stating the difference between the deliberate judgment entertained by the Protestant church and the decrees of the Romish communion, the shallowness of his statement, ("that it is lawful" to circulate as God's Word those writings which we deliberately believe not to be His,) would have been instantly perceived. If the inspiration or false pretensions of certain books be a matter of "INION," there may be some plea for liberality towards those who differ from us on this point; but if it be indeed a matter of solemn belief, if it be the result of deliberate judgment, we may well "tremble" at the Divine word, and shrink with reverential awe from the thought of violating its integrity! It is in the confusion of these terms, that lurks the subtlety and danger of the reviewer's sentiments. The pious Richard Baxter, writing upon this very subject (the inspiration of Scripture), observes, that "some extend BELIEF So far as to confound it with OPINION!" The reviewer is one of those indiscriminating writers; and I think it important to warn every pious reader, of the pernicious inferences which attend such confusion of language and ideas. The integrity of the Scriptural canon cannot more properly be called a matter of "human OPINION," than can the truth of the Copernican system; although it falls within the province of human reason to estimate the evidence for each. The one is as certain in moral evidence, as the other is in physical demonstration. True it is that the court of Rome was once (and may again be) as heterodox and imperious with regard to the system of the universe, as it still is with regard to the canon of Scripture; but the man who should on that account maintain that these are matters of "human opinion," would not be more justly ridiculed for his philosophical liberality, than he would be pitied for his theological incredulity.

2. The reviewer's remarks tend

to unsettle the Christian's faith, not only by representing the canon as a matter of "opinion," but by actually declaring that the inspiration of particular books in the Old Testament is questionable!

In " fastening upon this proposition" (Ecl. R. p. 381), it was not my purpose "to divert the minds of my readers from the main argument." I "fastened" upon it, because I considered it an unholy and a pernicious statement; and because it formed the very web and texture of his specious argument for the circulation of spurious Scriptures. This he denies; and adds, "the whole of our reasoning takes it for granted' that the canon of Scripture is genuine and complete" ...."we should be sorry that any opinion of ours should be made the subject of debate, instead of the simple question"......" the propriety of the Committee's conduct cannot be prejudiced by any heterodox notion which we may maintain." (Ecl. R. p. 381.) With this let the reader compare the following passages in the review alluded to. "The simple ground [mark!] on which we have been led to conclude that it is not unlawful to concur in the circulation of another canon than that which we, as Protestants, hold to be genuine, is this; that the canon of Scripture is not an article of faith." (Ecl. R. p. 5.) Thus his argument sets out, thus it pursues its course, and (as he carefully tells us) thus it ends;"we return to our first position, that it is lawful to concur in the circulation of a canon of Scripture which we believe not to be genuine, seeing that there is a difference of opinion in the Christian church respecting that canon." (p. 12.) And in the final paragraph he says, "the question is, whether we are justified in withholding the whole Bible, because foreign churches admit more books than we do into their canon: our own canon may possibly include books not inspired." (p. 15.)-I blush

for such inconsistency! The writer is mortified that I have detected and exposed his dangerous sophistry; and, in his haste to be angry, he now represents that to be an incidental opinion, which he, two months ago, allowed to constitute his "simple ground," his "first position," and his final conclusion! The concern I was constrained to express at his discrediting the inspiration of certain books in the canon, he calls "the affectation of a pious horror!" (p. 381.) "It should seem," he adds, "that Mr. G. would swallow the whole Apocrypha, Bel and the Dragon and all, rather than admit a doubt as to 'the full inspiration of every book in the Protestant canon!" (p. 392.) Let the writer have all the credit he deserves for this elegant wit. I am shocked at the levity which could connect a ludicrous image with the most solemn of all subjects; and I pity the feeling which, in order to secure the little triumph of momentary derision of his opponent, could risk the veneration due to the Sacred Code! Passing by his contumelious language, with the hope that he may hereafter think more devoutly, and write more gracefully, I pursue my notice of his dangerous opinions.

