the Bible Society, but of receiving the Bible." "We refuse to put God's Word into the hands of Papists, &c." (pp. 6, 7.) How unfair! are we, then, chargeable with the perverseness of those who decline the pure gift which we offer? The sentiment of Lord Liverpool is marked by more charitable and sensible views: "The character peculiar to the Bible Society is universality...if there are any who refuse to accept the Scriptures from us, there are none to whom we refuse to give them!" (Speech at Kingston, 14 July 1825.)

The hypothetical case (p. 8.) of my being necessarily "opposed to any Bible Society" which might have been formed in a period when the Authorized Version contained a false canon of Scripture, shews the shifts to which this writer is driven; since no one would have recourse to such ingenious speculations who had better arguments at hand. In the supposed case, it is not difficult to conceive of means by which the circulation of the pure Scriptures might be promoted, without any sacrifice of principle; but, whatever might have been theoretically" the path of duty" in such a situation, it is much more important to consider practically what is the line to be pursued under existing circum

stances.

I am not to be alarmed at being placed in company with Mr. Norris and the Christian Remembrancer, (P. 12). In the midst of all the unjustifiable abuse heaped by them upon our excellent institution, there may have been some hints deserving serious consideration. So far as the present controversy is concerned, I willingly place myself in company

with a still more notorious opponent -Dr. Marsh. The fifth chapter of his "Comparative View of the Churches of England and Rome" contains some admirable matter on the Apocrypha and the canon of Scripture, from which the Eclectic Reviewer may not only gain information, but may derive a sounder creed than he now professes; and it develops principles which the Bible Society would do well to adopt.

III. I shall bring this letter to a close, by briefly pointing out a few of the strange INCONSISTENCIES of the Eclectic Reviewer.

1." To the giving of the Apocrypha in any shape," the writer has "VERY DECIDED objections." (p.4.)

And yet the whole bearing of his argument is, to shew the futility of our objections to "giving the Apocrypha" in the odious shape in which it pretends to be Holy Scripture.

2." To promote the separation of the Apocrypha from the canonical Scriptures," does "NOT fall within the scope and province of the Bible Society." (p. 9.)

And yet, "the exclusion of the Apocrypha, in practice, from the English Bibles, WAS the only plan that would ensure unanimity," and "HAS always been an understood condition of the original covenant entered into by the Society with the Christian public."" (p. 10.) It is added, "we have the fullest confidence in the Committee, that, to the utmost of their power, they wILL discourage either the translation or the printing of the Apocryphal Books, whether in a separate or an intermingled form; that they wILL discountenance the circulation of them so far as practicable." (p. 15.)

3. This writer objects to "the vulgar accumulation of coarse epithets" bestowed on the Apocrypha by the Edinburgh Committee, who had charged them with lies and falsehood,' low and vulgar puerilities,'' gross errors and immoralities,' &c. (p. 12.)

And yet he himself marks with reprobation, their "positively exceptionable parts," "spurious additions," "unscriptural doctrine," "absurdity," "indelicacy," 66 errors," "false example," and "false instruction." (pp. 4, 5.)

4. It is asserted that Chillingworth's "Bible and Bible only the Religion of Protestants," meant that Bible which contained "the Apocrypha," [as does the Bible of the Papists,] "with the mere difference of a separate arrangement." (p. 6.) Here is a denial that Chillingworth's Bible means the canonical Scriptures.

And yet, "were the attempt made to prove, from the authority of the Apocrypha, any popish tenet, the answer," it is said, "would be most apposite: The canonical Scriptures only are the religion of Protestants." (p. 9.) Here is an admission that Chillingworth's Bible means the canonical Scriptures!

5. This writer's delicacy is offended at "coarse epithets." (p. 12.)

And yet, in the very same page, "the Pope, and the Pope's master ...the Devil," is an expression applied to the whole genus of Roman Pontiffs, with a taste which it would be difficult to describe without adopting a similar style.

66

6. It is allowed, with regard to both parties in this discussion, that every candid' man must honour the pure and upright motives by which they are respectively actuated." For "though the Edinburgh Committee has acted with the appearance of hostility, those who have taken the lead on either side, in this discussion, have had equally at heart the cause of truth, and the best interests of the Society." (p. 2.)

And yet it is declared, that the 4th resolution of the Edinburgh Committee, "betrays any thing but a cool head and an honest heart in the individual who framed it." "Some agitator has been at work." "The temper and spirit which pervade the Statement" of that Com