iy 
 
 GY LY igi ps 
 Vnwpieey, 
 
THIS BOOK 
 
 BELONGS TO 
 
 Thomas Podmore Lake. 
 
 warrrrree. 
 
 Ir thou art borrowed by a friend, 
 Right welcome shall he be ; 
 
 To read and study, not to lend, 
 But to return to me. 
 
 Not that imparted knowledge doth 
 Diminish learning’s store ; 
 
 But books I find, if often lent, 
 Return to me no more. 
 
 verrrrre 
 
 Read slowly ; pause frequently ; think 
 seriously ; return duly; with the 
 corners of the leaves not turned down. 
 
> 
 vee 
 AE 
 
 DIVINITY SCHOOL 
 
 LIBRARY 
 
te ole 
 ee Oe 
 
i ep Lt a 
 ae Sadie: 
 
ae Beith Gner py, 
 ee ae 
 
REMARKS 
 
 ON 
 
 A LATE PUBLICATION 
 
 OF 
 
 THE REV. DR: CHALMERS, 
 
 INTITULED 
 
 “ THE INFLUENCE OF BIBLE SOCIETIES 
 
 oN 
 THE TEMPORAL NECESSITIES OF THE POOR:”’ 
 SHOWING 
 THE DANGEROUS TENDENCY OF SOME CLAUSES IN THAT WORK. 
 
 —————— 
 
 BY 
 
 AN OLD MEMBER 
 
 OF 
 
 THE BRITISH AND FOREIGN BIBLE SOCIETY. 
 
 I Thess ¥2 97 
 
 LONDON Sg. Pee 
 Printed by James Moyes, Greville Str EN T S P ‘ ‘ 
 
 AND SOLD BY T. AND G. UNDERWOOD, 32, FLEET STREET; J. HATCHARD, 
 190, PICCADILLY ; PEWTRESS, LOWE, AND PEWTRESS, 30, GRACE- 
 CHURCH STREET; AND WAUGH AND INNES, EDINBURGH. 
 
 1819. 
 
REMARKS 
 
 ON 
 -A LATE PUBLICATION 
 
 OF 
 
 THE REV. DR. CHALMERS, | 
 &e. &c. 5 
 
 Tuenre appearing to be much reason to appre- 
 hend that the admirable pamphlet of the Rev. 
 Dr. Chalmers “‘ On the Influence of Bible Associa- 
 tions” may, contrary to the intention of the worthy 
 author, prove prejudicial to such institutions, it 
 ‘appears ‘necessary to offer to the consideration of 
 the Friends of the British and Foreign Bible 
 Society some cursory remarks thereon. 
 
 The most dangerous part of that Address, and 
 which shall be noticed first, is contained in the 
 Appendix, (page 38,) “ Now what is done by 
 “an individual,” [in apportioning his benevolence 
 according to the respective claims of different 
 sociéties,] “ may be done by every such associa- 
 tion as I am now pleading for. Its members 
 may sit in judgment on the various schemes 
 of utility which are now in operation; and 
 though originally formed as an auxiliary to 
 the Bible Society, it may keep itself open to 
 other calls, and occasionally give of its funds 
 to Missionaries, or Moravians, or the Society. 
 “ for Gaelic Schools, or the African Institu- 
 
 B 
 
o  « oy 
 
 4 
 
 “ tion, or to the Jewish, and Baptist, and 
 “ Hibernian, and Lancasterian Societies.” And 
 again, (page 39,) “ I should be sorry if Penny 
 “* Associations were to bind themselves down to 
 “ the support of the Bible Society. I should 
 “ Tike to see them exercising a judgment over 
 “ the numerous claims which are now before 
 “ the public, and giving occasionally of their 
 “ funds to other religious institutions.”, Then 
 follows the excellent author’s reasoning in favour 
 of what he calls a highly beneficial arrange- 
 ment. My fears of the evil consequences of 
 this recommendation are greatly augmented by 
 the great popularity of the Doctor, and from 
 having seen some instances wherein his advice 
 had been acted upon, o 
 
 I wish the task of combating these opinions 
 had fallen into other hands; but feeling a tender 
 solicitude for the permanent prosperity of the 
 British and Foreign Bible Society, I have thought 
 it to. be my duty, however feebly, to bear a 
 testimony against them. The institution of the 
 Bible Society, independently of its own intrinsic 
 worth, forms a remarkable epoch im the history 
 of benevolent societies. Previous to 1804 there 
 had been a great increase of missionary and other 
 religious institutions; and some timid observers 
 were of opinion, that the calls on the benevolent 
 had risen to their maximum. When the British 
 and Foreign Bible Society was formed, objections 
 of various kinds assailed her. Among these was 
 
5 
 
 urged the unnecessary increase of institutions,, 
 already become burdensome both on the purses 
 and the time of the public. And when she began 
 to rise in her annual income to £50,000. and 
 £60,000 per annum, nothing but ruin to all the 
 pre-existing societies was apprehended. ‘This was 
 - not merely the anticipation of ignorance and inex- 
 perience, I heard it from Christians and Christian, 
 ministers of enlarged minds. How preposterous 
 the fear! Whence springs all that pure and active. 
 benevolence which is the support. of Missionary, 
 Tract, and Education Societies? Does it not; 
 flow from Bible principles? And was the vast 
 increase of Bible readers calculated to diminish 
 this? Surely not. It was soon found, that by 
 the breaking up of this NEW FOUNTAIN OF. 
 CHRISTIAN LIBERALITY, a spring tide was 
 produced in almost all the principal religious: 
 societies. So much for the anticipated evil. 
 
 The formation of the Bible Society has incon-, 
 trovertibly established the position—that the extent. 
 of existing evils, whether natural or moral, is never 
 fully known, until a remedy is about to be provided 
 for them. Thus.it was with respect to the mala- 
 dies of the deranged, the blind, and the deaf and. 
 dumb. So the want of the Scriptures at home and 
 in foreign countries was but little understood until, 
 this noble institution was formed. It is the painful 
 discovery of this want, it is the keen conviction, , 
 that little, after all, has been yet effected, and an, 
 anxiety that nothing may hinder the progress of the. ~ 
 
6 
 
 great work, which induce me. to write. “Nothing 
 has contributed so much, under the Divine blessing, | 
 to the success of the Bible Society, as the uniTY 
 and: simPLicity of her object. This’ was the’ 
 grand attractive principle, which brought together. 
 materials, discordant and in some respects hetero-" 
 geneous ; and, by a process of celestial alehymy, 
 produced that beautiful and interesting body, the 
 British. AND Foreicn Bisie Socrety. It 
 may be asked, Had the plan of the Society, at 
 ts. formation, included missions and plans’ of 
 education, would it have: arrived at one-tenth of 
 its present extent? Unhesitatingly it may be 
 answered, No. Instead of being a rallying point 
 for the friends of religion and morality, of all 
 churches and communions, with the view to pro- 
 mote the present and future happiness of our 
 fellow-creatures, it would have proved strongly 
 objectionable to all. Instead of showing to the 
 enemies of Revelation that there is one HALLOWED 
 spoT on which all the friends of Jesus can meet, 
 one great cause wherein they can all co-operate, 
 it would have been the signal of disunion, and 
 have sealed them all up again within their own 
 respective little circles. It was worthy of Jehovah 
 to reserve this (though but a partial) fulfilment of 
 our Lorp’s Prayer for the Bible Society. ' As 
 it is the ‘noblest, so it is the purest society, in 
 regard to its object, in existence. Could we con- 
 ceive of a Missionary: Society, all the members of 
 whose’ committee were the holiest and wisest men’ 
 
7 ‘ 
 
 “upon earth, they might, notwithstanding, err in a 
 thousand ways. Not so the Bible Society. Issu- 
 ing the Bible only, and that WITHOUT NOTE oR 
 | COMMENT, she cannot err in respect of the object. 
 She; may mistake in matters of minor importance ; 
 - but; while she adheres conscientiously to her funda- 
 -mental principle, she cannot err materially. Mov- 
 ing at! an elevation, which merges all the distinc- 
 tions of sect and party, of country, climate, people, 
 and tongue, imitating the Benericent Lorp or 
 tHE UNIVERSE, she looks alike on all. The only 
 claim which she demands from the receivers of her 
 bounty, is their being destitute of the sacred volume 
 and willing to read it; whether they be Greeks or 
 Jews, Barbarians, Scythians, bond or free. And 
 with what emotions of Christian sympathy have the 
 wants of nations on the other side of the globe 
 been announced in the Committee! And how 
 often, while some of the nations of Europe have 
 been confederating for the destruction of our 
 beloved Country, have the Committee of the 
 British and Foreign Bible Society at that very 
 time been compassionating the want of the Scrip- 
 _tures in those nations, and contriving how, most 
 effectually, to supply them! While we have daily 
 abundant cause to magnify the name of our God 
 for the great success already vouchsafed, we would 
 recollect that the Society has but, as it were, com- 
 menced her operations. She has only broken 
 ground in front of the intrenched’ camp. of the 
 enemy. If we calculate the number of Bibles in 
 
8 
 
 circulation tbrough the four quarters of the globe 
 at forty millions of copies, (and I am persuaded thie 
 actual number is far below that,) and the population 
 at eight hundred millions, there are still, after all 
 that has been effected by all Bible Societies in 
 operation, seven hundred and sixty millions of our 
 - fellow sinners destitute of the words of ETERNAIL 
 LIFE. What an appalling consideration! And 
 giving, what I consider a very liberal calculation of 
 the number of copies of the Scriptures mow print- 
 ing, in all the four quarters of the world, at one 
 million annually, it will take more than five 
 hundred years, at the present rate of operation, 
 before the various nations are supplied with the 
 sacred volume. Hard and unfeeling as the nether 
 millstone, must be the heart which is not moved by 
 - such a statement. It surely urges a tender solici-~ 
 tude for the further extension of Bible Society 
 operations, and should operate as a guard against 
 any measure which might tend to counteract them. 
 I am confident that the worthy author of the 
 pamphlet referred to, would be the last man to 
 say, write, or do any thing, in his opinion injurious 
 to this noble cause. Yet the passage which has 
 been cited, is unquestionably calculated to injure 
 the Bible Society in one branch of its most bene- 
 ficial and productive operations— Bible Associa- 
 tions, On what correct principle can we recom- 
 mend associations, formed exclusively in aid of the 
 Bible Society, to alienate any part of their funds 
 from’ the object for which they were collected, and 
 
pay it into the treasury of other institutions? The 
 injustice of such a measure must be obvious: to 
 every considerate mind; although the impolicy 
 and hazard attending it may not be so manifest 
 to all. ’ 
 
 This recommendation is the more astonishing, 
 after the Doctor had pointed out the advantage 
 of each society coming before the public on its 
 individual merits, and after he had approved of, 
 (page 16,) “ the Bible Society not overstepping 
 “< the simplicity of its assigned object ;” and 
 further, that “ this division of employment facili- 
 “ tates the work, and renders it more effective.” 
 Now, if the principle which the Doctor recom- 
 mends to Bible Associations of dividing their funds 
 be correct, will it not be equally so, as applied 
 to Auxiliary and Branch Societies? And if it be 
 right’ for Auxiliary and Branch Societies and Bible 
 Associations to act according to this plan, it would 
 be equally so in the case of the Parent Society. 
 But I need not specify what baneful consequences 
 would ensue on the adoption of such a measure 
 in the last of these connexions. 
 
 Leaving the Doctor to reconcile these discrepan- 
 cies, let us proceed to consider the operation of his 
 advice, as it respects Bible Associations. Perhaps 
 he is of opinion, that the Bible Society is not an 
 object sufficiently important and attractive to 
 inducé the Scottish population of the lower ranks 
 generally to support it; that associations in aid 
 of the Bible Society would not present variety 
 
10 
 
 and interest enough to secure their continuance 
 in that country. This would, indeed, be a most 
 extraordinary sentiment, and, yet something of 
 this sort has been expressed by him. __ 
 Bible Associations in England are supported 
 by the poor from a general: desire to possess 
 the. Bible; sometimes from an experimental; know- 
 ledge , of ‘its worth; and, in the latter case, from 
 Seine of compassion for the heathen who: are 
 destitute of that book. That in Scotland . there 
 are ‘comparatively few families among the. poor 
 without the Scriptures, I admit. But d Dr. C. 
 mean, to infer, that, because there are few without 
 a Bible in Scotland, therefore it would b every 
 difficult to awaken sufficient interest to earry)on 
 
 an association for distributing the Bible, only 
 Will he admit, that an indifference to the, want 
 of the: Scriptures among other people te in 
 exact proportion to the abundance th ‘ 
 selves possess? Will he venture to asser 
 there is less feeling in the heart of a V 
 Structed Scotsman on this great subj 
 among his less instructed southern neighbours 
 of the same class? If the abundance of Bibles, 
 happily to be found in Scotland, produces such 
 effects: as. these, it will surely prove that the 
 possessors. of Bibles there have consulted them 
 to little purpose. The reverse, however, of 
 this. will be found, whenever the question shall 
 be fairly tried in Scotland. An evening meeting 
 is called for the formation of a Bible Associa- 
 
11 
 
 tion; the poor are invited to attend. It takes 
 place; an interesting statement is given of 
 Heathen, “Mahomedan, and Catholic countries, 
 in-reference to the want of the Scriptures—their 
 horrid, cruel, and debasing superstitions are de- 
 scribed, together with the anxiety evinced by 
 many among them to possess the sacred volume : 
 interesting anecdotes are related, and a: warm 
 appeal made tothe hearts of the poor. - Should 
 such an‘appeal be made by one of their southern 
 neighbours, their answer might‘ be ‘given in the 
 Doctor's own expressive words, (page 24.) “ We 
 “ have souls as well as you, and precious to 
 our hearts is the Saviour who died ‘for them. 
 It is true, we have our distresses, but these 
 have bound us more firmly to our Bibles ; and 
 it is the desire of ‘our hearts, that a gift so 
 precious should be sent.to the poor of other 
 countries. The word of God is our hope 
 'and our rejoicing; we desire that it may be 
 theirs also, that the wandering savage may 
 know it and be glad, and the poor negro, 
 under the lash’ of his master, may be told of 
 a Master in Heaven, who is full of pity and 
 “full of kindness. Do you think that sympathy 
 for such as these is. your’ peculiar attribute? | 
 Know that our hearts are made of the same 
 materials with your own, that we can feel as 
 well’ as you, and out of the earnings of a 
 hard and an honest industry we shall give an 
 
=} 
 
 12 
 
 offering to the cause; nor shall we cease our 
 “ exertions till the message of salvation be carried 
 “ round the globe, and made known to the count- 
 “ Jess millions who live in guilt, and who die in 
 “* darkness,” . 
 Of whom speaks the Doctor, of the Scottish, 
 peasantry and labouring poor, or of some other 
 people? And are these the sentiments of a 
 people incapable of becoming members of an 
 association exclusively for the circulation of the 
 
 Bible? Are these the feelings of a class to whom 
 
 the universal spread of the word of God among 
 all nations presents neither variety nor attractions ? 
 How have I been delighted to see the 7, 
 stealing down the cheek of the humble artisan and 
 labourer — their hearts expanding, and coming 
 forward with their pence and sixpences in aid of 
 this benevolent object! How many of the poor . 
 do we find, who, after they have paid up the 
 requisite sum for a Bible for themselves, most 
 cheerfully continue a free subscription for the 
 supplying of others with the sacred word! I 
 will give one instance out of a thousand of 
 this liberality. A poor mechanic in Lancashire, 
 who was desirous of possessing a Bible, worked 
 three hours per day extra till he had sayed 
 enough to pay for it. When he got his Bible, 
 he sent an old mutilated copy, which he had, to 
 
 _ a neighbouring factory, to be read by the work 
 
 people while at tea; and he immediately engaged 
 
13 
 
 to work an extra hour every week, the produce 
 of it to be for a free subscription to the Bible 
 Association. : 
 
 I would beseech the Doctor to let the experi- 
 ment of distinct Bible Associations, for the 
 Bible only, be fairly’ made in Scotland, before 
 he encourages these mixed societies, lest he un- 
 willingly injure that cause which lies so near his 
 heart. But should he unhappily be determined 
 to go forward in his parish, which I believe is 
 his intention, on this plan of forming an Associa- 
 tion for Missionary, Bible, Jewish, African, Gaelic, 
 Hibernian, and Lancasterian Societies, how does 
 he mean to proceed at its formation? Will 
 separate advocates address the meeting, each 
 
 doing his utmost to impress the audience with | 
 
 the value and importance of the institution whose 
 cause he pleads? Or are the different societies 
 to be alluded to generally by each speaker? It 
 must be obvious to all, that the institutions named 
 by the Doctor are all more or less important, and 
 worthy of public patronage; but it will be readily 
 admitted, at the same time, that they are not all 
 equally so. What will be the certain effect on the 
 minds of those present, whether rich or poor, in 
 reference to all these societies which are to be 
 sharers of the fund? A preference to one or 
 more above the rest, or perhaps an objection 
 to some of them altogether. This will be un- 
 avoidable, and must seriously affect the subserip- 
 tion. Again, will the Doctor state whether the con- 
 
14 
 
 tributions are to be received in favour of any one 
 of these societies, at the option of the subscribers, — 
 or generally for all? Or, whether the apportion- 
 ing of the sums to each society is to be settled 
 by the voice of the contributors, at a public meet- 
 ing for: that purpose, specially called, or ‘by the 
 committee? Perhaps by the former, as the Dr. 
 represents the members of his proposed association, 
 (page 38,) “ as sitting in judgment on the various 
 “« schemes of utility which are now in operation.” 
 ‘A’ very superficial acquaintance with the world, 
 and with societies, will soon convince any one, 
 that such a mode of carrying on the concerns 
 of an institution is impracticable. But should 
 he determine that the Committee are to vote the 
 sums to each, he will find it no easy matter to 
 reconcile all the partialities of even this © small 
 body. And he should recollect, that at the 
 annual general meeting, the amount of - each 
 grant must be submitted to the subscribers at 
 large.’ Is it not to be expected, that the judg- 
 ment of the committee and of the subscribers 
 may be at variance, in reference to the sums 
 voted? Is there not a danger of their charging 
 the managers with partiality? And may it not be 
 expected that the good sense and honest inde- 
 pendence of my countrymen may lead them to 
 discuss the propriety of the grants? How changed 
 would be the meetings of committees, and of 
 societies, were the Doctor's plan to be followed ! 
 Instead of harmony, satisfaction, and pleasure, 
 
» 
 
 1p i 
 
 which beam on the countenances: of those - pres’ 
 sent, an opening would be afforded for all the? 
 partialities.and sectarian prejudices of the various: 
 classes of Christians who compose the committees, : 
 or subscribers ; and. a struggle would be incessantly. 
 carried on in favour of the society to which they’ 
 are individually attached. And how much chagrin. 
 and ‘disappointment may be expected to arise in: 
 the minds of those who have failed in carrying 
 their favourite point: Thus confusion will be 
 the’ unavoidable ‘consequence; many will : with- 
 draw in disgust, and threaten the very existence 
 of these societies. And thus the Doctor will be 
 guilty of an act of Filey de se on his own beav- 
 enh tory: ys 3 YSUSUpD 02 
 There is another view of the - subject, sshich: 
 I confess, fills my mind with the most. serious. 
 apprehensions. Were this plan to become general) 
 it would inevitably prove injurious to all these 
 institutions. We will suppose that this measure 
 were adopted by the Friends in Glasgow, and 
 that all the various societies and associations for 
 these - different objects were merged ‘in one 
 general society, or association.» Does: the Doctor 
 expect that the members of this new institution 
 would give-a subscription, equal to what they 
 subscribed to them-individually before they be- 
 came consolidated ?- If, he does, he would find 
 himself severely disappointed.. Some few ‘noble- 
 minded: persons might do it, but in general it would 
 be-found, that. the subscription from - individuals 
 
16 
 
 would not be more than what they gave to a 
 single society when separate. And thus, should an» 
 application be afterwards made from any one of the 
 societies included in the general association to those 
 individuals for a separate subscription, the answer 
 would be, “I already subscribe to that object.” 
 Thus the great cause of CHRISTIAN CHARITY 
 for the bodies and souls of our fellow creatures 
 would be paralyzed, and the streams of liberality 
 which have flowed from that ancient city, like a 
 broad river, would be in a great measure dried up.~ 
 Should the Doctor unhappily succeed in persuading 
 his friends to pursue his favourite theory, what 
 would become of all those benefits which he has 
 so eloquently ascribed to the progress of Bible 
 Associations? ‘They would become as the morn- 
 ing cloud and the early dew. All the heart- 
 expanding and benevolent plans of the British 
 and Foreign Bible Society for the universal circu- 
 lation of the Scriptures would, by these changes in 
 the constitution of Bible Associations and Societies, 
 become abortive—and the cheering anticipation of 
 hundreds of millions of our fellow men, sitting 
 under the shade of the tree of life, would be 
 swept away as the midnight dream; and the fair 
 prospect he has presented to us, of the future 
 elevation of the poor, will prove after all but an 
 illusion. If the fact be, as is stated, (page. 38,) 
 “ that the subordinate Associations in the 
 “ Country are tending towards this arrange- 
 “ ment,” every well-wisher to the Bible, Mis- 
 
1% 
 
 sionary, and other Societies, must deplore it: 
 And with regard to the other advantage which 
 he -attaches to his new plan,’ viz. a salutary 
 control over the various parent institutions, I 
 would ask him, whether that control is likely to 
 be so efficiently exercised by a mixed society, 
 giving a small sum annually to, it may be ten, 
 different institutions, as by a separate auxiliary 
 for each? When a society is formed as auxiliary 
 to one institution, its committee must of course 
 become better acquainted with all the operations 
 of the parent, and be more able to detect any 
 mistake, and watch over the general interests of 
 that particular society, far more efficiently; than 
 if it occupiéd only a tenth part of their attention: 
 Who, at all acquainted with the state of Pagan, 
 Mahomedan, and Catholic countries, and of the 
 sister kingdom of Ireland, in reference to their 
 want of the Scriptures, and with the vast plans 
 now prosecuting, for sending the word of God 
 to every nation, kindred, tongue, and people; 
 under heaven, would, for the sake of a favourite 
 theory, hazard the prosperity and future useful- 
 ness of the Bible Society? And should Female 
 Bible Associations become general in Scotland, 
 which it is hoped will-be the case, the difficulties 
 in conducting this mixed-kind of a society would 
 be so obviously great, that I need not take up 
 much of the time of my readers in describing 
 them. 
 
 Whether the Doctor’s advice be taken, in new- 
 
 c 
 
18 
 
 modelling existing societies to prevent the charge 
 of unfaithfulness by the alienation of funds col- 
 lected for the Bible Society exclusively, or whether 
 new societies be formed on his plan, great diffi- _ 
 culties must obviously attend their operations. 
 Let us suppose a penny a-week Society is formed ; 
 the parish or town is divided into districts, col- 
 lectors for each are appointed; they commence 
 their operations by calling at the cottage of a 
 poor man; he asks of them their business; they 
 answer, We are come to solicit your subscription 
 of a penny a-week for the Bible Society, London 
 Missionary Society, Church, Moravian, and Baptist 
 Missionary Societies, the Jewish, African, Gaelic, 
 Hibernian, and Lancasterian Societies. ‘The col- 
 lector carries with her a large budget of papers, 
 relating to each Society, and is about to untie 
 her bag, when the poor man informs her that 
 he has but one penny to spare, adding, “ The Bible 
 Society I know, but what are these? some of 
 them I have never even heard of: you perplex 
 me. If I give a subscription, it must be to send 
 the Bible to the heathen; that must be right: — 
 I know nothing of the rest.” 
 
 It is well:known that the foreign object of the 
 Bible Society lies near the heart of every true 
 Christian. Where is the man, who has tasted 
 of these living waters, and is not anxious that 
 all nations should also drink of them? Who has 
 found the pearl of great price, and is not desirous 
 that others should be enriched also? ‘Who, that 
 
19 
 
 loves the Redeemer, is not solicitous for the ex- 
 tension of his kingdom in our rebellious world ? 
 What heart, possessed of the common sympathies 
 of our nature, is not anxious to lessen the mass 
 of human misery? Let us then endeavour to 
 preserve the Bible Society entire, in all its unity 
 and simplicity; for on these, under the Divine 
 blessing, depend her strength, stability, and success. 
 
 Allow me here most affectionately and seriously 
 to call on the Bible Societies of Scotland, which 
 have in any way deviated from the simplicity of 
 the object ‘for which they were associated, by 
 giving grants to other Societies, to consider the 
 tendency of these proceedings. Their example 
 will probably be followed by others, and should 
 it become general, the Parent Society will be 
 greatly discouraged, its funds diminished, and it 
 would be thereby prevented from the prosecution 
 of those gigantic plans which the Providence of 
 God is opening unto it almost daily. Let me 
 intreat them to weigh well the awful responsi- 
 bility of having been in any degree instrumental, 
 by their departure from first principles, in deranging 
 that grand machine, the handy work of Jehovah, 
 of which they form so main and important a part. 
 There is no doubt but that all those grants which 
 have been made, have been dictated by benevolence 
 and a desire to promote the cause of God in our 
 dark and miserable world. While I fear that 
 but little has been said by me to convince these 
 Societies of the danger of their past measures, I 
 
20 
 
 shall still have the satisfaction of having brought 
 the subject before them ; and when the question 
 shall be referred to the good sense and love to 
 the Bible cause which abound in these Societies, 
 there is no doubt of the result. 
 
 These Societies have from the commencement 
 stocd high in our list as auxiliaries. Their annual 
 contributions have not only been very large, but, 
 what is perhaps not generally known, they required 
 little or no return, in Bibles. Nearly the whole 
 of their offering was disinterested and free. 
 
 The Parent Society, were she addressing them, 
 would, I am sure, disclaim all right to control 
 their grants, or interfere in any way with their 
 operations; she would only be anxious that the 
 constitutional principles of the Society might be 
 acted upon by all; and that nothing on the part 
 of Auxiliaries, or of the Parent Society, might in 
 any way arise to disturb that harmony which 
 has so happily prevailed through all the branches 
 of the British and Foreign Bible Society. I have 
 been long convinced, that with respect to outward 
 opposition, the Bible Society is impregnable, while 
 she is true to herself; her only danger is from 
 herself. Let this awaken us all to great: circum- 
 spection. 
 
 And with respect to the objects for which these 
 Bible Societies have voted grants, viz. Missionary 
 and Educational Institutions, they cannot be igno- 
 rant of the very extensive aid which ¢hey through 
 the Parent Society haye, for twelve years past, been 
 
21 
 
 giving to Missionary Societies, ina way perfectly 
 consistent with the constitution of the Society. 
 It is well known that Missionary Societies had 
 undertaken the translation and printing of the 
 Scriptures into foreign languages, before the form- 
 ation of the British and Foreign Bible Society. 
 And had the Bible Society never been formed, 
 these Societies would have considered it their 
 bounden duty to go forward in that most important 
 but expensive line of service. Let the records of 
 the Bible Society witness, what vast sums. have, 
 most properly, been voted by them, for the great 
 purpose of translating and printing the Scriptures 
 into’ nearly eighty different languages; in some 
 of which neither the Scriptures nor any. other 
 book had ever before been printed. It will be 
 remembered what a stimulus was given by the 
 Bible Society to the talents and industry of the 
 missionaries at Serampore, by a tender of her 
 support and assistance in the work of translations, 
 soon after her formation; and in their reply 
 they enumerate, I think, not less than fifteen new 
 translations, which they were ready to undertake in 
 the prospect of support from the Bible Society. 
 And independently of the tens of thousands of 
 pounds which have already been expended in aid 
 of translating and printing the Scriptures, the 
 Committee have devoted £13,000 for completing 
 the twenty-six remaining languages and. dialects 
 of Asia not yet translated, viz. £500 for each: 
 
22 
 
 I am persuaded that enough has’ been said to 
 convince our friends that very ample grants have 
 been made, and are still making towards the pro- 
 motion of missionary objects, yet in a way unob- 
 jectioriable, and perfectly in accordance with the 
 fundamental principles of the Bible Society. ‘The 
 same may be said in respect to Educational Societies. 
 The Reports of the Society will show how much 
 she has been disposed to assist those Institutions 
 in consistency with the regulations of the Com- 
 mittee. Let the Hibernian Society for the Edu- 
 cation of the Poor and the Circulation of the 
 Scriptures in Ireland testify, let the Sunday School 
 Society for Ireland, and the Gaelic School Society 
 testify, how liberally they haye been supplied with — 
 the Scriptures. Let the Catholic Schools in Ger- 
 many and Switzerland say, how many tens of 
 thousands of Testaments have found their way 
 into the hands of the children, and through them, 
 into the habitations of their parents. And let the 
 recent votes of the Committee proclaim, how much 
 they are alive to the importance of assisting the 
 education of the poor. I have long felt ardently 
 for the success of Missions and of Educational 
 Societies throughout the globe, and therefore I 
 hope I shall not, in any thing I have advanced, 
 be suspected of being unfriendly to either. The 
 few plain statements which have been given, have 
 proceeded from a firm conviction that the pros- 
 perity of each, and of all, depends much on keeping 
 
23 
 
 each Society distinct, and in letting them indi- 
 vidually make their appeal to a liberal and en- 
 lightened Public. 
 
 There is a sentence in Dr. Chalmers’s 14th 
 paragraph, page 18, on which, with the permission 
 of the worthy author, I shall make a few remarks. 
 After having given, in his usual manner, a striking 
 and most cheering view of the direct tendency of 
 the operations of the Bible Society, in the eleva- 
 tion of the poor and the cure of pauperism, he 
 says, “ I¢ is true, that of these poor there are 
 ‘* some whe depend on charity for their sub- 
 “ sistence, and these have no right to giwe what 
 “* they receive from others.” 
 
 If the principle laid down in the preceding 
 quotation be correct and binding, much of the 
 excellency of the pamphlet, and that on which 
 its popularity chiefly rested, is overthrown. If 
 the application of the corrective and elevating 
 operations of Bible Societies is to be confined to 
 those poor persons who are supporting themselves 
 by their labour, then the great mass, who are 
 either in whole or in part supported by the parish, 
 are to be totally excluded from the benefit of 
 that which the Doctor himself considers to be the 
 grand specific for the cure of their disease. If 
 this rule is to govern. the future operations of 
 Bible Societies, I confess that my hope of their 
 usefulness is greatly abridged. By this he cuts 
 off more than a million of wretched individuals 
 from participating in the remedy. Does the Doctor 
 
24 
 
 consider them as incurable, and therefore hope- 
 less, and not deserving of any trial? Still: we 
 would say, Let the experiment be made, for we 
 are prepared to give many, very many cases of 
 perfect cure, even in the last stages of the disease: 
 And are we then to abandon all the families which 
 are receiving parochial relief, and to entail misery 
 on them and on their wretched offspring, without 
 one attempt to help them? In a few years their 
 children are to be the fathers and mothers of 
 another generation, to be bred up in-all the 
 ignorance and vice inseparable from their condi- 
 tion. Is this the way the Doctor recommends the 
 decrease of pauperism? If by this sweeping clause 
 so large a proportion of the poor of our Country, 
 and those who certainly stand most in need of 
 the benefits of Bible Associations, are to be cut 
 off from all these, we leave the Doctor to reconcile 
 it with sound policy, and to justify himself before 
 an enlightened and benevolent Public. In some 
 Societies a middle course is pursued. They allow 
 parish paupers to subscribe for a Bible for them- 
 selves, but refuse to accept from them what is 
 called a free subscription for the general objects 
 of the Society. There are others who, agreeing 
 with the Doctor, refuse a poor man or woman re- 
 ceiving parochial relief the privilege of subscribing 
 for a Bible for their own use. This is not only 
 -impolitic ; it is cruel. Among a mass of those 
 who have reduced themselves to the humiliating 
 rank of parish paupers by their idleness, impro- 
 
23 
 
 vidence, and vice, we find some, and not few, 
 who have seen better days, and whose only crime 
 is their poverty. And» must they also be visited 
 by a suspension of the exercise of those disposi- 
 tions (as far as in their power) of kindness. to 
 their more destitute fellow-creatures ? They have 
 a’ Bible, and know its value; they have rested 
 in the time of affliction on its blessed truths, and 
 they wish to direct others to the same source of 
 consolation. They have obtained possession of a 
 good hope of an inheritance, in heaven, and they 
 are anxious that others should share it with them. 
 Let the Doctor himself plead their cause, in the 
 words already quoted: “ We have souls as well as 
 you, and precious to our hearts is the Saviour 
 who died for them. It is true we have our dis- 
 tresses, but these have bound us more firmly 
 to our Bibles; and it is the desire of our hearts, 
 that a gift so precious should be sent to the 
 poor of other countries.— Do you think that 
 sympathy for such as these, is your peculiar 
 “ attribute 2” ) 
 
 It is probable that the great bulk of parochial 
 
 poor derive not all their subsistence from the 
 
 parish, and therefore they are surely at liberty 
 to subscribe for a Bible, yea to give a free sub- 
 
 scription also, out of that part of their income | 
 
 which is distinct from parochial allowance. But 
 admitting that they do draw all from the parish, 
 I again ask, Are they to be debarred because of 
 their poverty from possessing a Bible, or of be- 
 
26 
 
 coming free subscribers? I would ask, What 
 law is there, either parliamentary or eleemosy- — 
 nary, which controls the expenditure of the weekly 
 pittance? Are the receivers left at liberty to fix 
 how much shall be laid out in clothing, how much 
 on food, how much on lodging, not even fixing 
 the maximum to be laid out on snuff, or on any 
 small gratification ; and are they to be restrained 
 — only in that single instance, of subscribing a penny 
 a-week for the supplying of heathen millions with 
 a Bible, from that act which is so eminently cal- 
 culated to benefit themselves? Is there any law 
 of God or man which forbids the parish pauper 
 from sharing his loaf with a fellow-creature perish- 
 ing from hunger? What! is it not misfortune 
 enough to be dependent on parish allowance; and 
 will you seek to extinguish the small latent rem- 
 nant of sensibility ? The Doctor will answer, No; 
 if they are parish poor, give them one gratuitously. 
 It is true, that out of the funds of the Associa- 
 tion they may be thus supplied; but what becomes 
 then of the proposed benefit of Bible Associations, 
 viz. the inducing a habit of economy by persons 
 becoming subscribers for themselves, or of kindness 
 by their becoming free subscribers for the supply 
 of others’ Let the Doctor reply for me here, and 
 for the class whose cause I am pleading. (Page 23.) 
 “The single circumstance of its being a voluntary 
 “ act, forms the defence and the answer to all the 
 “ clamours of an affected sympathy. 
 
 “You take from the poor. No! they give. 
 
27 
 
 You take beyond their ability. Of this they 
 are the best judges. You abridge their com- 
 forts. No! there is a comfort in the exercise 
 of charity; there isa comfort in the act of 
 lending a hand to a noble enterprise; there is 
 a comfort in the contemplation of its progress ; 
 there is a comfort in rendering a service to a 
 friend: and when that friend is the Saviour, 
 and that service the circulation of the message 
 he left behind him, it is a comfort which many 
 of the poor are ambitious to share in. Leave 
 them to judge of their comfort ; and if, in point 
 of fact, they do give their penny a-week to a 
 Bible Society, it just speaks them to have more 
 comfort in this way of spending it, than in any 
 other which occurs to them.” 
 
 Will you afford no occasion for the exercise 
 of even the casual rising of a compassionate feeling 
 in the heart of even the most degraded of this 
 class? The following anecdote will illustrate better 
 than argument what I have been contending for. 
 The ladies of a Bible Association, in one of their 
 weekly calls upon the poor, saw a female at her 
 door with an infant in her arms, whom they had 
 not seen before. They kindly asked her if she 
 had a Bible? she answered, No. They then asked 
 whether she would like to become a subscriber for 
 one? she replied with tears in her eyes, that sne 
 would if in her power, but she could not. . On 
 leaving her, the husband, an idle worthless man, 
 who had seen the ladies talking with his wife, 
 
28 
 
 asked her what they wanted: she told him. He 
 then inquired what answer she’ gave them: she 
 repeated that also. On the following Monday, 
 “as the ladies were passing her door, they found her 
 waiting for them, and she tendered them sixpence 
 as the commencement of a subscription for a 
 Bible. The ladies, surprised, yet delighted, asked 
 her how she became enabled to spare so much. 
 She answered very feelingly, “ J hope 2 will last, 
 “ I hope it will last.” The next week, she was 
 ready with a shilling, and in a very few weeks 
 paid up the requisite sum, and received her Bible. 
 It appeared from her statement, that almost imme- 
 diately after their first conversation the husband 
 attended diligently to his employment, and instead 
 of spending the greater part of his earnings at the 
 public house,-as he had been accustomed to do, 
 he brought his wife home his wages. In a very 
 short time he relinquished his allowance of four 
 shillings a-week from the parish ; he became after- 
 wards a free subscriber; and when I heard the 
 account from a friend, this man, who must have 
 been considered by many as among the incurables, 
 had a considerable sum deposited in the Savings 
 Bank. 
 
 This is only one of many witnesses, in favour 
 of allowing paupers to enjoy the liberty of be- 
 coming subscribers for Bibles for themselves’ and 
 for others. 
 
 Let us induce this habit of economy; ‘which is 
 promoted by the saving of a single penny at first, 
 
29 
 
 and which is one of the grand recommendations 
 of Bible Associations. Did their regulations re- 
 quire a shilling as the smallest subscription, I 
 should almost despair of success; but the saving 
 of a penny a-week is not so formidable an achieve- 
 ment. By laying by a penny, the commencement 
 of a habit of saving is made. Another and an- 
 other are laid by, and thus the habit acquires 
 strength. If a poor man has become a subscriber 
 for himself, his consequence is increased, and still 
 more so when he is enrolled among those who are 
 contributing to supply the heathen thousands of 
 miles off. Until you succeed in obtaining the sub- 
 scriptions of the poor, they are out of the range of 
 the benefits, resulting from Ladies’ Bible Associa- 
 tions. When enrolled, and visited regularly by 
 persons in superior circumstances, they seem to be 
 recovering their lost caste. ‘The desire of con- 
 ciliating the esteem of the ladies who collect, is a 
 powerful stimulus, and is found more or less to 
 produce industry, economy, and. an improvement 
 in cleanliness and domestic comfort. The ladies 
 being expected at their usual time, exertions are 
 made by the cottagers. to put their dwellings in the 
 best possible order ; one little piece of furniture after 
 another is added: and thus they find, that by the 
 exercise of a little self-denial and frugality, and 
 profiting by the discreet advice of the good ladies, 
 personal and domestic comfort is more within their 
 reach than they had any idea of. Nor is this all: 
 in almost numberless instances a desire is awakened 
 
30 
 
 for the education of their children, where before 
 they were left a prey to ignorance and vice; and 
 notonly are they sent to school, but in cases where 
 one of the parents was unable to read, we have found 
 them voluntarily inquiring after adult Schools, 
 
 I have for a considerable time been of opinion, 
 that with the exception of certain localities, the 
 important benefits connected with Bible Associa- 
 tions can never be realized until they are wholly 
 intrusted to females. In almost all the instances 
 which we have been acquainted with, they have . 
 failed while they were carried on by the other sex. 
 Indeed a very slight acquaintance with the duties 
 devolving on Bible Association collectors, and the 
 important results we are seeking, in reference to 
 the poor, will, I think, justify my remark. Even 
 in those male Associations where the greatest dili- 
 gence and punctuality had been attended to, it has 
 been uniformly found that the direct benefit, viz. of 
 furnishing the poor with the Scriptures, had more 
 or less failed. And that the collateral benefit, the 
 elevation and improvement of the lower classes, 
 had not been accomplished in any degree equal to 
 what has been effected by female Associations. 
 
 The experiment has now been made upon a 
 large scale. The number of female Associations 
 amounts, I apprehend, to nearly 500, carried on 
 by at least 16,000 ladies, having at their head 
 between 30 and 40 peeresses. Are any of my 
 readers alarmed at the progress of Ladies’ Societies ? 
 Are they trembling for the credit of British females ? 
 
al 
 
 I shall endeavour to restore their tranquillity. I 
 acknowledge that at the commencement of Ladies’ 
 Associations I was afraid lest the delicacy of the 
 female character should be compromised ; lest the 
 modesty and retiredness which characterize British 
 females, and which must be classed with their 
 brightest ornaments, should, like the dew-drops on 
 the rose, be rudely beaten off by unnecessary pro- 
 minence and publicity. But since I have had the 
 honour of becoming better acquainted with their 
 operations, my mind has been completely set at 
 rest. Every business of a public nature is con- 
 ducted by our sex. In the abodes of poverty and 
 distress, in the cottage, the cellar, and the garret 
 only, is heard the cheering, soothing voice of these 
 benevolent females. It is there that the tear of 
 compassion falls ; in public they are unknown. 
 
 I would ask, Whether employments and scenes 
 such as these be not calculated rather to heighten 
 than diminish female delicacy ? 
 
 Who will seek to deprive these ladies of the 
 luxury of doing good? How many ladies, now in 
 the ranks of Bible Associations, have by their con- 
 nexion with these been induced to forsake former 
 frivolous pursuits and pleasures, from a conviction 
 of their inconsistency with their new engagements ! 
 And not a few will have to bless God throughout 
 eternity, for having inclined them to enrol their 
 names among the best, the wisest, and most 
 honourable of their sex. Many, I doubt not, 
 
32 
 
 have by their entrance into Bible Associations, 
 and from. hearing the excellent addresses on public 
 occasions, commending the Book of God to their 
 serious attention, been led to a more attentive 
 and serious perusal thereof; and thereby, through 
 the Divine blessing, have been made wise unto 
 salvation. 
 
 THE END. : 
 
 rr 
 PRINTED BY J. MOYES, 
 Greville Street, Hatton Garden, London. 
 
REVIEW 
 
 CONDUCT OF THE DIRECTORS 
 
 OF THE 
 
 British and foreign Bible Society, 
 
 RELATIVE TO 
 
 THE APOCRYPHA, 
 
 AND TO THEIR 
 
 ADMINISTRATION ON THE CONTINENT. 
 
 a WITH AN 
 
 ANSWER TO THE REV. C. SIMEON,-AND OBSERVATIONS ON 
 THE CAMBRIDGE REMARKS. 
 
 By ROBERT HALDANE, Esa. 
 
 “ Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a 
 liar.”— Prov. xxx. 6. 
 
 ‘¢ Shouldst thou help the ungodly, and love them that hate the Lord ?”— 
 2 Chron. xix. 2. 
 
 SECOND EDITION. 
 
 EDINBURGH: 
 PRINTED FOR WILLIAM WHYTE & CoO. 
 13, GEORGE STREET ; 
 SOLD BY M. OGLE, AND W. COLLINS, GLASGOW ; A. BROWN & Co. 
 ABERDEEN; BY THE BOOKSELLERS IN PERTH AND DUNDEE ; 
 J. FINLAY, NEWCASTLE; LONGMAN & Co. ; HAMILTON 
 ADAMS & CO., AND J. NISBET, LONDON; AND W. CURRY, 
 gun. & Co. DUBLIN: 
 1828. 
 
 Price Two Shillings and Sixpence. 
 
i 
 
 ee 
 . 
 