“

"ten

absurd distinctions of some writers between books proto-canonical, and books deutero-canonical! books of first-rate belief, and books of secondrate belief! nor between apocryphal writings worthy to be classed, and unworthy to be classed, with the Oracles of God. On such points, controversy would be endless and fruitless. One writer thinks that Tobit is "an instructive narrative;" the reviewer says it is "positively exceptionable:" I may hold an intermediate opinion; but we all agree that it is a human composition-and in this sense, I expressed my deep regret that he had degraded any inspired books to the level of " the same class as Tobit."-2dly, as to the number. I mentioned books as discredited by the principle which "pleads for a canon more literally conformable to our Lord's threefold classification of the law, the Prophets, and the Psalms," (p.5), instead of that derived from the Law, the Prophets, and the Hagiographa of the Rabbins. Now the Hagiographa contains "the Psalms," and ten other books. The "literal" conformity, therefore, for which the reviewer pleaded, excluded the "ten;"-there was no dishonesty in this statement. It is true that he now makes an exception in favour of the hagiographal books of Daniel and Job by so doing he gives up the "literal" principle on which he argued; but it does not follow that I made a "dishonest" representation. So far from it, it is clear that I might have enlarged my list; for, upon this "literal" hypothesis, withdrawing the "historical and ethical writings from the three classes, the inspiration of no fewer than sixteen books is questioned; since the attempt to retain any one of them in the canon, must renounce the very principle on which any other is excluded. Though such are the consequences of his reasoning, I by no means conceived that he was prepared to negative the Divine pretensions of so large a number as

He complains that I have made, "in every respect, a dishonest satement" (Ecl. R., p. 384), when I was "pleased to say" that he placed "ten books of the Bible in the same class as Tobit and Judith."-1st, then, as to "the class." He evades the point of my remark, by saying, that he had allowed "Tobit" to be "positively exceptionable," and had classed Chronicles only with Maccabees! What candid reader can fail to acquit me of dishonesty, by observing that I used the word "class" with reference to the grand distinction between inspired and human books,-not with respect to any subdivision of the Apocrypha itself into classes. I did not-I will not-condescend to observe the

ten. I am deeply concerned, how ever, to learn from himself, that he does actually question the inspiration of eight; viz. Proverbs, Canticles, Ecclesiastes, two of Chronicles, Esther, Ezra, and Nehemiah. Of the two last, he expresses some uncertainty. Of Job I say nothing, because he thinks there is "strong presumption" in favour of it! (p. 389.) How lamentable and dangerous are such doubts on the authority of those Holy Writings which, in their collective form, contain a perfect revelation of the will of God! I give the writer full credit when he states his conviction that "not a single doctrine is affected" by the rejection of " the historical and ethical" books as inspired; but I cannot, on his assurances, take for granted that any one of those narratives which display the dealings of God with his church and people of old, can be dismissed from the canon without prejudice to religion. His list of questions, beginning, "Do they form any part of the rule of faith?" &c. (Ecl. R. p. 392) strikes me as a presumptuous speculation as to how much may be blotted from the Bible without destroying its vital efficacy. In this blessed book there is nothing deficient, nothing redundant: it teaches the will and character of God, by example in its "historical" parts, by precept in its "ethical," and by doctrine in every page. True, the reviewer would rejoin; but I allow that these writings, though not inspired, "are of undoubted genuine ness and authenticity, as historical documents!" (p.5.) And so is Hume; and so is Gibbon; but the infinite difference between the value of a history compiled under the direct superintendence of the Holy Spirit, and by the suggestions of human wisdom, consists in this, that while the latter is liable to be distorted by earthly passions and prejudices, the former is an unerring record. The reviewer may sneer at me, as "affecting a pious horror;" but I