 “1 enor mera : 
 
 nd. ald mpta0% 
 
 al nes 
 jana 
 
 wo peated ang icte aia a 
 ea RAMA a 
 
 ~~ alien (peat 
 
 on AYE ACK: TAH: TH 
 
 a bmw od vod? fee cont. oven stl. 
 
 wwe bud nel sna onile opi a9 
 
 MoITICa @#Oode 
 
 ? » HPAUAMTGS 
 O9.8 ATYHVW Md. hy. ih HOT, 
 
 ; TAAATY AAO 
 
 on. Buwoat aa é WHOSE ve Bera oa : ‘ 
 a Guha WIRAT HI an rere Oe oF 
 iMku yono 3 KAMORO  paaPeaawaiade 
 TARUD OW GHA 7HOUAOA TRAIN COMA ee 
 
 “iid a 
 Beet 
 
 pom xn barn aqetthid 2 wat sob) 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 ' CHAPTER I. 
 Page 
 1. Authenticity of the Scriptures, iy ne c 1 
 2. Addition of the Apocrypha, - ; ° 12 
 3. Letter to one of the Secretaries of the Bible Society, ° > 15 
 4, Minutes of the Edinburgh Bible Society. _ ~ de erie et | 
 CHAPTER II. 
 i. Answer to Mr Simeon, - ° - 26 
 2. Rules of the Bible Society, - . ° ° : 27 
 3. Circumcision of Timothy, . - , e : 43 
 4. Meats offered to Idols, y . 2 49 
 CHAPTER III. 
 1. Review of s Letter from a Swedish Nobleman, : . 56 
 2. L. Van Ess, : . . 58 
 S. Paris, 4 d Bra 2 65 
 A, Professor Keiffer, . 68 
 5. Testimonies to the practicability of circulating the Bible without the 
 Apocrypha, : : . : . 74 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 \ 
 1. The question of adding the Apocrypha to the Scriptures, eee aC 
 Character and Inspiration of ° . - . 69 
 
 * ee ne ae tothem prohibited ©. . . 94 
 
iv CONTENTS. 
 Claims Inspiration, : ‘ ‘ >. 96 
 3. Apocrypha. Not Canonical, ° ‘ ah ae 
 Accursedy) . - lol 
 4, Adulteration of the Scriptures by the Bible Society, ‘ + 107 
 
 mr or rey 
 
 ~ CHAPTER V. 
 
 1. Abuses in the Administration of the Bible Society, ‘ - 114 
 2. Character of Bible Societies on the Continent, ° . ~ UF 
 3. Lausanne edition of the Bible, . - - ‘12i 
 4, Strasburg Preface, tnS oy DiShwoe ed ost Sli 
 
 Spier se ot Oar prune gauges battacyan” 
 9. Neceseity of "Refortzition in the Bible Socidy, TQMAOd” ‘Bit 138 
 8. Deft of Sirhsinte  srviits fe: SRST er 73 “3 enc 
 . wl tontrol oi flsda 
 ot sth anhogqueé: adeno 
 dig endy tbat gon esob 3 
 ad Laeger di, pte 
 vi ae Jove od Cede -behqebiaeiflmiiepeaetas 
 48 tS sottsino@ olditl oft 1 y 
 
 a voottbat wate oct 
 oh 44 vsarpg, otf to golisluots 
 Mm weibe 2 cnt Die 31 eortsio 
 
 Ween. oe 
 
 Av Oa aye S catdoa Laven 
 
 hy, thi, pogo ca TOP ae Ty -sortzeAy 
 
 bon wol er. IO SSegeeas ‘Sotto 
 
 asst ti 1° OF coals exew ibe 
 
 ; riy i ~otteeredd Bligode 
 
 20 ott Ties a ees 
 
 ve , Paw G, Arie: atiqraagida, pais Aer aiaaibionacne 
 Rt bs Vis. wil ptercdbminggt nb rie 303 unio 
 
 $i i ULORSIOB Tq OAE Be f9 athe re Hoe sah o3 
 
 re ees tsa) adi ta) sidii Ey? Ritiialan 
 
BIUBITALA A 
 
 ~ Sunce the following pages went to press, it has 
 been reported that the Sub-committée of the Bri 
 tish and Foreign Bible Society have resolved to 
 propose to the General Meeting, that its funds 
 shall no longer be applied to the printing of the 
 Apocrypha. Supposing the report to be correct, 
 it does not render this publication the less nedes- 
 sary. It remains to be seen whether the line of 
 eonduct finally adopted, shall be such: as to: pre= 
 vent the funds of the Bible Societies of Britain 
 from being indirectly instrumental in aiding the 
 circulation of the Apocrypha by the Foreign So. 
 cieties. It is said that some of the leading meme 
 bers of the Committee have agreed.to the prot 
 posal, not from being convinced that the former 
 practice of the Society was' improper; but in des 
 ference to public opinion. This is low ground, 
 and very likely tio: be: abandoned if the’ discussion: 
 should! hereafter be revived. It is therefore ne~ 
 cessary to calli the attention of the public to the 
 magnitude of the question, and, by proving not 
 only the unlawfulness of making any addition 
 to the Scriptures, but also the practicability of cir- 
 culating the Bible on the Continent without the 
 A 
 
vi PREFACE. 
 
 Apocrypha, to secure the entire and permanent dis- 
 continuance of a practice which cannot be too 
 severely condemned. 
 
 It is also proper to expose those false principles, 
 and dangerous misapplications of Scripture, which 
 appear in Mr Simeon’s pamphlet, published in de- 
 fence of the circulation of the Apocrypha, in an- 
 swer to the Statement of the Edinburgh Bible 
 Committee. 
 
 A further object is to correct the wrong impres- 
 sions which the public may have received by the 
 extracts of four letters from abroad, in the Cam- 
 bridge Remarks, as well as to counteract the in- 
 fluence of that publication and the pernicious tend- 
 ency of some of its reasonings. 
 
 It is likewise important to direct the mitendiods 
 of the Supporters of the British and Foreign Bible 
 Society to those abuses in the administration of its 
 affairs on the Continent of Europe, which, although 
 little known to the Auxiliary Societies in this coun? 
 try, are very seriously counteracting the object it 
 has in view in the circulation of the Scriptures. 
 This subject, entirely distinct from that of the A- 
 pocrypha, demands the attention of those Societies, 
 and requires to be fully investigated. ‘Apes: 
 
 The questions involved in the discussion of the 
 above topics are not of local or temporary interest > 
 all of them enter deeply into the system of Divine 
 Revelation, and are of much practical concern to 
 every Christian. 
 
 Edinburgh, November 1825. 
 
REVIEW. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 AUTHENTICITY OE THE SCRIPTURES.—ADDITION OF THE 
 APOCRYPHA.—LETTER TO ONE OF THE SECRETARIES OF 
 THE BIBLE SOCIETY.—MINUTES OF THE EDINBURGH 
 BIBLE COMMITTEE. 
 
 Asnosr the various proofs with which we are surrounded 
 of man’s alienation from God, none is more striking than 
 his conduct in regard to religion. The Lord was pleased 
 to reveal himself to fallen man as the just God and the 
 Saviour, and to encourage his apostate creature to confide 
 in his mercy. But, notwithstanding his condescension, a 
 very few generations were sufficient almost to eradicate the 
 knowledge of God from the earth,—and the human race, 
 with the exception of one family, was, in consequence, 
 swept away by the flood. 
 
 The descendants of Noah, unawed by this catastrophe, 
 did not retain God in their knowledge, but changed the 
 image of the incorruptible God into an image made like 
 to corruptible man, and to birds and fourfooted beasts, and 
 creeping things. Even that nation which the Lord chose 
 to be his witnesses, to be the salt of the earth, and the 
 light of the world, changed his judgments into wicked- 
 ness; and, with the exception of a very small remnant, 
 cast off their allegiance to the God of Israel. . 
 
8 
 
 At length the Saviour appeared; the kingdom of God 
 was taken from the Jews, and the gospel was preached to 
 the Gentiles, for the obedience of faith. Its progress was 
 rapid and extensive: many were brought from’ darkness 
 to light, and from the power of Satan toGod. ‘The sound 
 of the apostles went into all the earth, and their words to 
 the end of the world,’ In the meantime the enemy was 
 not idle, and the tares which he sowed soon made their 
 appearance. The mystery of iniquity was discernible in 
 the Apostolic age, and it continued to work till the man 
 of sin was established on his throne, and the religion: of 
 Jesus changed into an’ unshapely’ mass of aie sae 
 and degrading superstition. pat to 
 
 But the Lord’s counsel shall stand, and he» will do-all 
 his pleasure. He has given to his Son the heathen for his 
 inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth fora pos- 
 session. For the accomplishment of this promise, he ‘has 
 made ample provision by inspiring holy men to! commit ‘to 
 writing the revelation of his will; so that, notwithstanding 
 all the gorruptions of religion, an infallible standard is pra- 
 vided,—a standard untainted by error, and unalloyed with 
 falsehood, by which we may try every doctrine, and sde- 
 teet every imposition; and thus the mind of Christ is:com- 
 munieated to us on whom the ends of the world are'come: 
 
 This holy book is the palladium of our rebellious world. 
 Like its divine Author, it is imperishable: ) “ The word of 
 the Lord endureth for ever :” it is the incorruptible seed 
 of the new and spiritual creation, which is the chief of the: 
 ways of God, and therefore he hath “ magnified his word 
 above all his name.” Henee neither the indifference nor 
 the wickedness of man has been permitted to’ corrupt its 
 purity, or sully its lustre. It has, for a season, been’made 
 void by vain traditions,—it has been taken out/of the hands: 
 of the people, and has appeared to be almost ‘forgotten ; 
 but, though heaven and earth shall pass away, the word 
 ef God shall remain until it rom ser his nos . 
 poses towards this sinful world. — 
 
9 
 
 .o While the preservation of the Scriptures is thus infallibly 
 secured, it:is no less the incumbent duty of all, into whose 
 hands. they, may come, to beware of countenancing any 
 measure which has. a tendency to corn Dems lest haply 
 we be found to fight against God. 
 
 . The Holy Scriptures were delivered to the first Chris- 
 tians pure and. unadulterated; but although any addition 
 is excluded by their nature, and by their language express- 
 ly prohibited, yet, after a few centuries had elapsed, the 
 Apocrypha, a volume of spurious writings, usurped, at first, 
 
 ‘@ suspicious affinity to, the. sacred record; .was afterwards 
 joined with it; ‘and, at length, in the progress of the mystery 
 of iniquity, became actually incorporated as a part. of holy 
 writ.. At the era, of the Reformation this flagrant evil re- 
 «ceived a check, but was by no means wholly eradicated. 
 The reformers, although they denied. that the Apocrypha 
 ‘formed a part of. the: sacred. volume, yet allowed it to re- 
 «tam that place which. at -first had been conceded to it, as.a 
 useful appendage for “‘ example of life, and instruction of 
 manners.” This| unlawful ground the Apocryphal writ- 
 ings have, ever since,their time, extensively occupied ; and, 
 for several years, they have been. sanctioned, in all the 
 various forms of their usurpation, by the British and Fo- 
 reign Bible Society, without the knowledge of its supporters. 
 
 To arrest this wide-spreading mischief, attempts, for a con- 
 
 siderable time past, have been made in private; but every 
 ‘means hitherto used’ having proved ineffectual, the matter 
 has at length been brought before the public,. and has. now 
 given rise to a very important discussion. . As the subject 
 stands especially connected. with that part of Scripture called 
 
 the Old Testament, a brief view of the proof of its authen- 
 pwr may not be deemed superfluous. 
 
 It was the chief advantage of the Jews that to them were 
 prantenetry the oracles of God, and it is their highest com- 
 mendation that they were faithful to this trust, With 
 whatever: faults they are justly chargeable, no accusation 
 can be preferred against them. as’ guardians. of the Scrip. 
 
10 
 
 tures, which were delivered in such a manner) as.t6 pre- 
 clude the possibility of any mistake respecting their divine, 
 origin. poh isqeet 
 The plainest directions were given to pte ania for ascer- 
 taining the truth of the mission of those who declared them-. 
 selves Doaehcisk and although false prophets did arise, and 
 for a time obtained a degree of influence, their wickedness) 
 was exposed by the failure of their predictions, or, by the 
 judgments of God inflicted on them, as in. the, case of 
 Hananiah. During the whole period. from Moses, to 
 Malachi, a succession of prophets was raised up, under 
 whose direction the word of God was infallibly distinguish-. 
 ed from all counterfeits ; and by their means, in connexion 
 with the visible interference of the God of Israel:in punish-. 
 ing those who made the people trust in a lie, the Scriptures, 
 were preserved pure and unadulterated. The books which. 
 eompose the Old Testament were accordingly held by the 
 Jews, in every age, to be the genuine.works of those persons 
 to whom they were ascribed, and to have been. universally 
 and exclusively, without any addition or exception, written 
 under the immediate influence of the Spirit of God. These 
 writings they preserved with the greatest veneration; at 
 the same time they carefully guarded against receiving 
 along with them any Apocryphal or uninspired books... 
 We are assured by Josephus, that, although there were. 
 innumerable books among the Jews, they received, none» 
 but twenty-two as divine. ‘+ We have,” says he, “¢ two-» 
 and-twenty books which are to be believed as.of, divine. 
 authority, and which comprehend the history of all. ages:: 
 five belong to Moses, which contain the origin of man,,and,, 
 the tradition of the succession of generations down. to his . 
 death.—During so many ages no one has dared.to.add any. 
 thing tc the twenty-two books, or to take any, thing from 
 them, or to alter any thing in them; for it is.implanted in_ 
 the nature of all Jews, immediately from their. birth, .to . 
 consider these books as the oracles. of God; to adhere to 
 them, and, if occasion should require, cheerfully to, die for, 
 
1F 
 
 their sake.” Josephus has given = list of these books as 
 
 Owing to the important connexion subsisting between 
 carefully examined the authenticity of the Jewish Sertp- 
 tures: Iw the second century, Melito, Bishop of Sardis, 
 The learned Origen, im the third century, gives 2 list of 
 the twenty-two books. Athanasms, m the fourth century, 
 specifies the twenty-two canonical books, which he says 
 “are received by the whole church.” Gregory Nazi 
 anzem and Jerome affirm that the twenty-two books alone 
 were received as eanonica!. This fact is confirmed by the 
 council of Laodicea m the year 363. To all this « is 
 Sn Seana ara 
 authenticity of the Old Testament Seriptures repose. But, 
 clear and satisfactory as these testmmonmals are, they are 
 neither the only ones nor the highest to which we cam 
 cares this subject is, that the Jewish canon was 
 sinehctigidhgmia to them, and never once intimated 
 degree. Thus, previously to the rejection of the Jewist 
 people, the Son of God stamped, with his authority, that 
 part of revelatiom which had beem committed to them It 
 is the characteristic of his Gospel, that it is preached! te the 
 poor; and he has so ordered it that the authenticity of 
 that word, by which all are to be judged, should not be 
 matter of doubtful disputation. 
 
 WiheDitenmnsieeil ic’ aaah whale Wie “carbiie Chaiti: 
 tam writers examined the authenticity of the Oid Testa 
 
12 
 
 ment Scriptures. Those who succeeded, them: were not, 
 however, so scrupulous as their predecessors and, the con- 
 sequence was, that those writings, which are¢alled Apocry- 
 phal, were at length connected with the books of the Old 
 Testament, first added and afterwards intermingled with 
 them. 
 
 Of the Apocryphal books, Horne, in his: introduction, _to 
 the critical Study and Knowledge of the Holy Scriptures, 
 says,—‘* They are not mentioned in the Catalogue of in- 
 spired writings, made by Melito, Bishop of Sardis, who 
 flourished in the second. century, nor in those of Origen, in 
 the third century, of Athanasius, Hilary, Ciril of Jerusalem, 
 Epiphanius, Gregory Nazianzen,, Amphilochius, Jerome, 
 Rufinus, and others of the fourth century; nor in, the eata- 
 logue of the canonical. books recognized by the council of 
 Laodicea, held in the same century, whose canons were re- 
 ceived by the Catholic Church ;, so that, as Bishop Burnet 
 well observes, ‘* we have the concurring sense of the whole 
 church of God in this. matter.” To. this decisive evidence 
 against the canonical.authority of the Apocryphal books, we 
 may add, that they were never read inthe Christian Church 
 until the fourth century, when, as Jerome informs us, 
 they were read) ‘for example of, life and ieptructinayat 
 manners, but were not applied. to establish any doctrine.” 
 
 The consequence of the admission) of these uninspired. 
 books to: be read in the churches along with the word of 
 God, although at first carefully distinguished. from.it,, might 
 have been easily foreseen. In alittle time they came:to 
 be intermingled with the Sacred record, and afterwards to 
 be received asa part of it. “From the middle: of the 
 fourth century, (or, perhaps,, earlier)” says: Mr, Gorham, 
 * till 1534, they took their placein: the Sacred, volume, 
 intermingled, indeed, but avowedly as human writings. From 
 that period. to the present moment: they have usurped the 
 name of inspired Scriptures in. the Bibles of Roman Cath- 
 olics.”. This “ impious: violation,” (as he most. properly 
 terms it) ‘ of the:integrity. of the inspired word” originated 
 
1S 
 
 iti the decree of the council of Trent, séssion ‘iv. — 
 which he quotes as follows. , . 
 “The sacred, cecumenical, and general ne of Trent 
 . having this object perpetually in view, that errors being 
 removed, the real purity of the gospel may be preserved in 
 the church ; which, promised aforetime by the Prophets in 
 the Holy Scriptures, our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of 
 God, first promulgated by his own mouth, and afterwards 
 ordained to be preached to every creature by his Apostles, 
 as being a fountain of all saving truth and ‘of instruc- 
 tion of manners ; knowing, moreover, that this truth and 
 instruction is contained in the WRITTEN Books, AND IN THE 
 UNWRITTEN TRADITIONS, ... RECEIVES AND VENERATES 
 WITH SENTIMENTS OF EQUAL PIETY AND REVERENCE ALL 
 THE Books, as well of the Old as of the New Testament, 
 since one Gop WAs THE AUTHOR of them both, and also the 
 traditions relating as well to faith as to morals. . .'. More- 
 over, it has determined ‘to annex to this Decree an index 
 of the sacrED Books; lest a doubt should arise to any one 
 which they be, that are received by this Synod : abe are 
 written 1 below. ao the old Testament, 
 
 5 of Moses, 3. ¢. Esther [containing the © 12 Prophets the less, é.¢. 
 Genesis; Rest of Esther.) » Hosea, : 
 Exodus). «..,;, Job... , Joel, .. 
 
 Leviticus, _ David’s Psalms, 150 Amos, 
 
 Numbers, |= ~—*~Proverbs, Obadiah, 
 Deuteronomy, Ecclesiastes, Jonah, 
 
 Joshua, Song of Songs, Micah, 
 Judges,» .. Wisdom, Nahum, | 
 
 Ruth, _  Ecclesiasticus, Habakkuk, 
 
 Kings, 4. Isaiah, Bel and the Dragon. ] 
 Chronicles, 2. "| Jeremiah, with“! Zephaniah, © 
 
 Ezta, I. and Il. called Baruch, Haggai, . 
 
 Nehemiah, Ezekiel, ' Zechariah, 
 
 Tobias, Daniel, [Song of 3 Child. Malachi 
 
 Judith, Shsamia, Za tela ig 2,1 and 11. 
 
 CP iki follow the books of the New sae, which 
 are all the same as in’ the Protestant Canon). . . . «« But if 
 B 
 
14 
 
 any one shall not receive, for SackED aND Canonical, all 
 those Books, with all their parts, as they are accustomed to 
 be read in the Catholic Church, and are set forth in the 
 old Vulgate Latin Edition, and knowingly and adyisedly 
 shall contemn the aforesaid traditions, LET HIM BE ANA- 
 THEMA.”* 
 
 Of the occasion of the above decree, Mr Garhats gives 
 the following account:—‘* The Papists began to tremble for 
 their faith when the Reformers brought their doctrines to 
 the test of the pure Worp or Gop ; and they perceived that 
 some of the leading tenets of their church were undermined 
 when Luther denied the authority, both of tradition and of 
 all merely ecclesiastical writings. The Romish hierarchy 
 was in danger; the Vatican took the alarm: it was neces- 
 sary to adopt some decisive measures; and therefore the 
 Council of Trent was summoned to meet this tremendous 
 crisis. One of the most learned Roman Catholic Bishops 
 plainly affirms this: the conduct of the Protestants he says, 
 (expressly im reference to the Canon of Seripture) ‘was 
 intolerable,” it was time to expose this outrage; and to put 
 an end to discussions by an eternal Anathema, Under 
 such circumstances did the Council of Trent issue its 
 infamous decree, in which it not only declared that the 
 writings esteemed by us (and formerly by the Romish 
 doctors themselves) wninspired, were sacred and canonical, 
 but that these Apocryphal books (and all parts of them) 
 were to be received ** with the same piety and dorngacnrsne 
 the other Scriptures.” — anion 
 
 “‘ Though every scholar is acquainted with the fact, it is 
 not ibility ly known, that the Apocryphal matter in the 
 body of these two books” (Daniel and Esther) “is so com= 
 pletely interpolated in many modern Catholic Bibles, that 
 there is not even a distinction of chapters presented to the 
 eye, in some parts; the verses reading on, as if the sacred 
 
 * « The words between hooks are not in the decree, but are here added for 
 distinctness ; for the same teason the Apocryphal Books are Bh ae 
 Htalic type.” fy iin’ 
 
15 
 
 “writer were still continuing his narrative. “ The song of 
 the three children,” e.g. forms. Daniel iti. 24——90 ; standing 
 between verses 23 and 91; Susanna forms Daniel xiii; 
 ‘s Bel and the Dragon,” Daniel xiv. The rest of Esther 
 forms Esther x. 4. to end, and xi. to xvi. In. this respect 
 modern Catholic Bibles are more deceptive than even the 
 Vulgate ; for the Pope, and the Council of Trent, left: the 
 notes of St Jerome, in the body of the sacred text, pointing 
 out its redundancies; but these notes have, in recent times, 
 disappeared altogether; and thus some of the most absurd 
 parts of the Apocrypha have merged into the Holy Volume. 
 St Jerome tells us that, according to his custom, he had 
 marked those Apocryphal interpolations with a dagger 4 
 placed horizontally, for the purpose of stabbing them. It 
 would be well if the insidious place they occupy were still 
 so denoted.” 
 
 Such is’ the book which the Directors of the British and 
 Foreign Bible Society have, for several years, been circu- 
 lating on the Continent under the title of ruz Hoty Brier, 
 CONTAINING THE OLD anp New TrstamENtTs—a book 
 consisting of sacred writings and human forgeries mingled 
 and jumbled together, not by accident, but, as is seen above, 
 with a deep and insidious design. Nor can it be pleaded in 
 palliation of this most unjustifiable abuse of the trust com- 
 mitted to them, that their attention has not been called to 
 the subject. From’the following letter, which I wrote to one 
 of the secretaries, after fully conversing with him and an- 
 other of the secretaries, and with some of the directors, and 
 which, I was informed, was read in the committee, it will be 
 seen that four years have elapsed since the business of the 
 Apocrypha was brought under their notice :— 
 
 ‘« Auchingray, October 6, 1821. 
 “< MY DEAR SIR, j 
 
 « Amidst the multiplicity of your business in Earl Street, 
 you and your friends may not recollect the communication 
 from the Edinburgh Bible Society, respecting the Apocry- 
 
16 
 
 pha, a copy of which I now send you. Its language is 
 very strong and decided. A representation to the same 
 effect was made, I am informed, by the Glasgow Society. 
 From the minute subjoined to it, it appears to have been 
 understood, that you had given up the practice of cireu- 
 lating the Apocrypha with the Bible. The fact that this 
 is not the case, is, I believe, altogether unknown’ in this 
 country. All here seem to have the same conviction which 
 I had at Montauband, that, under the rules of your Society, 
 no such thing exists, or can in fairness exist. How indeed 
 can it be otherwise, when your “laws and regulations” are 
 published yearly, intimating, no doubt, that you faithfully 
 adhere to them? For who could suppose that, while thus 
 periodically brought into view, they are systematically 
 violated? In addition to this, the language of your're- 
 ports is in strict unison with your regulations. In the re- 
 port of this year, for instance, you hold it out as the fact, 
 that you and the Bible Societies on the Continent primt 
 only the Bible and Testament. Thus, in page 19; you 
 say, you have printed at Toulouse “ 10,000 Biébdles and 
 5000 Testaments.” Again, page 34, “ The whole amount 
 of the issues of the Hanoverian Bible Society has been 
 15,027 copies of the Scriptures.” Page 44, “ The word 
 of God is now translated, sold, and given away.” * The 
 oracles of God are consulted.” Page 45, ‘ The»Society 
 finds itself daily advancing towards the day when the d- 
 vime word shall be found in every house.” Page 46, «« The 
 circulation of the Scriptures, its exclusive object.” Page 
 47, ** In tracing the progress of the Holy Scriptures over 
 the Rusian Empire.” Page 48, “* The» Bible’ Society, 
 whose sole object is the increase and circulation of the 
 books of Holy Writ.” Now, as it is your constant practice 
 on the Continent to jom the Apocrypha to the Bible, often 
 intermixed with it in all its books, is it possible more com- 
 pletely to identify these merely human, erroneous, and 
 self-contradictory writings with the word of God, than by 
 such expressions as those above quoted from your report. 
 
17 
 
 For, observe, you bestow on the mixed: book which you 
 circulate, partly divine, partly human, every epithet that 
 can designate it as wholly from God. Is not this giving 
 your testimony, before all who know what in fact you are 
 doing, (that is, before all the nations on the Continent of 
 Europe;) to the Apocrypha, as an integral part of the Bi- 
 ble? You haye distinctly declared it to be so in your 
 Italian Bible, both in its title-page and in its enumeration 
 of the books of the Old Testament.*, And who can con- 
 clude that this is not your deliberate opinion, when, know- 
 ing what your practice is, they read your first and second re- 
 gulations, and see you affirming in your last report, in the 
 face of the world, and in the most positive and unqualified 
 language, that yours is “an InsTITUTION) WHICH) con- 
 FINES ITSELF WITH RIGOROUS EXACTNESS TO THE DISSE- 
 MINATION OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES ?” 
 
 Some may endeavour to vindicate your joining the 
 Apocrypha to the Bible, by observing that in England the 
 former is often bound up with the latter. But, whatever 
 may be said of the propriety of this, it does not by any 
 means justify your practice. The Apocrypha at home is 
 placed by itself, which is not always the case in the mon- 
 grel book that you circulate on the Continent. There is 
 
 “ The following is a literal translation of the title page of the Italian 
 Bible, printed by the British and Foreign Bible Society :—‘‘ Tum Horny 
 BIBLE, CONTAINING THE OLD anD NEw TEsraMENTs, according to 
 the Vulgate. Translated into the Italian language, by Monsignor Antonio 
 Martini, Archbishop of Florence. Edition formed upon the original published 
 at Turin ; with which, while in the act of printing, it was minutely compared 
 by Giambatista Rolandi. London; from ‘the ‘press of Benjamin Bensly, 
 Bolt Court, Fleet Street. 1821.” 
 
 On the next page,—“* Table of THE Booxs or THE OLD TESTAMENT, 
 according to the order in which they are placed in the version of Monsignor 
 Martini, preserved in the present edition.” 
 
 Then follow the Canonical and Apocryphal books intermingled, without 
 the smallest intimation of this addition : on the contrary, the whole are posi- 
 tively declared to be “‘ the books of the Old Testament.” 
 
 The titles of the Spanish and Portuguese Bibles md r am informed, pre- 
 cisely similar. 
 
18 
 
 another most material difference; you are precluded from 
 adopting what is thus practised in England by the funda- 
 mental principle of your Society, whose sole object, it is 
 declared, is to promote the circulation of the Holy Scrip- 
 tures, without note or comment. The English Bible too 
 is distinguished from the Apocrypha which accompanies it, 
 ‘while, notwithstanding that the latter forms a part of your 
 book, you solemnly, earnestly, and repeatedly profess, both 
 in your regulations and reports, that you circulate no- 
 thing but “ the Bible’"—* the Oracles of God”—* the 
 Divine Word ;”—that you ‘‘ confine yourselves with rigor- 
 ous exactness to the dissemination of the Holy Scriptures.” 
 Here then, if your professions are toybe depended on, you 
 actually maintain that the Apoerypha 1s a part of the Bible, 
 without which it would be incomplete. If, in fact, how- 
 ever, you do not believe it to be so, you stand self-con- 
 demned as acting unfairly, and you are ti with 
 adding to the words of God. 
 
 By your present practice you ate doing all in your 
 power to foster and perpetuate a very pernicious error 
 widely diffused in the Greek church, and among Roman 
 Catholics, and with which the Protestants on the Conti- 
 nent are deeply imbued. But, if you will continue to add 
 the Apocrypha to the Bible, do it avowedly ; declare it in 
 your reports, and change the name of your Society and its 
 regulations. Let the fact as it really exists be no longer 
 concealed, or rather expressly denied by you. In this way 
 you will act honestly—you will deal fairly with your sub- 
 scribers, whose money you are at present employing in a 
 way of which many of them are little aware.. For impli- 
 citly confiding in your professions, they have no suspicion 
 of what you are actually doing. Much less mischief, too, 
 will then result from your practice than from giving, as 
 at present, the strongest sanction in your power to the 
 ‘supposed divine authority of the Apocryphal books. 
 
 Consider the influence which this sanction of yours to 
 ‘the Apocrypha, as constituting a part of the Bible, must 
 
19 
 
 have on the Continent; On the other hand, had you ad- 
 hered to your own rules and repeated declarations, much 
 would have been done by this time to counteract the error 
 of the Roman Catholics and others, who, as was stated in 
 your hearing, bona fide regard the Apocrypha as a part of 
 the Bible. But, instead of this, taking it for granted that 
 you could not succeed by any other means in the circula- 
 tion of the Scriptures, you have yielded to the principle of 
 doing evil, that good may come. From what I have witness- 
 ed abroad, however, I am well convinced that, if you had 
 acted as you profess to do, your success would have been 
 very little, if at all, short of what it has been, Much time, 
 as Mr Chabrand told you, would have betn gained_ in pre- 
 paring editions of the Scriptures. Much money, as he 
 likewise observed, would have been saved ; and surely the 
 getting rid of so enormous an expenditure as the printing 
 of all the copies of the Apocrypha that you have produced, 
 must be a matter of no trifling consideration to those who, 
 to use your own language, (last report, p. 89, 90,) find 
 that * the demands upon their generosity, and even their 
 justice, very greatly exceed all the means which have been 
 or which still are at their disposal.” And who “regard it 
 as an important branch of their general administration to 
 economize the resources consigned to their disposal.” Had 
 you conscientiously adhered to your own declarations, that 
 it was the word of God alone which you came to dissemi- 
 nate, multitudes everywhere would have been found ready 
 to accept of your gift; and if in any instances it had. been 
 refused, because you withheld something which those to 
 whom you offered it were accustomed to revere, still the 
 principle you acted on would have been respected, and its 
 soundness acknowledged. On similar grounds to those on 
 which you have yielded this point, and added the Apocry- 
 pha to the Bible—still affirming that you are circulating 
 only the Bible—you might add Ostervald’s notes to all 
 your Protestant versions; for this was much desired by 
 many of the Protestant Churches in France. when_ tlic 
 
20 
 
 Montauban Bible was printed: and, because it was tiot 
 conceded, the first Protestant pastor in that place, the 
 President of the Consistory, refused to join the Bible So- 
 ciety there. In the same way, too, as you yourself observ- 
 ed, the Society might subjoin to the Bible some of our 
 books of piety ; many of which are far more conformed to 
 the Holy Scriptures than those of the Apocrypha. 
 
 A deliberate intention of misrepresentation in your fe- 
 ports is by no means to be suspected, nor that you have 
 annually published your regulations to mislead your sub- 
 scribers. On the contrary, I am persuaded that you have 
 not attended to the force and full import of your declara- 
 tions, while the intention in what you have done has been 
 good, and the practice inconsiderately admitted. But I am 
 equally convinced, that now, since your attention has been 
 directed to this matter, you must, in fair dealing, abandon 
 that practice. You must, I repeat it, either alter your 
 rules and reports, and the designation of your Society, or, 
 bona jide, adhere to your explicit declaration that you are 
 an Institution which confines itself with rigorous emactness 
 to the dissemination of the Holy Scriptures. 
 
 The evil of adding to the word of God, agaist which 
 there are such repeated and solemn warnings in that word, 
 is very great, and cannot be justified by any argument of 
 expediency or prospect of beneficial result. If persevered 
 in, it will be attended with ruinous consequences to the 
 Society. A very general secession of Auxiliary Societies 
 and subscribers will take place. In Scotland, I doubt not, 
 it will be universal. I trust this evil will soon be done 
 away. You may turn to your monthly extracts, Nos. 7 
 and 10, 1818, in which you will find an example of a re- 
 solution being rescinded, owing to a representation that 
 was made against it.” 
 
 In the above letter reference is made to a prior com- 
 munication of the Edinburgh Bible Society respecting the 
 Apocrypha. The Authors of the Cambridge Remarks assert 
 
21 
 
 that, ‘in the million and a half of Bibles, which it, (the 
 British and Foreign Bible Society,) has distributed, in 
 Great Britain, there has never been a thought of insertmg 
 the Apocrypha.” That, on this point, they Thtive been mis- 
 informed, will appear from the following minutes of the 
 Edinburgh Bible Committee :— 
 
 Extract from the Minutes of the Edinburgh Bible Society, 
 15th December 181'7. 
 
 ‘** Mr Anderson, (one of the secretaries,) stated, that the 
 * had received two Bibles from the British and Foreign 
 ‘ Bible Society, containing the Apocrypha. The meeting 
 ‘ considered this a great deviation from the original sim- 
 ‘ plicity of the principle on which the Society was formed, 
 ‘ and on the faith of a strict adherence to which this So- 
 ‘ ciety connected itself with the parent establishment. The 
 ‘ Secretary (Mr Anderson) was, in consequence, instructed 
 ‘to procure an explanation of this occurrence from the 
 
 ‘ Society in London.” 
 
 19th January 1818. 
 
 “Mr Anderson informed the meeting that he had had 
 ‘ no occasion to correspond any more with the British and 
 ‘Foreign Bible Society, regarding their circulating the 
 ‘ Apocrypha along with the Bible, in consequence ap his 
 ‘ having received a letter on the subject from that Society, 
 ‘ wherein he is informed, ‘ that, on reconsideration, the 
 « Committee had determined to leave out the Apocrypha, 
 & Index, and translator's preface.’ This reconsideration 
 « was said to be in consequence of a former note from Mr 
 
 ‘ Anderson.” 
 
 These minutes prove the uniform and consistent view 
 which the Edinburgh Bible Society has all along taken of 
 the addition of the Apocrypha to the Bible. The follow- 
 ing extracts from their minutes equally evince their decided 
 
 Cc 
 
22 
 
 opposition te any deviation whatever from the fundamental 
 law of the British and Foreign Bible Society, which, as 
 they express it, is as clear and definite as the English 
 language can make it.” 
 
 16th March 1818. 
 
 «< Mr Noel being called to the chair, and the minutes of 
 * last meeting being read, the Directors turned their atten- 
 ‘tion to the monthly intelligence of the British and Foreign 
 ‘ Bible Society. Among other extracts from No. VII. just 
 * received, and now first presented to the Directors, there 
 ‘ was read, by the Secretary, one, of which the following 
 * is a copy: 
 
 ‘+ Queries recently proposed by the Rev. William Milne, now employed, in 
 ‘¢ conjunction with the Rev. Robert Morrison, D.D,, in translating the Serip- 
 ‘¢ tures into Chinese at Malacca, and the determination of the Committee res- 
 “ pecting them. What is the real import and utmost extent of the Society’s 
 “< motto, ‘ Without note or comment ?” 
 
 The following is the answer of the Committee of the British 
 
 and Foreign Bible Society, to various queries put to it by 
 Mr Milne:— 
 
 ** The Committee having taken the above inquiries into consideration, — 
 “¢ Unanimously resolved, that, it being the object of the British and Foreign 
 “ Bible Society to restrict itself to the circulation of the Holy Scriptures, the 
 ‘¢ terms in which the restriction is expressed, (viz. ‘ Without Note or Com- 
 ‘ ment,’) must be construed to exclude from the copies circulated by the So- 
 ** ciety every species of matter but what may be deemed necessary to render 
 ‘* the version of the sacred original intelligible and perspicuous. The latter 
 ““ appearing to be the sole and exclusive design of the queries proposed by the 
 ‘* Rev. Mr Milne, nothing contained in them ean be considered as precluded 
 *¢ by the prohibition of Note and Comment. 
 
 ‘* While the Committee give this opinion, and express their high approba- 
 “¢ tion of the conduct of Mr Milne, they recommended to his attention, and 
 ** that of translators in general, the English version, with marginal renders 
 ‘* ings and references, as affording a correct example of that sort and degree 
 ‘* of explanation which it may be permitted to introduce into those copies of 
 
23, 
 
 * the Bible which answer to the Society’s definition and a a iy of their 
 ‘* being without Note or Comment.’’ 
 Extracted from the Minutes, 
 
 Joun OWEN, 
 JosEpH HUGHES, Secretaries. 
 C. F, A, STEINKOFFF, 
 
 ‘ The meeting having taken these queries and the official 
 ‘ reply to them into their most serious consideration, can- 
 ‘not refrain from expressing on this, the earliest opportu- 
 ‘nity, their wnanimous opinion. Various gentlemen hav- 
 ‘ ing declared their sentiments at length, it was then 
 
 «* Resolved unanimously,— 
 
 ‘1. That the above resolution, extracted from the 
 ‘minutes of the Parent Society, dated February 1818, 
 ‘contains expressions which involve a most serious and 
 ‘ alarming departure from the original and sole object of 
 ‘the Bible Society, and particularly from the spirit and 
 ‘ literal meaning of the laws of the institution just quoted ; 
 ‘ and, therefore, it is requested that, as the Committee value 
 ‘ the prosperity, the harmony, and even the existence of the 
 ‘ Institution, they will take the subject into their immediate 
 ‘ consideration, and communicate the result to this Com- 
 * mittee.” 
 
 “¢ Reasons for the last Resolution. 
 
 « Because the terms, ‘ without Note or Comment,’ are 
 ‘ absolute, and cannot be construed to admit of any addi- 
 ‘ tion whatever to the authorised version; that is, the text 
 ‘ of the sacred original. In every instance the explanation 
 * given must of necessity obscure the meaning of the So- 
 ‘ ciety’s fundamental law, which, as it stands, is as clear 
 ‘ and definite as the English language can make it. 
 
 “2, Because the resolution contains these expressions, 
 * without Note or Comment, must be construed to exclude 
 “from the copies circulated by the Society every species of 
 ** matter but what may be deemed necessary to render the 
 
24 
 
 ‘¢ version of the sacred original intelligible and perspicu- 
 *‘ ous,” which, in reality, constitutes the single solitary 
 ‘ translator, all over the world, the absolute and final judge 
 ‘of a “sort and degree of explanation” which, according 
 ‘ to the Society’s fundamental regulation and constitution, 
 ‘is unlawful. 
 
 20th April 1818. 
 ‘ The meeting, aware that the prosperity of the institu- 
 ‘ tion depends essentially upon a rigid adherence to the ori- 
 ‘ginal and fundamental laws of the Society ; and being 
 © satisfied that deviations from first principles are easiest 
 ‘ corrected at their commencement, appointed the following 
 « gentlemen as a sub-committee to investigate into an al- 
 ‘leged departure from the Society’s regulations by the 
 ‘ parent Institution; and to lay the result before the com- 
 ‘ mittee at a subsequent meeting, viz. Rev. Mr Dickson, 
 * Mr Noel, Mr Ross, the Secretaries and sub-Treasurer. 
 ‘ The departure from the original laws of the Society al- 
 ‘ luded to is the publishing of the Scriptures with marginal 
 ‘ references and copious mtroductions to chapters. 
 
 15th June 1818. 
 
 ‘ The Secretary, Mr Anderson, then read to the meet- 
 ‘ing an extract from the Minutes of the parent establish- 
 ‘ment, contained in No. 10. of their monthly sheet of in- 
 ‘telligence, from which the meeting were happy to learn 
 ‘that, in consequence of representations from this and 
 ‘ other societies, they have rescinded their resolutions in 
 ‘answer to Mr Milne’s queries of 19th January last, con- 
 ‘ tained in No. ‘7. of the intelligence sheet.’ 
 
 The following is the Resolution of the Committee ge the 
 British and Foreign Bible Society, dated May 4 ,1818. 
 
 “¢ The committee think it their duty to state, for the informlatien of the 
 ‘¢ members of the British and Foreign Bible Society, that they have received 
 “¢ representations from some zealous and respected friends of the Institution, 
 
25 
 
 “ objecting to the resolution which they adopted on the 19th of January last, 
 + in answer to the queries submitted to them by the Rev. William Milne, re- 
 “ ative to his proposed translation of the Scriptures into the Chinese language, 
 ‘¢ and which resolution was published in No. 7. of the Monthly Extracts of 
 ‘* Correspondence. 
 
 «< The committee cannot but regret that the terms in which that resolution 
 “ was expressed should have been deemed liable to any exception. As this, 
 “ however, is the case, the committee have not hesitated to show their defer- 
 *¢ ence to the opinions of their highly-respected correspondents, by rescinding 
 « the resolution in question ; and the same is hereby accordingly rescinded.” 
 
 Extracted from the Minutes, 
 
 Joun OwEN, 
 JosEPH HUGHES, Secretaries. 
 C. F. A. STEINKOPFF, 
 
 The foregoing documents show that the “ Statement,” 
 lately published by the Edinburgh Bible Society, has 
 not appeared in consequence of opinions hastily formed. 
 Bat, if the question be asked, why, since they held these 
 opinions, did they not remonstrate sooner against the prac- 
 tice of the British and Foreign Bible Society respecting 
 the Apocrypha ?—it is answered, that they were not 
 aware of it. Those in Scotland who were acquainted 
 with that practice, never, till last winter, brought the 
 matter before the Edinburgh Committee, being always in 
 expectation that it would at length be abandoned with- 
 out the necessity of a public discussion. There was the 
 more reason to hope for this, because some highly re- 
 spectable members of the Bible Society in London were 
 endeavouring to put a stop to it. But, at length, when 
 all prospect of their success appeared to be at an end, 
 and when there was reason to apprehend that a com- 
 promise, such as that contained in the resolutions of the 
 Bible Society of August 19, 1822, and December 20, 
 1824, would be permanently acquiesced in, so. that the 
 addition of the Apocrypha would be continued in an 
 indirect manner, the matter was then brought before the 
 Edinburgh Committee. .The Committee immediately 
 entered into correspondence with the British and Foreign’ 
 
26 
 
 Bible Society, and, on the 17th of January last, they 
 passed those resolutions which appear in their Statement. 
 Through the winter they continued their correspondence 
 with the London Society, and their Statement was not 
 published till the 18th of May, when their reiterated re- 
 monstrances had failed to make any impression. 
 
 An account of the vacillating conduct of the Directors 
 of the British and Foreign Bible Society since the date 
 of the above letter, (October 6, 1821,) may be seen in the 
 Edinburgh Statement. In consequence of that publication, 
 some friends to the circulation of the Apocrypha have come 
 boldly forward to vindicate the conduct of the Directors, 
 and to encourage them to persevere in the same course as 
 formerly ; calling upon them not to yield “* one inch” to 
 those who oppose themselves to this addition to the Bible, 
 even in the most objectionable form. Among these the 
 Rev. C. Simeon of Cambridge has appeared in the fore- 
 most rank, and with the most decided resolution. © 
 
 CHAPTER II. é 
 
 ANSWER TO MR. SIMEON. 
 
 RULES OF THE BIBLE SOCIETY.—CIRCUMCISION OF 
 TIMOTHY.——-MEATS OFFERED TO IDOLS. 
 
 Mr Stmeon’s letter, recently published, is entitled, A 
 Vindication of the Proceedings of the British and Foreign 
 Bible Society, against the Statement of the Edinburgh 
 Bible Society, relative to the circulation of the Apocrypha. 
 In animadverting on this statement, Mr Simeon observes, 
 that the grounds on which the authors of it profess to act, 
 
27 
 
 are two :—- 1st, That the British and Foreign Bible So- 
 * ciety, as long as they shall, directly or indirectly, contri- 
 ‘ bute in any degree to the circulation of the Apocrypha, 
 ‘ are guilty of violating the fundamental principle on which 
 ‘ the Society was at first formed: And 2dly, That in con- 
 ‘ tributing, directly or indirectly, to such an object, they 
 ‘ actually sin against God.” 
 
 Mr Simeon then quotes the fundamental rules of the 
 Bible Society, which, he says, ‘ stand thus :— 
 
 “¢ 1. The designation of this Society shall be, THE BRITISH AND FO- 
 «‘ REIGN BIBLE SOCIETY, of which the sole object shall be to encourage a 
 ‘¢ wider circulation of the Holy Scriptures, without note or comment. The 
 “ only copies, in the languages of the United Kingdom, to be circulated by the 
 &¢ Society, shall be the authorised version.”’ 
 
 “<2. This Society shall add its endeavours to those employed by other so- 
 *¢ cieties, for circulating the Scriptures through the British dominions; and 
 s¢ shall also, according to its ability, extend its influence to other countries, 
 *¢ Christian, Mahometan, or Pagan.” 
 
 “ Now, in these rules,” says Mr Simeon, ‘‘ there is nothing about the 
 *¢ Apocrypha, nothing in empress terms, either for the admission or rejection 
 £6 of if.” 
 
 ‘¢ But is there nothing in ¢he spirit of the rules to show what was the mind 
 *< and spirit of those who formed them ?” 
 
 In order to answer this question in a way satisfactory to 
 himself, Mr Simeon proceeds as follows :— 
 
 « In the former of the two rules, it is said, ‘ The only copies, in the 
 * languages of the United Kingdom, to be circulated by the Society, shall be 
 “« the authorised version.” This shows, that there was no intention to make 
 * our authorised version a standard for the whole world. On the contrary, 
 © the fair inference is, that a similar deference should be paid to the authorised 
 “ versions in every country ; (without considering whether they accord with 
 ‘ ours or not) that so all jealousies might be avoided, and a greater facility 
 ¢ might be given to the circulation of them.” 
 
 “¢ In the second rule, it is said, ‘ This society shall add its endeavours 
 %¢to those employed by other societies, for circulating the Scriptures 
 “¢ through the British dominions.’ Now, the Society which circulates ten 
 ‘times more Bibles than all the other societies in the kingdom together, 
 ‘is THE SOCIETY FOR PROMOTING CHRISTIAN KNOWLEDGE; which 
 
28 
 
 “ society does often print and circulate the Apocrypha, as well as the canoni- 
 $ cal books of Scripture, So that here, so far from there being any pro- 
 ‘test against the Apocrypha, there is, on the part of the British and Fo- 
 ‘reign Bible Society, an express avowal of a readiness to * add its endea- 
 ‘¢ yours’ to those of that other society notwithstanding it circulated the Apo- 
 * erypha.” 
 ‘© Again: the rule says, ‘* This society shall also, according to its abi- 
 “ lity, extend its influence to other countries, whether Christian, Maho- 
 _‘metan, or Pagan.”——But of ‘* Christian” communities, the great mass 
 “actually circulate the Apocrypha: So that, if it was intended to proscribe 
 ‘ all concurrence with them, the rule was a nullity and a falsehood. This, 
 ‘then, is a further proof, that, whatever opinion the framers of that rule 
 ‘ might individually entertain respecting the Apocrypha, there was in them, 
 © collectively, no desire to interfere with other churches in relation to it.” 
 “¢ To all this it may be replied, that the rules refer to * the Holy Scrip- 
 “ tures ;’ and to them ‘ without note or comment.’ To this I answer: They 
 ‘ did refer to the Holy Scriptures, because it was the Holy Scriptures alone 
 ‘ that the founders of the Society wished to circulate. But they did not take 
 * upon themselves to determine what books were canonical, and what were not. 
 * As far as the British dominions, and an English version, went, the author- 
 * ised version was to be the standard : but, with respect , to other countries and 
 * other languages, no standard was fixed ; or, if any bias was shown, it was in 
 ‘ favour of authorised versions, so far as they could be employed, all the world 
 
 * over.”” 
 
 In Mr Simeon’s attempt to prove that the practice of 
 adding the Apocrypha to the Bible is consistent with the 
 rules of the Bible Society, there is an utter failure; and in 
 the whole of his observations on this part of the subject, 
 there appears more of an evasive subtlety, than of that 
 godly sincerity which might have been expected from the 
 author. 
 
 Mr Simeon tells us there is nothing in the above rules 
 in express terms about the Apocrypha. Nor is there any 
 thing in express terms about the Koran; but there is, in 
 express terms, what excludes the Apocrypha as clearly 
 as it does the Koran. If the sole object of the Bible 
 Society be to circulate the Holy Scriptures, then the 
 Apocrypha is excluded, for it is no part of the Holy. 
 Scriptures in the estimation of those who compose that 
 
29 
 
 Society. The observations:on this pomt in the: Statement 
 of the Edinburgh Bible Society, are not only unanswered, 
 but unassailed by Mr Simeon. ‘The Apocryphal books, : 
 whether bound up or not with the Bible, are never in Bri- 
 tain called or considered any part of the Bible or Holy 
 Scriptures. If any of the early Protestants gave them this 
 appellation, it was a fundamental error; and, at all events, 
 no such name is ever given them in this country by ‘Pro- 
 testants of any denomination. . 
 
 The limitation, without note or comment, also excludes 
 the Apocrypha... It is true the Apocrypha is neither 
 a note nor a comment; but the same reason that for- 
 bids notes and comments, will much more forbid forged 
 books to be added to the Bible. If the Bible Society 
 bound up its own, hands in order to secure unanimity, so 
 that it cannot give) the simplest explanation of a difficult 
 passage in any valuable note or comment in which all 
 might agree, then: it.is evident that the spurious addition 
 of forgeries is much less allowable. Would it not be strange 
 that the most useful and generally approved notes should 
 be prohibited, to prevent» disputes, while books might be 
 added with the nian of all, which all believe to be 
 spurious? | 
 
 Mr Simeon’s aN from slattiitoedd versions is un- 
 fair: it confounds two different things,—1st,. The objec- 
 tion’ to the» Apocrypha: does: not suppose an attempt to 
 make our version a standard for the whole world. 'The 
 dispute is not about translations of the true books of 
 Scripture; but about additional forged books. 2dly, This 
 language does'not.imply that a similar deference should be 
 paid to authorised translations in every country. All sects 
 here agree in the general excellence of our common. trans- 
 lation. It does not follow from this, that they think as 
 highly of the common translation of every country. Buta 
 version, or translation, of the Bible, good or bad, contains 
 nothing besides the Bible,—while the Apocrypha is not the . 
 Bible, nor any part of it. 
 
 D 
 
30 
 
 Equally unfair is the inference from the words, shall add 
 its endeavours, &c. This does not imply a readiness to do 
 every thing that is done by the Society for Promoting Chris- 
 tian Knowledge, but only to add its endeavours to cireulate 
 the Scriptures, of which the Apocrypha is no part, although 
 it may be circulated by that Society along with the Scrip- 
 tures. Though that Society may circulate prayer-books 
 with the Bible, such a declaration does not imply that the 
 Bible Society meant to circulate prayer-books. 
 
 Altogether unfounded is Mr Simeon’s reasoning sccm 
 the words, ‘‘ extend its influence to other. countries whe- 
 “‘ ther Christian, Mahometan, or Pagan.” ‘This does not 
 intimate an intention of circulating any thing but the 
 Seriptures; and the Bible Society no more pledged itself 
 to extend its influence to circulate the Apocrypha in Chris. 
 tian countries, than it did to circulate the Koran in Ma- 
 hometan countries. What is it to the purpose that the 
 great mass of Christian communities circulate the Apocry- 
 pha? This rule does not bind the Society to act like the 
 great mass of Christian communities. Neither does a pur- 
 pose to circulate nothing but the Bible, make it either a 
 nullity or a falsehood ; nor, in effect, has it been found to 
 be so. The Society has been enabled to realize, to a very 
 considerable extent, the object of this regulation, in the 
 circulation of New Testaments. Mr Simeon at length ad- 
 mits, that the rules of the Society refer to the Holy Scrip- 
 ture, and that it was dhe Holy Scripture alone which the 
 founders of the Suciety wished to circulate. But he en- 
 deavours to show that, in regard to what constitutes the 
 Holy Scriptures, it was the duty of the Society to accommo- 
 date its views to the opinions of any church with which it 
 might co-operate. He had been labouring to stretch the 
 meaning: of the rules of the Society so as to include the 
 Apocrypha; now he makes a bolder thrust, and affirms, 
 that, with respect to foreign countries, no standard. is fixed 
 by which to determine what is Scripture. 
 
 ‘«‘ They did not,” Mr Simeon says, ‘ take upon them- 
 
$1 
 
 selves to determine what books were canonical and what 
 were not,” A most extraordinary position. The Bible So- 
 ciety earnestly, and repeatedly declaring to the world, that 
 its sole object is to circulate the Holy Scriptures, does not 
 take upon itself to determine what constitutes the Holy 
 Scriptures! Did ever a Society come forward to proclaim 
 such an absurdity? ‘ Being a Bible Society, our sole ob- 
 ject is to circulate the Bible, but we do not take upon us 
 to determine what forms the Bible.” A Bible Society ne- 
 cessarily must hold something as forming the Bible; and 
 it has always been the understanding of the British and 
 Foreign Bible Society, as well as of its supporters, that 
 those books form the Bible which the different denomina+ 
 tions of Christians in this country esteem to be the Bible, 
 and which are contained in the authorised version. When 
 the Bible Society declared, by its rules, that its sole object 
 was to encourage a wider circulation of the Holy Scrip- 
 tures, it distinctly referred to that book which those, on 
 whom it called for support, esteemed to be the Holy Scrip- 
 tures; and, by pledging itself to circulate the Scriptures 
 only, it expressly excluded every thing else. 
 
 * Whether foreign churches,” adds Mr Simeon, “ admitted fewer books 
 © to their canoh of Scripture, or more, was not with them (the Society) any 
 ‘ question at all; they had nothing to do with it, Every church must deters 
 ‘ mine that for itself; and on it alone would rest the responsibility of forming 
 ‘an erroneous or a correct judgment. If any church either added to the 
 ¢ Scripture, or took from it, it was their concern, and not the concern of this 
 ‘ Society ; whe aré no more responsible for the books comprehended by this 
 © or that church, in theif canon of Scripture, than they are for the correctriess 
 ‘ of the versions that are in use among them.” 
 
 Has Mr Simeon any conviction of the authenticity of the 
 canon of Scripture received in this country? Has he 
 any fixed opinion upon the subject ? The simple repetition 
 of his former statements is a sufficient refutation of them ; 
 their inconclusiveness is at once apparent. But here is 
 
32 
 
 something that is indeed serious; for more extraordinary, 
 more lax, and, were it not for their obvious fallacy, more 
 dangerous assertions than those just quoted cannot be 
 imagined. The Bible Society, Mr Simeon has dared 
 to affirm, has no concern as to what books it circulates 
 under the name of the word of God. Every church, 
 he says, must determine that for itself; and on it alone 
 would rest the responsibility of forming an erroneous 
 judgment. Yes: And every man must determine for 
 himself, whether the Bible contains the true sayings of 
 God, or if it be a forgery from one end to the other: 
 But he does it at his peril; and so does every chureh 
 in determining what constitutes the Bible. And does not 
 equal responsibility attach to those who concur in this 
 judgment and carry it into effect? But, let every church 
 determine for itself, still the Bible Society is obliged 
 by its rules to give them nothing but the Bible, and that 
 must be understood of its own canon, and not of the canon 
 of other churches. 
 
 “If any church added to the Scripture, it was divin 
 concern, not the concern of this | Society.” Is it not the. 
 concern of this Society, if it lend its assistance in adding 
 to or taking from the Scriptures? What meaning does Mr 
 Simeon affix to those awful threatenings by which the 
 canon of Scripture is guarded? May we with impunity’ 
 follow a multitude to do evil? What force then would 
 there be in the reproof, ‘‘ When thou sawest a thief then. 
 thou consentedst with him, and hast been partaker with 
 adulterers?” Does a participation with others in crime: 
 diminish our guilt? and if we transgress knowingly, while 
 they do so partly in ignorance, have not we il ayer 
 sin ? 
 ‘If any church either added to the Scripture or eer from 
 it, it was their concern.’ Certainly it is their concern if 
 left to themselves to provide their Bibles; but, if we fur- 
 nish Bibles for them, it is our concern, According to Mr, 
 
33 
 
 Simeon, if a man asks poison instead of food, we may 
 innocently give it to him, as it is his own concern. . If; 
 however, his friend requested of him a dose of arsenic 
 instead of medicine, and he gave it, Mr Simeon. would 
 find that the law would make it his concern. This mode 
 of reasoning would excuse our giving to others the worst 
 book that ever was written, provided they called it the 
 Bible. Why should not the canon be enlarged so as to in- 
 clude the Koran? Why should not the Mahometan have 
 his Bible? Is it not his own concern? And if the Bible, 
 as the writers of the Cambridge Remarks argue, may do 
 good in company with the Apocrypha, it may do good in 
 company with the Koran. It is no argument to tell us, 
 that all the good done by the Bible on the Continent has 
 been effected by the Bible with the Apocrypha. The Bible 
 would do its work if bound up with the Koran; but this 
 will not excuse those who join them together. 
 
 According to Mr Simeon, the Bible Society is no more 
 responsible for the books comprehended by this or that 
 church in the canon of Scripture, although furnished to 
 them by the Society, than for the correctness of the ver- 
 sions that arein use among them. ‘+ Admitting,” says Mr 
 Gorham, ‘that, in a lower sense, there may be some defect, 
 even in inspired writings, arising from the errors of trans- 
 lations in a few words or passages, is not the avowed in- 
 terpolation of whole books of Apocryphal matter aomediinag 
 very different from imperfection ?” 
 
 “< Had the founders of the Society,” continues Mr Simeon, ‘‘ chosen to ex- 
 
 ‘ press any opinion about the Apocrypha at all, they would have been at li- 
 *berty to say, We will confine our bounty to the circulation of what we our- 
 * selves believe canonical.” 
 
 _ What they did say is as express as this. They pledged 
 themselves to the Christians. of: Britain to. circulate, the 
 Scriptures only ; and. the Scriptures, in the estimation of 
 the people of Britain, do not contain the Apocrypha. And 
 
34 
 
 here let it be observed that, on Mr Simeon’s own princi« 
 ples, the Bible Society is precluded from circulating the 
 Apocrypha among Protestants, for their canon is the same 
 as ours, and they do not aoe the Apocrypha a part we 
 the Bible. 
 
 ‘¢ But they were not at liberty,” Mr Simeon adds, “ to errect themselves 
 
 ‘ into a Society that should judge for the whole world, and dogmatize to every 
 
 ‘ people under heaven, Yet this is what the Edinburgh Committee conceive 
 
 ‘ to have been done by them ; and what that same Committee are now taking 
 
 “ upon themselves to do, and are calling upon all the members of the ‘Parent 
 * Society to unite with them in doing,” aw * 
 
 Can any thing be more disingenuous than this? Is it 
 dogmatizing to others to give them only the Scriptures ? 
 We do not require foreign churches to limit their canon; 
 we only refuse to give them any books, along with the 
 Scriptures, that do not belong to the Scriptures. Now, 
 foreign churches might accept this gift without renouncing 
 their own canon. This neither implies dictation on He 
 one hand, nor renunciation on the other. 
 
 How well might Mr Simeon’s language be andere by 
 a Mahometan or a Hindoo. What! Do you come to judge 
 for us and to dogmatize to us? You say that the book you 
 offer to us is the word of God—a revelation from heaven— 
 and that there is none other besides. Give us our Koran, 
 our Shasters—you have nothing to do with what we hold 
 to be the word of God—this is not the question with you 
 at all—we must determine this for ourselves, and on us 
 will rest the responsibility of forming an erroneous or a 
 correct judgment. If we corrupt the book of God it is 
 our concern and not the concern of your Society, which is 
 not responsible for the books it circulates, provided they 
 be received by this or that country as divinely inspired. 
 Would such language, uttered by a Mahometan or a Hin-. 
 doo, be listened to for a moment by the Bible Society? 
 But, on the principles which Mr Simeon has laid down, it 
 
35 
 
 is sound and legitimate in the one party and demands the 
 acquiescence of the other. 
 
 *¢ In support of their views,” continues Mr Simeon, “ the Edinburgh Com- 
 * mittee urge, that all the writers and speakers on the part of the British and 
 * Foreign Bible Society have gloried in this as the chief distinction of the 
 * Society,—that it published the Scriptures without note or comment. But 
 * what was meant by the original rule respecting this, and by all its advocates ? 
 * It was never intended to express any sentiment about the Apocyphis; which 
 * is neither a note nor comment.” 
 
 Nor was it intended to express any sentiment respecting 
 the Koran, which is neither a note nor a comment; but it 
 was intended to announce the fact, that the Scriptures 
 alone were to be published without any addition whatever. 
 The Apocrypha is worse than a note or a comment. Notes 
 and comments may be good—it is essentially bad. The 
 rule that excludes notes and comments from the Bible 
 much more excludes additions to the Bible. 
 
 * But is it not strange, that, when we have all agreed to merge our own pecu- 
 * liarities, and to forget every thing which separates us from one another, for the 
 * benefit of the world, we should now be called upon to withhold that same 
 * candour from the churches abroad, and actually to build a wall that shall 
 © separate us for ever from nine-tenths of our Christian brethren, and exclude 
 ‘ whole kingdoms from any participation of the benefits which we are en- 
 ‘ deayouring to bestow? The expediency of such conduct is not the present 
 * question. The question is, was such conduct contemplated and enjoined by 
 * the founders of this Society? If it was not so contemplated and enjoined, 
 * then the first argument used by the Edinburgh Committee falls to the 
 * ground: and the Parent Society ought to be upheld in the exercise of that 
 * Christian candour which has hitherto regulated their proceedings.’ 
 
 How have we agreed to merge our peculiarities? Not 
 by publishing a Bible not acknowledged by any part of us, 
 but by excluding from the Bible every human addition. 
 Now this ground is abandoned as soon as the Apocrypha 
 is added. Why does not the Bible Society publish the 
 
36 
 
 Manual along with the Bible? ‘Why does it not publish 
 the Common Prayer Book? Why»does it not ‘publish the 
 Westminster Confession? - These »would: not: be notes or 
 comments more than the’ ApocryphasIf»it besaidyithis 
 would ereate jealousy and ‘opposition, will ‘notthe'Apocry~ 
 pha do the same? “But why should we now be called upon’ 
 to withhold the same candour from the churches abroad 2”) 
 Is less: granted to foreign churches than/to: any iehurch:in: 
 Britain ? Is any thing published by the Society out*of com-' 
 plaisance to any one church in Britian of which the rest’ 
 disapprove? No evidence can be more complete: than that) 
 the constitution of the Bible ape: forbids the “Apo+ 
 crypha* Hddig Dead a ekep? baw 
 
 In agreeing to publish the Scriptures: onishoutlinataioes 
 comment, no Christian denomination) in this/country gave’ 
 up any thing’ that they considered to bematter of dutys: 
 But how different is this from agreeing to become partakers: 
 of other men’s sins in adulterating the Bible by. ‘a spurious. 
 addition such as that of the Apocrypha, which so many” 
 consider to be wrong. Yet Mr Sjmeon speaks as if this’ 
 would only be the exercise of the same eandour which) led” 
 them to agiée’in what’ail of them believed 'to be right? “"The® 
 simple statement of such an idea sufficiently “exposes ‘the 
 incoherence of Mr Simeon’s reasoning; yet, in the midst of | 
 this confusion, he is heard proclaiming ‘his \supposed:triz” 
 umph, and announcing that “ the first argument offered by” 
 the Edinburgh Committee falls to the ground.” )* pinereirla get 
 
 TOG SS NT bate 
 
 ET Je 
 * The following declaration was made by the Directors of the Bik e Societ y 
 
 August 19, 1822:—“ Resolved, That, when grants shall be made to an: 
 
 the Bible Societies in connexion with this institution, which are Ee tn 
 to circulate the Apocrypha, it be stated to such Societies, that the attention ofthe , 
 Committee having been called to the fundamental rule of ‘the Society, as limi 
 ting the application of its funds to the circulation of the Holy. Scriptures, and 
 it appearing that this view of the said rule having been taken, from we begin. 
 ning, by the great body of its members,” &c, 
 
37 
 
 Mr Simeon’s tiianner of treating the whole of this sub- 
 ject, respecting the rules of the Bible Society, tends to 
 unsettle every thing that relates to the authenticity of the 
 Scriptures. He speaks as if there was nothing certain on 
 this point, and as if every one were at liberty to acknow- 
 ledge, as canonical, only what part of Scripture he chose ; 
 to make any additions to the Divine Word, and even to 
 assist others in circulating, as a part of that word, writings 
 which he knows to be spurious and of human invention. 
 But, if the authenticity of the books which we receive, as 
 given by inspiration of God, be a matter of the highest 
 concern to Christians, is it to be thus lightly surrendered, 
 and treated as adoubtful point ? and shall we be induced to 
 believe, that not only a variety of opinions concerning it may 
 be innocently entertained, but that we may lawfully join 
 in making additions, suggested by ignorance or wicked- 
 ness, to that word which we consider as divine? Is it not 
 a bold imputation on the watchful care of the good Shep- 
 herd over his flock, to pretend that he has left them with- 
 out a certain rule whereby they may ascertain what he 
 would have them todo? ‘ My sheep,” says he, ‘ hear 
 my voice ;” but, unless they know where his word is to be 
 found, how can they listen to his voice, or distinguish it 
 from the voice of a stranger? 'Tospeak, therefore, of those 
 Scriptures which he has delivered to his church, and stamped. 
 with his authority, as if there was any uncertainty respect~ 
 ing them; or that they may be altered or added to, or in 
 any way tampered with, without incurring the deepest 
 guilt, is both highly criminal in itself, and leads to the 
 most pernicious consequences. 
 
 According to Mr Simeon’s argument, it follows that, as 
 all men must judge for themselves, respecting every doctrine 
 contained in the Sacred Volume, so we are at liberty to 
 join with others in whatever conclusions they may form of 
 those doctrines, and to act with them accordingly. On 
 this ground the Arian, or the Socinian, may claim our co- 
 
 E 
 
88 
 
 operation. If we send Missionaries to preach the, Gos- 
 pel, we must enjoin them to preach it in Protestant -coun- 
 tries, as it is generally received in such countries; and 
 in Roman Catholic countries, according to the Roman 
 Catholic system. In the one, they must teach the worship 
 of God alone, through the mediation of the Saviour; im 
 the other, the invocation of the Virgin Mary, and the in- 
 tercession of Saints. In the one, justification by faith; im 
 the other, justification by works. Among Arians, they 
 must preach Arianism, and among Socinians, Socinian- 
 ism, according to the corruptions of their respective sys- 
 tems. And all this may be done with perfect safety ; for 
 in every country the people must determine for them. 
 selves what is truth and what is error,;—upon them, alone 
 rests the responsibility of forming an erroneous or a cor- 
 rect judgment concerning the gospel. If they add to, it, 
 it is their concern, not ours—this is not with us any ques- 
 tion at all—we have nothing to do with it. All this too 
 must be practised by us, in order to escape the accusation 
 of erecting ourselves into a Society which judges, for the 
 whole world, and dogmatizes to every people under. hea- 
 ven. ‘To such lengths are we conducted by the principles, 
 in regard to the canon of Scripture, which Mr Simeon 
 lays down as indubitable; for, if we are at liberty to cir- 
 culate an adulterated Bible, it must be lawful os — 
 corrupted gospel. tows 
 
 It is said that Mr Simeon has propedal a two, reac 
 rate funds shall be established by the Bible Society; the 
 one for the publication of the canonical books, the other 
 for the publication of the Apocrypha »along with them. 
 Why then may he not also recommend the, appropriation 
 of a third fund, for the addition of the Koran; and a 
 fourth for that of the Shasters, supported by the same ar- 
 gument—that this Society has pledged itself that, accor- 
 ding to its ability, it will extend its influence to, other 
 
39 
 
 countries, whether Christian, Mahometan, or Pagan ; and, 
 unless it acts in the above manner, this bstict is a nullity 
 and a falsehood. 
 
 But, whatever meaning Mr Simeon may impose on the 
 rules of the Bible Society, still it must be admitted that, 
 if they do indeed bear his interpretation, and allow the 
 publication of the Apocrypha as a part of the Bible, they 
 have been, constructed in such a manner as to deceive the 
 supporters of that Institution, I have never met with a 
 single individual in this country who was aware of the fact, 
 that the practice of the Society was to print the Apocry- 
 pha, on the Continent, along with the Bible. The sup- 
 porters of the Society. believed that their subscription- 
 money was employed in the publication of the Bible alone. 
 Both the designation and the rules of the British and 
 Foreign Bisie Society, precluded the smallest suspicion 
 that the fact was otherwise. Had it been possible to have 
 entertained a doubt on the subject, the precise and uni- 
 form language of the Society’s annual reports must. at 
 once have dissipated it. So explicit on this pomt were 
 the rules and reports, that they not only misled its sub- 
 seribers in every part of the country, but even one, it has 
 been reported, who holds the highest. official situation m 
 the Society itself. 
 
 If, then, it were conceded to Mr Simeon, that, in the 
 rules of the Society, there is nothing in express terms for 
 the rejection of the Apocrypha, and that there is some- 
 thing in their spirit which shows, that the mind and spirit 
 of those who formed them were favourable to its admis- 
 sion; yet, as they convey no such meaning, either in their 
 letter or spirit, to the bulk cf mankind, to persons either 
 in inferior or elevated situations, the principles of fair 
 dealing demand that, if the Society shall persevere in its 
 present course, and resolve not to ‘ yield one inch,” as Mr 
 Simeon counsels, its name, its rules, and the language of 
 its reports shall all be changed. 
 
40 
 
 The first rule may run thus—“ The designation of this 
 Society shall be the British and Foreign Bible and Apo- 
 crypha Society ; of which the sole object shall be to en- 
 courage a wider circulation of the Holy Scriptures with- 
 out note or comment, but with the addition of the Apo- 
 crypha, wherever it is commonly received.” "The lan- 
 guage of the reports must also be in so far reversed as 
 henceforth to declare that, ‘‘ This is a Society which does 
 not confine itself with rigorous exactness to the dissemi- 
 nation of the Holy Scriptures, as they are received by 
 Christians of different denominations inthis country; who 
 have all resolved to merge their peculiarities so’as to’agree . 
 in publishing, as the Bible, whatever shall: be considered 
 to be the Bible, whether in Christian, Mahometan, or Pa= 
 gan countries: to all of which it has pledged itself to’ ex- 
 tend its influence. Without acting in this manner, it 
 might well be accused of erecting itself into a Society 
 which judged the whole world, and dogmatized to every” 
 people under heaven: and the above: pledge would be a 
 nullity and a falsehood. For, whether foreign churches 
 admit fewer books into their canon of Scripture, or more, 
 is not the question with the Society atvall. It has nothing 
 to do with it. Every church must. determine that for it~ 
 self, and on it alone the responsibility rests.’ If any church 
 either adds to the Scripture or takes from it, that is their 
 concern; not the Society’s. On these grounds this Society 
 holds, itself justified in publishing whatever books any 
 church in the world chooses to designate‘as the Holy Scrip- 
 tures, although the Society should be fully convinced that 
 they form no part of the Sacred Canon.” When these 
 corrections in the rules and reports of the ‘British and 
 Foreign Bible, Society have appeared, it | will not; we'be- 
 lieve,, require. the addition of either note or comment to 
 persuade the great body of; its supporters to transfer their 
 subscriptions, for. the wider: circulation of: the Holy Scrip- 
 tures, to some other association for that purpose, 
 
4) 
 
 We have seen in what way Mr Simeon has endeavour- 
 ed to dispose! of the first objection of the Edinburgh Bible 
 Society. We shall now attend to his manner of meeting 
 the second. 
 
 “<I nowy come,” says Mr Simeon, ‘‘to the second objection which the 
 Se. Edinburgh Committee urge against the Parent Society; namely, That if 
 ‘¢ they even assist with the Bible those who at their own cost circulate the 
 « Apocrypha, they indirectly contribute to the circulation of the Apocrypha 
 *< itself; and, in so doing, they sin against God.” 
 
 _Mr Simeon here refers to that part of the Edinburgh 
 statement, which notices two resolutions passed by the Bri- 
 tish and Foreign Bible Society ; the object of which was, 
 to enjoin the Foreign Bible Societies to apply all the money 
 transmitted from England in printing the canonical books ; 
 but leaving them at liberty to make use of their own funds 
 for printing the Apocrypha, and afterwards to bind and cir- 
 culate the whole in one volume. , To the Edinburgh Com- 
 mittee these resolutions. appeared to leave the matter just 
 as it -was before, with this difference, that! what had for- 
 merly been done avowedly and directly, would afterwards 
 be. effected in a manner indirect and concealed. <‘ The real 
 operation of these resolutions,” they observe, “is merely to 
 administer: a salvo to the consciences of objectors at home, 
 whilst abroad the evil remains precisely the same as before.” 
 
 , The justice of this remark is evident. Two funds are 
 provided. sufficient for the publication of the Bible and the 
 Apocrypha, the amount of which, let it be supposed, is 
 L.3000... Of this sum L.2500 are remitted by the British 
 and. Foreign Bible Society, and L.500 are provided by the 
 Society abroad. The first sum is:sufficient for the publica- 
 tion of the Bible, the last for the addition of the Apocrypha. 
 The money being thus obtained, the book is sent to press ; 
 and the previous stipulation, that the funds: shall be pre- 
 served. distinct from-each other, is strictly adhered to. The 
 paper and printing of the canonical books are accordingly 
 
42 
 
 paid for with the first portion of the funds, and those of 
 the Apocrypha with the last; while the result is exactly 
 the same as it was before this plan was resorted to. The 
 Bible and the Apocrypha appear together in one volume; 
 while the publisher, if questioned as to the process adcpted, 
 - may truly affirm,—‘I said unto them, whosoever hath 
 ‘ any gold, let them break it off: So they gave it me: then 
 «I cast it in the fire ; and there came out this calf.” The 
 Christian public, it is presumed, will not allow themselyes 
 to be entrapped in this manner ; and the British and Fo- 
 reign Bible Society, it is to be hoped, will not. finally be- 
 come a party to such a disingenuous compromise.* __. 
 In order to obviate the objection of the Edinburgh Bi- 
 ble Society, to contribute in any way to the circulation of 
 the Apocrypha, which, Mr Simeon says, he will meet 
 fairly, and, he trusts, ‘satisfactorily, to the minds of all 
 ‘ who make the Seriptures the standard.of their faith and 
 ‘ practice,”"—he begins by putting the following speech into 
 the mouth of “the very gentleman” who drew. up the 
 Edinburgh statement, which he supposes him to have ad- 
 dressed to the Apostle Paul on the occasion of his cireum- 
 
 rae os 
 
 * If the addition of the Apocrypha is to be made at all, it shaabi at least, 
 be done fairly and avowedly, and not in this manner, by nk Canny Convoy- 
 ance,”’ as a member of the Westminster Assembly on a certain bo sani es ex- 
 pressed himself. Pree Prieta ce 
 +¢ Ever since the votes of 19th of August 1822,” says one who deeply in- 
 terests himself in the circulation of the Scriptures on the Continent, * *s the 
 Committee has been telling the Foreign Societies, We cannot vote you money 
 to print the Apocryphal books; but we will vote you enough to print the 
 others,—and you must raise money amongst yourselves to print them,—and 
 bind them up both together. May they not, upon the same plan, vote money 
 for printing Martini’s Testament, telling the Italians to provide money for the 
 notes; and the same with the Spanish, or any other edition? _And, if their 
 conduct be proper with respect to the Apocrypha, it is clearly as proper with 
 respect to the notes; and much more so; for the one goes out under ¢ e false 
 tame of the Word of God ; whereas the other avows itself to be the work 
 
 of men,” 
 
43 
 
 cising Timothy—* What would he have said to the Apos- 
 tle?” exclaims Mr Simeon. ‘“ He would have been struck 
 ‘with horror. Paul, what are you about to do? Forbear : 
 
 © At the peril of your soul, forbear! That you mean well, 
 ‘Ido not a. but nivetogd wrong; as I will show you in 
 * a moment.” 
 
 The Edinburgh gentleman then goes on to remind the 
 Apostle, that circumcision is abolished—that, by circum- 
 cising Timothy, he would countenance the error of those 
 who supposed that it was yet in foree—that he would 
 countenance the damning error of such as blend it with 
 the gospel, as a joint ground of their hope before God— 
 and that, if he but connived at the circumcision of 'Ti- 
 mothy, much more if he was accessory to it, he would 
 commjt a damning sin; and, finally, if he persisted in this, 
 the Edinburgh gentleman would disclaim all connexion 
 with him, and do his utmost to make every one of Paul’s 
 followers renounce him too. 
 
 «« And now,” says Mr Simeon, ‘ what may we suppose 
 ‘the Apostle to reply? Methinks he would answer to 
 ‘the following effect.” A long answer by the Apostle 
 follows accordingly ; in the course of which the reader 
 is not left to infer that Paul would have approved of 
 adding the Apocrypha to the Bible; but sees it announ- 
 ced in express terms. But truly the speech of the Edin- 
 burgh gentleman appears to be a very foolish one, and, 
 —since we are given to understand that the case is clear- 
 ly determined in the Scriptures,—so arrogant and pro- 
 fane, that to many it will occasion some surprise that he 
 should presume to utter it. As to the Apostle’s reply, it is 
 not so much to be wondered at, for so many extraordinary 
 meanings have been attached to his writings, and so many 
 strange sayings have been ascribed to him, that, had he 
 foreseen the one, or heard the other, he cabin have stood 
 aghast in perfect amazement. 
 
 Among the numerous specimens which we have seen of very 
 
44 
 
 extraordinary speeches attributed to) the Apostle Paul, 
 the one before us, though last, is not the least remarkable. 
 It not only matches in folly the speech of the Edinburgh 
 gentleman, but equals it in profaneness. It goes directly 
 in the face of the threatening denounced against all who 
 shall add any thing to the word of God ; for it sttenuous- 
 ly maintains the propriety, nay, the duty, in certain eir- 
 cumstances, of adding the Apocrypha to the Bible. * Un- 
 to the Jews,” the Apostle is made to say, * I became as 
 ‘a Jew, (to the Papists as a Papist,) that I might car 
 © the Jews: to them that are under the law, as under the 
 ‘ law, (to them that require the Apocrypha, as conceding 
 ‘ the Apocrypha,) that I might carn them that are under 
 ‘ the law.” hd We hive teats 
 But what is the ground that neni to Mr Simeon:so 
 strong as to warrant his making such extraordinary su 
 positions, not to say disrespectful, to the Edinburgh pine 
 man, but highly derogatory to the character of the Apostle 
 Paul ? The whole foundation of his argument is’ this, that 
 the cases of circumcision and of the Apocrypha are parallel. 
 Of this Mr Simeon is so fully convinced, that, on the sup- 
 posed parallelism, he stakes the whole value of his argument; 
 for, after he has announced. that it is brought to’a close, 
 he adds,—<“ If any one set himself to answer it, he must 
 ‘ show; either that the parallel drawn between the Apos- 
 * tle’s conduct and that of the British and Foreign Bible 
 ‘ Society is not just; or that the Apostle both erred in his 
 * judgment, and sinned in his conduct” ts 
 Were we to adopt the latter alternative, we should be 
 guilty of blasphemy against the word of God ; but nothing 
 can be more safe or easy than to establish the former. At 
 once, then, I affirm that the parallel drawn between the 
 Apostle’s conduct in the circumcision of Timothy, and 
 that of the Bible Society, in adding the Apocrypha to 
 the Word of God, is Nor sust. So far from beimg par- 
 allel, two cases cannot be supposed to which the idea of 
 parallelism can, with Jess justice, be attributed. ‘To have 
 
45 
 
 rendered them parallel, the act of circumcision and that of 
 adding the Apocryphal writings to the Word of God must 
 either be both right, or both wrong,’ or both indifferent. 
 Now, this is so far from being the case, that, in the act of 
 cireuimcision, there is nothing either right or wrongs it is 
 im itself perfectly indifferent.» “¢ Cireumcision: is nothing, 
 and ‘uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the com- 
 mandments of God.” On the othershand, the:adding of 
 the Avpocryphal writings to the Word ‘of God: is\a double 
 evil. \It\is wrong to'add any thing to his word; and these 
 writings, ‘* advancing” as they do “ a deceitful claim) to 
 reverence and attention, upon the pretext of being inspired,” 
 and containing false doctrine and gross errors, contrary ‘to 
 the Word of God, are absolutely bad in themselves. ‘The 
 two cases then are NoT parallel. u 
 
 It is true indeed that the act of circumcision, which: is 
 indifferent in itself, may, in certain circumstances, become 
 wrong. When this is kept in view, the conduct: of the 
 Apostle Paul in circumcising Timothy, on one occasien, 
 and im refusing, on another, to circumcise Titus, is vindi- 
 cated from all appearance of inconsistency.’ A proper un- 
 derstanding of these two cases will ‘not only show the ab- 
 sence ofa parallel, but the total dissimilarity between the 
 conduct of Paul, in circumeising Timothy, and that of: the 
 British and Foreign Bible Society with regard to the Apo- 
 erypha: ' Yet this case of the circumcision of Timothy, is 
 Mr Simeon’s strong-hold; and, after the long irrelevant 
 argument upon it which he has put into the Apostle’s 
 mouth, he exultingly introduces it once more at the con- 
 — of “ — 
 
 “ This I ‘say, my Lord, that no man who protests against the measures of 
 
 ‘ the British and Foreign Bible Society would ,have advised Paul to circum- 
 
 ‘ cise Timothy under the circumstances as they existed at that day: no, nor 
 
 “would he have approved of Paul’s conduct ; he would have called it ‘* do- 
 
 ‘ ing evil that good might come.” And if any man will get out of this di- 
 
 «Jemma, let him show that St Paul was right in what he did; and then mark 
 F 
 
46 
 
 ‘ the! difference between his) conduct, and: that of the British and: Foreign’ 
 ‘Bible Society, so| as to show, that though Paul was, right, the Bible, Society, 
 ‘is wrong. Let him, I say, get out of this dilemma. If he choose to con. 
 ¢demn St Paul, and ¢hat in a point where he has so plainly proposed himself 
 “as an example to the Church in all ages, I shall! pir er him as ‘acttially: 
 ¢ a the oe in. question.””! i CMA TY 
 
 7) pel § hig faAg 
 
 “Zo extricate ourselves’ from this veil naiaialn will 
 be no: great achievement. It is a dilemma existing’ only 
 in Mr Simeon’s imagination. The whole: of the above 
 passage betrays a very culpable want of consideration and 
 much misunderstanding of the case referred to. “Mr Si- 
 meon speaks of Paul’s conduct in circumeising’ ‘Timothy as’ 
 if it was his own discretion that directed him im this act. 
 Yet he says, that, in doing so, Paul has} ‘* plainly’ proposed) 
 himself as an example to the Church in all ages.” “Anda 
 little before, he had introduced the Apostle: affirming;— 
 “I will record my decision, for the benefit of the Chureh’ 
 in alli future ages.”» Now, can Mr Simeon, when’ he gives 
 himself time to reflect, —can any one who ‘has’ considered 
 the'nature of the Apostolic office, and: the qualifications 
 necessary’ for executing the high commission »of: binding 
 and loosing in heaven and in earth,—conceive for a moment 
 that the Apostle would have dared to: use ‘such language’ 
 except as inspiredyand guided: by the Holy Ghost?) .'» 
 - It isa fundamental error to suppose: that the Bible, in 
 recording the conduct of the Apostles, as'an example tothe 
 church in all ages, holds out to us the idea that: they’ acted’ 
 aceording to their own discretion, and not: under’ the in+ 
 fallible guidance of the Spirit'of God. If this|were'the 
 fact, we might have advised Paul not to cireumcise Timothy: 
 if we had judged it to be wrong, and we might not have ap- 
 proved of his conduct in domg so; and itis possible that’in 
 all this we might have been right and Paul wrong. But, 
 believing, as we do, that this Apostle acted under the im- 
 mediate influence of the Holy Ghost in all = ee 
 
 TS} yIIOS ie 
 
47 
 
 in the Scriptures, when he proposed himself as.an example 
 to the church, we would not have presumed to offer him 
 any advice, far less to have disapproved ofthis conduct, but; 
 with all due reverence, would have admitted that he ‘¢ was 
 in the right in what he did.” Under this conviction’ we 
 shall now with perfect ease “get out of this dilemma,” and 
 both show that Paul was right and that the Bible Society 
 iqmreaey edi 
 
 Paul circumcised Timothy ier ‘we the Tevet Al. 
 theugh, in consequence of the offering up of the one sacri- 
 fice by which the Redeemer hath for ever perfected them 
 that are sanctified, the ceremonial, law was fulfilled in all 
 its parts; yet, as the Jewish polity was not then wholly 
 put.an end to, the prejudices of the converted Jews:who 
 continued zealous for the Jaw, were borne with. \They 
 Anew, that the law was from God; they had been brought 
 up» in the ;observance of it, and ‘they continued: to keep 
 up/the-distinction of meats, and used the ceremonial puri- 
 fications, attended the Temple. service, and: celebrated 
 the feasts that had been \appointed.. In all. this:the 
 Apostles, acting under divine direction, bore with their 
 prejudices, and even, themselves: conformed to them. On 
 this ground, as circumcision, was..a thing indifferent in 
 itself, and,,at that’ ime, by: reason of God's: indulgence ‘to 
 the Jews, a matter of liberty to them, which they might 
 or might mot.observe, ‘Paul circumcised Timothy in order 
 ‘to remove ‘an obstruction to the exercise and success of his 
 ministry among the Jews, and. to render it as acceptable to 
 them as possible... Thus, to the Jews he became as a Jew 
 that he might gain the Jews; and in doing so he gave up 
 no part of his» duty: . But the same Lord who permitted 
 ewcumcision to be;continued to the Jewish believers, posi- 
 tively prohibited its‘observance to the Gentiles; and, there- 
 fore, when,an attempt was made to impose circumcision-on 
 ithe Gentile; believers, this ,Apostle opposed. it.in;the most 
 decided manner, iand would on no: account: permit Titus to 
 be circumcised, form that case it was mo longer ia matter 
 
48 
 
 of indifference, but positively wrong. ‘To:those, therefore, 
 who required its er he elon ne Ks subjection, 
 no not for an hour. yoke vir 
 This matter, so clear in itself, Mr PRE has com 
 tived to perplex. He has adduced the: example’ of Paul, 
 where, in the ease of Timothy, that Apostle practised a rite 
 indifferent in itself, the continuance of »which, as»well as 
 its original appointment, was sanctioned. by divine»at- 
 thority: This example is placed before’ us by Mr Simeon 
 to justify the introduction of what is positively wrong /and 
 contrary to the express command of God. »God has:so- 
 lemnly prohibited the adding of any thing to» his word in 
 any circumstances, or the ‘holding. out any  thing’/as his 
 word which is not his word... In direct contravention»to 
 this command, Mr Simeon contends for the adding ofthe 
 Apocryphal to the sacred books, and the delivering” of the 
 whole to the people as the word of God. Nor is thiscall; 
 he even attempts to sanction this violation of the: divine 
 law by the example of the Apostle. But, sinceyMr 
 Simeon has adduced the example of Paul in ‘cireumcising 
 ‘Timothy; why has he kept: back his positive refusal toy cir- 
 eumcise Titus? Had he referred to this» case, alongwith 
 the other, he would have at once exposed the fallacy; of 
 his assertions and the unsoundness of his argument. «| 
 «There is one thing more I must notice: on: this point: 
 Mr Simeon makes the Apostle speak of his conduct)in the 
 circumcision of Timothy as a sacrifice for our imitation in 
 respect to the Apocryphal books. But, if to:cireulate:them 
 be the will of God, it is not to be:done with» reluctance; 
 and if it be not: God’s will, we have no right/to make sach 
 a sacrifice to him. He will no more receive it thanshe did 
 that of Saul. The circumcising of Timothy, was»in con- 
 formity with his will ; besides, being a thing »not«sinfulin 
 itself, it can never be alleged as a warrant for what is in 
 any manner sinful and wrong. The lawfulnessythen,,of 
 adding the Apocrypha to the Bible must first: be proved 
 before it can be justified by the circumcision of ‘Timothy. 
 