dread the irreverence which marks his sentiments. "If this be fitting," said the devout Bishop Hall, “how vainly have ye spent your labours, all ye registers of God, prophets, apostles, evangelists!"..." These paradoxes are pernicious to the church, and shamefully derogatory to the glory, both of the wisdom and goodness of God." Let not the reviewer flatter himself with the idea that "many pious persons have doubted" on the same subject (p.5.) He is mistaken. "Which of our brethren,' (said the learned Professor Whitaker, indignantly repelling a similar assertion when made by an English Papist in 1585,)— which "are they that join to these' human writings "the two books of Chronicles and the Song of Solomon? If you can name any such in these days, it will soon appear that they are not brethren of ours." I am told, indeed, that the reviewer was confirmed in his objectionable sentiments, by one of the Committee of the Bible Society, to whom he submitted his MS., and who approved its being sent to press! I wish, for the credit of the institution and for the honour of religion, that it were possible for me to doubt the information. Must it be credited, that a member of the Committee in Earl Street sanctioned and promoted the printing and circulation of a paper which unblushingly denies the inspiration of several books in that Bible which it is his office to disseminate? The reviewer was more faithfully dealt with, I venture to think, by another individual, who occasionally attends that Committee. The person to whom I allude has no intimacy with the reviewer, but became accidentally acquainted with his proposed attack on the canon, by his voluntary acknowledgment before his MS. went to press. In a long conversation, he found that the reviewer had made up his mind to reject some of the Scriptural books, though then totally unacquainted with Bishop

Cosin's irrefragable work on their authority! He advised him to refrain. He even addressed a note to him, in which he entreated him to "deal very tenderly with the Divine word," whilst he used his full liberty in criticising the writings of man. That individual was myself: I notice the circumstance merely to shew, that his attack on the inte. grity of the canon is not incidental, but deliberate; and, also, that it is not very likely that I should have "wilfully misrepresented" sentiments which I have had such favourable and personal opportunities of knowing.

With no little confidence this writer proclaims, that I "cannot controvert " his dangerous statement. The most becoming reply to this vain boasting, is, that there are many reasons why I should not advance all that I am able to say against his proposition. Every idle challenge is not to be accepted. Frivolous objections may be stated in a few lines, to which a satisfactory reply could only be given in many pages. A monthly publication is not the most suitable medium for so large and serious a discussion as that of the canon, were I inclined to undertake it. The hackneyed nature of this writer's objections do not merit a reply ;-- EVERY ONE of them (in almost the identical words of the reviewer) was advanced so long ago as 1685, by that ingenious but unsound author M. Le Clerc; from whose "Letters concerning the Inspiration of the Holy Scriptures " these stale arguments have found * into the Eclectic of

their way

I do not charge the reviewer with direct pilfering from this heterodox work. He perhaps quoted at second-hand; as he has done in another instance, where he transcribes Mr. Horne (so faithfully as to copy his misplaced inverted commas,) without being conscious that he was actually citing Bishop Tomline. So he misinterprets St. Austin as allowing the inspiration of the Apocrypha; in consequence of his reading that father through the comment of Bishop Marsh, instead of consulting the original. Being "a Cambridge man," he thinks it "probable" I may have DEC. 1825.

1825! Le Clerc, and therefore the Eclectic reviewer, was well answered in 1692 by Mr. Lowth: since which period other authors have put an end to all fair controversy on this subject; so that, were I to accept the writer's vain challenge, I should have only the inglorious victory of "thrice slaying the slain." I decline, therefore, any personal controversy with this individual; and, should I ever be disposed to take up the subject more at my leisure, it would be simply with the desire to obviate the mischief which the revival of even superficial objections may produce.