49 
 
 In the address of the Apostle Paul, in defence of adding 
 the Apocrypha to the Holy Scriptures, besides adducing 
 his own example in the circumcision of Timothy, he is 
 made to qucte the precept which he has delivered, Romans 
 xv. “ We that are strong, (as the Edinburgh Committee 
 «feel themselves to be,) oucut to bear the infirmities of 
 ‘ the weak, and not to please ourselves.” According to 
 Mr Simeon, Paul affirms, «I deliver this command even 
 * im-reference to the eating of meats offered to idols, where 
 ‘ the apparent evil is far greater than in the act you cen- 
 « sure, and where the reason for exercising such forbearance 
 ‘is far less.” But a reference to what the Apostle has 
 actually said, must convince us that this precept, in the 
 connexion in which it stands, has nothing to do with 
 meats offered to idols... In Rom. xiv. xv., the Apostle is 
 treating of Jewish, not heathen prejudices. If Mr Simeon 
 ‘denies this, he must suppose the Apostle to affirm that the 
 man who eateth meats offered to idols, eateth to the 
 Lord; and that he who regardeth a day set apart for the 
 service of an idol, regardeth it unto the Lord; but this 
 cannot be his meaning, because it is altogether different 
 from his doctrine, when professedly treating of meats of- 
 fered to idols. 
 
 In 1 Cor. vii. the Apostle sets out by observingy that 
 an idol is nothing in the world; and admits, that we are 
 neither the better nor the worse for eating of any particu- 
 lar food; but, at the same time, he prohibits believers from 
 sitting at meat in an idol’s temple,—Ist, Because this might 
 embolden weak brethren to eat what was offered to idols, 
 and cause them to put away a good conscience and make 
 shipwreck of faith; 1 Cor. viii. 10, 11:—And, dy, He 
 prohibits such conduct, because it was holding fellowship 
 with, and partaking of the table of devils. 1 Cor. x. 19. 
 21. Thisis very different language from what is employ- 
 ‘edn regard:to Jewish meats and days in the ee to 
 the Romans. 
 
 The Apostle concludes his instructions echiictinls meats 
 
50 
 
 offered to idols, by teaching, that we should, without 
 scruple, eat whatever is sold m the shambles; that a be- 
 liever might lawfully accept jan invitation to a feast given 
 by a heathen, and eat whatever was set before him; but af 
 he was informed that such a thing was,offered to idols, -he 
 ‘was not to eat of it, because this would have been giving 
 countenance to idolatry. Such isthe Apostle’s.dectrine; 
 and certainly it affords no support to Mr Simeon’s argu-— 
 ment in favour of distributing the ARPA ENS with ;the_ 
 Word of God. : 
 Had the Apostle permitted. believers ‘to. please ety o 
 by inviting them to a feast, and rendering it more accept- 
 able, by setting before them meats offered to. idols, this 
 would jhave been somewhat analogous to the line of con-_ 
 duct which Mr Simeon exhorts the Bible Society to, pursue. 
 But the Apostle gave no such licence,, He commanded 
 Christians, without being deterred by the apprehension ,of 
 being branded as unsociable, and charged with dogmatizing 
 to the whole world, positively to refuse to partake of what 
 their host informed them had been offered to his gods. 
 ‘This would have made them partakers, of other men’s 
 sins. It might have procured to them the praise of liberality 
 and candour, but it would have rendered them accessary 
 to the perdition of those who knew not God and APP not 
 the gospel. ae, 
 In a note, Mr Simeon says, “In einaaloone offered 
 ¢ to idols, a person did that which he might well consider as 
 ‘ forbidden: nor could he plead for himself, that he hoped . 
 * by means of it to save a multitude of souls.” What i as. 
 meant by—He might well consider it as forbidden ?- Was it 
 actually forbidden ? If not, why might he well consider it 
 to be so? And, if it was forbidden, does Mr, Simeon af- 
 firm that we are at liberty, nay bound to do what. is! for- 
 bidden, when we expect it to: be attended: -with good \effects? — 
 This would completely justify-Saul in offering thesacrifice, 
 1 Sam. xiii. 9. to prevent the people being scattered from 
 him; but his conduct was condemned, and himself stripped 
 
51 
 
 of the kingdom for his presumption. But was his presump- 
 tion greater than ours, if, with a view of saving a multitude 
 of souls, we countenance the desecration of God’s holy word, 
 by the spurious addition of the Apocrypha, in order to ren- 
 der it more acceptable ? 
 
 This was not the manner of the Apostle Paul. ‘To have 
 preached and practised circumcision, would have put an end 
 to the Jewish controversy by which the churches were so 
 much harassed, and have brought many Jews to acknow- 
 ledge Christ as the Messiah, and’ would have caused the of- 
 fence of the cross to cease; but he entered’ into no such 
 compromise. Like Jeremiah, he stood as a brazen wall on 
 the foundation which God had laid in Zion; and whether 
 men would hear, or whether they would forbear, he did 
 not suffer the Gospel of Christ to be corrupted. But what 
 would either circumcision, or the eating of meats offered to 
 idols, have been in’ comparison of corrupting the word of 
 God by the profane addition of Jewish fables, of which 
 the Apocrypha is composed, and against which the Apostle 
 _ repeatedly cautions us in his Epistles. 
 
 The doctrine of forbearance, to which Mr Simeon has: 
 appealed, does not authorise a Christian to do what he 
 knows to be opposed to the will of God; but teaches him to’ 
 please his neighbour for his good, as far as he possibly can, 
 without doing that which'is contrary to his paramount duty 
 to God.* ‘To act otherwise, is to do evil that good may come. 
 This instance, then, respecting idols, no more serves Mr 
 Simeon’s purpose than that of circumcision. Mr Simeon: 
 makes the Apostle say, in reference to the case of 'Timothy,— 
 «* Let me see any of my Christian brethren’ carrying this 
 
 * «En rappelant tout ‘ce qui-a été dit 4 ce sujet, il parait que’le devoir du 
 support mutuelipeut étre contenu dans les deux régles ‘suivantes => lao, Ne 
 rien faire pour conserver nétre.communion avec nos fréres, qui pit violer nétre 
 communion avec Dieu par la désobéissance : 2do, Garder nétre communion 
 avec nos fréres autant que nous le pouvons sans violer nétre communion avec 
 Dieu.”—Commentary on: the Epistle to the’ Romans, by the Author ; tom: 
 ti. ps 248. 
 
52 
 
 concession to an extent that will be injurious to the souls 
 of men, and I shall withstand them.” ‘The concession Mr 
 Simeon would have the British and Foreign Society make, 
 in mixing the Apocrypha with the Bible, is injurious to 
 the souls of men. It is delivering to them writings as 
 a part of the word of God, containing doctrines opposed 
 to that word ; and, if imbibed by them, not merely injuri- 
 ous, but destructive to their souls. It is sinning not only 
 against man, but against God, who has strictly prohibited 
 any such addition. ‘To put a book into a man’s hand as 
 containing only the Old and New Testaments, whien we 
 know that it contains something that is neither the Old 
 nor the New Testament, is an evident deception. “It is 
 giving him, what you assure him is all wholesome and nu- 
 tritive food, when you know it contains deadly poison. - 
 Not only does Mr Simeon make the Apostle Paul say, in 
 express terms, “'To them that require the Apocrypha, as 
 conceding the Apocrypha,” but also‘‘to the Papist (I became) 
 “asa Papist.” So, then, the Apostle to be consistent with 
 himself, and in order to gain the Papists, must speak and 
 act as the Papists do. ° How easy would it be to expose the 
 impropriety, and even the absurdity of ascribing such a 
 sentiment to the Apostle. How different would this be 
 from becoming to the Jews as a Jew. In the one case, so 
 far from doing any thing contrary to’ the: will»of God, 
 Paul acted by Divine authority in) observing that which 
 was in itself indifferent. In the other’case,: he must 
 have acted expressly contrary to the authority of 'Ged, 
 in things that were in themselves sinful: This very 
 Apostle was divinely commissioned. to» predict the great 
 apostacy, that unhallowed mixture of Christianity, Judaism, 
 and Paganism, which was to take place im latter’ times. 
 Is it possible, then, that Paul would have countenanced 
 such abominations ? How unbecoming—How improper is 
 it to put in his mouth, to the Papists I become as a Papist ! 
 Who, that is acquainted witb his character and writings, 
 could recognize the Apostle Paul, as Mr Simeon has portray- 
 
03 
 
 ed him, arrayed.in the attire of the Mother of Harlots, go- 
 ing fotth to the nations with the Apocrypha in his hand, 
 and reading, for their instruction, the history of Bel and 
 the Dragon ! . 
 
 The arguments which Mr Simeon has used in justification 
 of the practice of the British and Foreign Bible Society, in 
 relation to the Apocrypha, are similar to those. by which 
 the Jesuit Missionaries in China: vindicated. their conduct 
 im permitting their converts to pay religious, adoration to 
 their deceased ancestors.. Their plea was, that without 
 this they could have been of no use, and that they gained 
 a great end by a slight sacrifice. ‘* To the Chinese I be- 
 came as a@ Chinese, that I might gain the Chinese.”—This 
 very much resembles the reasoning of Mr Simeon and the 
 friends of the Apocrypha. They say the word of God will 
 soon eclipse it, and, so said the Jesuits. ** They are but 
 specks, the error will be neutralized by the truth.” But 
 neither is Mr Simeon’s language, nor that of the Jesuits, 
 the language of the word of God.: ‘ A little leaven leaven- 
 eth the whole lump.” 
 
 Notwithstanding the inconelusiveness of Mr. Simeon’s 
 reasonings, and his misapplications, of Scripture, he has 
 indulged in a strain/of invective against the Committee of 
 the Edinburgh ; Bible: Society, »which, even were he. the 
 advocate of a better cause, would not, only be, unwarrant- 
 able, but extremely indecent. If, however, he. could not 
 abstain from this, how improper was it to make an Apos- 
 tle the vehicle of such language? . In. the following 
 not very courteous strain, the Apostle Paul is represented 
 as assailling “*the Edinburgh Gentleman :”—* I :should 
 “have been better pleased if. your zeal had been more. ac- 
 «cording ‘to knowledge, and if it had been: blended some- 
 “what more with modesty and |love—I am: made all things 
 ‘to all men, that I might dy all means save some. This, 
 ‘my brother; is what\I-do: but in you I see not one atom 
 © of such a spirit: You will make no concessions whatever : 
 * No, forsooth, the carnineé of immortal souls, though they 
 
 G 
 
54 
 
 ‘be millions upon millions, is no such object with you : 
 ‘it deserves no sacrifice at all, in your estimation: You 
 ‘ know that circumcision is abrogated, and you will not be 
 ‘accessory to the observance of that rite, no, not in a 
 ‘ single case, to save the whole world.—We that are strong 
 ‘ought (not to treat with contempt and disdain, but) to 
 ‘ BEAR the infirmity of the weak, and not to please our- 
 ‘ selves. —We that are strong (as the Edinburgh Committee 
 ‘ feel themselves to be) ought to bear the infirmities of the 
 ‘ weak, and not to please ourselves. No, indeed;) the, in- 
 sisting upon our own humours, and our own conceits, 
 ‘ and requiring all our Christian brethren to submit to us, 
 ‘is not the spirit that I approve.” The reader will judge 
 whether such an address to the Committee of the Edin- 
 burgh Bible Society be justifiable in Mr Simeon, especially 
 when professing to plead. the cause of love and forbearance ; 
 and whether the strength of his reasonings warrant the 
 severity of his language. 
 
 After the perusal of such a pamphlet as Mr ‘Saeeieaihe 
 any one who has little acquaintance with the subject in 
 debate, might be induced to suppose that the Apocryphal 
 books are very harmless in themselves, and that the adding 
 of them to the Scriptures is a matter of no great moment, 
 But, considering the specimens of them given in the Edin- 
 burgh Statement, in which so many false principles and 
 destructive errors are exposed, some notice of these, it might 
 be expected, would have been taken by Mr Simeon, and 
 some defence attempted of a book which he insists may be 
 lawfully added to the word of God. The Edinburgh 
 Statement declares, that. ‘‘ the whole work is replete with 
 instances of vanity, flattery, idle curiosity, affectation of 
 learning, and other blemishes ; with frivolous, absurd, false, 
 superstitious, and contradictory statements.” These serious 
 charges are supported by proofs exhibited under the follow- 
 ing heads :-—Absurdities and contradictions,—magical cere- 
 monies,—transmigration of souls,—prayers for the dead,— 
 sinless perfection in this life,—gross superstition,—lies and 
 
55 
 
 falsehood,—assassination and suicide commended,—justi- 
 fication by the works of the law. 
 
 <¢ From these brief statements,” it is added, “‘ which might 
 have been continued to a much greater length,—*‘ we trust 
 
 »it will appear that our opposition to the printing and cir- 
 culation of the Apocryphal books, whether intermixed with, 
 or appended to the sacred Scriptures, is neither frivolous 
 nor vexatious :—that, so far from being a harmless append- 
 age to the word of God, they are in direct hostility to it ; 
 and, if bound up with it, must powerfully tend to counter- 
 act its holy and saving influence on the mind. So per- 
 nicious are the doctrines which they teach,—so immoral 
 are the examples which they present, that no reason, it is 
 conceived, can be imagined sufficiently powerful to warrant 
 a Bible Society to countenance, directly or indirectly, their 
 circulation. Instead of preparing the way, and enticing 
 men to read and study the sacred volume, their low and 
 vulgar puerilities, their gross errors and immoralities, are 
 much more calculated’ to produce, in the considerate 
 mind, aversion and disgust. Whatever incidental sen- 
 timents of real value they may contain, ‘these books, 
 when brought into «connexion with the pure oracles of 
 heaven, prove, at once, an encumbrance and a snare. In 
 such a connexion they can be viewed in no other light 
 than as a presumptuous addition, which it is no less dan- 
 gerous to give than to receive; for every addition to the 
 Scriptures is forbidden by their Divine Author in the 
 strongest terms.” 
 
 Considering the above weighty charges against the 
 Apocrypha, it is truly astonishing that Mr Simeon should 
 stand forth a strenuous advocate for adding it to the Holy 
 Scriptures. If, however, he must still appear in this cha- 
 racter, why has he not endeavoured to refute these charges ? 
 Do they seem to him so trivial as not to deserve his no- 
 tice, or is he conscious that it is not in his power to re- 
 pel them ? 
 
56 
 
 CHAPTER ITI. 
 
 @ 
 
 OBSERVATIONS ON EXTRACTS OF FOUR LETTERS IN THE 
 CAMBRIDGE REMARKS.—THE PRACTICABILITY OF CIRCU= 
 LATING THE BIBLE ON THE CONTINENT pienso 
 
 APOCRYPHA. 1 oe 
 @ OUR,I09 
 
 Mr Simeon, and others who contend for addmg the 
 Apocrypha to the word of God, take for granted the im- 
 possibility of circulating the Bible on the Continent with- 
 out this spurious appendage. This, however, has not been 
 proved ; and the contrary appears to be the fact, as will be 
 seen in the sequel. If there is a demand for/the Apocrypha, 
 it is greatly owing to the mismanagement of ‘the Directors 
 of the Bible Society. Had the foreign’ societies been told 
 from the beginning that no aid could beafforded them from 
 England except for promoting: and circulating the Bible 
 alone, and had this declaration beenisteadily adhered to, 
 the result, it is believed, would have been a more extensive 
 circulation of the Scriptures of truth.» Great efforts, how- 
 ever, are now made to impress on the minds of all; the ne- 
 cessity of adding the Apocrypha in order to: ni circulation 
 of the RSaciplertes on the Continent. AU QRV, 8 1008 eam tdetee 
 « To prove the necessity, as well as to sikiniae the law. 
 fulness of adding, and even of interminglingtheApoeryphal « 
 writings with the canonical books, a paper, entitled “ Re- 
 marks,” &c. has been recently published at Cambridge, in 
 the introduction to which a long list of signatures appears, 
 “ restricted,” it is said, ‘‘ to masters of arts and persons 
 of superior degrees.” ‘In this publication extracts of four 
 letters are inserted. Two of the. letters are from Paris, one 
 from L. Van Ess, and another from a Swedish nobleman. 
 To these letters I wish to direct the reader’s attention, since 
 
57 
 
 they are produced as quite conclusive on the subject; in 
 one word, they are pronounced “ irresistible.” 
 
 In the extract of the letter from the Swedish nobleman, 
 we find him expressing his apprehension, that in Sweden 
 the exclusion of the Apocrypha will put a stop to the circu- 
 lation of the Scriptures. But this correspondent produces 
 no facts to support his opinion; and, from the indiscrimi- 
 nate and exaggerated terms in which he speaks of the reli- 
 gion of his countrymen, so common in letters from the Con- 
 tinent, and so much calculated to mislead their readers, those 
 who are acquainted with the real state of things there will 
 lay little stress on this: communication. ‘* Will. not,” he 
 says, ‘ the exclusion of the Apocrypha lessen, or put an en- 
 ‘ tire stop: to this circulation, among» those humble though 
 ‘ sincere lovers of our, religious records, who, perhaps even 
 ‘ without:being aware of a distinction between the canonical 
 ‘ and Apocryphal books, have found. edification from them 
 ‘all? and many of whom may have first been induced to 
 ‘ read the Bible, by those: affecting histories, by which we 
 ‘ were so delighted as children, and those beautiful moral 
 ‘ precepts which we admire still as. men., You .know well 
 ‘ the attachment of our peasants to. the Bible, but they will 
 ‘ have ‘ their’ Bible ;. that Bible which their ancestors loved, 
 ‘ and out of which their religious, parents used to read. to 
 * them as children.” 
 
 Such 1s the substance of this letter, in which the writer 
 
 ~ throws out a vague opinion, while he does not even hint 
 that any trial has been made to ascertain the matter in 
 question.. He sees no harm in making an addition to the 
 Word of God. On the contrary, according to him, it 
 produces a most beneficial effect. It is even absolutely in- 
 dispensable; for, without this passport, the Bible would 
 be rejected by the sincere lovers of the religious records,— 
 the want of it would put an entire stop to the circulation 
 of the Scriptures. He himself appears fully to participate 
 in the strong predilection with which he would persuade 
 
58 
 
 us his countrymen are imbued, having been delighted im 
 his childhood with the pretty stories of the Apocrypha, 
 and now in his manhood admiring the beautiful moral pre- 
 cepts which it contains. What weight ean any considerate 
 person attach to such a testimony as this? Itis fitted rather 
 to amuse by its simplicity than to produce the smallest: con- 
 viction on a grave and important subject.) spe 
 
 Here, however, we have an irrefragable proof of the mis- 
 chief of connecting the truth of God with the lies of men 
 in one volume under the title of the Word of God. Both 
 are viewed as coming from Him,—both are equally receiv- 
 ed as religious records,—both are considered: by the’ peo- 
 ple as component parts of the Bible,—‘* Their Bible.” 
 This attestation comports very ill with the testimony given 
 to their piety, while it completely exposes the fallacy of 
 the opinion advanced by the writers of the Cambridge Re- 
 marks, that ** men will learn to distinguish ‘ the voice of 
 “the true Shepherd, and a stranger will they not hear.” 
 ‘ In comparing one part with another, they will soon dis- 
 ‘ cover that there is an authority and efficacy in the one, to 
 ‘ which the other does not pretend.” Instead of soon dis- 
 covering this difference, the Swedish nobleman tells us of 
 generation after generation of “ religious” people remain- 
 ing entirely ignorant of it. As far then as the vague, un- 
 authenticated statements of this letter go, from which it 
 appears that the writer possesses no information on the 
 subject of his communication, they tend only to the con- 
 futation of the opinion which those who Pe it wish 
 to establish. 
 
 Professor L. Van Ess, in his letter, (which is addressed 
 to Dr Steinkopff, one of the secretaries of the Bible So- 
 ciety), intreats the committee of that Society to allow the 
 Apocrypha to be intermingled with the canonical books in 
 8000 copies of his translation of the Old Testament which 
 
59 
 
 they have purchased. In urging his request, which he 
 does both from personal and from public considerations, 
 he attaches no importance whatever to the violation of 
 the integrity of the inspired word, by intermingling the 
 apocryphal with the canonical books. Speaking of. the 
 Apocrypha, he says, “ The view taken by members of 
 ‘ both (the Roman Catholic and Protestant Churches) is 
 ‘im a doctrinal sense the same, the mere order in print- 
 ‘img the Apocrypha books is different. Whether the 
 ‘ books happen to stand in one place in the Bibles of Ro- 
 ‘man Catholics, and in another of those of Protestants, 
 ‘ is surely a point of no importance.” 
 
 Such is Mr Van Ess’s light manner of speaking on the 
 subject ; and to this flagrant violation of the Divine Word 
 has he conjured the Society, ‘¢in the name of the Re- 
 deemer himself,” to consent. But, even were that which 
 he pleads for lawful, there is nothing so forcible in his 
 letter'as to convince us that it is necessary. ~On the con- 
 trary, an.attentive perusal of this extract will lead us to 
 conclude that the opinion he gives as to the impractica- 
 bility of circulating the old Testament among Roman 
 Catholics without the Apocrypha is unfounded. 
 
 He declares it to be a fact, that the desire of the Roman 
 Catholic: population to obtain possession of the whole Bible 
 was never so strong and so vehement as at present. He 
 further tells us of the numberless letters he has received, 
 and is daily receiving, from Roman Catholics, both of the 
 clergy and the laity, all breathing the strongest desire to 
 possess his translation of the Old Testament when complet- 
 ed, and which, he says, ‘in fact, the whole Roman Catholic 
 public in Germany seems anxious to obtain.’ Again, he 
 speaks of the thousands and thousands among Roman 
 Catholics who thirst after the whole Bible, and hunger 
 after that bread of life which no one gives them. ~In ad- 
 dition to all this, he informs us that the distribution of the 
 New Testament has been abundantly blessed of God. 
 
60 
 
 »» Such are the details which Van Ess exhibits as facts ; 
 after which it would require very ‘strong evidence indeed 
 to prove that the Bible, if presented in its native excellency 
 -and purity, would be rejected by persons in such a state of 
 ‘mind? Yet he wishes us to believe that. the'suecess of its 
 ‘circulation cannot be risked without the:addition of what 
 the Swedish nobleman calls, ‘the affecting histories and 
 beautiful moral precepts of the Apocrypha.” But; to pro- 
 duce this conviction, the only means which;he has inyhis 
 power to employ, is to oppose his own  orprntoxs\ and con- 
 jectures to the racts he has stated. At She same time he 
 informs us that “ things have scarcely ever.worn so por- 
 ‘ tentous an appearance as at the present moment, when 
 ‘so great is the excitement visible among the members of 
 ‘ both persuasions, that we cannot but be apprehensive of 
 -¢its leading to some important crisis.” In ether :words, 
 circumstances are so much changed, .that, towreason from 
 _ the past to the future, as to the reception of the Seriptures 
 by the public, is very precarious’ 9! wee eae ya 
 If his representations be well founded, why is it neces- 
 sary that the Bible Society should \ purchase. his» trans- 
 lation of the Old Testament for the purpose of cireu- 
 lating it, whether with or without the Apocrypha?) «The 
 ‘ desire,” he says, ‘¢ of the Roman» Catholic: population 
 * to obtain possession of the whole: Bible was» never:so 
 ‘strong and so vehement as at present.” Inv another 
 letter, dated. April 26, 1824, (two months ‘prior to: the 
 date of the above letter, published in this year’s Report 
 of the: Bible Society,) he observes, The» imquiry after 
 ‘my translation of the Old Testament exceeds belief, 
 ‘from clergymen as well as from the laity ; since:there 
 “are’no other Catholic translations: im ‘they German: lan- 
 ‘ guage, excepting such as are filled \with notes'and com- 
 ‘ments, and in general sell at a very: high»price,/ which 
 ‘ cannot be paid either by clergy or laity inthese times of 
 * distress: 'The demand. for my version, :when fully com- 
 
61 
 
 ‘ pleted will be so considerable, that 100,000 copies will 
 “be required. Wherever my New Testament has found 
 “access, and Christ is revealed by its perusal, the people 
 ‘ are anxious to seek him also in the prophecies and types 
 * of the Old Testament. I receive letters by every mail 
 * containing applications for copies.” If all this be true, 
 what need is there for the interference of the Bible So- 
 ciety, far less that it should become a party to the viola- 
 tion of the integrity of the Scriptures. Booksellers enough 
 will be found both to remunerate the author, and to de- 
 fray the expenses of printing a book of which 100,000 
 copies will be required to supply the demand. Here we 
 have sufficient proof that the conjectures of Van Ess, that 
 the Bible’ would not circulate without the Apocrypha, 
 are entirely groundless. The facts which he states, if 
 admitted, must convince the most incredulous that the 
 Old Testament would be received, and gladly received, ‘by 
 the people of Germany, though unadulterated. For can 
 any one imagined that, when the inquiry for the Bible ez- 
 ceeds belief, and when it is out of the power of the people to 
 obtain it elsewhere, they will be deterred from procuring 
 the object of their desire wherever it can be had, even 
 though they supposed it to be im some respects defective. 
 Above all, is it possible for any one to bring himself to 
 imagine that those to whom Christ has been revealed by 
 the perusal of the New Testament, and who are anxious 
 to seek him also in the prophecies and types of the Old Tes- 
 tament, will refuse to accept of it because it wants the Apo- 
 erypha? Such a supposition carries ‘absurdity on the face 
 of it. fi tks 
 Van Ess, as if he himself were sensible that his con- 
 Jjectures-are insufficient’ to counteract the impression that 
 will be made by: his ,facts, endeavours to add to their 
 weight by referring to certain personal inconveniences to 
 which he would be exposed were he to publish the Bible 
 without the Apocrypha. His character and reputation, 
 he tells us, as well as his adherence to canonical order; 
 H 
 
62 
 
 would be immediately degraded. But such considerations 
 as these can never justify Christians of this country in 
 adulterating the Scriptures ; nor do his opinions, opposed 
 to his facts, carry such evidence as to lay them under a 
 - temptation to violate their duty. We shall afterwards refer 
 to the judgment of one who is well acquainted with Ger- 
 many, who affirms, that “ the assertion that the Bible will 
 “not be received in pris without the ee is @ 
 ' € gross misrepresentation.” 
 
 In publishing extracts of this letter from Van Ess to 
 persuade the public that the Bible will not be received by 
 Roman Catholics without the Apocrypha, the authors of 
 the Cambridge Remarks have kept back an important tes- 
 timony on the opposite side contained in the same letter, by 
 striking it out of a sentence which they have quoted. 
 
 In what they have published we read, in the end of one 
 sentence and in the beginning of another, as follows: | “By 
 ‘the circulation of my translation of the Old Testament, 
 ‘ separate from the Apocryphal books. When, at the same 
 ‘ time, I call to mind the numberless letters which I have 
 ‘ received,” &c. Now, let the reader observe what has 
 been done to conceal the hiatus. The last clause of the 
 former sentence is struck out together with the first word 
 of the latter sentence, and the second word is made to be- 
 gin with a capital. In the letter itself the whole runs thus, — 
 the second sentence beginning a new paragraph :-—* By the 
 ‘ circulation of my translation of the Old Testament, sepa- 
 ‘rate from the Apocryphal books; notwithstandmg, it is 
 ‘ but candid to say, that, individually, I, like many other 
 ‘ enlightened Roman Catholics, feel oe to sire no 
 ‘ umbrage whatsoever at such a separation.” a 
 
 «¢ But, when at the same time I call to mind hued num. 
 ¢ berless letters which I have received,” &c. f 
 
 The fact thus suppressed and intended to be concealed 
 from the public is a very material one, and must have 
 appeared so to those who have omitted it, otherwise they 
 would never have resorted to so base an artifice. According 
 
63 
 
 to Van Ess himself, many enlightened Roman Catholics feel 
 disposed to take no umbrage whatsoever at the separation be- 
 tween the Bible and the Apocrypha. 
 
 The writers cf the Cambridge Remarks have not 
 only attempted the concealment that has been just: ex- 
 posed; but, with equal art, they have also, omitted the _ 
 relation of another very material fact. In one of the 
 extracts that has already been quoted, and which they 
 have detached trom the other extracts, and huddled up 
 in a note at some columns distance, they have again made 
 an important omission in the middle of a sentence. In 
 their note we read: ‘ The mere order in printing the 
 ‘ Apocryphal books is different. Whether the books hap- 
 ‘ pen to stand,” &c. In the letter itself we read—* the 
 ‘ mere order in printing the Apocryphal books is different; 
 ¢ —let them be paid for by others, and the resolution of 
 ‘the Committee not to print the Apocryphal books at their 
 ‘ expense, will not be violated.—The Committee permit the 
 ‘ distribution of the Apocrypha if done at the Pape of 
 ‘ others bamhgthen these books happen to stand,” &c. 
 
 In another part of his letter, Van Ess calls upon, the 
 Bible Society to make an exception from the rules in their 
 resolution respecting the Apocrypha, “ or at least,” he adds, 
 ‘ so far to modify the resolution, that the Apocryphal books 
 ‘and portions of the Old Testament, agreeably to the order 
 ‘ of the Vulgate, and intermingled with the canonical books, 
 ‘ may be allowed to be printed at the expense of others and 
 ‘ then circulated in the 8000 copies of my Old Testament, 
 ‘ the canonical books of which, the B. and F. Bible So- 
 ‘ ctety have purchased.” Again, it is said in the same letter 
 —‘* Towards the expenses of printing the Apocryphal 
 * books, I am ready to advance 4000 florins, which I have 
 ‘received from Amsterdam towards establishing a fund for 
 ‘the Bible.” 
 
 Allthe above quotations of the letter of Van Ess, are not © 
 only omitted in the extracts given by the Cambridge writers, 
 but as we see by the above omission, carefully kept out of view. 
 
64 
 
 Let the reader, however, remark the last words that: have 
 been quoted—which I have received towards establishing a 
 JSund for the Bible. 'This explains what was the effect of the 
 resolutions of the British and Foreign Bible Society of . 
 August 1822, and December 1824, which have been ani-» 
 madverted on, page 37; and the justice of the following » 
 remark in the Statement of the Edinburgh Committee, 
 already referred to, will now be obvious: ‘‘ The real ,ope- 
 ‘ration of these resolutions is merely to administer a ‘salvo 
 ‘ to the consciences of objectors at home, whilst abroad the 
 ‘ evil remains precisely the same as ever, and those sacred 
 ‘ funds which had been subscribed on : the express condi- 
 ‘tion and in the full, confidence that they)should, be.ex- 
 ‘ pended in encouraging the circulation of the Holy Scrip- 
 ‘ tures only, are still ending an indirect influence to the cir- 
 ‘ culation of vital error.”* Peat 
 Whether or not the authors of the € sealing ‘Baishanles 
 had the paragraph of the Edinburgh Statement just quoted 
 in view when they presented to the public, the garbled 
 sentence in their detached note, is best known. to them- 
 selves. In the end of the ‘« Remarks” they indeed say, “In. 
 ‘ the case of the foreign letters, it must be borne in mind 
 ‘ that the writers are not answerable for any imaccuracies 
 ‘ which may have arisen in the translation,” The.above, 
 however, is not an inaccuracy in translation, but an omis- 
 sion similar to the former one pointed out, and to another 
 garbled quotation of which Mr Gorham. has \conyicted 
 them in his pamphlet, 1st edition, page 31.. That men who 
 possess common honesty, not to say Christian prineiple; or 
 who have any regard for their own characters, should have 
 been guilty of the frauds pointed out above, in order to mis- 
 lead the public, is altogether unaccountable. That cause 
 
 * Mr V. Ess here solicits the British and Foreign Bible Society to furnish 
 him with money to pay for his printing the canonical books, while he informs 
 them that he will print the Apocryphal books with money which he says he 
 has received from another Society fur establishing a fund for the Bible. In 
 this way he assures them their rules will not be violated ! Will the Christians 
 in Britain consent to such manceuvring as is here exposed ? 
 
65 
 
 must indeed be desperate, which prompts its: adherents to 
 resort’ to’such'a mode of supporting it. 
 
 In the letter of Van Ess, he says, **‘ When under this 
 « impression, I advert to the wide, the very wide field which 
 ‘ appears to be opened for us among Roman Catholics, by 
 ‘ means of the dissemination of the whole Bible, translated 
 ‘ from the original, and arranged according to the Roman 
 ‘ Catholic order of the books.” Upon this the writer of the 
 ‘© Preface to Observations on the Circulation of the Apocry- 
 pha,” makes the following note:—“< Now here I must stop to 
 ‘ remark, that there isa manifest contradiction very likely to 
 ‘ mislead the unwary. By the ~vord original, we mean in 
 ‘ English, the Hebrew, Chaldean, and Greek. Van Ess must 
 ‘ mean the Latin Vulgate, for if he means any thing else, his 
 ‘ version and he himself are both ipso facto eehnintinianed, 
 ‘by the Council of Trent, by the two congregations for 
 “jnterpreting its decrees, assembled by order of Pius IV. 
 “and Sextus V., and by very many subsequent bulls. 
 * However, if he does not mean the Latin Vulgate, he 
 “could not find some of the Apocryphal books at all, and 
 “none of them in Hebrew, and consequently he could find 
 ‘none arranged according to the Roman order; therefore 
 “he'does not mean the Bible translated from the original, 
 ‘but fromthe Latm Vulgate.” It appears then that the 
 translation of Van Ess, of which the Bible Society has 
 purchased 8000 copies, is not made from the original 
 Hebrew, but from that other translation which, on account 
 of its corruptions, a learned Bishop calls the Puddle. 
 “ The Hebrew, he says, is to be considered as the foun- 
 tain—the Greek the stream—and the Latin the Puddle.” 
 
 In one of the two letters from Paris, the writer declares 
 that he wishes to see the Apocrypha separated from their 
 own Bibles—that he often sighs when he thinks upon the 
 time and money spent in reprinting writings, which 
 though some few of them, he says, may contain good 
 
66 
 
 lessons of morals, are for the most part absurd. He also 
 acknowledges that the French Churghes are wrong, in 
 having the Apocrypha joined to the Bible. Yet, after all 
 these admissions, he thinks it should not be withheld by the 
 Bible Societies. ‘* Our reformers,” he says, ‘*should have 
 ‘enlightened us on this question, as they have done on. 
 ‘ many others, and have relieved our Bible from this su- 
 ‘ perfluity. After them our Synods alone are able to de-. 
 ‘cide the question; but they have not to my knowledge 
 * meddled with it. Nor should the Bible Societies; nor ought 
 ‘ they, in my opinion, to take away the Apocrypha till the 
 ‘ Church gives, at least tacitly, a general consent to it.” _ 
 I am extremely sorry to see such sentiments expressed. 
 by the author of this letter; but purer Popery, I am com- 
 pelled to observe, never proceeded from the Vatican. 
 The thing is bad in itself, and the practice is wrong; but 
 we must adhere to it. Our reformers have not enlight- 
 ened us on this point. If this be sound doctrine, Chris- 
 tians, at the Reformation, only exchanged the infallibility 
 of the Pope for the infallibility ef Luther and his coadju- 
 tors. But the Reformers did enlighten us on this point, 
 or at least put us in the way of enlightening ourselves. 
 They opened to us the Scriptures, and appealed to them 
 for what they advanced, calling on all to examine them for 
 themselves, and constantly affirming that they are able to 
 make men wise unto salvation. This was the grand prin- 
 ciple to which they attained, and which they promulgated ; 
 and great would have been their concern had they fore- 
 seen that, three hundred years after their time, those who 
 professed to follow them in their reformation would cling 
 to what was acknowledged to be wrong, because it was 
 an evil which they had not marked with due reprobation. 
 How justly might they have complained that this was 
 loading them with a degree of responsibility which, upon 
 their own principles, they were entitled to disclaim ; and 
 removing the very foundation on which their reformation 
 
 was built. 
 
67 
 
 The next appeal, it is asserted, should ‘be to the Sy- 
 nods; but no relief; it seems, can be obtained from them : 
 They have not decided the question : and now, since they 
 exist no more, there is no prospect that they ever shall 
 decide it. Last of all comes ‘‘the Church,” and on it 
 the responsibility of the continuance of what is confessed to 
 be wrong is ultimately cast. Here we are thrown back into 
 that very situation from which the Reformers laboured to 
 deliver us. The Bible is withheld from the Roman Catho- 
 lics, because the Church decides that it is not fit for the 
 people; and Protestants must receive it degraded by 
 what they know to be “absurd,” until the Church shall 
 give its consent to suffer it to appear by itself, in its native, 
 heaven-born purity and beauty. Nay, we may even feel 
 ourselves at liberty to do what we know to be wrong, and 
 to continue to do so till the Church gives its consent to our 
 domg what we know to be right. Thus the authority of 
 the Church, and not the authority of God, is appealed to, 
 and the latter is made to yield to the former. 
 
 The Apostles of Christ taught that “ we ought to obey 
 God rather than man;” to the Rulers, and Elders, and 
 Scribes they put that conclusive question: ‘ Whether 
 it be right, in the sight of God, to hearken unto you 
 more than unto God, judge ye.” Yet here persons, who 
 profess to have received their testimony, avowedly hearken 
 unto men rather than unto God. Whatever is “ wrong” 
 is contrary to his will; but in this instance we. are taught 
 systematically to disregard the will of God, till it shall 
 have received the sanction of the will of man; and, as long 
 as these stand opposed to each other, to make the former 
 give way to the latter. ‘This is worse than Popery. ‘The 
 Roman Catholic does not believe his Church, to whose 
 decision he bows, to be wrong. On the contrary, he is 
 convinced that it is right, and that, in yielding obedience 
 to it, he is submitting to the will of God. But here, al- 
 though it is both clearly seen, and fully acknowledged 
 that the Church is wrong, its decision is adhered to. The 
 
68 
 
 Roman Catholic, of the yore: is the more gana and 
 the less guilty. cage Ay: 
 Instead of the inquiry wcities ts What saith the Lord ?” 
 it comes to be, ‘‘ What saith the Church ?” But what is'the 
 Church but the collective body of believers ? and are be- 
 lievers in their collective capacity at liberty to dispense 
 with the law of God? The Lord Jesus Christ’ placed’ the 
 keys of the kingdom of heaven in the hands:of his Apos- 
 tles ; and who but antichrist will maintain that, since their 
 time, they have been committed to the Church? We may 
 ask, concerning the Church, what Paul asked the Corin- 
 thians in reference to himself. “* Was Paul crucified for 
 you?” Has the Church a power to remit sins? Will the 
 Church answer for us in the great day of aceount, or 
 bear the punishment of our sins? Perhaps the Church, 
 too, will decide that the people shall never read the Bible 
 without Ostervald’s Notes, an appendage without which 
 it is not permitted to appear in French pulpits! “Ii'this 
 letter it is affirmed that the edition of the Montauban 
 Bible has sold only since the Apocrypha was added. to it. 
 That this, assertion is entirely groundless will afterwards 
 
 appear. 
 
 The other letter, from Paris, is written by Professor 
 Keiffer ; and both to the reasoning and the alleged facts 
 of this correspondent of the British and Foreign Bible 
 Society, it is necessary to pay particular attention. — 
 
 Mr Keiffer admits it to be generally agreed that the 
 Apocryphal books are not divinely wae but asks— 
 
 ‘ Why cannot we follow, with respec: to them, the precept which our Di- 
 ‘ vine Saviour himself gives us in the parable of the tares, which come up 
 “in the field where good seed had been sown. (Matt. xiii.) n the ser- 
 * yvants of the master of the field offered to gather up the tares, the master for- 
 * bade it, saying,‘ Gather not up the tares, lest ye root up also the wheat 
 “with them. Let both grow together until the harvest, and in the time 
 ‘¢ of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and 
 ‘¢ bind them in bundles to burn them; but gather the wheat into my barn.” 
 ‘ The precept contained in this parable may, I think, be applied to the dis- 
 * cussion which is now carried on concerning the Apocryphal books.’ 
 
69 
 
 _ The precept in this parable is completely irrelevant to 
 the subject. Such licentious misapplications of passages 
 of the word of God deserve the severest reprehension ; 
 they are only calculated to perplex and mislead the igno- 
 rant and unwary. An opposer of the Apocrypha might 
 meet the above question by inquiring, Why cannot we fol- 
 Jow the rule delivered by the Lord to his prophet, «“ If 
 thou take forth the precious from the vile, thou shalt be 
 as my mouth?” Jer. xv. 19. The parable of the tares re- 
 fers to persons, not to doctrines. In regard to the latter, 
 our rule is to hold fast the form of sound words; to cease 
 to hear the instruction that causeth to err from the words 
 of knowledge; and on no. account to presume to add to 
 the words of God. 
 
 ‘ Ought we not with perfect confidence,” adds Mr Keiffer, ‘ to leave to the 
 * Almighty the means, and the time, which in his incomprehensible wisdom 
 ‘he shall consider the:most fit and proper for separating these books from ‘the 
 + inspired writings 2” ‘ 
 
 If such a mode of reasoning as this were allowed, it 
 might be applied to the translation of the Scriptures into 
 the languages of the world, and employed to paralyze 
 every exertion for the spread of the Gospel. We might 
 say, with some of old, “The time is not come, the time 
 that the Lord’s house should be built.” But those who 
 employed such language were reproved and convicted by 
 their practice in regard to their own houses. They found 
 difficulties in the way of building the Lord’s house, and 
 made them a pretext for giving it up altogether; while, 
 notwithstanding the obstacles which they had to encounter, 
 they contrived to erect ceilled houses for their own accom- 
 modation, Hageaii. 2. 5. But, in waiting for the interference 
 of the Almighty before separating between the Scriptures 
 and the Apocrypha, we should be much more inexcusable 
 than the Jews. God had limited a particular period for the 
 desolation of Jerusalem ; but he has limited no period du- 
 ring which his people are to countenance the adulteration 
 of the lively oracles by corrupt additions. 
 
 I 
 
70 
 
 False prophets have risen up in every age, and those who 
 tremble at the word of God have always been‘command- 
 ed to turn away from them. Men may indeed turn away 
 their ears from the truth, and be turned unto fables; but the 
 people of God are not im any way to give them their sane- 
 tion. ‘If there come unto you any, and bring not’this 
 ‘ doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him 
 ‘ God speed, for he that biddeth him God erat” 
 * taker of his evil deeds,” 2 John x. 11. i 
 
 The Apostle Paul was not directed to wait till God 
 should destroy the influence of false teachers in’ the church 
 at Corinth. He denounced them as deceitful workers, 
 as ministers of Satan; and thus by the blessing of God 
 the evil was checked. We cannot feel too strongly our 
 absolute and entire dependance on God, and that, except 
 the Lord build the house, they labour in vain that build 
 it; but we are not to wait until the Lord shall point out 
 to us the proper time for building his house by causing’ it 
 to spring up) without our labour. “He has given’ us his 
 Holy Word; he has commanded us earnestly to contend 
 for the faith once delivered to the saints, and to preserve 
 pure and uncontaminated. that book by which all shall be 
 judged at last. 
 
 According to M. Keiffer’s epphetties of the parable of 
 the tares, the Bible is the wheat, the Apocrypha the 
 tares, the devil is the author of it, and the servants are 
 forbidden to take away what he has indited. Extraordi- 
 nary as it may appear, that, in pleading the cause. of the 
 Apocrypha, he should have laid down such premises, the 
 conclusion which he draws is still more remarkable. In 
 plain language it is as follows:—Let us then imitate the 
 conduct of this enemy, and, as long as the servants shall 
 sleep, unite with the devil in sowing tares among’ the 
 wheat by continuing to print the Apeeryptie _ Arguments 
 like these should arouse the most dormant and imconsider- 
 ate, while they prove to what lengths such perversions of 
 Scripture would conduct us. 
 
71 
 
 After giving the above specimen of his manner of ap- 
 plying Scripture, and reasoning upon the subject, Mr 
 Keiffer proceeds to his statement of facts, which are pub- 
 lished with a view to sway the public mind, and:are held 
 forth as decisive on the subject in question. 
 
 ‘¢ When the Bible Society at. Paris,” ic says, ‘¢ began its labours six years 
 ‘ ago, the only Bibles ready for distribution were two editions which had been 
 « printed by some pious persons at Toulouse and Montauban, which did not 
 “contain the Apocrypha. With these two editions the Society began its dis- 
 * tributions, but soon there was a protest on all sides against the omission of 
 ‘ these books, and a formal demand was made, that the Apocryphal books 
 ¢ should be added to these two editions. In order to conform to the French 
 ¢ Churches, the Society was obliged to print the Apocrypha at Toulouse and 
 ¢ at Montauban, and to add them to the editions which had already been pub- 
 ‘lished there. A little while after, the British and Foreign Bible Society 
 © caused Martin’s Bible to be printed at Paris, in a small form, and gave a 
 ‘ great number of copies of it to the Paris Bible Society ; but though this edi- 
 ¢ tion was advertised in the annual reports, and in several of the Society’s cir- 
 ‘ culars, and though it was offered at a very low price, nobody asked for it. 
 ¢ The Auxiliary Societies to which these books were sent, as a gift, received 
 ¢ them with reluctance, because the Apocryphal books were not in them, and: 
 ‘ the Society was obliged to print them in a small form, as the only means of, 
 ‘ distributing these Bibles. These facts appear to me more than sufficient to 
 ¢ prove the aversion which the French Protestants have for Bibles without the 
 © Apocrypha, and the impossibility of introducing them into our churches.” 
 
 It is difficult to repress our indignation when we see 
 statements of this kind published. under the name of facts, 
 in order to influence men’s minds, and which are calculat- 
 _ ed to mislead the public on so important a subject. We 
 have already seen one letter addressed to a Secretary of 
 the Bible Society, laid before the public in a mutilated 
 state, with material facts which it contained purposely 
 suppressed ; and now we have extracts of a letter written 
 by a correspondent, of the Society, whose competency to 
 judge im religious questions the reader has already had an 
 opportunity of appreciating. In this letter he gives vari- 
 ous statements which are contrary to fact, and yet he af- 
 firms that these facts appear more than sufficient to prove. . 
 
7% 
 
 the aversion which the French Protestants have for Bibles 
 without the Apocrypha, and the plane 
 ducing them into then churches. helmed 2s) ale 
 To show that Iam not treating Mr Keiffer's faets worse 
 than they deserve, I must enter into some details, and 
 shall proceed to state facts derived from» much more scoms 
 petent judges on religious “subjects: than Mr Keiffer: » His 
 facts relate to three editions of the Bible—the:‘Poulouse 
 and the Montauban editions, and Martin’s, pocket Bible. 
 a some ae them in their ones nq. er smewiky »sancearh 
 loin M chew yoevesh 
 ps 42) Mio 
 Mr Keiffer affirms that the Toulouse salto of the Bible 
 was printed by some pious persons at that place, and 
 that the Bible Society at Paris began’ the distribution of 
 it before the Apocrypha was added. Both these assertions 
 are unfounded.. The Toulouse Bible was not printed by 
 some pious persons at Toulouse, and the distribution: of it 
 was not begun without ‘the ok a oor of 
 this edition is as follows :— Shey 
 In consequence of a representation thing was ae ay at my 
 instance, to the British and Foreign Bible Society, soon’ af- 
 ter the Montauban Bible went to press, stating, that a 
 much greater number of Bibles was wanted'to supply :the 
 French Protestants, an edition of 10,000: copies, «to: be 
 printed solely at the expense of that Society, was ordered) at 
 Toulouse. The printing of this Bible was placed under 
 the superintendence of M. Chabrand,: the Protestant pas- 
 tor: and President of the Consistory there, »whom I had 
 recommended as a fit person to be intrusted with ite. This. 
 edition was far advanced when I left France, without:any 
 mention being made of adding the Apocrypha; nor had 
 M. Chabrand the smallest idea that this would: every be 
 done. But, when the work was nearly completed, he re- 
 ceived: an order to) print. the Apocrypha» along: ali it. 
 Against this he repeatedly remonstrated. =») 4) . 
 Of this transaction, so important in the annals of 
 
73 
 
 the British and Foreign Bible Society, as it throws much 
 light on the conduct of its directors respecting the Apocry- 
 pha, Mr Gorham gives the following account :—“ But, im 
 some instances, the Committee have gone beyond this 
 step, by encouraging the imtroduction of such an Apocry- 
 pha,and by printing it at the expense of our Society. A re- 
 markable instance occurred. in the French Bible (Martin’s, ) 
 ten thousand. copies' of which were printed at Toulouse, 
 1819, by our funds, for the Protestants. in the South of 
 France. From the proceedings in our Committee, cn 31st 
 January, 6th March, and 16th March 1820, (See Minute 
 Book,) it appears that the Paris Bible Society stated that 
 the omission of the Apocrypha would give offence. The 
 Committee of the British and. Foreign Bible Society re- 
 quested the Rev. M. Chabrand, President of the Consis- 
 tory of ‘Toulouse, and the Bible Society at. Montauban, 
 “‘ to consider the propriety of adding the Apocrypha. M. 
 Chabrand stated his objections to doing so—alleging, thas 
 there was danger of the Protestants confounding the Apo- 
 cryphal with the Canonical books; and of thew bemg thus 
 led: to adopt: some of the errors of Popery (particularly that 
 of Purcatory,) ‘to which they were already too much in- 
 clined.” . (See Letter Book.) ..The point, was then referred 
 to a correspondence between M. Chabrand. and. Professor 
 Keiffer of Paris ;—the result was, the adoption.of the Apo- 
 crypha. ‘Through the same influence, for fear of giving 
 offence to Roman Catholics, M. Chabrand.was directed. to 
 omit David Martin’s admirable preface to.the Apocrypha, 
 (one of the most luminous views of the history and errors 
 of those writings)—a brief and tame superscription being 
 substituted! We feel confident that)the great body of sub- 
 seribers to the British and Foreign Bible Society would 
 have expressed astonishment and. dissatisfaction, had they 
 been distinctly informed of this affair.” wit 
 
 _ On the same, subject, a correspondent who. has seen the 
 Minute Book.of the Society, writes) as follows :—* It ap-. 
 pears that a letter was read recommending the addition of 
 
74 
 
 the Apocrypha, and the Committee ordered that it should 
 be done. Then came another meeting, when a strong re- 
 monstrance from Mr Chabrand was read—an answer was 
 sent recommending him to give up his oppositions Next 
 came a letter from Mr Chabrand, still objecting in’ the 
 strongest terms. The matter was then referred to the Paris 
 Bible Society, which of course decided against Mr Cha- 
 brand. A request was then made by Mr Chabrand, that 
 a preface to it should be inserted. | This was positively re- 
 fused by the Committee. Thus it appears that Chabrand 
 fought his ground inch by inch.” Let us now hear Mr 
 Chabrand’s account of this business, and his opinion on the 
 subject of the Apocrypha, as given es himself 3 in a letter 
 dated August 30th, 1825 :— Se yes 
 « The Toulouse edition of the Bible was never published 
 ‘ without the Apocryphal books. Having been charged 
 ‘ by the Committee of the British and Foisige Bible So- 
 ‘ciety with the direction of that work, I expected; it is 
 ‘ true, to print only the canonical books; but, at a period 
 ‘ when the work was already far advanced, the London 
 ‘Committee having made over that edition to the Paris 
 ‘ Society, I received, on the part of the latter, an order 
 ‘ (invitation ) to join the Apocrypha to the Canonical books, 
 ‘I took the liberty to make some representations to them 
 ‘on the subject, which I transmitted to the Committee 
 ‘through Professor Keiffer; but all that I could obtain 
 ‘ was, that, in order to make a difference between the Apo- 
 ‘ eryphal and Canonical books, I should place the former 
 « at the end of the whole Bible,—that I should prefix to 
 ‘ them an advertisement, which they adopted only in part, 
 ¢ —that, instead of following the division by verses, as im 
 ‘the Bible, I should distribute them into paragraphs 5° and 
 ‘ finally, that I should print them with a Sse os than 
 ‘ the rest of the volume. ; Ab 
 “ My purpose in printing the Apuatppaad nite at the 
 ‘ end of the Bible, and in the smaller type was, to prevent 
 
75 
 
 ‘the ignorant people from confounding it with the Ca- 
 ‘ nonical books, as they do so often when they are placed 
 ‘ between the Old and New Testaments, and printed in the 
 ‘same way. 
 
 ‘I still think that there are weighty objections, graves 
 “ inconveniens, (at least among us on account of igno- 
 ‘ rance) to joining the Apocryphal to the Canonical books : 
 «1. Because, as I have just said, the people confound the 
 ‘one with the other: that the book of Tobit teaches the 
 ‘merit of works; that the books of Maccabees establish 
 ‘ purgatory and prayers for the dead, &c.; and that, in 
 
 ‘ general, as the Fathers of the Great Synod of Dordrecht 
 ‘ say, they are filled with tales, and ridiculous fables, such 
 ‘ as the history of the Devil Asmodeus, &c. 
 
 «« I know of only two reasons alleged by those who de- 
 ‘ sire to see them always occupy that place. 1. Use, that 
 is to say, custom. 2. As historical documents following 
 ‘ up'those of the Old Testament. As to the first reason, 
 * viz. custom, it seemed to me that the people belonging 
 ‘to our churches had so much lost sight of the word of 
 ‘ God, that the moment to disencumber the canon of the 
 ‘ New Seriptures of that improper (inconvenant) appen- 
 *‘ dage, namely, the Apocrypha, appeared to me favourable ; 
 ‘ and, as to their bemg historical documents, I proposed 
 
 ‘that they should obied them into the’ world and into 
 ‘ libraries, by causing them to be printed apart.” 
 
 Here we have Mr Chabrand’s opinion on the einen 
 an opinion which he has held all along. When the addi- 
 tion of the Apocrypha was ordered, he was so much hurt; 
 that he has since affirmed, that, if he had known the Apo- 
 crypha was to be added, he would have had nothing to 
 do with the superintendence of printing the Bible. He de- 
 clared, too, that he placed the Apocrypha at the end of the 
 Bible, and printed it in a smaller type, that’ it might be 
 as little noticed, and do as little harm as possible. 
 
 So far from their being “a protest on all’ sides” against 
 the omission of the Apocrypha, as Mr Keiffer has assert- 
 
76 
 
 ed, Mr Chabrand, who lives im the midst of the Protes- 
 tants, has never to this day heard a single complaint on 
 the subject. 1n his letter quoted above, he says; ‘* I-have 
 ‘never heard one, neither Church’ nor individual, sin 
 ‘ France, complain of the absence of the Apoeryphal books; 
 ‘but I have known a great many pastors (beaucoup de 
 ‘ pasteurs ) disapprove of their. insertion: inthe volume of 
 ‘the Bible.” So much for: the: Toulouse edition \of the 
 Bible. I come now to that of Montauban. 91) of Yom 
 
 gion MrKeToD 
 
 ov ‘omg rueds 
 misaands yoldstt 
 
 Being at: Montauban in the year 1817, I found among 
 the French Protestants a deplorable want: of Bibles; I 
 therefore suggested the propriety, and evem the necessity, 
 of endeavouring to obtain a sufficient supply. To encou- 
 rage them to this, I offered a donation of L.100, andto 
 give L.100 more afterwards if it should be needed’s at the 
 same time I assured them that, from what I knew of the 
 British and Foreign Bible Society, I was convinced«:that, 
 if applied to, it would afford them very effectual aid... 'The 
 subject was immediately taken into consideration; and:in a 
 few days a letter was forwarded to» that Society, to which 
 an answer, offering a very liberal donation; was Soon after 
 received. It was then resolved to» commence the work. 
 In communicating to me this resolution, it was stated» that 
 the Apocrypha would be published with the Bibles Against 
 this I immediately remonstrated. » I observed, that the»do- 
 nation I had offered was for the publication of the word:of 
 God; but, if the Apocrypha was to be joined with ity Leould 
 have no part in such a transaction. I farther told them, 
 that on the same grounds I was certain the London Society 
 could afford them no aid, for that, even were’'the Directors 
 of that Society willing to assist in such a workyit was not-in 
 their power ; as it would be a violation of their'rules, and 
 consequently of their engagements with those who sup- 
 ported that institution. This was my firm belief at that 
 
77 
 
 time, for I had then no: suspicion of what I have since 
 found to be the practice of that Society on the Continent, 
 respecting the Apocrypha. \This remonstrance “produced 
 the desired effect: Within a few days;:I was informed 
 that it’ was resolved to omit the | ae and «to ihe 
 lish the Bible alone: " 
 
 » The Protestant Churches sae ich Hikalicat were: Bach 
 apd to, and the greater part, if ‘not all’ of them, -sub- 
 scribed to the proposed: work, each engaging: to take a 
 certain number of copies. I continued at Montauban 
 about two years afterwards, while the printing of the 
 Bible, consisting of 6000 copies, was going forward ; dur- 
 ing all which time not a syllable was uttered about) adding 
 the Apoerypha;:nor did I ever hear of the: least: com- 
 plaint being made on the subject ofits omission: by: any of 
 the French Churches, or by any. individual.» Among the 
 last. things I did :before I: quitted France, was) to pay 
 the money Ivhad ‘subscribed, under) the stipulation that 
 the Apocrypha should not. be: added to the Bible. Up 
 to that period there’ was. not the smallest intention of 
 adding the Apocrypha: for I am certaimthat the person to 
 whom I paid)the money, who had the: best access of any 
 man in France to know the state and sentiments: of all the 
 French Protestant Churches, possessed too much; Christian 
 integrity to have allowed him toreceive it if he had’ enter- 
 tainedthe most distant idea that such an intention existed. 
 
 At length the Montauban Bible:was:published and ar- 
 culated. »» But long afterwards, and after, 8000: copies had 
 been disposed of; the Paris: Bible Society (the instrument, 
 under the British and Foreign Bible Society, of all this 
 mischief) desired that the Apocrypha 'should be added’ to 
 it.The: Christians‘at. Montauban decidedly opposed the 
 measure. They knew by experience that the Bible would 
 circulate freely in France without the Apocrypha—they 
 detested that carnal policy which would lead men to adul- 
 terate the word of. God—they insisted, that, if those »who 
 
 \ 
 
 K 
 
78 
 
 desired this addition were mdeed convinced that the cireu- 
 lation of the Bible was the work of God, they would not 
 fear its being retarded because it had not the Apocrypha 
 joined with it; and they added, that printing the Apo- 
 crypha would both be contrary to the rules of their Society 
 and the violation of a positive engagement which they had 
 entered into,—in the faith of which, money had been receiv- 
 ed by them. Whatever force was in these arguments, they 
 were overruled. The others yielded to the Paris So- 
 ciety, and 2500 copies of the Apocrypha were printed 
 and added to the copies of the Montauban Bible that had 
 not been disposed of. 
 
 Mr Marzials, the first Minister of Montauban, and Pre- 
 sident of the Consistory,* says, in a letter dated from 
 Montauban, August 30, 1825 :—“ The cause of the print- 
 ‘ ing of it (the Apocrypha) is frivolous, and we contend- 
 ‘ed (combatue) against it when it was proposed.—Mr 
 ‘ Bonnard+ and I did not choose to have any thing to do 
 ‘ with that work. The Bible Society at Paris held out 
 ‘ (pretendit ) that the Apocrypha was required by many 
 * of those who purchased the Montauban Bible, and that, 
 ‘in order not to stop its distribution, it was necessary 
 ‘to print a number of copies of it. As I do not like 
 “such compliances, (complaisances,) because it is more 
 ‘than improper (plus quinconvenant) to join im the 
 * same volume the profane with the sacred, I represented 
 ‘that, if they were forcibly convinced that the Biblical 
 < work was the work of God, they would not be in the 
 ‘least afraid that the circulation of the Montauban Bible 
 ‘would be retarded because it had not the Apocrypha; 
 ‘and that they ought not to incur an expense contrary 
 ‘to the rules of our Society. Our brother Bonnard spoke 
 
 * It was to the former President of the Consistory that I refered in my 
 letter of October 6, 1821, page 20. “ee 
 
 + Mr Bonnard is the Doven of the Faculty (that is, Principal of the Col- 
 lege) at Montauban. 
 
79 
 
 ‘ to the same purpose with me, and several others of the 
 ‘ Committee supported our opposition.—I have heard it 
 ‘ said that some persons complained that the Apocrypha 
 ‘ was wanting in our Bible; but, as to myself personally, 
 ‘ not one has made that complaint to me, although in this 
 ‘ Church and in some others I have distributed very many 
 ‘ (beaucoup) copies. Before the printing of the Apocry- 
 ‘ pha, about three thousand copies of the Montauban Bible 
 ‘ had been already sold.” 
 
 Respecting the printing of the Apocrypha, both in the 
 Montauban Bible and in other Bibles for the Roman Ca- 
 tholics, Mr Marzials writes as follows, in a letter to a friend 
 of his in this country, dated August 4, 1825 :—* None of 
 ‘us approved of the printing of the Apocrypha; and I 
 ‘ believe, as you do, that the Bible Society of Paris should 
 ‘not have occupied themselves with it. It was thus that 
 ‘ I declared my opinion here when the question was agitated. 
 ‘ People often think that they. are acting with prudence in 
 ‘ their operations, when they do eyery thing to avoid of- 
 ‘ fending any one; but then they often lose sight of the 
 ‘rights of faith, (les droits de la foi.) Happy will it be 
 ‘ when human prudence shall not paralyze the action of 
 ‘ Christian prudence. They have wished to pay their 
 ‘court tothe Roman Catholics in printing these books, 
 ‘and they. have not seen that, in associating them with the 
 ‘ holy books, they doubted the efficacy of these for their 
 ‘ conversion.” . 
 
 Here I cannot but.exult in the Christian conduct of my 
 good friends.at Montauban. I feel high satisfaction when 
 I compare it with the worldly policy of many. In all 
 things they have approved themselves to be clear in this 
 matter. Thus wisdom is justified of her children. The 
 weight of the opinions of such men on a religious sub- 
 ject is very different indeed from that of many of the cor- 
 respondents of the British and Foreign Bible Society. 
 
 _ It was necessary to give a detailed account of the above 
 proceedings, in which Mr Keiffer bore a distinguished 
 
80 
 
 part. While it overthrows Mr Keiffer’s facts, it proves 
 not only the forwardness of the Directors of the Bible So- 
 ciety to add the Apocrypha to the sacred volume, but 
 their culpable lack of infcrmation, and want of diseern- 
 ment. respecting the affairs of the Continent. ‘To those 
 who know of what'materials the Paris Bible Committee is 
 generally composed, it, will be matter of astonishment that 
 an opinion given by it on a religious subject should be pre- 
 ferred, or even for a moment. put in competition, a that 
 of Genre Christians, Sy 
 
 I now come to Mr Keiffer’s testimony respecting Martin's 
 pocket Bible, of which he says, ‘* Though this edition /was 
 * advertised in the annual. Reports, and. in severalvof the 
 * Society’s circulars, and though it was offered at a very 
 ‘ low price, nobody asked. for it.” So far is: this from be- 
 ing the fact, that a great number. of copies of this. Bible 
 was sent to the South of France,: where it circulated freely, 
 and sold better than the Bibles to. which the Apocrypha 
 was joined. I have: lately received. this account ‘from 
 a friend who was’ residing in, the South of France when 
 it was sent there, and who has full imformation on the 
 subject, having taken a_ particular) interest) inthe. cir- 
 culation of the Scriptures in that country..._In,Mr Mar- 
 zial’s letter above quoted, he says, § A very great num- 
 ‘ ber of the small Bible of Paris have been distributed in 
 ‘ this city.” M. Chabrand, in his letter above quoted, gives 
 the following decisive testimony, both as to the sale of this 
 Bible and as to the Apocrypha :—** What. proves that the 
 ‘ people would never have required the Apocrypha, is, that 
 ‘the pocket Bible of Paris, which has it not, any. more 
 ‘than the edition of Drummond’s Bible, also in 18mo. 
 ‘ printed at Geneva, both sold most promptly, (tres 
 + promptement,) and the edition of the Montauban Bible 
 ‘ had-not the Apocrypha added to it, till a long time after 
 » the circulation of a great number of these Bibles,” 
 
81 
 
 So much for Mr Keiffer’s facts, which appear to him 
 more than sufficient to prove the impossibility of intro- 
 ducing the unadulterated Bible among the French Pro- 
 testants. 
 
 But Mr Keiffer presents us with another of his facts— 
 ** Let them (the Committee of the British and Foreign 
 © Bible Society) think of the incalculable good’ they may 
 still effect through Divine grace, amongst twenty-nine 
 * millions of souls earnestly seeking salvation.” T'wenty- 
 nine millions of souls—the whole population of France, ear- 
 nestly seeking salvation ! What Christian would not rejoice, 
 were the day arrived when this shall indeed be realized ? 
 But what man, who knows any thing of the present state 
 of France, will attach the smallest weight, on a religious 
 subject, to the opinion of one who was capable of making 
 such a statement? Yet, behind such authority would the 
 Directors of the British and Foreign Bible “Society shelter 
 themselves, and endeavour to palliate their rg justifiable con- 
 duct im adulterating the Bible. 
 
 ‘The public will now judge of the Pan chanted by 
 the Cambridge “ writers,” after exhibiting extracts ‘of the 
 above four letters to the world :—** These letters contain 
 ‘an irresistible appeal to the members of the British and 
 * Foreign Bible Society, and warrant the assertion that the 
 ‘desirable period has not yet arrived, when the uninspired 
 * books can be separated from the sacred volume, without 
 * very materially diminishing its circulation throughout the 
 * greater part of the Christian world, and without endan- 
 
 * gering the connexion of the Society with all the Conti- 
 * nental churches.” 
 
 Before quitting this subject, I must observe that Mr 
 Chabrand, to whom the Bible Society intrusted the publi- 
 cation of 10,000 copies of the Bible, together with 5000 
 Testaments, and 10,000 copies of the books of Psalms, 
 Proverbs, and Ecclesiastes, and the Christians at Montau- 
 ban to whom I have alluded—men in the highest situations 
 
abihe 82 
 
 in the Protestant College, and in the church, and incivil 
 Tife—are i in every respect far better, judges than even such 
 of the British and Foreign Bible Society’s correspondents 
 in Paris as are Christians. They reside in that part of 
 the country where. the great bedy of the Protestants is 
 found. Montauban, in which is the seat of the Protestant 
 College for the education of their ministers, may be styled 
 the root or.centre of the French Protestant Churches, where 
 aregular official correspondence i 1s maintained with them 
 all. They have not only a more accurate knowledge of 
 the Protestants throughout France, but, are men of much 
 Jonger standing, a of much greater, experience, on all 
 religious subjects. _Had their opmion been acted on, the 
 Bible would now have been circulating among the Protes- 
 tants of France without the Apocrypha, and thus a great 
 point would have been gained, even according to the ad- 
 mission of its. most strenuous supporters. . The truth as, 
 that the Protestants in that country, when the Montauban 
 and Toulouse Bibles were published, had, as Mr Chabrand 
 has observed, so little acquaintance with the Scriptures, t that 
 they would never have considered, or eyen noticed or known, 
 whether or not the Apocrypha was appended. to them. So 
 scarce were Bibles when I was at Montauban, that, there 
 was not one to be purchased. Several of the students of 
 divinity did not possess one, and were, glad to receive from 
 me .even the New Testament. I was. informed, that, in 
 some of the Protestant churches there was not a Bible to 
 be found in the pulpits. Thus the Directors of the 
 British and Foreign Bible Society, by departing from, its 
 fundamental mapa and constitution—by consulting persons 
 imeompetent to give them adviee, and by refusing to listen 
 to experienced Christians, have been. the means of contami- 
 nating twelve. thousand five hundr ed_ copies, of the Bible, 
 and of reviving and riveting a most baneful and dangerous 
 error and prejudice, with ae formerly the minds of mul- 
 titudes had been deeply imbued. 
 
83 
 
 Not only in France, but over the other parts of the 
 Continent, might the Scriptures be circulated without the 
 Apocrypha. We “have seen’ the testimony of Van Ess to 
 facts which, though his intention in producing them was 
 very different, confirm this conclusion; while he has’ ex- 
 pressly declared, that many enlightened Roman Catholics 
 feel disposed to take no umbrage ohintewer at the separation 
 of the Apocrypha from the Bible. 
 
 Mr Empeytaz, a well known, an experienced, and highly 
 respected Christian pastor, on the Continent, who is weli ac- 
 quainted with Germany, affirms that he has good grounds 
 for stating, that the assertion that the Bible would not be 
 received in Germany without the Apocrypha is “ a gross 
 misrepresentation.” 
 
 ‘Dr Naudi, ‘a physician at Malta, and Secretary of the 
 Bible Society there, writes, (in English,) as follows, Aug: 
 29, 1825 :—*< In a letter which we just received by the 
 * packet, from the British and Foreign Bible Society, they 
 “say that there is in London again additional commotions 
 ‘about the printing of the Apocryphal writings among the 
 ‘ inspired books of the Holy Scriptures; and that at Scot- 
 *land a@ most powerful opposition rose against the unin- 
 € spired books. ‘This question im favour of the Scriptures, 
 * viz. to publish them without any human mixture, should 
 ‘been ended with the British and Foreign Bible Society 
 “long before the present day. The vulgar in general’ in 
 © Papal countries know very little about the Scriptures, 
 ‘much less about the controverted parts of them. And 
 ‘the Malta Bible Society did not experience a sensible 
 *Iéss in circulating the Italian Bible without the Apoery- 
 ‘ phal writings.” Towards the end of this letter, Dr Naudi 
 says, “I desire you would advocate the cause against any 
 “mixtures with holy inspired writings. If I were not so 
 “pressed for time, as you know according to miy last, I 
 © would make a ‘kind of tract on this subject, for — I 
 * have at = all the necessary materials.” 
 
84 
 
 About two years ago the Maltese Bible, Society, after 
 mature deliberation, sent a remonstrance to the British 
 and Foreign Bible Society against the Apocrypha, , and 
 declared they would no longer circulate a spurious inter- 
 mixture with the Bible. An angry. letter, was in conse- 
 quence dispatched to them by the Society, withjan order to 
 send off the spurious books to another station. 4, 4 5 
 
 Here a Bible Society, in the midst of a Roman Catholic 
 population, possessing the means of ascertaining that. the 
 Holy Scriptures, unadulterated by the Apocrypha, would 
 be accepted by the people, lifts up. its. voice against, this 
 profanation ? And how is the remonstrance received? Is 
 the mistake which the Directors of the British and Foreign 
 Bible Society laboured under, which the’ above declaration 
 ought to have corrected, candidly, acknowledged, and. the 
 profane practice gladly abandoned ? On the contrary, their 
 indignation is excited, and their adulterated book, falsely 
 called the Bible, instead of being suppressed, is dispatched: 
 to some other quarter, where ‘that man’ of sin” requires its 
 support, and where, owing to the ignorance of his votaries, 
 no obstacle will be presented to its reception. 4... 5) 
 
 In the above case we have the important testimony of 
 Dr Naudi, a foreigner, a witness worthy of credit, formerly 
 a Roman Catholic, and consequently well acquainted with 
 the sentiments of such, that, after a long trial, a, Bible So- 
 ciety, in the midst of a Catholic population, did not eape- 
 rience a sensible loss in circulating the Bible .without.the 
 Apocrypha. art estan 
 
 Mr Malan, of Geneva, gives it as his, decided, opinion 
 that the Bible would circulate freely in every, part,of the 
 Continent without the Apocrypha... In ‘a}letter,. dated 
 September 26, 1825, he says, “A Bible without the Apo- 
 ‘ crypha would be received EVERYWHERE (PARTOUT) upon 
 ‘ the Continent, excepting by certain pastors who are ob- 
 ‘ stinate in preserving these bad books; but of these 
 ‘there are very few. This is also the opinion of Mr 
 ‘ Rochat. The Bible which Mr Drummond caused to be 
 
85 
 
 «printed has not the Apocrypha, and it hasia great sale 
 ‘(elle se vend beaucoup). I consider that to print and 
 ‘ distribute the Apocrypha, is to sell bread with needles 
 * concealed in it: He who eats it might perhaps feel some- 
 ‘ thing prick him, and he might reject what he had taken, 
 ‘ but it is'also to be feared that the needles might choke 
 ‘him. It is inconceivable how Calvin and Luther could 
 ‘print these books. ‘Why did they not also print the Apo- 
 ‘crypha of the New Testament ? I have read the discus- 
 ¢ sion of the Church of Scotland, (I mean of the Bible 
 « Society,) and I have been grieved (affligé) by the reply 
 ‘ of the Society of London. ‘This I have in detail from a 
 * member of the London Bible Society who was lately here. 
 ¢ I do not think that such a work will be blessed, since it is 
 ¢ interdicted, and God wills that His Word alone should be 
 ‘ distributed. Let us not fear that the removal of this 
 ¢ poison will deprive one soul of that morsel of the heavenly 
 * bread which God has appointed for him. | What an error 
 * is it to believe that'a lie’ can be a useful introduction to 
 ‘the truth ! Must the Spirit of the Lord in any way have 
 ‘ for door-keeper (portier) the spirit of the darkness of 
 * this world? I regret much (Je plains bien) that Van Ess 
 ‘ has ‘believed that this concession should be made, JJ a 
 © mis du feu dans son fenil.” 
 
 ~The more the alleged necessity of adding the Apocry- 
 pha to the Bible is investigated, the more unfounded will 
 the opinion appear, while we see that the policy which 
 dictates this measure, so unlike the character and the 
 whole procedure of the Divine Author of the Christian 
 dispensation, is held m abhorrence by well-informed Chris- 
 tians on the Continent.“ Wall ye speak wickedly for God 
 and talk deceitfally for him ?”—Job, xiii. 7. 
 
86 
 
 CHAPTER IV. talons 
 
 THE QUESTION RESPECTING THE ADDITION OF THE APO- 
 CRYPHA TO THE SCRIPTURES.—CHARACTER OF THE 
 SCRIPTURES.——CHARACTER OF THE APOCRYPHA.—CIR- 
 CULATION OF THE APOCRYPHA BY THE BIBLE SOCIETY. © 
 
 WS3ILE arguments are used to prove that the circulation 
 of the Word of God will either be promoted ‘or retarded 
 by the measures which are adopted for the purpose, we 
 should never lose sight of what ought to be the grand ob- 
 ject of inquiry respecting the important question now agi- 
 tated in every Bible Society in Britain—Whether we are at 
 liberty to make an addition to the Book of God, in ‘order 
 to procure its admission among’ the nations? | 
 
 - The wide circulation of the Holy Scriptures is a matter 
 of the utmost importance. They are able’ to’ make men 
 wise unto salvation. Those who have experienced’ their 
 saving efficacy should earnestly desire’ to’ impart’ this in- 
 estimable treasure to all their fellow creatures. \ Recollect- 
 ing, however, that the conversion of ‘the soul'can a 
 effected by the power of God, they should aim ‘at ‘its’ ae: 
 complishment in those ways alone which, in his infiite’ 
 wisdom, he has pointed out. God himself must” prepare’ 
 the hearts of men to receive the good seed ; he only can 
 make them willing in the day of his power.’ Without this® 
 all the means which we can employ will prove ineffectual. 
 We may put the Scriptures into men’s hand; but;'unless” 
 they have an inclination to read them, they willonly bea 
 treasure in the hands of a fool. ‘This consideration ‘should: 
 by no means induce Christians to relax’ in their endea~ 
 vours to circulate the Scriptures. The sovereign pur- 
 poses of God are not our rule of duty. Faith, he has 
 assured us, cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word 
 
87 
 
 of God; but it ought to admonish us to proceed, in all our 
 exertions to promote his glory and the good of immortal 
 souls, aceording to the rule he has laid down in his word. 
 Following that, we shall both proceed in safety to ourselves 
 and with the greatest benefit to others. 
 
 The question, then, of the lawfulness and even of the 
 expediency of adding the Apocrypha to the Holy Scrip. 
 tures, in order to procure for them a wider circulation, 
 resolves itself into this, ** What saith the Scripture?” On 
 this point, as on every other, we ought carefully to con. 
 sult the living oracles, lest it should be said to us as to 
 the Sadducees of old “ Ye do err, not knowing the Scrip- 
 tures, nor the power of God.” 
 
 Mr Simeon is fully sensible that this is our duty. Ar- 
 dent as he is for continuing the former practice of the 
 Bible Society, respecting the Apocrypha, he appears to 
 be convinced that it can only be vindicated if found con~ 
 sistent with the divine record. To it, therefore, he has 
 appealed ; with what success his readers will determine. 
 It is to be hoped, however, that all who shall henceforth 
 advocate the cause for which he pleads, instead of trifling 
 any longer in producing human authorities, and urging 
 the length of time that has elapsed since the Apocryphal 
 writings usurped a place in the sacred volume, will argue 
 on what shall appear to themselves to be scriptural 
 grounds. We may reasonably expect, too, since this mat- 
 ter has been fully brought to the view of Christians, that 
 nothing less will satisfy them than the conviction that they 
 are borne out in their final decision by the word of God. 
 
 At present there are two questions before the British 
 and Foreign Bible Society. The one is, Shall the practice 
 of intermingling the Apocryphal with the Canonical books 
 be continued, or shall it be abandoned? The other is, 
 Shall the Apocrypha be added in any way to the Bible ? 
 
 The former of these questions, we may conclude, is al- 
 ready settled. Since the impious practice of the intermix- 
 ture of the Apocryphal with the Canonical books has been 
 
8& 
 
 exposed in all the deformity of its presumptuous wicked- 
 ness, in confounding the language of Holy Writ, convert- 
 ing it into a very Babel, and in drawing a’darker veil over 
 the hearts of men already seduced by the sorceries’ of Ba- 
 bylon, we may presume that it will speedily disappear. +) 
 -We come then to the second question, Whether: it be 
 lawful for the British and Foreign Bible Society to add 
 the Apocrypha to the Bible in any way whatever? Here 
 it is not necessary to repeat what has ‘been already advan- 
 ced, that, if this Society shall persist in its present practice, 
 it is imperiously required, on the grounds of imtegrity and 
 fair dealing to change its name and its fundamental’ rules; 
 with the language of its reports; in short, to’ new-model 
 the whole of \its constitution.. Nor shall I dilate »on what 
 has been proved in the Statement of the Edinburgh 
 Committee, how much more pernicious it is to jom with 
 the Holy Scriptures. the Apocryphal books—writings 
 which are viewed by many as of divine origin, thanto send 
 forth the sacred volume, accompanied: with notes and com- 
 ments confessedly of human compositions 94) 6) 
 Let this question then be divested of every adventitious. 
 circumstance, and considered simply on its own merits; 
 and let us recollect, that it.is a much’ more seriéus ques- 
 tion than many seem to:suppose. 'Fhose who have hither- 
 to treated it lightly, or have not viewed it as involving 
 much personal responsibility, would do well to pause and 
 reflect. before they give countenance any longer to) the 
 practice referred to. Let us then put entirely out of view 
 every arguinent from expediency, | every mquiry respecting 
 the rules or practice of the British and. Foreign Bible» So- 
 ciety, every consideration connected with the opimions:/or 
 authority of men, of whatever name, ancient) or amodern; 
 and, turning our eyes to. Him who hath commanded’ us «to 
 call no, man father upon earth, examine this. question, 
 which now comes practically home to every one of. us,/in 
 the light of that: Word which he hath given to be a lamp 
 unto our feet and alight untoour path. For this purpose, 
 
89 
 
 it is necessary to bring into’ view the plenary-inspiration 
 of the Scriptures, .The common erroneous. idea, so. de- 
 grading to their character, that the Scriptures are written 
 under different degrees of inspiration, induces some to fa- 
 vour the practice of joming with them the Apocrypha; 
 and on this very ground its lawfulness 1s sometimes de- 
 fended, 
 
 - The Bible is the book of God, inthe writing of which, 
 the men; who were employed, were only instruments in his 
 hand, who often did not understand the meaning of the 
 words they were inspired ‘to utter or to record. All serip- 
 ture is given by the inspiration of God, and on this account 
 it is called the word of God. . This plenary inspiration, 
 claimed by the Scriptures, signifies the infusion of ideas 
 and words into the minds of the writers by the operation 
 of God. . “And he said unto me, Son of man, go, get thee 
 wnto the: house of Isracl, and speak with my words unto 
 them. Moreover, he said unto me, Son of'man, all my words 
 that I shall speak unto thee receive in thine heart, and hear 
 with thine ears. And go; get thee to them of the captivity, 
 unto the children of thy people, and speak unto them, and tell 
 them, Thus saith the Lord God, whether they will hear, or 
 whether they will forbear.” Ezek. ii. 4.10.11. 
 
 The Scriptures contain the revelation of the will of God ; 
 and he is able to communicate his will to the instrument 
 he makes use of for this purpose, in» whatever way he 
 pleases, although the manner of his operation we cannot : 
 trace. In /the words spoken by the ass of Balaam; we 
 have an example of this communication through’an un- 
 conscious and involuntary instrument: In. Balaam . him- 
 self, through one who was: conscious, but involuntary: In 
 Caiaphas, through one who was voluntary in what he said, 
 but unconscious of its import. And im the writers of the 
 Scriptures we \have an example of agents both voluntary 
 and conscious, but equally actuated by the Spirit of God. 
 
 The sacred writers uniformly claim for the Scriptures 
 
90 
 
 this highest degree of inspiration, and give no intimation 
 of their being written under an inspiration of any kind but 
 one. The declaration of the Apostle, that all Scripture i is 
 given by the inspiration of God, refers to the whole of the 
 Old Testament, which Timothy had known from his child- 
 hood. But, as part of the New Testament was at that time 
 written, and as the whole of it is classed by its writers with 
 the Old Testament, this expression of Paul equally ap- 
 plies to the New. The Apostle Peter ranks all the epis- 
 tles of Paul with “ the other Scriptures,” thereby intimating 
 that they are of the same authority, and showing that the 
 writings both of the Old and New Testaments went. by the 
 name of ‘ Scriptures.” 
 
 To the writings of the Old Testament this highest ie. 
 gree of inspiration is ascribed in the New. ‘*¢ Well spake 
 the Holy Ghost by Esaias the Prophet,” Acts xxviii. 25. 
 “ As he saith also in Osee,” Rom. ix. 25. “ Wherefore also 
 the Holy Ghost saith,” Heb. iii. 7.“ Whereof the Holy 
 Ghost also is a witness, to us, for after that he had said,’ i 
 Heb. x. 14 “ Searching what or what manner of time, 
 the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when 
 it testified before hand the suffermgs of Christ, and the 
 glory that should follow,” 1 Peter 1.11. “« Who by the 
 mouth of thy servant David hast said,” Acts iv. 25. Thus 
 God “at sundry times, and in divers manners, spake i in 
 time past unto the fathers by the prophets,” Heb. i. 1.* 
 
 In like manner it was promised to the Apostles,, that. 
 they should receive the power of the Holy Ghost coming 
 upon them, Acts i. 8. Accordingly, on the day of Pente- 
 cost, they began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit 
 gave them utterance, Actsii. 4. ‘ They were all filled with 
 the Holy Ghost, and they spake the word of God with bold- 
 ness, Acts iv. $1. ‘ Which things also we speak, not in 
 the words which man’s -wisdom. teacheth, but, which the 
 
 ® «6 He suith”’ is repeated, or must’be understood in verses 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, and 
 13, of this first chapter, in the yarious quotations from the Old ‘Testament. 
 
91 
 
 Holy Ghost teacheth,” 1 Cor. ii. 13. ‘ Since ye seek a proof 
 of Christ speaking in (or by) me,” 2 Cor. xiii. 3. “ The 
 things that I write unto you are the commandments of the 
 Lord,” 1 Cor. xiv. 37. “ Whenye received the word of 
 God which ye heard from us, ye received it not as the 
 word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God,” 1 
 Thess. ii. 13. ‘‘ He therefore that despiseth, despiseth 
 not man 6ut God, who hath also given unto us his Holy 
 Spirit,” 1 Thess. iv. 8. Such was the inspiration by 
 which the Apostles wrote, nor do they ever once intimate 
 that they were not writing under its influence; and such 
 inspiration, and no less, was indispensably necessary for 
 those to whom the keys of the kingdom of heaven were 
 committed. The word that the Apostles were to de- 
 clare, was to open and to shut, to bind and ‘to loose, in 
 heaven and in earth, ‘* He breathed on them, and saith 
 unto them, receive ye the Holy Ghost ; whosesoever sins 
 ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whosesoever 
 sins ye retain, they are retained,” John xx. 22. “ He that 
 heareth you, heareth me,” Luke x. 16. 
 
 From the above, and many other passages of Scrip- 
 ture, we are taught the nature of that inspiration by 
 which the prophets and apostles wrote. The manner of 
 communicating the revelations might differ, as we learn, 
 Num. xii. 6. 8.; but their certainty and authority were 
 the same, “ for the prophecy came not of old time by the 
 will of man, but, holy men of God spake as they were 
 moved by the Holy Ghost.” Neither was it the apostles 
 who spake, but it was the Spirit of their Father, who 
 spake in them, Matt. x. 20.* This full inspiration of the 
 
 * Irenaeus, who conversed with Polycarp, the disciple of John, who him- 
 self lived but a few years after that Apostle, says, concerning the inspiration 
 of the Scriptures, ‘‘ Well knowing that the Scriptures are perfect, and dic- 
 tated by the word of God, and his. Spirit.” ~‘¢The sacred books,” says 
 Origen, “* came from the fulness of the Spirit ; so that there is nothing in the 
 
92 
 
 Book of God, without which it could not properly be called 
 his “‘ word,” should teach us to regard it with the highest 
 veneration. ‘ The words of the Lord are pure words: 
 as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times,” 
 Psal. xii. 6. ‘“ The law of the Lord is perfect,” Psal. 
 KIX. 7. 
 
 The Bible, indited by God himself, stands alone in the 
 world. It differs from all other writings, not in degree 
 only, but also in kind. It is the voice of Jehovah, the 
 word which he hath spoken, which he hath magnified 
 above all his name, Psal. cxxxviii. 2., by which he will 
 judge the world at the last day. No book, whatever may 
 be its origin, however excellent in itself, however true and 
 unexceptionable it may appear to us, can be placed on a 
 level with the Bible. No book exists which can be pro- 
 nounced to be like or second to it : 
 
 *¢ Cui par est nihil, et nihil secundum.” 
 
 The Bible is an emanation from Him who is the light 
 of the world, and it conveys that light to men. Other 
 books may borrow from this light, and hold up to view 
 the light which they borrow; but no book besides trans- 
 mits it immediately from Him. 
 
 The Bible, as it bears the divine image and super- 
 scription, speaks with the authority of God. As no other 
 book contains one spark of original divine light, so no other 
 book possesses one grain of divine authority. ‘The Bible 
 
 Prophets, or the law, or the Gospel of the Apostles, which descends not from 
 the fulness of the Divine Majesty.” And again Origen speaks of the Scrip- 
 tures, ‘¢ xot as the writings of-men, but that they have been written and de- 
 livered to us from the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, byjthe will of the Father 
 of all things, through Jesus Christ,” 
 
 * On the inspiration of the Scriptures, see “* The Evidence and Authority 
 of Divine Revelation,” by the Author, vol. i. chap. 5.5;*and the Remarks 
 on that Chapter in the Christian Observer, vol.fxxii. p. 488. A new edition 
 of that work will shortly be published. 
 
93 
 
 is the sword of the Spirit—the sharp two-edged sword which 
 proceeds out of the mouth of Him who is the first and 
 the last—the Almighty 3 itis the fire and the hammer ot 
 God. . 
 