In the mean time, it may tend to allay the disquietude which the reviewer's dangerous sentiments have occasioned in some minds, to hint at the method in which I should conduct an argument against his subtleties. I should plant my foot upon ground which he, following Le Clerc, has attempted to shake,-that our Redeemer did "refer to the whole of the Hebrew Scriptures, as inspired" (Le Clerc, p. 104; Ecl. R. p. 382); that, when he spake to the Jews of their "Scriptures" as the word of "eternal life," he did give his sanction to the authority of the whole of those Writings which that people then considered sacred; that, whether he cited the Holy Volume under the title of "the Prophets," or more frequently "Moses and the Prophets," or, in a single instance, "the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms," he did, in each case, refer to the collective code of legal, "historical," "ethical," and oracular books. I should shew further, that the Apostles confirm the testimony of their Master, by confessing that the Jews were the conservators of

read Bishop Marsh (p. 382), to whom I had referred him as having, on the whole, written admirably on the canon! To this taunting compliment I shall only reply, that, in our academic groves, when we have occasion to ascertain the opinion of the fathers, we are not content with doing so through the report of any modern writer; we converse with themselves.

3 R

"the oracles of God," and by declaring that "all Scripture is given by inspiration," and that from their childhood they had "known those Holy Scriptures which were able to make them wise unto salvation." I should shew the absurdity of imagining that such language could be used to a people who believed their sacred writings to be inspired, if they were really mistaken as to some of these books. I should protest against the impiety of the notion, that "the opinion of the Jews respecting their own Scriptures," when combined with the testimony of our Lord and his Apostles, "is no rule of a Christian's faith!" (Le Clerc, pp. 41, 101; Ecl. R. p. 385.) I should proceed to the more elaborate task of proving, that the very books which were in the Hebrew canon, when our blessed Redeemer unrolled its volume in the Jewish synagogues, and when the Eunuch perused it in his chariot, are the identical writings which we now venerate as the Divine Word. I should shew that we have evidence for this which attaches to no other book in the world! I should shew the superficial nature of any objections derived from the fanciful and varying order in which these books have been transcribed at different times; and, above all, the shallowness of the doubts which have been gathered from those rabbinical conceits which, without denying their inspiration, removed some "historical" books into a class called the Hagiographa or Chetubim, although they were formerly classed among "the Prophets". (Le Clerc, p. 102; Ecl. R. passim.)

The ill-informed reviewer kindly apologizes for the author of the "Vindication," as being a layman, for making what he esteems this erroneous statement (E. R. p. 384.) I cannot claim, nor do I require, the same apology, when I repeat this statement as being incontrovertible. It is the settled judgment of the greatest Hebrew and Biblical scholars, that the

Prophets were the annalists of the Jewish

nation; and that therefore all the "his

torical? books were originally arranged among the "prophetical.".

Lastly, I should point out the monstrous absurdity of the proposition which must be maintained, in consistency with the reviewer's rejection of eight whole books, viz. that there does not now exist, and never has existed, a volume, unadulterated with human writings, which exclusively reveals the will of God to man. Such, sir, would be the method of my argument. I should be glad, indeed, that some more able scholar should enter the lists. But should Providence call me into this field, I should enter it without apprehension. I know that I am but a stripling in this conflict; and, like he of Gath, my disdainful opponent might again come forth in contemptuous defiance, and with reproachful words. I hope I should meet him in a humble spirit; and I am sure that, under the blessing of God, in so good a cause the "sling and the stone" would prevail.

I now take a final leave of him in your pages, with the assurance that, though I have felt it my duty to expose his sentiments, I have no animosity against him as an individual. Let him not imagine that this is merely a personal question. He may strive to represent me as his only opponent; and to give respectability to his heresy by clinging to my excellent friend," Mr. Simeon," or to my valued acquaintance, "Mr. H. Horne." But in vain! Apocryphal and anti-apocryphal feelings are forgotten, when an enemy to our common faith steps between the parties; and we unite in testifying our abhorrence of his pernicious principles. I have met with no Christian scholar who does not reDisgret and condemn his views. senters in general join with members of the Establishment in lamenting the course he has taken. Among a multitude of testimonies to this point, let him take as a specimen the following, conveyed to me by letter, from a pious and learned Minister of his own communion, and from a Clergyman of equal respec