 If the, Apoctyphal books appeared to us the most ex- 
 poe next to the Bible, that ever were written, still it 
 wotild not be lawful, to. join them to the sacred record. 
 This would be wrong in itself, and its consequences must 
 be bad. It would be wrong to allow human writings to 
 usurp, in a certain measure, however inferior in degree, a 
 place,of the same kind, with those that are divine. This 
 would be a:degradation of the word of God; a presump- 
 tuous attempt to invade that consecrated ground which 
 their divine Author has assigned to the Holy Scriptures, 
 and on which he. has purposed that they shall for ever 
 stand alone. It would be a daring imputation on that 
 word, as if it were not perfect and complete in itself— 
 divinely fitted’ to make men wise unto salvation, and 
 thoroughly furnished unto all good works,—as if some- 
 thing, which God had omitted in his word, was required 
 to. be supplied. Many human writings are good in their 
 proper place. Men of God, taught by his Spirit, have 
 been raised up in every age to preach his gospel, and to 
 place before others, in writing, the things they ought to 
 believe and to, practise ; but all they have spoken, and all 
 Ahey have written, that-is good and useful, has been taught 
 them by. the Holy Spirit, through the medium of his own 
 word ; they have brought forth no new truth that it does 
 not contain... When the canon of Scripture was closed, all 
 that diyine light which it pleased God to vouchsafe to this 
 sinful, world. was REALE» and nota single ray was to be 
 added. » ' 
 
 It is ‘not wnaly wrong in itself to connect the ihegisery - 
 
 phal writings with the Holy Scriptures, placitig them 
 
 ‘side by side, but ‘its consequencés must’ also“be bad. It 
 
 leads to a certain undefined idea, in the minds even of 
 
 those who are aware of the distinction between them and 
 M 
 
94 
 
 the canonical books, that to these Apocryphal writings 
 belongs something of that emanation of divine light with 
 which the Holy Scriptures illuminate the world, and of 
 that divine authority with which they address the children 
 of men. A portion of the inherent qualities of the one 
 will, in the reader’s imagination, be imperceptibly trans- 
 ferred to the other, and the immeasurable space betwixt 
 them will gradually diminish, if it does not altogether 
 disappear. The reiterated explanations which the most 
 enlightened abettors of the Apocryphal books bave felt it 
 necessary to append to them, prove how much they are 
 aware that this must be the case. Such is the anti-scrip- 
 tural nature of these writings, so directly do they stand in 
 opposition to the revelation of the grace of God, that if any 
 man receives the doctrine they contain, and continues in 
 that doctrine, he shall not see life, but the wrath of God 
 abideth on him. 
 
 The above considerations serve to show the unlawful- 
 ness and the guilt of adding the Apocrypha, of human in- 
 vention, to the Bible, of Divine origin ;. but the question 
 has not been left to be decided solely on this ground. God 
 has been pleased to interpose his authority to settle it for 
 ever. Tek eae al 
 
 It is his gracious design..to bring, back fallen, man to 
 himself, and. to preserve him from being led. astray by the 
 erring dictates of his own blinded reason... For this 
 purpose, he has vouchsafed a perfect revelation of his 
 will, to guide and to direct him in the way he should go. 
 But man, vainly puffed up. by his fleshly mind, is ever 
 prone, like Uzza, presumptuously to put, forth his hand 
 to support the sacred ark. To guard against this ten- 
 dency, and tc preserve, his revelation pure and entire, 
 God has aunexed the most awful threatenings to the 
 slightest attempt to add to, or to corrupt his word; and, 
 as on Mount Sinai, when he delivered the first part to the - 
 Jews, he has fenced it with bounds round about, that nei- 
 ther priests nor people may break through. These warn- 
 
95 
 
 ings, backed by the most awful sanctions, it should be 
 particularly noticed, are interspersed through every part 
 of the sacred volume; and each one of them is, for the 
 same reasons, equally applicable to the whole. 
 
 In this manner, that portion of the Scriptures called 
 the Law is guarded :—“ Ye shall not add unto the word 
 which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from 
 it,” Deut. iv. 2.3 xii. 32. 
 
 In the next division, called the Hagiographa, it is writ- 
 ten, “* Every word of God is pure: He is a shield unto them 
 that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, 
 lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.” Prov. xxx. 
 56. ; 
 
 In the prophetical writings, the warning is again re- 
 peated. They are closed with an intimation, that no more 
 prophets were to be sent, till the Forerunner of Jehovah, 
 who was to come suddenly to his temple, should appear. 
 Israel is then commanded to remember that revelation which 
 had been made to Moses concerning Jesus, which the pro- 
 phets had been commissioned to illustrate, but not to alter. 
 “< Remember ye the law of Moses my servant, which I com- 
 manded unto him in Horeb for all Israel, with the statutes 
 and judgments,” Mal. iv. 4. 
 
 To guard the inviolable integrity of the sacred Scriptures 
 from their commencement to their close, the flaming sword 
 is once more unsheathed. As, at the termination of the Old 
 Testament, where the attenticn of Israel is called to the first 
 appearance of the Son of God as the Saviour, they are 
 instructed that the prophetic testimony to him is finished ; 
 so, at the conclusion of the New Testament, when the at- 
 tention of all men is directed to his second coming as the 
 Final Judge, an assurance is given that the canon of 
 Scripture is completed. Then, when the last sound of the 
 voice from heaven is heard, words are uttered by Him 
 who has the keys of hell and of death, at which both the 
 ears of every one that heareth them should tingle. ‘“ J 
 testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophe- 
 
96 
 
 cy of this book, if any man shall add unto these things, 
 God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this 
 book ; and if any man shall take from the words of the book 
 of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the 
 book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things 
 which are written in this book. Rev. xxii. 18, 19. 
 
 The Apocrypha is an addition to the Bible. It pre- 
 sents itself to the world as such. It professes to contain 
 messages from God, sometimes communicated immediate- 
 ly by himself, sometimes conveyed through the medium 
 of angels, who are represented as standing before his Sa- 
 cred Majesty. The claim to inspiration is not more ex- 
 plicitly asserted for themselves by the writers of the Scrip- 
 tures than it is arrogated by the authors of the Apoery- 
 phal books. No higher demand for attention to their mes- 
 sage can be made by holy prophets and apostles, than 
 when they assert, * Thus saith the Lord.” Yet this is the 
 language in which the Apocrypha addresses mankind. 
 
 In the second book of Esdras, the writer, having begun 
 by deélaring his lineage, affirms, “the word of ‘the Lord 
 came unto me, saying, Go thy way, and show ‘my people,” 
 &e. “ Speak thou therefore unto them, saying, Thus 
 saith the Lord.”— Thus saith the Almighty Lord.”. This 
 expression occurs four times in the first chapter. The 
 second chapter opens with, “ Thus saith the Lord,” which, 
 in the course of it, is repeated nine times; and then an 
 angel is represented as speaking to the writer, “Then the 
 angel said unto me, go thy way, and tell my people what 
 manner of things, and how great wonders of the Lord thy 
 God thou hast seen.” The rest of the book proceeds in 
 the same manner, the author continuing to recite divine 
 communications, made to himself, as they had ynes ‘to 
 Moses. Baruch xi. 21. Thus saith the Lord. 
 
 In the book of Tobit, a long interview with an ee 
 is related, who affirms that he is one of the seven holy 
 angels who go in and out before the glory of the Holy One. 
 
97 
 
 «‘ Now, therefore,” says this angel, “‘give God thanks, 
 for I go up to him that sent me; but write all things 
 which are done in a book,” Tobit xii. 15. 20... God him- 
 self is often introduced by the Apocryphal writers, as 
 communicating his will to them; and long speeches are 
 ascribed to Him.* Thus the writers of the Apocrypha 
 come as the bearers of ‘messages from God, and as such 
 they deliver them to mankind. They pretend to commu- 
 nicate a portion of spiritual light, not borrowed from the 
 Holy Scriptures, but immediately derived from the source 
 of light. In every sense of the word, these books, then, 
 present themselves as an addition to Divine Revelation ; 
 and, if they were what they pretend to be, would be en- 
 titled to equal attention and reverence with whatever is 
 contained in the Scriptures. Here then there is no me- 
 dium. The conclusion is inevitable: the Apocrypha is 
 either an addition to the Scriptures by God himself, or it 
 as the work of lying prophets. 
 
 Now, then, we come to the great question, the sds 
 ing of which will decide the lawfulness or the guilt of add- 
 ing the Apocrypha to the Holy Seriptures: Is its claim.to 
 be a revelation from God, well founded, or is it not ? 
 
 The oracles of God were committed to the Jews. 
 God made his ancient people the depositaries of the 
 Old Testament Scriptures, as long as that dispensa- 
 tion continued; and in his holy providence he so in- 
 fluenced their minds, that, in this respect, they were 
 entirely faithful to the trust committed to them.  Al- 
 though, in general, ignorant of their spiritual meaning, yet 
 did they hold the “living oracles” in such veneration, 
 that they maintained that * God had more care of the let- 
 ters and syllables of the law than of the stars in heaven ; 
 and that upon each tittle of it whole mountains of doc- 
 
 * The absurd, unintelligible speeches, replete with trifling nonsense, as- 
 cribed to God in different places, prove the Apocrypha to be not only a hu- 
 man, but a most impious composition. 
 
98 
 
 trines hung.” Hence, every individual letter was numbered 
 by them, and notice was taken how often it occurred. They 
 preserved the Scriptures pure and unadulterated, without 
 either addition or diminution, until Shiloh came, to whom 
 the gathering of the people was to be, and until, having 
 stamped them with his divine authority, he delivered them 
 to his church as those Scriptures that testify of Him. Do 
 then the Apocryphal books, all, or any of them, form a 
 part of those sacted writings committed by God to the 
 Jews, and preserved entire by them? Vo. Have they 
 received, like those Holy writings, the attestation of Jesus 
 and his apostles, placing upon them the broad, seal of 
 Heaven? They have not. The question then is for 
 ever decided. The evidence against.them is conclusive, 
 after which not the shadow of a claim can be advanced in 
 their favour as forming a part of the Word of God. 
 Although, however, the question be thus decided, yet, 
 in order to produce the fullest conviction, in. the minds of 
 all who know the truth as it is in Jesus,,and to exclude 
 every doubt, let us call, another, witness. .We shall ap- 
 peal, then, to the internal character of those writings—a 
 species of proof of which every Christian can judge, and 
 which of itself is sufficient to determine the point at issue, 
 although no other evidence on the subject existed. . If the 
 Apocryphal. writings be of God, they will bear the im- 
 press of their divine original. Let us try them by this test. 
 «“ To the law and to the testimony, if they speak not accord- 
 ing to this word, it is because there is no light in them.” . 
 Viewing, then, the Apocryphal writings as, standing 
 by the side of the Holy Scriptures, what (character do 
 they present? Do they. offer. any thing new; any thing 
 that might be of importance to. know beyond. what is con- 
 tained in the Scriptures of the Old and. New Testament ? 
 Do they teach us the way of God more perfectly? This 
 will not be pretended by any one. Do their histories, 
 which they present to us as true, and their manner of 
 
 = 
 
99 
 
 narrating them, comport with the dignity of holy writ ? 
 Do they possess internal marks of being authentic? Do 
 they bear the character of a Revelation from God, given 
 for our instruction? So far is this from being the case, 
 that many of their narrations are absurd, incredible, and 
 self-contradictory, and others are at variance with the ca- 
 nonical Scriptures; while they contain doctrines on the 
 most important subjects directly opposed to the testimony 
 of God. << Grant me the Apocrypha as a part of the in- 
 spired volume,” said a speaker lately in one of the Bible 
 Committee Meetings, “ and with this engine I will under- 
 take to overturn all the fundamental doctrines of the Word 
 of God: and, in their stead, to establish every heresy which 
 disfigures the Church of Rome—the doctrine of purga- 
 tory—prayers for the dead—the intercession of saints— 
 and justification by works.” 
 
 The above assertions are fully confirmed by the writers 
 of the Cambridge Remarks, published for the express 
 purpose of supporting the practice of the Bible Society in 
 adding the Apocrypha to the Word of God. On the idea 
 of the Society’s abandoning that practice, they say, “ Let 
 ‘ us suppose the case of a Bible not contaming the Apo- 
 ‘ erypha, to fall into the hands of an inquirer after the 
 ‘truth: upon reading it he exclaims, ‘I find here none 
 ** of the doctrines upon which so much stress is laid by 
 “‘ my priests !” The British and Foreign Bible Society has 
 ‘furnished the priests with an obvious and prompt an- 
 « swer: “No,” reply the priests, “ you find not our doc- 
 “ trines in the Bible you have read, but count the number 
 “ of the books in your Bible, and see whether none have 
 «¢ been left out. Look at Daniel and Esther, and count the 
 «< chapters, and you will see enough to convince you that 
 “ Protestants have been tampering with the Scriptures.” 
 Here is an unequivocal testimony, from persons who ad- 
 vocate the cause of the Aprocrypha, that it is the produc- 
 tion of false prophets who have brought in damnable he- 
 resies, teaching doctrines different from those of the Holy 
 
100 
 
 Scriptures, which are the — pen oageanes? the mystery 
 of Babylon. Lyric pabtle, sphap anny ales 
 . «Proofs that the sietoulgties’ is 6 abiondéatiys ichpnveatel 
 with absurdities, superstitions, falsehoods, false’ doctrines, 
 and contradictions, both of itself and of the Word of God,” 
 _have already been referred to in the specimens annexed ‘to 
 the first. statement .of the Edinburgh Committee, and their 
 number might ‘be vastly increased.* But, waving for the 
 present every other charge against it, let us turn our at- 
 tention ‘toa single point of :the last importance, which in- 
 volves an answer to that most momentous of all questions, 
 How shall man be just with God? 'The Serrptures as- 
 sure us that, if any man denies the doctrine of justification 
 by faith without works, he becomes a debtor to do the 
 whole law. What judgement then are we bound to form of 
 a book which, openly contradicting this fundamental doe- 
 trine, and exhibiting another way of acceptance with God, 
 makes void the whole plan of redemption’? To this one 
 point, then, of the explicit contravention, by the Apoery- 
 pha, of the grand scripture doctrine of justification, I now 
 call the reader’s attention ;—that doctrine which is peculiar 
 to the Christian religion, and! unknown to every false one; 
 that doctrine which so remarkably illustrates and honours 
 the finished work of the Redeemer ; that doctrine of which 
 God in bis word has affirmed, that the man who perverts 
 it, Christ shall profit him nothing: 1 i" “AA i 
 Itis written in they Apocrypha, + Whoso honowreth ‘his 
 Sather maketh an atonement for ‘his’ sins.” And again, 
 ‘© Water will quae a flaming Jire, and alms maketh an 
 atonement for sins."—Ecel, ii. 3, 30. mre re come 
 by which the seat adver Ke ah — deceives | a 
 
 { Wé avis A 
 
 eee Ue RTS bets he wes | 
 
 * See the “* Admonition concerning the Apocryphal books, wherein. ate 
 ‘ showed the reasons and grounds wherefore they are here Gn their Bible) 
 ‘ omitted. Ordained at the Synod of Dort, in the year 1618. Set-out and 
 “¢ annexed by the Deputies, to the end of the Dutch Bible e newly translated.”” 
 
101 
 
 tions, none was’ ever forged by him calculated to make 
 more deadly havoc among the fallen children of Adam. 
 More explicit contradictions of the true sayings of God, 
 more completely subversive of the way of salvation by 
 Jesus Christ; sentiments more dishonourable to God, 
 more contrary to his holiness, more derogatory to his jus- 
 tice, or more fraught with mortal poison, and more de- 
 structive to the souls of men,—cannot be imagined. 
 
 The Apostle Paul solemnly declared to the churches 
 of Galatia, that if an angel from heaven should preach any 
 other gospel than that which he had preached unto them, 
 he should be accursed. The very thing which the Apos- 
 tle here supposed has, in the Apocrypha, been realized. 
 An angel from heaven, it assures us, has descended, who 
 says he comes from God. ‘“ Iam Raphael, one of the 
 seven holy angels, which present the prayers of the saints, 
 and which go in and out before the glory of the Holy One— 
 not of any favour of mine but by the will of our God I come.” 
 —Tobit xi. 15,18. And that very doctrine does this 
 angel explicitly contradict which the Apostle so earnestly 
 inculeated, accompanied with the solemn asseveration that 
 the curse of God should rest on any creature who should 
 dare to pervert it. ‘ It is better,” says this angel, ‘ to 
 give alms than to lay up gold, for alms doth deliver from 
 death, and shall purge away all sin.”°—Tobit xii. 8, 9. 
 
 If the man or angel, who shall preach another gospel 
 than that which the Bible contains, is, by the Holy Ghost, 
 pronounced accursed, then does this awful denunciation 
 apply to a book which, pretending to record the message 
 of an angel from heaven, teaches another gospel. Under 
 this anathema then the Apocrypha lies. By the authority 
 of an apostle we are bound to hold it accursed. * . 
 
 “Is it possible for the writers of the Cambridge Remarks to enter their 
 dissent from this conclusion, and at the same time to continue their signature 
 to the following article 2—‘* They also are to be had accursed, that presume 
 
 N 
 
102 
 
 “ The prophet which shall presume to speak a word in 
 my name, which I have not commanded. him to. speak, or 
 that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that pro- 
 phet shall die.”—Deut. xviii. 20. The writers of the Apo- 
 cerypha have spoken in the name of God what he hath mot 
 commanded them to speak, ‘They have contradicted, the 
 word that he hath spoken. 'They are therefore false pro- 
 phets, deceitful workers, worthy to be adopted by him who 
 speaks lies in hypocrisy. The man whojhas given heed»to 
 seducing spirits and doctrines of devils, when he reads the 
 Bible, as delivered by God, exclaims, J find here, moneiof 
 the doctrines upon which so much stress is laid by: my priests ! 
 No, reply the priests of the man of sm, you sind not our 
 doctrines in the Bible you have read, for the addition which 
 we had made to it, where they are comand is taken 
 awa vod tleseny 
 
 MMe Bible, then, and the PROT pi in direct op- 
 position the one to the other. The Bible predicts) the 
 coming of that wicked one whom the Lord;shall consume 
 with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy withthe 
 brightness of his coming. The coming, of that wieked 
 one “ is after the working of Satan, with all power, and 
 ‘signs, aud lying wonders, and with all deceivableness, of 
 ‘ unrighteousness in them fat at i Rein typ 
 
 Cds. jae’ Avoue 
 
 ‘ to say that every man shall be saved by the Jaw or sect which he professeth, 
 © so that he be diligent to frame his life according to’ that‘ Jaw, and pea 
 ‘of nature. For holy Scripture doth set. out unto us only the pame, of 
 
 ‘ Christ, whereby men must be saved,”—Article xviii. of the Chucho ‘ie 
 England. All those Directors of the Bible Society who have signed 
 above article, should seriously consider what they are doing in ‘olding out to 
 the nations another Gospel,—another way of salvation. \\I do/not quote the » 
 above article merely as an argumentum ad) hominem, It,contains essential 
 truth, and therefore it. behoyes as much those who have not signed it, as 
 those who haye, to consider what they are doing in adding a book to “the 
 word of God which rexpresaly apie it, and which that | mail protoahoes 
 Accupsed. HIRI OED letlayt TLE. 
 
 . ~ORK 4 Rigg 
 
103 
 
 * not the love of the-truth, that they might be saved. And 
 ‘for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that 
 ‘ they should believe a lie; that they all might be damned 
 ‘ who believed not. the truth, but had pleasure in unright- 
 ‘eousness.”. That wicked one, as the Spirit expressly fore- 
 told, has appeared. But, unable to support himself by 
 means of his most subtle perversions of the Holy Scriptures, 
 in which he finds “* none” of his peculiar doctrines, he has 
 resorted to the impious fraud of adulterating them. Satan, 
 transformed mto»an angel of light, has provided a large 
 addition to the Word of God in the: Apocryphal books. 
 These forgeries “ the Son of Perdition” has eagerly grasped 
 at: he even intermingles them with the Scriptures in such 
 a way that, to the great body of his adherents, it is impos- 
 sible to distinguish the one from the other. ‘This spurious, 
 motely book, which he calls * the Holy Bible,” contain- 
 ing partly the light of heaven, and partly the smoke of: the 
 bottomless pit, he has adopted as his own. He seals it 
 for himself, and thunders out his anathema a all whe 
 shall not receive it as ““ SACRED AND CANONICAL.” 
 
 - This poisoning of the waters of the sanctuary in their very 
 source; may be designated the chief of the ways of “ that 
 “old ‘serpent called the devil, and Satan, which deceiveth 
 “the whole world.” None of all his works can be compared 
 with this. tis here the man of sin has entrenched him- 
 self. Once possessed of this mongrel book, his fortress is 
 impregnable. He can now maintain all his falsehoods. This 
 book being, placed in the hands. of his adherents, that 
 complaint, which otherwise would have sounded in his ears 
 as the knell of death, shall no more be heard. “« J jind 
 ‘ here none of the doctrines upon which so much stress 18 
 ‘ laid by my priests?” 
 
 The writers of the Cambridge Remarks, speaking of 
 the peculiar tenets of Popery; affirm, that only two errors 
 out of the whole list seem to receive any support from 
 Apocryphal quotations,—purgatory, and the invocation of 
 saints; and, by a misapplication of Scripture, they endea- 
 
104 
 
 vour to prove, that one of these errors)is. taught by the 
 word of God; thus seeming to be regardless what, mis- 
 chief they do, provided they can successfully advocate the 
 cause of the Apocrypha. But are these gentlemen, amidst: 
 their quotations from Rainolds, and , Doddridge,. and: 
 Hooker, &c. &c, by which they would prop. up and apo-. 
 logise for these “ Jewish fables,” and vile fonperiess cabling 
 them “ Holy,” sé Sacred,” and “ Divine ;”*.and affirming. 
 that their fitness * for the -public information. of life and, 
 ‘‘ manners,” is “ most worthily approved”. by. the whole. 
 church of Christ ;—are they so utterly forgetful of what. 
 was the grand hinge of the controversy. between . the 
 Reformers and odes Catholics—the doctrine . of, j jus 
 tification by faith without works—as to make the above as-. 
 sertion? _ rte bye 04.8 des 
 
 But these writers have another uietod of, ‘Vindicating, 
 the conduct of the British and Foreign Bible Society in. 
 circulating the Apocrypha on the Continent... After;ad-,, 
 ducing the authority of those whose, names have, beem, 
 mentioned, they triumphantly add, as,if they, had been 
 qnoting Scripture, ‘ to these passages we offer no addi-» 
 tion.” And then they proceed : :—* But it may, be well, 
 «to remark a fact, of which many who have. taken upon. 
 : themselves to censure. the Apocrypha, seem) no to, be:. 
 
 eS 
 * The Cambridge writers give Hs. following quotason: from Hooker: ae ttn 
 * it not acknowledged that these books are holy, that they are ecclesiastical 
 ‘ and sacred, that to term them divine, as being for their excelleney next | 
 * unto them which are properly so termed, is no way to” honour them above — 
 ‘ desert?” Were they not ashamed when they ‘produced such a quotation?) - 
 It is to be hoped, that so monstrous. an example of prejudice or ignorance, 
 extracted from the writings of a human author, whatever distinguis ed 
 epithet may be generally attached to his name, will convince every one one of 
 the necessity of calling no man father upon earth; but of recurring, in “every” 
 question in which our duty to God is concerned, to the: living oracles which» 
 never can mislead us. Because Hooker called the Apocrypha divine, which © 
 the Scriptures denounce as accursed, are we to set aside their authority and 
 bow to his?’ Because Augustine, whom these gentlemen also “quote, co ,, coul 
 not distinguish between the doctrines of ec — sacietion, are 
 
 ba to give up the important distinction ?. - i iy rf 
 
105 
 
 « aware, viz. that the different versions vary materially from 
 ‘each other; so that any particular passage may not wear 
 ‘ the same objectionable" a gla in a foreign transla- 
 ‘ tion it does in our own.” Here then is another shelter 
 provided for the ‘Apocrypha i in the midst of this bush fight- 
 ing, in’ which these gentlemen have engaged i in its defence. 
 Let us see, then, what ‘ appearance” the passages above 
 quoted “ wear” in that translation of the Apocrypha which 
 the British and Foreign Bible Society has caused to be cir- 
 culated among the whole Protestant population of France. 
 “ Qui honore son pére, expie ses péchés.”  Leau étient le feu 
 ardent, et Vaumone fait lexpiation des péchés.” Eccles. ii. 4. 
 3). “ Il vaut mieux faire Taumone que de thésaurier de Cor ; 
 car Taumone délivre de la mort, et nettoie tout péché. ” Tob. 
 xii. 8,9. Thus among these ignorant people has the British 
 and Foreign Bible Society been scattering firebrands, arrows, 
 and Beach: In giving them the Apocrypha with the Word 
 of God, they have been administering pon along with, 
 wholesome food. ‘In the mixture of poison,” says Claude, 
 ‘¢ with what is wholesome food, the poison overcomes the. 
 food, and not the food the poison ; so that it is not the food 
 which hinders the bad effects of the poison, but it is the 
 poison, on the contrary, which prevents the good effect of 
 the food. In the same way, in the mixture of Romish 
 errors with evangelical truths, the force of the errors sur- 
 mounts that of the truth; and the truth, however. salutar y 
 it may be, does not. prevent. the effect of the error which 
 causes the damnation of the man; but, on the contrary, the 
 error prevents the good effect of the truth.” 
 
 Many woes are denounced in Scripture against false, 
 prophets, who are accused. of treading down the pastures, 
 and fouling the residue of the waters with their feet, Ezek. 
 xxx. 4, In opposition to their folly and Wickedness, the, 
 Lord says, “ The prophet that hath a dream, let hint tell a 
 dream ; and he that hath my word, let. him speak my word 
 faithfully. : What is the chaff to the wheat ? saith the Lord. 
 Is not my word like as a fire? saith the Lord; and like a, 
 
106 
 
 hammer that breaketh the rock in pieces?” Jer. xxiii. 28 
 These and many other passages are directly applicable rs 
 the Apocrypha. ‘The writers of it may be justly ‘termed 
 prophets of deceit, and of their own heart, that prophesy 
 lies in the name of the Lord, Saying, I have dreamed, . have 
 dreamed, Jer. xxiii. 25, 26. They have, indeed, imitated 
 the style of the Scriptures, like the impostors, concerning : 
 whom it is written, ‘“* Therefore, behold, I am against ‘the 
 prophets, saith the Lord, that steal my want every ¢ one from: 
 his neighbour. Behold, I am against the prophets, saith the 
 Lord, that use their tongues, and say, He saith. Behold, 
 I am against them that prophesy false dreams, saith the 
 Lord, and do tell them, and cause my people to err by their 
 lies, and by their lightness ;- yet I sent them not, nor com- 
 manded them : Henefart they shall not profit this people at 
 all, saith the Lord.” Jer. xxiii. 30. “Thus saith the Lord 
 God, woe unto the foolish prophets, that follow their own 
 spirit, and have seen nothing! Have ye not seen a vain vi- 
 sion, and have ye not spoken a lying divination, whereas ye 
 say, the Lord sayeth it; albeit I have not spoken? 'There- 
 fore thus saith the Lord God, because ye-have spoken va- 
 nity, and seen lies, therefore behold I am against you, saith 
 the Lord God. And mine hand shall be upon’ the'pro- 
 phets that see vanity, and that divine lies.” Ezek. xiti. 3.7. 
 Again it is written,—“ If a man, walking in the Spirit 
 and falsehood, do lie, saying, I will prophesy unto thee of 
 wine and of strong drink; he shall even be the prophet of 
 this people.” Micah ii. 11. This censure is applicable 
 to those who read about Tobit jand his Dog, and Bel 
 and the Dragon, conceiving them to form a part of the 
 word of God. And do those who circulate the Apocrypha 
 for the purpose of rendering the Scriptures palatable to 
 persons plunged in the grossest superstition and ignorance, 
 using it as a passport for the Bible, really believe that God 
 would have permitted the writings of those who prophe- 
 sied lies, to be appended to the instructions which: he 
 delivered to his servants for the purpose of inducing 
 
107 
 
 Israel to peruse them? No. He declares that the tend- 
 ency of their dreams was to make the people forget his 
 name. Jer. XXill. 
 
 Never since the Reformation has so much been done 
 to corrupt the word of God by blending it with the Apo- 
 cryphal writings, as by the British and Foreign Bible So- 
 ciety—a Society which designates itself exclusively a Bible 
 Society; which holds out to the world, by its rules, that 
 it publishes nothing but the Bible ; which anxiously repeats 
 this in every variety of expression in its reports; and most 
 complacently records the flattering messages on this head 
 which it receives from all quarters, and the many adula- 
 tory speeches to which it listens in its annual meetings.* 
 
 * At the annual meeting of the Bible Society, in May 1821, one of the 
 speakers expressed himself as follows :—‘t That Holy Book which has brought 
 * us together, tells us, that we ought to give flattering titles to no man, and 
 ‘ that we can do no more than our duty to God in promoting his cause, since, 
 ‘ in so far as it is promoted, the success is to be ascribed to an influence which 
 * may excite our gratitude, but can lay no foundation for self-complacency.” 
 
 “ There is only one thing more I wish to add,” said another speaker, “and 
 * that is on the manner of conducting the generil meetings of the Bible 
 * Society. I long to see the day when they shall be conducted with perfect 
 ¢ simplicity, and when we shall studiously avoid every thing of panegyric or 
 S eulogy. This line of conduct we have adopted at Norwich, and it appears 
 © to me to have greatly increased the success of the Bible Society there.— 
 « My heart went along with my friend from North Britain, when he was 
 
 * speaking of the evils of panegyric: Wedo not come here to panegyrize, 
 ‘ but to acknowledge the unmerited mercies of our God and Sayiour. We 
 < come to acknowledge, as in the dust, that we-have all sinned and come short 
 © of his glory ; ; and that, so far from having any degree of merit for what we 
 “have done, we have cause to lament that we haye done so little.” 
 
 Whoever has read the accounts of the annual meetings of the British and 
 Foreign Bible Society, will see how suitable such admonitions were. The 
 sentiments deliyered by these speakers are worthy of the attention not only of 
 that Society to whom they were addressed, but of ‘every society of a religi- 
 ous nature, There is often much to reprehend on this point, The prac- 
 tice, too, which has unhappily crept in, of expressing approbation by tokens 
 of applause that may befit a theatre, or any worldly meeting, are altogether 
 incongruous in a religious assembly. _ This subject deserves the serious at- 
 tention of all who wish ‘to ‘see such “meetings conducted with that solemnity 
 
108 
 
 What conclusion must the well instructed Roman Catholic 
 form when he receives that book which this Society cir- 
 culates on the Continent ? Will he not say,’ “ If Iam to 
 believe that these men are acting honestly, I must be con- 
 vinced that they, equally with myself, consider the Apo- 
 crypha as part and. parcel of the word of God? This 
 whole volume, which they have put into’ my hands, con- 
 tains, according to them, neither’ more nor Jess than the 
 books of the Holy Scriptures; for, im) the most solemn 
 manner, they certify, that ‘¢ the Society is an: institution 
 which confines itself with rigorous’ exactness ‘to the dis- 
 semination of the Holy. Seriptures.* =) yo00 | ban 
 
 nee 
 ; scl tnd? didiveests 
 
 fOML, QaRG) Yas ait s 
 
 which, while it comports with their proper character, is: calenlated to produce 
 a beneficial effect on those who are present. _ ratty Bis 
 
 i BOLO LPO 
 * The circular letter of the Society addressed to ‘the Bible Societies of 
 Germany, Prussia, and Switzerland, dated May 15, 1820, (See Report 
 1821, p. 81.) concludes as follows :—* And it (the Society) begs leave 
 most distinctly to state, that, with the only exception ‘of the historical ‘re- 
 cords of its transactions, (such as its annual reports, extracts ‘of. correspon= 
 dence, &c.) it confines itself exclusively to the translation, printing, and cir- 
 culation of the Holy Scriptures.” Who, upon reading this, could conceive 
 that the directors of the British and Foreign Bible Society, who haye been 
 printing and circulating the Apocrypha all over the Continent, do not really 
 regard it as a part.of, the Holy. Scriptures ? hay wd mods end nolaul 
 If any one wishes to, be acquainted with the various whida, PM subterfuges. 
 to which the Committee of the British and Foreign Bible Society has been» 
 driven, in this discussion respecting the Apocrypha, he may peruse ‘that able 
 pamphlet lately published, entitled, “‘ Preface to observations on the cireula- 
 tion of the Apocrypha.” It is there mentioned, that “a very distinguished 
 ‘ member of the committee contended, that ‘* Although t the words ‘Holy Scrip. 
 ‘ture meant nothing but the inspired Word of God, ‘these “y — oly 
 s Scriptures, meant something more than the inspired Wor ri ¢ ‘on nly, 
 ‘ and might therefore fairly include the Apocrypha,” fais Iti is s 80 notorious, » 
 * says the writer of the Preface, “ that no report has | ever directl} ‘or in ie 
 ° rectly informed the subscribers that their money was, expended in the proe 
 ‘ pagation of the Apocryphal fables—that the committee, ‘dread | the fact, 
 ‘ being declared, which they could not dread if it had been clearly expressed 
 ‘in the reports. The intention of these words, (without 1 note or comment,) 
 ‘ was to convey to the country, that God’s Word was circulated, without any. 
 ‘mixture of man’s word. So conscious was the committee of this, that al- 
 
109: 
 
 ») But what shall ,an:unlearned Catholic, suppose; when a 
 book is:given «to! him: by this Society, designated, ‘on -its 
 titlespage, |“ The: Holy Bible of the Oldsand,New. Testa- 
 ments,”. without the smallest intimation that any thing be- 
 sides.is contained» within its. boards; while in this’ volume 
 he finds) the’ books of inspiration,and. the Apocryphal 
 books,” alternately and yariously: intermingled, and. ac- 
 tually incorporated ; so that no man; ‘without an intimate 
 aequaintance! with the . Bible and its doctrines,» could pos- 
 sibly distinguish the one from the other ?..Must not. he 
 be convinced that this. book is in very deed. what the Bri- 
 tish and Foreign Bible ‘Society holds to be the Bible ?:. Is 
 it possible that he should form a different conclusion ? 
 Has any thing more effectual been done by the Church 
 of Rome, practically to.sanction the Apocryphal books, to 
 authenticate them as inspired writings, or even to identify 
 them with the Sacred Volume?* . 
 ‘The necessity of adulterating the Scriptures, in order to 
 their circulation on the Continent, it has. been shown, does 
 not. exist ; but, if it actually did exist, is. the .Bmtish. and 
 
 Ltt ap yete 18 Fae arty TUR 2 AIA Ts yazs: g ay fit tr a> 
 
 © most every one who spoke, expressed his fears lest the delusion which they 
 
 “hail been practising should be published.” * At another place it is said, “De- 
 
 ¢ lusion has then been practised,—if the prospectus (of the Society) speaks of 
 
 ‘-the inspired Word-of God';—if the reports‘of the Society invariably speak 
 
 ‘ of the’ pure Word of God,”—* unadulterated: Word of God,”—-“ unmix- 
 
 ‘ed Word of God ;" and yet the committee meant something that was not 
 “pure, not unmixed, not unadulterated,” p- 25, 11, 14 fsdai F 
 
 . Even Comparatively’ earned and ‘enlightened men are in this way mis- 
 led!’ Some time ago, a person at Malta was engaged in conversation with a 
 well-informed Englishman, a member of the Committee of the Bible So- 
 ciety there, and was _reprobating the practice of intermingling the Apocry- 
 pha, and thus falsifying the Sacred Word. The member of Committee ar- 
 gued that the Apocryphal writings might be easily distinguished from those 
 that ar are Canonical. The other immediately produced a Bible, and ° pointing 
 to one of the ‘books in ‘which the ‘Apocrypha is “intermingled, said, can you 
 tell me ‘what p parts | are ‘Canonical and what, are “not ? e After attentively looking 
 at the book for some time, he’ ‘replied, mee Really I am not so well dequainted 
 with this part of the Bible, and cannot 2 ese 
 
 O 
 
110 
 
 Foreign Bible Society at liberty to neglect; ‘nay ‘even to 
 oppose and to ‘brave’ the’ repeated and ‘sdlenin ' Warnings, 
 contained in the Scriptures against adding to the word of 
 God ? Is it lawful for that Society to present to the world, 
 a¥'on a level with inspired writings, what it knows to be 
 uninspired—to send forth with the prophets of the’ Lord, 
 prophets that prophesy lies?To mingle;’ with ‘the! trae 
 sayings of God, the falséhoods of lyitig prophets who;’ beth 
 in the Old Testament ss it = New, are denounced "as 
 under his curse. visor atebst ings som Be 
 
 ” The Apoeryphal writings delivered ‘to the people asp art 
 of the divine oracles are’ calculated, ‘by their” absurdities, 
 to make then deists ‘or atheists rather than Christians/4and; 
 by their false'doctrines, ‘to’cause’ their readers to wrest “the 
 Scriptures ‘to ‘their own’ destruction. ‘When ‘the ‘British 
 and Foréign Bible Society, therefore, send out “these writ: 
 ings as a part of the divine word, is it'fréé from thé blood 
 of the men who, incapable of séparatitig thé cliaff fromthe 
 wheat, shall éternall y perish: by imbibing’ the false doctritie 
 it contains ¢ p¥ 1s i id @iaigekeeisie 
 
 “Why has‘not this Society listened to thé speech lately ‘in- 
 tended to be made in its Committee, by’ the much tespected 
 Rector of a parish in the neighbourhood of London? He had 
 “¢ come to town,” he said, ‘on purpose to bear his testimony 
 “against the horrible idea‘of ‘man’s “attempti g 't0 ‘bolster 
 “ up the word of the living God by a lie. “G Ta 
 ‘ the Catholics will ‘not, i receive, the Bible without this, false 
 ‘ book being appended to it—and let all. the: priests 
 ‘ themselves to oppose it—let there be a pitched battle, and 
 * see whether God or man will prevail. Can he oho ho ge 
 
 fn A Christian officer lately visited the sick-bed of a soldier in the last ‘stage 
 of an incurable: illness." It was in vain that the dying man was urged to rest 
 all his hopes of salvation’on the merits of a crucified Saviour; she resisted every 
 passage of the word of God, by adducing doctrines from the’ ‘Apocrypha at va- 
 riance with the Gospel ; and thus-it/was found impossible to\convinee him of 
 sin, and to lead him to rely on the finished work of Christ. 
 
 — 
 
111 
 
 ‘ that word not open a door for its reception. Or has. the 
 ‘Society the presumption to imagine that God will, ge 
 ‘ forth to battle with cach miserable aid to. secure biti yic- 
 * tory ?” . 
 
 beet it to he a . fact, dat the aa Bible wee 
 be circulated on the Continent without the Apocrypha, 
 this gives no licence to any. man to.doeyil in order to 
 attain the good he hopes for. If the people there will, not 
 receive it without this deleterious mixture, the Bible Society 
 is not entitled to prepare and to put into their hands. this 
 poisoned cup, . Supposing such.a state of things really to 
 exist, the way (of, the, Society is, sufficiently. clear... Let 
 them print the Bible in. the different Continental languages, 
 placing it with booksellers at.a low price, and with those 
 persons who will interest themselves in its distribution; # 
 and, in the meantime, goon. circulating the New. Testa, 
 ment as extensively as possible, to which \there. is no ob- 
 struction,» When, by means of the latter the eyes of any are 
 opened—when they are brought to,a concern about. their 
 eternal state, there is no reason to fear that they, will not 
 purchase the whole Bible.without the Apocrypha annexed 
 to it. .Thus nothing will, be, lost.. A man, ignorant of 
 
 = Mr Dwight, in. sake pero at ath anniversary meeting z this year, vias the 
 British and Foreign Bible Society, stated, that he ‘‘ had just returned from a 
 « tour of 8000 miles on the Continent of Europe, during which he chiefly 1 vi- 
 * sited Roman Catholic countries. He had frequently heard, what to him ap- 
 ‘ peared surprising accounts of the scarcity of the scriptures ‘in several parts of 
 
 © the Continent, and had directed his inquiries, to. enable him to ascertain the 
 * truth or falsehood of the report. In fifty towns he had gone. into the book- 
 © stores, for the purpose of ascertaining whether the Bible could be found in 
 © them, and, with two exceptions, his search had been fruitless, till he had ar- 
 *yived in Germany. In one of those instances where he had been fortunate 
 * enough to meet with the Holy Scriptures, they consisted of a copy in 10 
 * vols. folio. The other copy which he discovered contained merely the four 
 * Evangelists, (but one half of the New Testament,). and was in the Latin 
 * language, with an Italian translation,”” This account but too clearly proves, 
 notwithstanding all the self-gratulatory display made in its reports, how much 
 the business of the British and Foreign Bible Society is mismanaged. Had 
 
112 
 
 God and of salvation, is, at least, as’ likely ‘to read’ the New 
 Testament if put into his hands, ‘as the ‘whole Bible, which 
 is ‘a larger book ; and, if the whole Bible ‘carinot ‘at present 
 be given to all, it is better to give New Testaments to an 
 hundred individuals than Bibles only to thirty.’ Portions, 
 ‘too, of the Old ‘Testament may be circulated ‘without ob- 
 Struction—a method which the British and’ ‘Foreign ‘Bible 
 Society adopted at Toulouse, and which’ I ‘practised’ ‘with 
 success in different parts of France.) 9") 1) oe 
 
 “But if, after all, the Bible could ‘Not “obtain circulation | 
 
 on the Continent except by unlawful means, then’ the door 
 would, for the present, ‘be evidently shut. In 'that ¢ase 
 the’exertions of the’ Bible Society® would "be a8 ‘clearly 
 precluded in that quarter, as those’ of the Apostle 'Paul in 
 Bithynia,' when he assayed to’ go there, “ but the Spirit 
 suffered him not.” Still the whole funds “of the Sociéty 
 would be in’ active ‘operation. “Among the nations’ in’ the 
 Bast the word of God’ is received ‘by the ‘people pure and 
 urimixed. “It is “truly lamentable to ‘refleet, "that “while 
 many translations of that word are at a stand in our own 
 colonies for want of funds, the Bible’ Society, intrustéd 
 with the offerings of the Christians in’ Britain, fie ‘the s ser- 
 vice of the sanctuary, should, for many years past, have 
 been applying on ‘the Continent the’ enormous sum ofa 
 sixth'part of these suered funds'to ‘the publication o ‘of for- 
 ante and falsehood. What ‘iets oe that ary, By 
 i) COR, aay at ort — 
 
 » dad Baga, em nenoh 
 the Directors of the Sodety” at the commencement t of their exertions on the 
 
 Continent, endeavoured, in each country, to find out proper ‘individuals with 
 whom to co-operate, and intrusted to them the publication of editions of the 
 Scriptures from the most approved translations, as they did i in the case of Mr 
 Chabrand at Toulouse; and had they placed these Bibles in the shops of 
 booksellers, at alow price, in all the towns as far as they had it in their 
 power, their efforts in that quarter would have been far more effectual. This 
 would have also prevented the mischief, in all its various ramifications, which 
 has resulted from their connexion with such societies as those which,, at a reat 
 expense, they have yee and supported. 
 
113 
 
 not adding the Apoerypha, you are withholding the Bible 
 from millions 2”. On the contrary, by making this addition 
 to God’s word, the propagation of the Scriptures is circum- 
 scribed, and. their circulation diminished, and thus they are 
 withheld from. feanlisitides, for whom, other Wipe they might 
 be provided. 
 
 ‘There is one circumstance in this controversy that. ap- 
 pears. to have been entirely overlooked. | Whenever the 
 question of the Apocrypha has been agitated, the attention 
 of all has been exclusively directed to Roman Catholics 
 and Protestants, and much. stress, has. been laid on the 
 prejudices of the. one body, and on the opposition of the 
 priests as influencing the other. But let it. be remember- 
 ed that there is a third and very numerous class, who par- 
 take not of the feelings of the former, nor, are in the 
 smallest. degree controlled. by the power which restrains 
 the latter. A multitude of people on the Continent—no 
 trifling proportion of the whole population,—are neither 
 Protestants nor Catholics ; who make. no profession of re- 
 ligion. Yet, in the present state of things, while so many 
 of those who assume the name of a particular religious sect 
 have nothing beyond a mere profession, the attention of this 
 third class to any religious subject may be as easily engaged 
 as that of many of the others. 'To those persons it is ob- 
 vious, the want of the Apocrypha, of which they probably 
 never ‘even heard, will form no barrier whatever to their 
 receiving the Bible. And, perhaps, in looking over the 
 reports and letters published by the British and Foreign 
 Bible Society, it will be found, that some of these have 
 paisa and been benefited. by the Sacred tie ag 
 
114 
 
 hedeel voces rpeis (teat eye ecg eal nage og 19 vera lanneytanoe: 
 dxeubishaie) ids ak notin oil) o_o bene 
 Spee 4 HiELY ‘CHAPTER, Norte woe Jettlvewaow 
 ist ane Ne coledwlans 
 ABUSES IN THE ADMINISTRATION, OF, THE, BRITISH, AND 
 
 FOREIGN BIBLE SOCIETY ON THE CONTINENT,, hes) v8 
 
 “Unnarrny the ea of adding the AY cry cas - the 
 Bible does not exist alone ; ; ‘There  are0 ner al 
 
 management of the ‘British. and Fore Bible § Las cl 
 aia" call for reformation. "The 8% A ees 
 ged, by those. who have an opportunity re anon ng ‘its 
 conduct abroad, with adopting a eon pre. 
 fering men of eminence and, Jearning,. to those. a real 
 and devotedness to ‘God. This poli bas be ped 
 on, the Continent toa very considera ih Sk na sith 
 
 ciety’ s concerns have ‘been ‘placed und the ng 
 of men 1 of ni no religion, of Arians, Sinan or. Neol ais 
 and while these free-thinking philosophers are repress 
 
 to the world as ristians, because they are atthe. head o ; 
 Bible § Societies, they are in, a the greatest. opposers of 
 
 the - gospel. £4 scab yaad thelae sbraaliy 
 “Mr Simeon observes, that, « we qe! presume | e.means, 
 
 Christians) have all agreed to. merge our own peculiarities, 
 : and to forget every thing which separates Us. one from an: 
 ‘ other for the benefit of the ‘world, ised 5 It pos when. 
 Mr § Simeon speaks of merging, peculiarities, ape, of, SeBM 
 . sects, and ‘parties, meeting upon one common basis,”, 
 
 he can , wtefer to Arians and. Socinians ?, Does “he ester, 
 
 them to be Christians : ? I will venture, to say he does. nat 5. 
 and that, when he spoke of all meeting upon SN ASE: 
 
 basis, he had in his mind the basis of the gospel, ‘Chris- iS—_ 
 tians, in ‘their co-operation for the diffusion of divine truth, 
 may so far merge their peculiarities, as ‘to > act together in 
 whatever they are agreed ; but are they ‘at liberty to Jose 
 sight of all that is essential to the gospel of | salvation ?- “Are 
 the foundations to be destroyed? Arians and Socinians 
 
115 
 
 femove the very foundation of the gospel. Were their 
 systems according to the truth of the Bible, the life-giving 
 word would at once be converted into a killing letter, aid 
 the whole of the ministration of righteousness ifito the 
 ininistration of condemmation. Every man would be stb- 
 jected to the curse of thé law, and then it had been better 
 for all that they had never seen the Bible to aggravate their 
 guilt and enhance their punishment. If Arians and So- 
 cinians are to be acknowledged as coadjutors in the service 
 of the gospel, it is altogether in vain for Mr Simeon, ot 
 any one else, to appeal to Scripture principle, or Scripture 
 example, on any point whatever. Arians and Socinians 
 pervert the whole Bible from beginning to end. 
 
 Shall it be said, that the rules of the Bible Society ad. 
 mit all who subscribe to it to be members of that institu. 
 tion? This may be so; but it never could have been the 
 intention of its Christian founders to receive those among 
 its counsellors whom they considered to be decidedly op- 
 posed to Christianity.’ On this principle, deists and atheists, 
 if subseribers, may be admitted, for there is nothing said 
 about them’ in its fundamental regulations. ‘Shall it be re: 
 plied, that these do not acknowledge the Bible to be from 
 God ? Still the rules do not sifélinde them ; and they may 
 deem the Soeiety to be a useful political ifistitution, aiid so 
 wish to join themselves to it. But shall they not be ex: 
 dluded from its counsels? And if these be excluded be: 
 cause they do ‘not acknowledge the Bible to be of God, 
 shall those be admitted who deny the God of the Bible? 
 If the British and Foreign Bible Society effects much good 
 in citéulating the Scriptures, it does much evil in counte- 
 nancing Arians on the Continent. The mischief that a 
 Society, which has attained so” high’ a name, may océasion 
 in this way | is incalculable, ‘While it is distributing Bibles 
 with the one hand, it is is dealing out PEASE and death with 
 the other. v0 
 
 ‘The | rer 1s ‘at présent overrun with Arianism, 
 which, with its pestilential breath, blights, and withers, 
 
116 
 
 and desolates whole. provinces and! countries, putting, the 
 public ministry,’ 4s Claude has, observed,) insuch astate, 
 
 that salvation, by’means of it, becomes absolutely. impossi- 
 ble. Is this a time, then, for such a Society/to countenance, 
 this destructive heresy ?! By doing so, it is counteracting 
 the diffusion of the Gospel, and! strengthening af) influence 
 which may be extended to. future generations. Ie those 
 who shall lift up’ their voice against Arianism, it may, ac 
 cording to the manner of speaking on» the Continent, ' be 
 hereafter objected :—That great Society’ of) England, which 
 evinced so much zeal in circulating the Bible all. over the 
 world, must have been well acquainted with its contents, 
 and versant in the true nature of ‘its’ doctrines—That So 
 ciety did not intimate’ by its: conduet') any. disapprobation 
 of Arianism. On the contrary,’ both! by “its messengers 
 abroad, and by its. fraternal congratulations of. Arian des 
 putations at home, it has given us every reason to conclude 
 that it regarded ‘that system, equally as any other, to.be of 
 heavenly origin. That great! Society proved. its liberality 
 in this as in all other respects';\ and sufficiently marked, its 
 disapprobation of those narrow and bigoted notions, which, 
 cramping and fettering the human mindy andretarding the 
 dignified march of human intellect, would prevent»us*from 
 keeping pace with) the increasing lights) of sour agey and 
 would even carry us back ina retrograde course to the be- 
 clouded times of the Reformers, who, in their zeal to sweep 
 away certain abuses in regard to ceremonies, introduced,a 
 dark, uncharitable, dogmatizing spirit ;) in short, principles 
 which, if admitted by us, would go the Jength.of:amehris: 
 tianizing Nine-tenths of | Christendom ;: ‘and. would, .at last, 
 conduct us to the gloomy superstition of the darkest) ages, 
 
 if not land us in absolute barbarism. * 6 9 10 0) oie 
 C fet. Ath Uy Papye a sertyer; 
 MTN eee ite 
 
 “Tn a periodical publication at Geneva, it was some time ago asserted that 
 the Methodism of England, (by Methodism,meaning | RS religion, } 
 
 threatened to conduct the world back to barbarism. 4 A 
 Hiriir latshe 
 
117 
 
 The state of Bible societies on the Continent, according 
 to the most recent accounts, is truly deplorable. A well-in- 
 formed foreigner, who has lately been travelling among them 
 to ascertain in what state they are, gives it as his decided 
 opinion, ‘that, Christians, have very little weight in the se- 
 veral\ committees, which, in general, are wholly under the 
 direction of Free-thinkers.,,Such, is, his. report of them 
 from one end. of the Continent to another... Other foreign 
 Christians, who have visited this country, confirm this re-- 
 port, and. have given the names.of many Arians and Socin- 
 ians who are the'sole governors of , several societies abroad. 
 A few weeks ago, I received. the following account of the 
 secretary and treasurer. of one,of these Bible societies :— 
 “The Secretary is the idol. of the fashionable world here, 
 « because, to use the words of the treasurer, ‘‘ he preaches 
 “in such.a refined style, that none but well-educated per- 
 “ sonsican understand, him, and the morality he inculcates 
 “ is so pure and ‘excellent, that,it surpasses the precepts of 
 « the Bible; he therefore alludes. seldom tothe Bible, and 
 « makes very little use ‘of. biblical..expressions.”. This se- 
 cretary affirms that the epistles contradict the gospel. . 
 
 ‘I have myself known a, Bible society abroad which had 
 for its secretary a Socinian, if he, was: any thing at all, 
 and who-was one of the active agents employed in adulterat- 
 ing the Scriptures by the addition of the Apocrypha, both 
 of which to,him,were equally, indifferent. Of the same so- 
 ciety) the treasurer: was; the, avowed author of a large and 
 elaborate book against the.divine origin of the Bible. This 
 may ‘prove a warning to, many. net to take it for granted 
 that every man who appears. among the leaders of a Bible 
 Society-on,the Continent, ; or, as, an apparently zealous cor- 
 respondent of the British and, Foreign Bible Bopiety 4 is of 
 course a friend to the Bible. 
 
 Were any one to judge of the religious condition of the Con- 
 tinent by the reports,and extracts of letters annually publish- 
 ed by the British and Foreign Bible Society, he would form 
 a very erroneous estimate on the subject. Those who are 
 
 P 
 
118 
 
 acquainted with the real state of things there, must feel 
 the greatest surprise when they read in these reports such 
 encomiums on the zeal which it is asserted discovers itself 
 for the circulation of the Scriptures and the diffusion of the 
 Gospel. When they observe the signatures of some of the’ 
 letters by persons with whom they happen to be acquainted, 
 and. of others whose total indifference to the gospel; or de- 
 cided hostility to it, is well known,—and when they see 
 the accounts that are given of them, and of the religious 
 state of the districts in which they reside, they are filled 
 with amazement. A person lately observed, that it seemed 
 as if the Millennium was begun on. the Continent. “Cer 
 tainly the reports of the Bible Society are much calculated 
 to mislead the public, and must therefore have’a most per- 
 nicious effect. In how very different a light'is the subject 
 placed by some well-informed foreign Christians that have 
 lately visited this country; who, m_ public, have affirmed 
 and lamented ‘‘ the gross darkness of the Continent.” 
 “TI can say, in truth,” said Professor Thulock,in a 
 speech delivered this year (1825) in ‘a public’ meeting in 
 London, “ that, until. my seventeenth year, Iwas neither 
 ‘ acquainted with any vital Christians, nor had I ever heard 
 ‘ there were such persons.” Amongst other melancholy de+ 
 tails, having stated that Halle, where there are between five 
 and six hundred students of divinity, is “the seat of infidel~ 
 ity,” he says,—-** While the Continent, upon the’ whole, lies 
 ‘in the darkness of that enlightening of which they boast’; 
 ‘in some provinces a spirit of persecution against the truth 
 ‘ prevails, not at all inferior to that of the Romish Church.” 
 In Geneva, an account cf whose teligious state Ihave given 
 in my letter to Mr Cheneviere, Professor of Divinity therey 
 published last year, the opposition to the gospel ‘is said to 
 have even increased. Very. lately a pastor of a church) 
 there, was twice stoned and his life endangered; Mr'Malan 
 also was threatened. . These tumiults: were vattributed toa 
 discourse of one of the Socinian clergymen. So!) 9% 19p) 
 Things often assume a very different aspect upon acloser 
 
119 
 
 and more deliberate survey, than when viewed at a dis- 
 tance, or reported in the journals of hasty travellers. When 
 I went abroad I read such accounts, then recently pub- 
 lished, of the state of religion on the Continent, as com- 
 pletely deceived me, and afterwards filled me with astonish- 
 ment. Is it surprising, if one, going forth m the name 
 of a great society, empowered to give grants of money, 
 to erect societies with presidents, secretaries, treasurers, 
 &e. should be received with flattermg attentions by many 
 who have not the smallest regard for the object which he 
 wishes to promote? In such circumstances men, decidedly 
 opposed to the gospel, or totally indifferent to it, press for- 
 ward and pay the most. marked attention to the society’s 
 representative, and profess to enter most warmly into the 
 object of his mission,—men who, were he to remain a few 
 weeks in the place, and to discover any attachment to the 
 gospel, would withdraw from him, and oppose him with all 
 their might, I am not making suppositions; I arm record- 
 ing what I know to be fact, and what I have witnessed. 
 
 An agent of the Bible Society will judge very super- 
 ficially, if -he concludes that all who thus flock about him 
 and greet his arrival at) those places which he visits, are 
 what at first sight they appear to be. He will act very 
 rashly, if, without further inquiry, he places confidence in 
 them, and intrusts the business with which he is -com- 
 missioned to thew hands, and if, to crown all, he writes 
 home.a most flattering account of his reception, and of the 
 religious fervour of his new friends, to be published in the 
 reports of the society. The effects of the arrangements he 
 has thus made may easily be foreseen. ‘The apparent zeal 
 of these persons who have ‘been so prematurely eulogised, 
 soon evaporates, and the show that is made by the corres- 
 pondence they afterwards keep up with those who conferred 
 ou them their official dignities, and who’ continue *to’ pa- 
 tronize them, will-very) far a — ae of the good 
 that is effected. 
 
 From this year’s Deport of the Bible Society; any reader 
 
120 
 
 would conclude that the Bible Societies in France are in a 
 flourishing condition ; but the'contrary is the*fact.. ** Our 
 * societies” says Mr Chabrand in his letter of August last, 
 ‘crease in number, but many of them drag on languish- 
 «ingly, rather do not go on well, (plusieurs se trainent lan- 
 * guissement, plutot, qwelles ne vont beim.) 1 speak of France 
 ‘in general.” And what else can be expected of societies 
 formed of such materials? ‘* It is not to be dissembled,” 
 says Mr Marzials in his letter of the same date, ** that in 
 * this work, so excellent, the greatest number of the members 
 ‘ that compose our committees act more on worldly consi- 
 ¢ derations, (des vues humaines, ) that in a true spirit ‘of 
 ‘ faith. I believe that everywhere the propagation of the 
 ‘ Holy Scriptures would proceed with more rapidity if all 
 ¢ who occupied themselves with it, or who have the appear- 
 “ance of doing so, (ow qui ont Pair de sen pee Rati ” were 
 * animated by the Spirit of Christ.” + 
 
 A few Christians, where these can be found; were wale 
 work put into their hands, might not make such a show at 
 the beginning, but their path would bevas the path:of the 
 just, shining more and) more. Yet it ‘has “happened that 
 the affairs of the British and Foreign Bible Society have 
 been conuected on the Continent with Arians and Soci 
 nians, while the Christians have been avoided and keptvat 
 a distance. Can such proceedings be er with the 
 blessing of God ? PUR 
 
 The bad effects of the system that has: hoo ‘so exten- 
 sively followed by the Directors of the British and Foreign 
 Bible Society on the Continent, are now becoming more 
 and more apparent in counteracting ‘its particular object, 
 as well as in producing other most mischievous ‘effects. 
 «< T heard,” says a correspondent, who: has just returned 
 from it, ‘*.a very bad account of many,;'I should sayvall, 
 ‘the Bible Societies on ‘the Continent. » One very ’serious 
 «charge is made both in France and Germany, ‘that there 
 ‘ are large depots of Bibles at different places ; but there is 
 * so little zeal on the part of the managers, that they remain 
 
121 
 
 ‘ locked up—while the universal testimony is, that the people 
 ‘ are desirous of possessing the Word of God... A member 
 of a Bible Society abroad refused, within these few months, 
 to gives Bibles to one who applied for them, who had op- 
 portunities of circulating them to advantage. Their con- 
 versation then turned on repentance; when, the member 
 of the Society, a pastor, alluding to it, spoke of the “« Dam- 
 nable preaching of repentance ;” and added, ‘it is the 
 devil’s work.” 
 
 Sufficient care has not been taken by the British and 
 Foreign Bible Society to ascertain the religious sentiments 
 and character of men to whom.a licence has been. given to 
 alter the old translations of the Scriptures. An example 
 of this may be found im an edition of 10,000 copies, of the 
 Bible, published at Lausanne, in 1822...The British and 
 Foreign Bible Society assisted the pastors and professors 
 of that place, to a very large amount, ‘to, publish this edi- 
 tion 3 in which, taking Ostervald’s translation. as the basis, 
 they were permitted to make what alterations they judged 
 proper. The new. version which has appeared. in conse- 
 quence is a very unfaithful one—the true sense of a multi- 
 tude of passages being perverted or lost... And what. else 
 could be expected from intrusting such a work to men who 
 were ignorant of the gospel of the grace of God, and who 
 are decidedly opposed to it—to a set of pastors and pro- 
 fessors, who are notorious for their profanation of the 
 Lord’s day, and who have lately exhibited themselves as 
 the greatest persecutors in modern times of the religion of 
 Jesus? If it be rejoined, that this persecution has taken 
 place since that edition of the Bible was completed, I an- 
 swer, that this will not justify the Directors of the British 
 and Foreign Bible Society, since, before these men were 
 imtrusted with such a work, their characters ought to have 
 been ascertained ; and this might easily have been done. 
 One of those who was intrusted) with the correction of that 
 edition of the Bible, and who was then entirely ignorant of 
 the gospel, has, since that period, been converted. 
 
122 
 
 _ Having heard of the unfaithfulness of this lange edition 
 of the Bible, now circulating on the Continent, aud known 
 to be patronized by the British and Foreign Bible So- 
 ciety, and not having yet procured a copy—I requested 
 Mr Malan of Geneva to give me some account of it., In 
 his answer, dated September 26, 1825, after pointing out 
 numerous examples of passages unfaithfully, translated, he 
 adds, «« While I was writing, Mr Rochat, a faithful minis- 
 ‘ster of the Canton de Vaud, (the Canton of which Lau- 
 ‘sanne is the capital,) has come to see me, He himself 
 ‘ was one of the translators of the Bible which we are ex- 
 ‘amining. I told him what I was doing; and I asked 
 ‘ him his opinion of that version, He said, ¢ It is.exceed- 
 ss ingly unfaithful, ( Elle est trés infidele : ) those who: made 
 « it did not know the grace of God, I wasthen myself an 
 “¢ unbeliever, (J ’etvis moi-meme alors un incrédule.) How- 
 “ever I do not think that there was any culpable inten- 
 “‘ tion in the. translators ; at least, Iwas very. sincere my- 
 «self. It is true that I was too complying; (¢rop,foible,) 
 “ and at some times | ought to have quitted the committee, 
 “and not to have satisfied myself with iasialing against | 
 *¢ the false translations.” ap niaaenian ated 
 
 ‘¢ J asked him,” says Mr Malan, << < whigt passages ieee 
 ‘ all were unfaithful. He pointed out some of them which. 
 ‘I have been examining, and others, such as, Tit, iii. 5, 
 ‘ « Pay la régénération qui donne la bapteme,” &e. He said: 
 ‘‘ on that passage he had a long dispute, and, that the) pas- 
 *¢ sage thus distorted, (travesté,) was adopted by, a,majo- 
 s rity of voices.”. 2 Cor, v.17, . *¢ Si. quelqu’un. veut etre 
 “en. Christ, QU’ IL SOIT une nouvelle. creature.” In 
 « fact, (says Mr Malan) this translation is horrible ;,.and i itis” 
 ‘ impossible to preach more openly righteousness by. works. 
 ‘ This single. passage shows. what. was the spirit.of the. 
 ‘translators. Again, Matt. iv. 4... * Dhomme ne viera’ 
 ‘ pas seulement de pain, mais de tout.ce, que Diew ordonne, 
 * QUI LUI SERVE DE NOURRITURE.”,. According 
 
123 
 
 ‘ to this the multitudes did well to follow Jesus pour cette 
 ‘ nourriture-la. Ah, it is a sacrilege thus to despoil, (dé- 
 ‘ piller) the Saviour ! Mr Rochat adds, that the Lon don 
 ‘ Society made indeed some slight representations, on their 
 “not publishing the text of Ostervald pure; but they easi- 
 ‘ly pacified (appaisa) the Society, and continued their 
 ‘changes ; after the publication, there were also remon- 
 ‘strances respecting one or two passages: but all was 
 quieted, and the Bible was‘circulated.” 
 
 Mr Malan states, that neither the pious ministers of the 
 Canton de Vatid, nor those of Geneva, will circulate this 
 Bible among thé people. It is some years since he warned 
 his congregation, from the pulpit, against it. Thus is the 
 British and Foreign Bible Society chargeable with the 
 circulation of this unfaithful translation of a large edition 
 of the Scriptures ; and not only was their coriduct inex« 
 cusable in committing such a work to persons who were 
 manifestly ignorant of the gospel, but also in allowing it 
 to be circulated without a public protestation against it: 
 for they are not ignorant of the unfaithfulness of this 
 translation—information of which was long since officially 
 communicated to them. 
 
 The following notice of this edition appears in the report 
 of the Bible Society of 1821 :—* Lausanne, Neufchatel, 
 ‘and Geneva, continue to take their respective shares in 
 ‘the common work. The revision of the text of Oster- 
 ‘ vald is carried on with indefatigable attention and per- 
 ‘ severance, and, although it delays the quarto edition of 
 ‘the Bible, which has pian so long in hand, the evil of that 
 ‘ delay will, it is believed, be abundantly ‘compensated by 
 ‘ the ici la state in which this version will eventually 
 “appear.” We now see what this improved state has turned 
 out to be. In the Society’s report of 1822, it is said j in a 
 letter from Latisanne, ‘The zeal of the clergy is reviving.” 
 The first fruits of ‘this revival of zeal has been the com- 
 mencement of a cruel persecution against the servants of 
 
124 
 
 Jesus Christ, of which mann of ticem are the. victims at 
 this hour.* if (Jo Tierhewin 
 An edition of 10; 000 copies of the Bible was published 
 at Strasburg, in a great measure at the expense of the Bri- 
 tish and Foreign Bible Society ; the translation is that,of 
 Luther, corrected only in a few old words. In this work 
 the British and Foreign Bible Society co-operated, with a 
 set of pastors and professors more decidedly removed, from 
 every appearance of the knowledge of the gospel. than those 
 of Lausanne. The greater part of them are Neologists. 
 This edition of the Bible appeared with a preface attached 
 to it, subversive of its character as a Divine Revelation. 
 The preface was prepared by Professor Haffner, one of the 
 correspondents of the British and Foreign Bible Society... 
 Although this Bible, with its deistieal. accompaniment, 
 was published in August 1819, it was not, till October 
 1821, that the Bible Society took. proper steps to. check 
 this impious proceeding. |'This is the more remarkable, as 
 information concerning the. preface was sent to. England 
 as soon as it was published, and communicated to the So- 
 ciety. At length, at the distance of two)years,)we find 
 the following notice in a letter from one, of its agents, 
 dated Strasburg, October 5th, 1821, Report 1822, p. 3'7.: 
 —* Leaving Paris in the morning of the 29th ult.,. I 
 ‘ reached Strasburg on the 2d instant. Here I learnt that 
 ‘the Society had printed 10,000 Bibles, and) an) equal 
 
 itt» +9 May ters 
 
 1d NS oqerrrE ye 
 * In this persecution, ministers of the ogi and eden divinity, are 
 imprisoned, banished, and expelled, for no other crime but their adherance to 
 the doctrines of the Confession of Faith of the Church of ‘Lausanne. When 
 the British and Foreign Bible Society commenced its connexion with the pas- 
 tors and professors of Geneva, their hostility'to the religion of Jesus had fully 
 manifested itself in their avowed sentiments and persecutions, which were only 
 restrained from going greater lengths by the civil authorities. Those of Neuf- 
 chatel were not a whit behind the others in their decided opposition to the gos- 
 pel. Such is the trio celebrated in this report as | the coadjutors of the Bible 
 Society—coadjutors only exceeded by its Neologian confederates... 
 
125 
 
 ‘number of Professor Haffner’s introduction ; that nearly 
 ‘ one-half of the Bibles and prefaces were brought into 
 ‘ circulation; that such Bibles as were circulated gratis, 
 ‘ were generally without the preface; but that the copies 
 ‘sold by the Society were bound up with it, unless the 
 * purchaser did not: wish to have it.” Thus. it appears 
 that; during two years, the Bible Society suffered this pre- 
 face to’ be! circulated with the Bible published by their 
 means; and, although during that time the business, was. 
 one of public notoriety, they did not put a stop to it until, 
 
 by their own account, nearly one-half of the Bibles and pre- 
 Saces were brought into circulation. 
 
 After all, it seems doubtfal whether Wig matter would 
 ever have been adverted'to even im the tardy manner in 
 which it was at length taken up, had it’ not been forced 
 upon the notice of the Society by means of a pamphlet 
 published against the’ preface, as soon as it appeared, by a 
 faithful preacher of the gospel, who had been sent to 
 Strasburg. An/account of this transaction, in the  follow- 
 ing communication from that preacher, who \is well ac- 
 quainted with Germany, will tend to throw much light. on 
 the subjects that have been alluded to,» respecting the con- 
 nexions which the British and’ Foreign ‘Bible Society. has 
 formed on the oe and thie effect ‘of .such con- 
 nexions. 
 
 ¢’ Mr’ Haffner is doctor and professor in eit mem- 
 ber of the Directory of the Lutheran churches of several de- 
 partments of France, pastor and vice-president of the Bible 
 Society at Strasburg. The pastors and professors of Stras- 
 burg are, for the most part, below Socinianism, “that is to 
 say, Neologists ; ‘some of them approach by shadés, much 
 diversified, to better principles: but there is a very small 
 minority, 2, 3, 4, who give evidence of being evangelical. In 
 that city, which contains about 50,000 inhabitants, of which 
 30, 000 are Protestant, there is a numerous seminary. You 
 may figure to yourself what is the character of the instrue- 
 
 Q 
 
126 
 
 tion given in that seminary. Mr Haffner in particular habi- 
 tually treats theology and the Scriptures in the tone of rail- 
 lery, (la ton de la raillerie, ) and a lecture seldom passes in 
 which the students do not laugh at these subjects; and 
 very often make a representation of them in caricature, 
 describing the outline of the lecture. All this is without 
 exaggeration. Here I must explain the term Neology :— 
 ** By Neology is generally understood infidelity, (Vinere- 
 dulité ) with the different shades of dissimulation which» it 
 wears among the German theologians. ‘The system that 
 has generally prevailed in Germany for fifty years: past, 
 and which was avowed and professed among the learned 
 (les savants) in the theological chairs, and even more or 
 less in the public preaching, is, that the Bible is absolutely 
 nothing more than a theogony (generation of the Pagan 
 gods,) like all the others, a collection of old traditions of 
 superstitions, mixed with the universal ideas of natural 
 religion. The characteristic feature of Neology is the 
 precaution with which they introduce it ; and’ also that‘it 
 has been introduced by men appointed to instruct im 'the 
 gospel. It is this last cireumstance, undoubtedly, that has 
 engendered the hypocrisy of expression which distinguishes 
 that system. All the attacks are made under the cover 
 (sous le manteau) of praise. They call Jesus the Divine 
 Master—the Great Teacher of the people—the Friend of 
 humanity ; and, in this sense also, the Saviour of men. 
 Respectable pastors have assured me, that in one of the 
 largest churches of Berlin, on a Christmas-day, a preacher 
 began his sermon by saying,— Although it be not true that 
 Jesus is risen. They treat the miraculous histories as alle- 
 gories. People have no idea to what a point of deprava- 
 tion'the preaching, in many countries of Germany, ‘has 
 reached by means of this procedure (marche.)) 0 
 “Mr Haffner, and the majority of the pastors and 
 professors of Strasburg, are, and particularly were, in 1819, 
 in this system, though, it must be confessed, more reserved 
 
 isT91 Fe 
 
127 
 
 ( réténus ) than those in the centre of Germany ; but, how- 
 ever, much more hardy and declared against the gospel 
 than the clergy of Geneva. T'he Preface of 37 pages, large 
 8vo. was all composed in this spirit. 
 
 According to this Preface, ‘* The history of the fall is 
 ‘ allegorical, and the serpent is the seduction of vice. The 
 ‘ books of Joshua and Judges contain the heroic age of the 
 ‘ Jewish people. Much of this book breathes a warlike 
 * courage, mixed with an immoveable and sometimes super- 
 * stitious confidence on God. What is extraordinary in the 
 ‘ actions of the judges ought not to astonish us; their ac- 
 ‘ tions were certainly celebrated in the beginning by songs 
 ‘ of triumph, and embellished with poetical ornaments. It 
 ‘is from these sources, probably, the writer has drawn his 
 ‘narrative. The Psalms of David contain the expression 
 ‘of various feelings which agitated him during his life. 
 ‘ Some of the others are songs of war and victory, which 
 ‘ bear, in some parts, the impression of the. yet imperfect 
 ‘moral sentiments of early times. _ David curses his 
 ‘enemies, Christ teaches us to pray for them. The Song 
 ‘of Solomon has given rise, in former times, to mystical 
 ‘and foreed explanations, for they have thought proper 
 ‘to set out on the principle that the bridegroom and the 
 ‘ bride were Jesus Christ and his church. The difficulties 
 ‘ disappear if we consider this book as a pretty little poem, 
 ‘in which chaste love and conjugal fidelity are depicted 
 ‘in such colours as are very pleasing to eastern nations. 
 ‘ The prophets were clear-sighted men, zealous patriots : 
 ‘their extensive view of the present, discovered to them 
 ‘ what would soon take place, and gave’ them a presenti- 
 ‘ment of distant future events. Jesus had conceived, for 
 “the good of humanity, a plan which no ‘sage had ever 
 ‘ conceived before him. . He had also .a._presentiment, of 
 ‘the manner of his death, . His. moral system, as,.among 
 ‘ other things, the danger of riches, was im a great measure 
 ‘only for-his, own time.” On the Apocryphal books in 
 general a great eulogium is pronounced in this Preface. 
 
128 
 
 “ After my attack on. the. Preface, the business made 
 some noise throughout all Germany, and the committee 
 of the Bible Society. at, Strasburg) declared, that, they 
 separated it from the Bible. , But that, measure has been 
 in fact illusory \in,seyeral circumstances; the Society itself 
 has distributed, Bibles, with that. preface.’ I believe that 
 these things centinue nearly on the same footing, (this. was 
 written September 27, '.1825,) though altogether, this 
 affair turned. out ill for, Mr. Haffner and the Neologists. 
 They procured an order for my, expulsiom; ‘but a conver- 
 sation with the prefect, prevented the execution of it, and 
 the mayen gave me very distinguished mance of manda: 
 tion,” riya 
 
 The above is the history of the a ie Meakaiaes it 
 will now be proper to observe in what manner this business 
 has been communicated to the public by the Directors of 
 the British and, Foreign, Bible Society im their report of 
 1822, p.. xxv :— 
 
 ‘¢ Your committee consider it their cl secatintesl ines 
 ‘ some temporary. obstruction to the good understanding 
 ‘ heretofore .subsisting between your, Society and that of 
 ‘ Strasburg, had_ been occasioned.by, the annexation of a 
 ‘ preface, from the pen of a distinguished, member of the 
 ‘latter, to the Bibles, issued from) its depository. Am ex- 
 ‘ planation having, however, taken. place, the preface was 
 ‘ withdrawn, aud harmony was accordingly restored. The 
 ‘ Report of the Strasburg, Bible Society, adverting to the 
 ‘ fact, correctly states, the. proposition for renouncing the 
 
 » Ac Mebs LPR A 
 
 a iP¥B0elD -olht 
 
 _.* The persecuting spirit of Arian, Socinian, and a Neologian pastors on the 
 Continent, forms a prominent feature in their character. Although, in some 
 countries, only tolerated themselves, they are the greatest persecutors. _ When 
 a preacher of the gospel appears among them, they are ever ready to denounce 
 iim to the civil authorities. “ Happily, however, the moderation of the govern- 
 ments has been such that their disgraceful proceedings in this way, have ree 
 rally, as in the above instance, been checked, 
 
 —— +. —_— 
 
129 
 
 « Preface as having been made to its committee by the Rev. 
 * Author himself: “ A:proposal so liberal,” it is added, 
 « * could not but obtain the approbation of this committee ; 
 “and, as an offer was made by an anonymous friend to 
 *« purchase the remaining copies, we willingly acceded : 
 and confidently hope) that this step has given satisfaction 
 “to the Christian public. \ This society has thus renoun- 
 *¢ ced the Preface in question, having refunded the sum ex- 
 ‘*-pended for the printing; the copies on hand being trans- 
 “ferred to the person above'alluded to. In consequence 
 ‘© of this arrangement, our society will, in future, sell the 
 *< Bible without any addition whatever.” Such’ generous 
 ‘ sacrifices to the principle of our common union deserve, 
 ‘ and, your committee are persuaded, will receive the cor- 
 ‘dial thanks of every friend to the Bntish and Foreign 
 * Bible Society.” 
 
 From this statement of the matter, ahan opinion must 
 the public have been led to form? Could it be supposed, 
 by ‘the most clear-sighted reader, that this report referred 
 to, such a history as that which has now been detailed ? 
 On the contrary, it would seem to allude to an occurrence 
 of no great importance,—an event which, in its issue, may 
 be contemplated with the most perfect complacency.' Some 
 temporary obstruction toa good understanding with a fo- 
 reign Bible Society has arisen, occasioned by the annexa- 
 tion to the Bibles which it issued, of a Preface from the 
 pen of one of its distinguished members. An explanation 
 having taken place, the Preface has been proposed to be 
 withdrawn by its Reverend Author. The liberality he has 
 thus discovered is highly applauded by the society abroad, 
 and. the British and, Foreign Bible Society is persuaded, 
 that this generous sacrifice deserves, and will receive, the 
 cordial thanks of every one of its friends. 
 
 . How smoothly may we suppose the reader of the-Report 
 to, glide over this pleasant narration, which discovers in all 
 its features so much urbanity and good humour! At worst, 
 it may appear to him, that this is such a Preface as might 
 
130 
 
 be expected from the pen of a Reverend and Distinguished 
 Member of a Bible Socicty, unexceptionable im itself, yet. 
 inadmissable, as being contrary to the rule which prohibits. 
 any addition whatever to be made to the Scriptures; and, 
 that this irregularity has been no sooner noticed by the. 
 Bible Society than it has been speedily corrected. But far 
 will he be from conceiving that the transaction alluded to. 
 is one of the blackest description,—that the Preface in. 
 question is subyersive of the whole system of divine truth - 
 contained in the Bible,—that the reverend and distinguish-. “ 
 ed author of it belongs to the sect of Neologians, occupy-. : 
 ing a place between Socinians and avowed Infidels, and one: 
 who habitually turns the Scriptures into ridicule,—that the 
 Bible Society, of which he is vice-president, combined withy 
 the reverend author in affixing this Preface to the Bible, 
 and in defraying the price of 10,000 copies of it from funds , 
 which had been intrusted to them solely for the publication 
 of the Scriptures,—and that, during two years, this Society . 
 persevered in circulating 5000 copies of its adopted Pre-. 
 face; and, finally, that they used their endeavours to ban- 
 ish, as an evil doer, a faithful preacher of the gospel, who 
 had dared to raise his voice against their impious proceed- 
 ings, and, like the prophets of old, to warn them of their. 
 sin and danger! Here, then, we have a specimen ofthe. 
 way in,which the public is misled by the Reports of the. 
 British and Foreign Bible Society respecting the religious) 
 state of the Continent, and also of the effects of the ungodly, . 
 confederacies which it has formed.in that quarter,...; |. 
 The recollection of tle Strasburg Preface naturally leads 
 to the inquiry, whether the Bible, Society is acting fairly , 
 with its supporters—excluding all notes or expl. nations of | 
 every kind from those Bibles of which it assists the publi. 
 cation? The reader has observed, (page 21-25,), the res. 
 monstrances on this head, made_ several years, ago by the. 
 Edinburgh Bible Society, and the retraction of; a:resolu- 
 tion on the subject by the British and Foreign Bible Society, , 
 im consequence. But there is reason to apprehend that the 
 
131 . 
 
 latter have relapsed into a still greater deviation than for- 
 merly from their fundamental regulation, without inform- 
 ing their supporters of that change. In the Lausanne 
 Bible there are, I am informed, Aim Se to each of the 
 books inserted, varying in length from 10 to 20, or 30 
 lines or more, explaining their scope and objects, some of 
 which misrepresent their meaning, and are calculated to 
 mislead the reader. In the letter of Van Ess, which has 
 been brought into view, he speaks of his Introduction to 
 the Old Testament, of which the Society has purchased 
 8000 copies. When these are circulated will that intro- 
 duction appear with them? It is asserted that notes, or 
 comments, are appended to some of the Bibles or New, 
 Testaments on the Continent belonging to the Society, 
 or whose circulation has been aided by it. If this report 
 be without foundation, it will be well to contradict it. 
 But how comes it that, in any instance, or in any way 
 whatever, the fundamental rule of the Society—that the 
 word of God shall be circulated without note or comment— 
 is violated ? 
 
 The checking of the circulation of the Scriptures, by 
 their being buried in the deposits in which they are stored, 
 and the authorising of men to make changes in the old 
 translations, who are altogether incompetent to such a 
 work, are not the only evils produced by the line of con- 
 duct which the Bible Society is pursuing on the. Con- 
 tinent. Other consequences of most pernicious tendency, 
 both abroad and at home, follow in their train. 
 
 By forming ungodly men into organized societies, for a 
 religious purpose, placing them in promment situations, 
 and furnishing them with means to extend their influence, 
 one of the greatest barriers is erected against the progress 
 of the gospel. The additional power which they thus ac- 
 quire, they do not fail to employ in opposing the dif- 
 fusion of the knowledge of salvation. Their exertions for 
 this purpose are brought into more activity, and their 
 efficiency is greatly augmented. Societies composed of 
 
132° 
 
 such characters become so many strongholds, ‘by which 
 the god of this world fortifies his dominions, and in which, 
 being transformed into an angel of ‘light, He ‘is prepared; 
 with the greatest advantage, to repel every attack.’ The 
 uneasiness which a faithful preacher of the gospel in their 
 neighbourhood will occasion’ to such ‘associations, and’ the 
 opposition which they will raise against him,’ can easily 
 be supposed. The attempt to banish that servant’ of ‘God 
 from Strasburg, which has just been related, as soon as he 
 exposed the work of darkness of the Bible ‘Society of that 
 place, exemplifies, in one instance, what may be ‘certainly 
 looked for in every ‘similar case. The increased power to 
 oppose the progress of the gospel, arising from the associa- 
 tion of men who are enemies to it, is duly appreciated ‘by 
 some of the best pastors in France, ‘who ‘rejoice that, in 
 the present state of religion among them, the Synods of 
 the Protestants are not permitted to be held in that coun- 
 try. LS. od : eye) GM Og, Lee Vegae i Rae Pd 
 Nothing can have a more pernicious effect on such persons 
 themselves as those are whom the Bible Society ‘collects on 
 the Continent into kindred associations, than its’ fraternal 
 co-operation with them—extolling their zeal, intrusting to 
 them the revision of translations of the ‘Scriptures, ‘and 
 speaking of them, as they do of Mr Haffner, as distine 
 guished members of Bible Societies! \ Can any thing have 
 astronger tendency to confirm these men in their several 
 infidel systems; and is no regard due to them in this ‘mat- 
 ter? Is no caution to be exercised lest’ they should 'be 
 hardened to their destruction? Was this the manner of the 
 apostles of Christ ? Was it by such means that they sought 
 the conversion of the world? In attempting’ to do good in 
 one way, are we at liberty to lose sight of every “thing be- 
 sides ? “In our zeal to circulate the Bible, are we permitted 
 to trample on the principles which it inculeates?- "> 
 If the British and Foreign Bible Socicty did not present 
 itself to the world asa religious Society—if ‘this Society 
 professed to circulate the Bible merely with a view to the 
 
633 
 
 good it is calculated to produce on men in temporal things, 
 without any respect,to its influence on their eternal condi- 
 tion; then it might be at liberty to instal, not only Arians, 
 and Socinians, and Neologists, as the counsellors and di- 
 rectors of the Bible Societies abroad, but also Deists and 
 Atheists. , But, while it continues to hold out to the Chris- 
 tians of Britian, that its ultimate object in circulating the 
 Holy Scriptures) is the extension of the; kingdom. of the 
 Redeemer in the world, and .the salvation of the souls of 
 
 en,-by which professed design it secures their support,— 
 is it to be tolerated that, over.the whole of the Continent, 
 the chosen friends of the British and Foreign Bible Society, 
 those whom it generally appoints or countenances as the 
 leaders in the various Bible Societies which it creates, shall 
 be Arians, Socinians, and -Freethinkers? Is at to be 
 conniyed at, that, through their hands, the Scriptures shall 
 be, delivered to the people: thus. giving. all the sanction 
 in its power to the characters, the opimions, and. the quali- 
 fications of these men as public religious instructors— 
 while, at the same time, the leading directors of the British 
 and Foreign Bible Society, as well as the various denomi- 
 nations of Christians throughout Britian, by whom. the 
 Society is upheld, are convinced that the religious systems 
 of these pretended pastors areas completely opposed to the 
 gospel, and. as subversive of the whole system: of divine 
 truth contained in the Bible as the grossest system of 
 Pagans, Deists, or Atheists ? 
 
 By erecting Bible Societies. on the Continent, composed 
 of the enemies of the gospel, the prejudices of Roman Ca- 
 tholics against Bible. Societies, and their operations, are 
 increased in the greatest degree; and. not only. against 
 these Societies, but also’ against. the Reformation. Let 
 any one fora moment consider what effect must be | pro- 
 duced on the mind of a reflecting Roman Catholic, when 
 he sees Arians and. free-thinking philosophers at the head 
 of Bible Societies. He knows that the, system of such 
 men is subyersiye of every fundamental doctrine of the 
 
 R 
 
134 
 
 gospel which is held ‘by the Roman Catholics. He is 
 aware that, between them and ‘him, there are questions of 
 the most vital importance. He is convinced that these 
 men have no real religion; and he ascribes the sin of their 
 apostasy to the fault of Luther’s Reformation. Hence he 
 is more than ever confirmed in his attachment to ‘the 
 Church of Rome. Although he may be so far enlightened 
 as to discover some of ats evils, yet, amidst all the errors 
 with which it is chargeable, he knows, perhaps experi- 
 mentally, that the fundamental doctrines which it main- 
 tains, are the power of God unto salvation. That this 
 feeling among Roman Catholics on the Continent, against 
 both Bible Societies and the Reformation, is strongly ex- 
 cited, by observing the materials of which these ‘Societies 
 are composed, is a well-known fact. : 
 
 A correspondent, who has lately visited the ‘Continent, 
 writes—‘ I saw it stated, in a Catholic tract the other day, 
 ‘that Protestants care much less about opposing ‘sects 
 ‘which deny the divinity of Jesus Christ, than about op- 
 
 ¢ posing Catholics. I met a well-informed French Catho- 
 ‘lic count, who said, the state of religion among the Pro- 
 ¢ testants abroad, especially at Geneva, was a strong angu- 
 ©ment against the Reformation.” ‘The’ ‘testimony of a 
 Roman Catholic Priest, lately given on the ‘subject,’ is 
 very striking. «* It was not possible,” he observed, * for the 
 © priests to believe that the British and Foreign “Bible So- 
 ‘ciety was actuated by love to ‘Jesus Christ, when ‘they 
 “united themselves to so many of shis professed ‘enemies ; 
 ‘and that, for this, above all other reasons, the rightifecl- 
 ‘ing priests refused ‘to’ join at.” The rectiving of Arian 
 deputies, or menof norreligion, from Foreign Bible Societies, 
 by the London Bible Bocialy at its annual meetings, has 
 given the greatest disgust to: ‘pious ‘Catholies abroad. “Before 
 this, they had attacked the Foreign ‘Bible Societies ; but 
 now ‘their language is, “ Yoouisee the British and Forelg 
 Bible Society is no better than the rest.” 
 The conduct of the Bible Society even ‘respecting ‘the 
 
135 
 
 Apocrypha, in adopting, that crooked policy by which it 
 intends to conciliate the favour of Reman Catholics, 
 proves, as might be expected, a stumbling-block to them. 
 Dr Naudi of Malta, in his letter of the 29th of August 
 last, says, ‘I have lately, and but very lately, for these 
 ‘ reasons, obtained a copy of a long paper written, as | am 
 ‘informed, by Bishop Comperie of Bagdad, the French 
 * Consul of that place. Among other odd things, the author 
 * accuses the Society of much deceit, in printing the books 
 ‘ of the: Apocrypha, which the Protestants, the members 
 ‘ of that Society, must deem, to be uninspired.” 
 
 If the manner in which the British and Foreign Bible 
 Society has conducted its business has been productive of 
 much eyil abroad, it has. also been attended with effects 
 that are most prejudicial at home. The accounts it has an- 
 nually published, which lead the Christians in this country 
 to form so false an idea of the state of religion on the Con- 
 tinent, has paralyzed those exertions, which, had they been 
 aware of the real condition of the neighbouring countries, 
 they would have pressed forward to make for their relief. 
 To what other cause can it be attributed, that those who 
 have shown themselves so laudably zealous in sending mis- 
 sions to the heathen. countries, have discovered such coldness 
 when éalled on to promote the preaching of the gospel on 
 the Continent ? yet the divine blessing has accompanied it 
 in that quarter with a very uncommon degree of success, 
 as far as the scanty means contributed for this end have 
 extended. This remarkable supineness, ina cause so much 
 connected with the glory of God, and the salvation of the 
 souls of men, must have arisen from the wrong impressions 
 they have received. Here, then, we see the mischief oc- 
 casioned by those. statements which periodically appear in 
 the British and Foreign Bible Society’s reports, filled with 
 so much false colouring, and so devoid of just discrimina- 
 tion. ., aT 
 
 The operation of the cause that has just been adverted to, 
 
136 
 
 ‘appears to have greatly circumscribed the efforts whicli 
 might otherwise have been made for the diffusion of the 
 -gospel among the nations of ‘the Continent: ~ Another 
 cause, originating from a different source, has contributed 
 to the same effect.’ Unhappily, some of those who are 
 most properly zealous for the circulation of ‘the Scriptures, 
 ‘have imbibed the idea that the promoting of the’ preaching 
 of the gospel in countries called Christian; would counter- 
 act the success of that desirable object. If, however, the 
 ‘preaching of the gospel shall, in any cirewmstances, be found 
 at all to impede the circulation of the word’ of God, it is a 
 certain indication that the way which ‘has been’ adopted is 
 unscriptural, and consequently wrong. Yet’ considerable 
 jealousy, on this point, has discovered itself among ‘some 
 supporters of the British and Foreign Bible Society, ever 
 since an opportunity, by the return of peace, has beén 
 afforded to Christians at home to make any efforts in 
 that quarter. Such efforts, it has been apprehended, 
 would excite discussions, and lead to differences of opinion 
 unfavourable to the end proposed by the Bible Society: If 
 discussions and differences of opinion be! not excited by giv- 
 ing men the Bible, it is owing either to its being neglected, 
 or to their mistaking the religion which it:inculcates. But 
 so far are dlsothacigns on the subject of the gospel, ‘from re- 
 tarding the circulation of the Bible, that it is only when 
 they take place that its circulation is promoted. I: saw this 
 verified inva remarkable manner at Montauban, and i in ‘the 
 surrounding country. Just in proportion as discussions 're- 
 specting the gospel were excited, the demand for the Serip- 
 tures increased. I also witnessed the truth of this, when 
 a missionary was dispatched from that. place to a district 
 in France, called the High Alps. Soon afterwards there 
 was a large demand for the word of God, where there had 
 been none before ; and a great number of Testaments were, 
 in consequence, circulated.in that quarter. . The giving of 
 tracts, which’ also’ leads’ to discussion, ‘has’ likewise’ been 
 
137 
 
 much blessed in exciting a desire to possess the Holy 
 Scriptures. * 
 
 The preaching of the word preceded, at the beginning, 
 the circulation and even the publication of the Scriptures ; 
 and, before even the transactions of his life were recorded, 
 the Divine Author of the gospel sent forth his missionaries 
 into all the world. Let Christians then contribute to this 
 grand object, under the conviction that the declaration of 
 the truth, by the living voice, is much called for on the 
 Continent, and that, instead of counteracting or impeding 
 the circulation of the Bible, it will promote that most de- 
 sirable object in the highest degree. 
 
 © The following occurrence is related in the Report of the Glasgow Foreign 
 Religious Tract Society, published last year. The Secretary of that Society 
 is acquainted with the person referred to. 
 
 “© A translation of the tract ‘‘ Serious Thoughts on Eternity,’ had found 
 its way into the shop of Mr B » 4 manufacturer of considerable in- 
 fluence and property in B — in the South of France, a town containing, 
 without a single exception, a thoroughly Popish community. He took it up 
 and read it; it alarmed him, and he read it again; he pondered much over 
 it for some time, as it was the only book of the kind that had ever fallen in 
 his way. In this tract were several references to the New Testament; this 
 was a book he had never seen, and he longed to search further into a subject 
 which now appeared to him of immense moment: he searched every store in 
 town to see if they contained such a book, and at last in the shop of a book- 
 seller to whom a Protestant clergyman had sent a few copies, with the faint 
 hope that they might meet a purchaser, he discovered the volume he wanted ; 
 he read the tract again, and consulted all the passages in the New Testament 
 referred to ; he pondered what these things could. mean; he was awakened 
 to a serious concern for his immortal soul; and the New Testament was now 
 his constant study. At length he thought with himself,—are there none that 
 are concerned about these truths ? and he concluded, that the individual who 
 had sent the New Testament to the bookseller must surely feel’ their import- 
 ance and value. He made the necessary inquiries, and found that it had been 
 sent by the Protestant clergyman at Toulouse ; he wrote to a friend in the same 
 town, requesting him to call upon the clergyman to say that he had seen the 
 New Testament, and was desirous of corresponding with him on the subjects 
 contained in it. Of this invitation the clergyman gladly availed himself; and 
 commenced a correspondence which was not speedily terminated. Mr B———.’s 
 
138 
 
 At is earnestly to be desired, that the zeak of those who 
 direct the affairs of the British and Foreign Bible Society 
 were 2 zeal according, to knowledge, and that every abuse 
 
 which has crept into its management, and the departures 
 that have taken place from its fundamental rules relating 
 ta the Apocrypha, and the admission of any thing | like 
 Notes or Comments, may be speedily rectified. The mark 
 ed disapprobation of its conduct on the ‘subject of the Apo- 
 crypha, which, in many quarters, has of late discovered 
 itself, it is now to be hoped, will lead the Directors _ to 
 abandon a course, which, if longer: persisted j in, ‘will prove 
 the ruin of the institution. ‘This evil, it was long e pect- 
 ed, would have been remedied without being made public, 
 and efforts were made for this purpose, tilt at last the case 
 became absolutely hopeless. But, here, I am happy to be 
 able to say, that the guilt of the line of conduct which has 
 been pursued respecting the Apocrypha, by no means at- 
 taches to all'the Directors’ of ‘the Bible Soctety. “On the | 
 
 W O17 inal > 14 
 
 see 7 on 
 
 heart was touched by the influence of the Holy Spirit, and his mind gradually 
 opened to the knowledge of divine things.’ Heleft the Roman communion, 
 and. is now, a most useful and devoted servant of the Lord Jesus. By a let- 
 ter lately received he had sold, at reduced prices, in the town where here. 
 sides, and villages around, upwards of eleven hundred New T. ) and 
 had also sold and distributed several thousands of religious tracts. He has 
 been the means likewise, it is added, of awakening the attention of several of 
 hi¢friends, to a, concern for their souls, and: amongst others two popish priests, 
 who, although they have not left the Church of Rome, are now active im ex< 
 horting, their parishioners to read the Scripture. Thus it is that by. the bless». 
 ing of God, one sizgle tract has been the means of the circulation of upwards 
 of eleven hundred New Testaments, several thousand tracts, the conversion of 
 at least one individual, ard the awakening, and it is to be hoped the conver= 
 siom also, of two popish, priests, Let us not therefore remove our hand from 
 a work so auspiciously commenced, but steadily persevere im the diligent use_ 
 of the means, praying withal for a still more abundant anion of the ba 
 ville Spirit! to accompany 
 
 Subscriptions for. this Scien are received by ue onde the diaheiehapl 
 Nov 3s Vinge Street, Glnegue pan by Ms Oliphenty Roselet Baa Rs 
 South Bridge, Edinburgh. 
 
139 
 
 contrary, some of the ablest and most respectable among 
 them took their ground, and made a stand against the 
 practice complained of from the moment their attention 
 was called to it. 
 
 A bad spirit has been attributed to the Edinburgh Bible 
 Society for the part they hhave taken in the publication of 
 their Statement. But where is the bad spirit? They ob- 
 served an enormous evil taking place in an. institution 
 which they have long and zealously supported, and to 
 which they have largely contributed. The practice com- 
 plained of, they considered to be contrary to the will of 
 their Divine Master—a violation of his Holy Law—an 
 adulteration of the integrity of his sacred Word. Ought 
 they then to be silent ? What have they done? They ear 
 nestly, yet respectfully remonstrated. They waited for a 
 considerable time to see what effect would be produced: 
 When all they could say was found to be of no avail, they 
 withdrew from those who refused to listen to them; and, 
 believing that other ‘Bible Societies, from the one end of 
 Britain to the other, were ignorant of the unfaithfulness of 
 the Parent Society in the instance of which they complain: 
 ed, they published their reasons ‘for ‘the decisive measure 
 they had ‘been compelled to adopt.’ ‘Is'this acting in ‘a bad 
 spirit ? The charge of acting in a bad spirit must rest with 
 those who, notwithstanding all the remonstrances that ‘have 
 been made ‘to them for years ‘past, have pertiniaciously ad- 
 hered to a line of onduct which cantiot "be defended on 
 Christian principles, or even on those of fair dealing: 
 
 What advantage is gained by saying, Peace; when there 
 is ‘no "peace ; by calling evil good, and ‘good'evil ? A’ woe 
 is pronounced | on those who do so. Tf, in the cireum- 
 stances in which the Edinburgh Bible Society was placed, 
 to remonstrate as they have done, indicates -a‘bad:: ‘spirit,’ 
 then the prophets ‘were commanded “to “act ina ‘bad spirit, 
 when it ‘was said to'them, “Cry alowd, and spate not ; lift 
 ‘up thy ‘voice like a ‘trumpet, ‘and show my people their 
 
140 
 
 ‘ transgressions, and the house of Jacob their sins.” ‘The 
 apostles as well as the prophets delivered messages, which, 
 however unpleasant to those to whom they were directed, 
 were calculated to give warning, and to save them from 
 death. Tovall of us it is said, ** Thou shalt not hate thy 
 ‘ brother in thy heart; thou shalt im any wise rebuke thy 
 ‘neighbour, and not suffer sin upon him.” Far less are 
 we at liberty to partake with him in his evil iene 
 Tl y a des cas oti toute la charité pe pi la vérité. Wr : 
 
 The watchmen of Israel were commanded to blow dla 
 trumpet, and give warning to the people on the approach of 
 danger or the commission of iniquity. In professing to cir- 
 culate the Scriptures, Bible Societies have im some sort 
 taken upon them the office of watchmen. When, therefore, 
 the Edinburgh Bible Society observed the inroad which the 
 enemy had made, and. the great cause, for which they were 
 organised, endangered by a palpable departure from those 
 stipulations on the faith of which the friends of the Bible 
 had united, was it not their duty to use their endeavours 
 to stop the progress of the evil, and, when these had. bs tahion 
 to warn others and deliver themselves ? Lae 
 
 If the friends of the circulation of the pure ini ie God 
 had, continued longer silent, it would have been on their 
 partia dereliction vf duty.. And, since an evil of such 
 magnitude as the aduleration of the sacred Word does’ 
 exist, it is better that it should be publicly known, in 
 order that it may be checked and remedied, than that it 
 should go on producing extensive mischief. However pros- 
 perous the British and Foreign Bible Society outwardly 
 appeared, it was, while this evil adhered) to it, like the 
 gourd which had sprung up flourishing! and eit wile 
 a worm unseen was smiting it at the root. 
 
 Christians all over sistiiny confiding in the constitution 
 of the Bible Society, its rules and annual reports, have un- 
 suspectingly intrusted it with very large funds. The amount 
 
141 
 
 of these funds that has been expended in printing the Apo- 
 crypha must be very considerable. . It. was. time, then, to 
 sound an alarm, and to give notice to the supporters of the 
 Society of what was going on in their name. If any of 
 them shall choose to have their donations applied to the 
 publication of the Apocrypha, let it be done with their 
 knowledge. If any wish to have a Bible and Apocrypha 
 Society, let them erect one; but let not a course be perse- 
 yered in, unauthorised by the name and constitution of the 
 Bible Society, and unknown to those who uphold it. 
 
 The voice of the Auxiliary Societies throughout the 
 country, it may be confidently expected, will now be raised 
 in language so firma and unequivocal as will bring about a 
 change of management in the Bible society. They should, 
 however, beware of being satisfied with the adoption of 
 any half measure, which would have precisely the effect 
 deseribed.in the Edinburgh Statement, and clearly exem- 
 plified:in the letter of Van Ess. What difference will it 
 make whether the British and Foreign Bible Society 
 shall furnish funds to the Foreign Societies to assist in 
 printing the Bible and Apocrypha, or if it shall give them 
 money for other purposes, such as for the journeys of their 
 secretaries, &c..while the whole of the funds of these Societies 
 maybe appropriated for printing the Apocrypha, to be 
 added to the Bibles which they receive, bound or unbound, 
 
 vom the British and Foreign Bibie Society? | If, there- 
 fore, it holds connexion with those Societies that print 
 and, cireulate the Apocrypha, and. provides them with 
 funds for any purpose whatever, the Auxiliary Societies 
 may be.assured that part.of the money which they sub- 
 scribed for the printing of the Holy Scriptures, will still go 
 indirectly to the circulation of the Apoerypha—and, in 
 _ so far, the circulation of the Word. of God wiil be dimi- 
 nished. On, the other hand, were the British and Foreign 
 Bible Society to .withdraw its support from the Societies, 
 until, bona ,fde, they -acted as Bible Societies, there is 
 little doubt that the greater part, if not all of them, would 
 s 
 
/ 142 
 
 give up the circulation of the Apocrypha,’ and use ‘the 
 money they collect in printing the Scriptures, which, in 
 the former case, they would apply in printing the Apocry- 
 pha, trusting to the British and Foreign Society for a sup- 
 ply of the canonical books. ‘The Auxiliary Societies ought 
 also to be satisfied that their money shall not be applied in 
 printing notes or comments, or any additions whatever 
 to the sacred text. Such application of its funds is di- 
 rectly contrary both to the rules of the British and Fo- 
 reign Bible Society, and to its public declaration, dated 
 May 4, 1818, in consequence of the remonstrance of the 
 Edinburgh Bible Society. hy aH dbo sin 
 The: pained cause of that pecehesieg owe pre-eminence 
 slaaip through the Divine blessing, the British and) Foreign 
 Bible Society has: enjoyed, was the power and simplicity 
 of the uniting principle: on which’ it was founded—* the 
 circulation of the Holy Scriptures without note or com- 
 ment,” which commanded: the co-operation of Christians 
 of all denominations. If this uniting principle be finally 
 abandoned on any grounds whatever, or if) any! other prin- 
 ciple, however unexceptionable it may appear, be substi- 
 tuted in its place, an end, we may be assured, will be put 
 to that co-operation. But how much more: certainly may 
 we predict that this will be the ease, if it shall be departed 
 from on grounds which, the more they are: examined, the 
 more they will be discovered to be mn unsound, 
 and unseripturaly: heron iChat ai 
 “This view of the matter: is sdistimétly secmipiandiin | the 
 Society’s circular letter, published in the report of 1821, 
 where it is said—* In conclusion, we beg leave'to observe, 
 ‘ that the British and’ Foreign Bible Society owes its present 
 * prosperity, next to the blessing of the Most High, to; the 
 ¢ simplicity of its object, and the zeal, fidelity, and perseve- 
 “rance’ with which that object has been pursued; and. we 
 ‘ respectfully’ solicit all our fellow-labourers «nd» friends, 
 * never to deviate from the plain and avowed object; of. all 
 ‘ Bible Societies, **'the circulation of the Holy Seriptures 
 
143 
 
 * without note or comment.” If this Society had indeed 
 pursued this avowed object with the fidelity which is here 
 professed, it never would have been found in its present 
 unhappy predicament—at variance with its own constitution 
 and rules: and most positive declarations. _ rowers 
 have brought thee into great waters.” 
 
 The warfare in which the Directors, in the early periods 
 of the Bible Society, were engaged, was with the enemies 
 of the gospel; over whom, by wielding the sword of the 
 Spirit, they speedily triumphed. But now they are ranging 
 themselves» against their most zealous supporters, who 
 are equally desirous with themselves to promote the exten- 
 sive diffusion of the Word of God. This isthe mote to be 
 regretted; since, had they acted in such a manner as to main- 
 tain unbroken that co-operation of Christians which was so 
 happily established, this institution might have long con- 
 tinued to prove a blessing to the world. 
 
 The existence of a body so powerful and sSticigot as the 
 British and Foreign Bible Society, was calculated to ani- 
 mate and encourage the friends of the Bible. Thesamount 
 of its funds; the extent of its influence, the weight of its 
 name, and the unity of its object, strongly:-recommended it. 
 The expectation, however, which has been formed. of its 
 permanency may have been too sanguine. | It is impossible 
 to forget, that the operations of such a Society may become 
 so complicated and extensive as to render it impracticable 
 for its Directors to bestow that care and. attention on the 
 various details which are necessary in order to prevent 
 flagrant abuses. It is certain that there is a point beyond 
 which the business .of .a ‘society cannot. be extended with- 
 out great injury to the-cause for which it was constituted. 
 Whether or not the British and Foreign Bible Society has 
 reached this point, it is not my object to inquire ;, but the 
 conduct of its Directors, with regard to the. circulation 
 of the Scriptures on the Continent of Europe, and: the in- 
 aceuracy of the imformation to which they seem. to,have 
 giver implicit credit, together with the characters of those 
 
144 
 
 abroad with whom they have connected” their'operations, 
 are strong symptoms of faults and deficiencies in their sys- 
 tem of operations, which call for an immediate reformation. 
 Yet, if such a reformation were now made in’ thé conduct 
 of the Society, and if they consent to abide by their avow- 
 ed principles, they might still continue to enjoy the support 
 ‘and prayers of many, who earnestly desire that the Word 
 of the Lord may have free course and be glorified. > 
 But whatever may be the course which the Directors’ of 
 the British and Foreign Bible Society shall finally ‘adopt, 
 ‘there is no reason to entertain’ any apprehension ‘of the 
 failure ‘of that’ cause of which ‘it “has hitherto been the 
 general organ: ‘God has put ‘it into the hearts ‘of his peo- 
 ple ‘to desire ‘the diffusion of the Holy Scriptures ; numer- 
 ‘ous societies are instituted in all parts of the country with 
 a view to this object ; and means: will ‘not be wanting to 
 carry it into effect. Nor is there much danger that the an- 
 nual contributions towards it will be materially diminished. 
 Many, indeed, who have hitherto appeared as its support- 
 ers, but who felt no real concern in its advancement, may 
 be expected to fall away. But whether the great’ work of 
 the circulation of the Holy Scriptures be conducted by one 
 leading Society in Britain, or by two, or three, or more, 
 in different parts of the country, the contributions of Chris- 
 tians may still’ be expected to continue’ and to augment. 
 And thus will be realized, what is so well conceived, and 
 so happily expressed in the Perth Report, and adopted 
 into that of the London Society of this’ year: It is not 
 mere money that is wanted, nor money extorted from the 
 man’ who, in parting with it, knows not what he is:doing: 
 but it is consecrated money—money deposited as the free 
 and considerate expression of intelligence and choice; money, 
 in short, which is brightened in its hues, and inhanced in 
 its value, by the glowing fervour of Christian zeal.” » Of 
 this money, the amount that will be forthcoming, we may 
 confidently anticipate, will not be diminished. Th 
 How imperative, on British Christians, is the duty of 
 
145 
 
 seeking to diffuse the blessings of salvation ?, What grati- 
 tude de they owe to the Father of mercies, the God of all 
 grace and consolation, who has distinguished this nation 
 with his! peculiar benefits in so remarkable a manner! 
 Here he has preserved the knowledge of his name, while 
 darkness has covered the other parts of the earth, and 
 gross darkness the people. . From the Continent of Europe 
 the light of divine truth, with which it was once eminent- 
 ly favoured, has been withdrawn: The Lord has had a 
 controversy with the nations, and has come out of his place 
 to punish them. .Where is the capital city, in the whole 
 civilized world, which has’ not. been occupied by a foreign 
 enemy, or whose government has not been overthrown with- 
 in the last thirty years, excepting that of Britain, whose fa- 
 voured shores no hostile invader has been suffered to ap- 
 proach. . While other countries have been visited by a famine 
 of the Word of Life, a gracious revival in this land has been 
 vouchsafed, and multitudes have been turned to the Lord. 
 As to Israel of old were committed the oracles of God; so 
 now he has made this country the, grand) depository 
 of his Sacred Word. He has placed an hundred millions 
 of idolaters under its dominion in the East, that to them 
 might be communicated the knowledge of himself. From 
 Britain he has’ caused his. word to sound. out tovall the 
 regions round about, even to the almost unknown.islands 
 of the remotest ocean. Britain, like the fleece of Gideon, 
 has been watered with the dew of heaven, while.all the na- 
 tions around have been parched and scorched... In all 
 its dwellings there has been light, while thick. darkness 
 brooded over other lands. Is it, then, to the superior 
 faithfulness of the inhabitants of this. country—to the 
 better improvement of privileges and advantages vouch- 
 safed, that the origin of all this favour should be traced ? 
 No; but to the sovereign good pleasure of Him who hath 
 mercy on whom he will have merey. . It is the Lord’s do- 
 ing, and it is wondrous in our eyes! What an unspeak- 
 able honour hath he thus conferred on Britain,—appointing 
 
146 
 
 it the great instrument im his hand of that extensive refor- 
 mation which now appears to be commencing in the world, 
 —of that preparation which is visibly making for ushering 
 in the glory of the latter days. ..** Surely the isles shall wait 
 for me, and the ships of Tarshish first, to bring thy sons 
 from far, their silver and their, gold with them, unto the 
 name of the Lord thy God, and to the Holy One'of Israel.” 
 
 Christians in this country have every, encouragement to 
 persevere in the great work of the circulation of the Serip- 
 tures. ‘* The breaker is come up before. them ; they have 
 broken up, and passed through the gate, and are gone out 
 by i it ; and their King shall pass before them.”. ‘The time 
 is now approaching when the ‘¢ fulness of the Gentiles shall 
 come in, and so all Israel shall be saved ;” as it is written, 
 «* There shall come out of Zion. the Deliverer, and.shall 
 turn away ungodliness from Jacob.” «* There shall be an 
 handful of corn in the earth upon. the top.of the moun- 
 tains; the fruit thereof shall shake like Lebanon:: and 
 they of the city shall flourish like grass on the earth.” In 
 Britain is this animating prediction now fulfilling,—Bri- 
 tain, formerly buried in Pagan darkness, and -superstition, 
 and idolatry,—which might be termed the habitation | of 
 devils, andthe hold. of every foul ,spirit,. and. the cage ‘of 
 every unclean and hateful bird,—Britain, once proverbially 
 said to be divided from the whole world,—as unlikely to 
 be destined to nourish the handfal of seed of the Word 
 of, God to. shake over all the earth, as the barren. craggy 
 mouritain top to be the’ embryo depository of the future 
 
 a hauneite of the fertile plains. 
 , ih? iO Wee 
 
 THE END. Dh ne x5 A 
 : fA 7iG 
 04, 2h Den 
 
 S115t064 
 
 : TO W aL" v aH 
 : EDINBURGH ¢ a"sani 
 PRINTED BY J. AND D. COLLIE: 
 
WORKS ON THE APOCRYPHA CONTROVERSY, 
 Published by Witttam Wuyre § Co. Edinburgh. 
 
 : In 8vo. (Second Edition) price 3d. 
 
 STATEMENT. BY, THE COMMITTEE OF. THE EDIN- 
 burgh Bible Society, relative to the Circulation of the Apocrypha by the 
 British and Foreign Bible Society. 
 
 In Syo. price 2s.° 
 
 SECOND STATEMENT OF THE COMMITTEE OF THE 
 Edinburgh Bible Society, relative to the Circulation of the Apocrypha by 
 the Committee of the British and Foreign Bible Society. 
 
 In 8yo price Is. 6d. 
 
 THIRD STATEMENT OF THE COMMITTEE OF THE 
 Edinburgh Bible Soctety, being a Statement respecting their conference 
 on April 4th, 1826, with a Deputation from the Committee of the British 
 and Foreign Bible Society, relative to the circulation of the Apocrypha. 
 
 : In 8vo. price 64. 
 
 REVIEW OF THE EVANGELICAL ~MAGAZINE AND 
 Christian Guardian, for May 1826, on the Apocrypha Controversy. 
 
 In 8vo. price 9d. 
 
 REVIEW OF THE LETTERS BY AMICUS, In defence of tie 
 Bnitish and Foreign Bible Society, and of the Ecletic Review, and Con- 
 “gregations] Magazine for April 1826, on the same subject. t 
 
 In 8yo. price 6d. 
 
 REVIEW OF “ APOCRYPHA’—PERTHSHIRE BIBLE So- 
 
 "Gety, containing Strictures on the Resolution of the Perthshire Bible Com- 
 mittee; the London Committet’s proceedings in the cases of the Wallachian 
 Scriptures, and the Grant of Books to Dr Van Ess. The conduct of Mr R. 
 Steven as a member of the London Committee ; and the attack made by the 
 Rey. Messrs Esdaile and Young of Perth, onthe Edinburgh Committee; 
 containing also a copy of the resolutions of the Glasgow Bible Committee ; 
 dated March 16, 1826, &c. &c. &c. 
 
 In 8vo. price 6d. 
 
 REVIEW THE APOCRYPHA CONTROVERSY, Containing Sup- 
 plementary Catechism, ‘addressed to the London Committee : Strictures 
 on the Case of their Grant of Books to Dri Van Ess; and a Commen- 
 try on their “ Observation” relative to the expenditure. 
 
 , In 8vo. Price 6d. 
 REV IEW OF THE STATEMENT OF -THE GLASGOW Dis- 
 sentients. Letter from the Rev. Mr WarDLaw with comments upon it. 
 _ = Phe Trust-worthiness of the London Committee particularly conSidered’; 
 various interesting Facts connected with the state of the dispute, &e. Mr 
 Brandram’s Pamphlet in defence of himself and his coadjutors. 
 
 In 8vo. Price 
 
 REVIEW OF THE APOCRYPHA CONTROVERSY, Containirg 
 remarks under the following heads; Glasgow Dissentients—Mr M‘Gavin 
 —Rev. Mr Ewing—Cambridge Meeting—Missionary Register—State 
 of Feeling in England—Facilities for pure Circulation—Zeal for the Apo- 
 crypha—The Unitarians—Glasgow Dissentients again—TInaccuracies— 
 151st Psalm—Dr Wardlaw’s candour—Mr Lessignol—O ficial dishonesty 
 —Dr Steinkopff’s resignation—Congregationalist and. Eclectic—Scottish 
 Societies and Pocket Gaelic Bible. 
 
 In 8vo. Price Is. 
 
 REVIEW OF THE TRANSACTIONS RESPECTING Professor 
 Haffner’s Preface to the Strasburg Bible; with Remarks on Letter from 
 one of the Founders of the British and Foreign Bible Society ';, Mr Mae- 
 Gayin and Rey. Mr Ewing ; London Committee and Leander Van Ess. 
 
In 8vo. Price 6d. +> cD, y% a 
 “REVIEW OF MR. PLATT’S LETTER TO DR- ARDILAW ; 
 With Remarks on Mr M‘Gavin’s Pamphlet. 4) 2 
 
 In 8vo. Price 6d. 
 
 REVIEW OF ACCOUNT OF THE PRINCE OF SALM,—Salm 
 
 and Stockes’ Letter to a Clergyman—also, Additional Remarks on Platt’s 
 Letter to Wardlaw.—New and important F'acts—Question of Inaccuracy 
 decided against Platt and Wardlaw—Pure Bibles preferred in France— 
 Illegal conduct of Dr Pinkerton and the London Committee—-Mr M‘Gavin. 
 
 In 8vo. Price 9d. 
 
 REVIEW OF THE EARL STREET COMMITTEE’S Minutes, 
 &c. respecting the Lausanne Bible—Mr Platt’s Second Letter to Dr 
 Wardlaw, and Mr M‘Gavin’s Fourth Letter te Mr M‘Farlane; also, Re- 
 marks on the Sheet published by the London Committee, explanatory of 
 their conduct with regard to Leander Van Ess. 
 
 In 8vo. Price 6d. 
 
 REVIEW OF THE REV. FRANCIS CUNNINGHAWM’S Letter to 
 Lord Bexley—Account of the Annual Meeting of the British and Foreign 
 Bible Society—Proceedings of the Earl Street Committee—and Account 
 of the First Public Meeting of the Newcastle-upon-T'yne, North Bhielde, 
 South Shields, and Sunderland Bible Society. ai 
 
 In 8vo. Price 6d. 
 
 REVIEW OF THE APOCRYPHA CONTROVERSY, containing 
 Remarks on the Aberdeenshire Auxiliary (to the British and Foreign) 
 Bible Society—Forres Bible Society--Elgin and Morrayshire Bible Society 
 —the London Committee and their deputation to the Continent-Edinburgh 
 Corresponding Board—Aberdeen Bible Society (newly instituted) &c. 
 
 In 8vo. Price 3d. Second Edition 
 
 BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS for Bible Societies in Scot- 
 land withdrawing their confidence in the British and Foreign Bible So- 
 ciety. wad Amicus Secundus. 
 
 In 8vo. Price 9d. 
 
 COMPENDIOUS VIEW OF THE PRINCIPAL CHARGES which 
 have been preferred against the Committee of the British and Pare a 
 Society. 
 
 In 8vo. Price 3d. Second Edition. 
 
 REPLY TO AN ANONYMOUS PAMPHLET, Circulated under the 
 
 title Apocrypha. By the Rev. W. A. THOMSON. 
 In 8vo. Price Is. 
 
 THREE LETTERS TO A FRIEND, ON THE MORAL Bearings 
 of the Bible Society Controversy. By the Rey. Ronerr Burns, 
 Minister of St. George’s, Paisely. 
 
 In 8vo. Price 1s. (Second Edition.) 
 
 SPEECHES DELIVERED AT THE EIGHTEENTH Annual 
 Meeting of the Edinburgh Bible Society, held in the Assembly Rooms, 
 George Street, Edinburgh, on Monday, the 9th July 1827. 
 
 In 8vo. Price 3s. 
 
 SECOND REVIEW OF THE CONDUCT OF THE DIRECTORS 
 of the British and Foreign Bible Society ; containing an account of the 
 Religious State of the Continent, in Answer to a Letter addressed to the 
 Author by the Rev. Dr Steinkopff. By Robert Haldane, Esq. 
 
 Tr 8vo. Price 2s. 
 
 A LETTER TO THE RIGHT HON. LORD BEXLEY, im conse- 
 quence of the Speech, which his Lordship delivered at the Anniversary of 
 the Kent Auxiliary Bible Society, on Tuesday, October 10, 1826. By 
 Andrew Thomson, D.D., Minister of St George’s, Edinburgh ; and one 
 of the Secretaries of the Edinburgh Bible Societ ye 
 
 In 8vo. Price 9d. 
 
 ANGLICANUS SCOTCHED. By the Rev. Mancus Dons.” 
 
 N.B.—The Number of the Christian Instructor for January 1828, will’con- 
 tain a full Review of the Letters by Agee, recently published. 
 
MINUTES 
 
 OF THE COMMITTEE OF THE 
 
 British and fForcign Bible Socicty, 
 
 RELATING TO THE 
 
 PUBLICATION OF A REVISED EDITION OF OSTERVALD’S 
 FRENCH VERSION OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES, 
 
 LAUSANNE, 
 IN THE YEAR 1822, 
 
 ACCOMPANIED BY THE 
 OFFICIAL CORRESPONDENCE 
 
 WHICH TOOK PLACE ON THE OCCASION, AND BY EXTRACTS FROM OTHER 
 DOCUMENTS CONNECTED WITH THE SUBJECT. 
 
 London ; 
 Printed by J. S. Hughes, 66, Paternoster Row; 
 
 SOLD AT THE 
 SOCIETY’S HOUSE, EARL STREET, BLACKFRIARS; 
 
 BY HATCHARD AND SON, PICCADILLY; J. NISBET, RERNERS STREET 
 SEELEY AND SON, FLEET STREET; J. DUNCAN, PATERNOSTER ROW; 
 WAUGH AND INNES, EDINBURGH; AND CHALMERS AND 
 COLLINS, GLASGOW. 
 
 1826. 
 [Price One Shilling. ] 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 Various applications having been made to the 
 Committee of the British and Foreign Bible Society, 
 by its Auxiliaries, for an explanation of the cir- 
 cumstances which attended the publication of a 
 French Bible, at Lausanne, in 1822, and on which 
 certain charges publicly preferred against the 
 Committee, have been founded; it has been re- 
 solved, to lay before the Members of the Society. 
 the following authentic details on that subject. — 
 
MINUTES 
 
 OF THE 
 
 COMMITTEE 
 
 ' OF THE 
 
 BRITISH & FOREIGN BIBLE SOCIETY, 
 &c. &e. 
 
 Extract from the First Report of the Bible Society of the Canton 
 de Vaud, 1816. 
 
 The Bible Society of the Canton de Vaud comprises, under 
 this general name, two distinct Societies, each of which has 
 its particular funds and treasurer. The name of the one is the 
 Bible Society ;—that of the other, the Tract Society. Both these 
 Societies can be superintended by the same Committee, unless it 
 be found more convenient to change this regulation. 
 
 The Bible Society will confine itself to the distribution of 
 Bibles and New Testaments, without note or comment. 
 
 From the Speech of Professor Levade, President of the Bible 
 Society of the Canton de Vaud. 
 
 “The Bible Society is appointed solely to circulate the Bible 
 and New Testament, without note or comment, in the Canton de 
 Vaud.” : 
 
 —— oo 
 
 Extract from the Second Report of the Bible Society of the Canton 
 de Vaud, 1817. 
 
 In our former Report of the Bible Society, we had noticed 
 the distinction existing between two Societies established in our 
 Canton. The Bible Society, after its honourable union with the 
 English Society, and conformably with its regulations, can 
 
 A 2 
 
4 
 
 circulate only Bibles and New Testaments without notes or 
 comments. The Tract Society can distribute every description of 
 religious and moral books that are acknowledged to be useful. 
 
 These two Societies, not appearing sufficiently distinct from 
 each other, we hastened to adopt the wise suggestions of the 
 Rev. Dr. Steinkopff; and it was decided, on the 1st of October, 
 1816, that the funds of both Societies should be kept separate, 
 and that they should each have a Secretary and Treasurer, and 
 in the sequel, a separate President. 
 
 Extract of a Letter from the Rev. Mr. Pasquier, in Neufchatel, 
 to the Rev. Professor Levade, at Lausanne. 
 
 Neufchatel, May 28, 1817. 
 
 Our Committee have not been able to meet yet, in order to 
 deliberate upon the important object I have to communicate 
 respecting the resolution of your’s. All our members are so 
 engaged with public affairs, or with those that regard the sub- 
 sistence and support of the poor, that they defer almost every thing 
 else which is less urgent. Still I feel, and others also, that a longer 
 delay would not be, without danger, authorized by many among 
 them whose opinion individually accords with mine. I must 
 confess that the project of a new edition of the Bible, in quarto, 
 exceeds our means. We think with you, and with Geneva, that 
 we must have recourse to the great Parent Society, and solicit 
 their putting themselves at the head of a subscription, set on foot 
 for such a work, or advancing us a capital which may enable us ~ 
 to execute it together, they will, in the end, feel all the advan- 
 tage of this, in the procuring of an edition which is to be common 
 to all the Protestant churches where the French language is 
 used and established among them, in that uniformity of doctrine, 
 with the want of which the Catholics reproach us. Such a pub- 
 lication would be a fine answer for them; the more I think of it, 
 the more dignified appears to me the object of that noble 
 Association which, for the last twelve years, has astonished the 
 world by its labours and success. Each of our Societies will 
 respect it, and interest themselves in it in proportion to their 
 wants and means; and if the stereotypes should be employed, 
 which would much lessen the price, the plates being preserved 
 after the first edition is taken off, would serve for generations, 
 as fresh editions might be required. 
 
 Geneva will agree with us in this. I had the honour of an- 
 nouncing this to you in your Committee. I was expressly 
 charged to inform you, from the Geneva Committee, that they 
 would unite with the other Bible Societies in Switzerland, in 
 making arrangements with the British Society, to promote an 
 edition, common to all the French churches, in any manner, let 
 whatever version be adopted, but the quarto form in pre- 
 ference. 
 
 Your’s, &c. 
 PASQUIER. 
 
Extract of a Letter from Professor Eevade, at Lausanne, to the 
 Foreign Secretary. — 
 
 Lausanne, June 18, 1817. 
 
 With regard to the edition of the Bible, they press this work 
 at Neufchatel; they have done nothing yet, though they have 
 _ collected nearly 800 louis. They are determined to have a quarto 
 Bible, but decline taking the business upon themselves. I have 
 made some enquiries; a very honest printer of that city has given 
 me the following calculation for a quarto Bible, in one volume, or 
 in two, with new cast Cicero types. 
 
 An edition of 4,000 copies of the Bible, containing 170 sheets, 
 at 108 livres, or 6 louis 10 livres, (16 livres make a louis,) per 
 sheet, would cost 18,360 livres, about 1,140 louis; 6,000 copies 
 would cost about 1,600, and 8,000 2,018 louis; each copy, if 
 drawn from 4,000, would come to about five or six shillings, if 
 from 6,000, to four or five shillings, and if from 8,000, to about 
 four shillings. If this undertaking should, contrary to my wish, 
 fall to my lot, I shall confine myself, without any alteration, to 
 the version of Ostervald or Martin, being pretty nearly equally 
 satisfactory to Bern, Neufchatel, and Lausanne, and which 
 might be tolerated at Geneva; but I should feel great repugnance 
 to again soliciting aid from your Society, which owes its assist- 
 ance to countries less favoured than our’s, yet this is the idea of 
 those at Geneva and Neufchatel, and I suppose also at Bern; 
 the latter Canton, containing only fifteen French churches. 
 Ifit should accord with the views of your Society, to favour an 
 edition of 4,000 Bibles, which appears to me sufficient, I will 
 leave you to determine the nature of the assistance. I am led to 
 think that the edition may be effected with no other loss than the 
 interest of the capital during a longer or shorter time, and some 
 expense for depository. 
 
 I intend adding to these details a letter lately received from 
 Mr. Pasquier, of Neufchatel.* 
 
 The great scarcity now existing in our Canton, and which 
 requires extraordinary exertions for our poor, those of Savoy, 
 St. Gall, Appenzel, and Glarus, where we have hitherto had the 
 happiness of assisting a little, will diminish the contributions of 
 this year; and I bless God for having made the most of the oppor- 
 tunity he put in my power, for doing what I have, in the two 
 _last years, been enabled to do, which has produced a sensible 
 effect on the religious spirit of the Canton, and is very visible to 
 the pastors. I pray God for you, and all those connected with 
 you in the accomplishment of his will. Lord Teignmouth and 
 Mr. Owen are more especially the constant object of my prayers. 
 If I ask any thing for myself, it is, that the remains of my 
 thoughts may be preserved, to labour without ceasing, in your 
 great work; every other occupation is painful to me; when I 
 labour for and with you, I feel some vigour. 
 
 * Vide page 4. 
 A 3 
 
G 
 
 I have just sent 100 Bibles to the Vallies of Piedmont, at the 
 lowest price. Pastor Bulten, of our Canton, a very zealous friend, 
 has opened communications with the Vallies, where they are very 
 anxious to receive New Testaments, and also Bibles. 1 wrote to 
 Paris for some of De Sacy’s Testaments, having promised twenty- 
 five to the Catholic priests here. My correspondent writes, that 
 Mr. Leo cannot sell them for less than three livres and fifty cen- 
 times the copy, which, with carriage, will cost us four shillings, 
 while that of Ostervald does not cost more than half. This is 
 too dear for me. I thought a Protestant Bible was now printing 
 at Paris, on stereotypes; but they say there is no intention of 
 such a thing, though Mr. Leo is perseveringly engaged in it. 
 
 Your’s &c. 
 LEVADE. 
 
 Extract of a Letter from H. Drummond, Esq. to Lord Teignmouth. 
 
 Geneva, Aug.'7, 1817. 
 
 The churches of Lausanne, Neufchatel, and Geneva, have 
 agreed to reprint, in large quarto, Ostervald’s Bible; and I under- 
 stand that they are waiting only for an answer to a letter 
 that Mr. Levade wrote to Dr. Steinkopff to begin; it is a very 
 important measure....... It will give the ministers of the 
 respective parishes in this Canton, who are Christians, an excuse 
 to get rid of the Arian version out of their churches, without 
 any noise, and it will prevent-the further distribution of that 
 wicked book...... i hope the Bible Society will assist it. 
 
 I remain, &c. 
 H. DRUMMOND. 
 
 At a Meeting of the Committee, held Sept. 1, 
 1817 :— 
 
 ‘Read a letter from Professor Levade, dated 
 Lausanne, June 18, 1817, submitting proposals 
 obtained by the Bible Societies of Lausanne, Neuf- 
 chatel, and Bern, for printing, in conjunction, an 
 edition of the French Bible, either of Ostervald’s 
 or Martin’s versions, which are nearly equally ap- 
 proved in these Cantons, and might be tolerated at 
 Geneva. The Professor incloses a letter from 
 the Rev. Mr. Pasquier, dated Neufchatel, May 28, 
 in which he informs him that he was authorized by 
 the Committee of the Geneva Bible Society, to 
 state, that they would unite with the other Bible 
 Societies in Switzerland, in making arrangements 
 with the British and Foreign Bible Society for such 
 
7 
 
 an edition of either version, but would prefer the 
 quarto form, which appears to be a general opinion 
 among those Societies. 
 
 ‘** Read a letter from H. Drummond, Esq. dated 
 Geneva, August 7, 1817, in which he strongly 
 recommends to this Committee to afford encou- 
 ragement to the Swiss Bible Societies in the pro- 
 secution of their proposed work of printing a French 
 Bible in quarto, as the most effectual’means of pre- 
 venting the reprinting of a version by no means 
 satisfactory to this Committee. 
 
 “Resolved, that the sum of £500 be granted in 
 aid of printing an edition of the French Bible 
 of Ostervald’s or Martin’s version by the 
 united exertions of the Bible Societies of 
 Lausanne, Neufchatel, Bern, and Geneva.” 
 
 From the late Rev. John Owen to Professor Levade, Lausanne. 
 
 Fulham, September 2, 1817. 
 
 Yesterday, in the midst of a variety of business connected with 
 the operations of Bible Societies, in almost every great division 
 of the world, the question respecting a projected edition of 
 Ostervald’s Bible by the Geneva, Lausanne, and Neufchatel 
 Societies, in concert, was brought under the consideration of our 
 Committee. The proposition was greeted with testimonies of the 
 warmest approbation, and a Resolution was unanimously passed, 
 appropriating the sum of £500 in aid of that seasonable and im- 
 portant undertaking. For the amount of this grant you will 
 accordingly draw, in the customary manner, at such time as to 
 you may appear expedient. 
 
 Whether the proposed edition shall be of Ostervald’s, or of 
 Martin’s version, (the grant is limited to one or other of these,) 
 —whether it shall be of the quarto or octavo form,—and whether 
 it shall be executed by moveable types, or by stereotypes, are 
 questions on which our Committee do not presume to offer any 
 peremptory opinion. If the reasons in favour of a quarto form 
 should not be stronger than they present themselves to the minds 
 of our Committee, they would certainly prefer the octavo, as 
 naturally recommended by the obvious advantage’ of superior 
 cheapness and greater adaptation for general use. On the pre- 
 ference to be given to stereotype, our Committee have a stronger 
 opinion: and in this particular it is probable there will be but 
 one sentiment among us. If the difficulty of preparing stereotypes 
 should be thought insuperable at Lausanne, it may be removed 
 
 aa 
 
8 
 
 by an order on Paris, where stereotypes are about to be cast for 
 Ostervald’s Bible ; and where, therefore, by timely application, 
 duplicates may be contracted for at a very easy expense. 
 
 Having made the communication with which I was charged, 
 and one more agreeable to my feelings it has not often been my 
 duty to make, it remains only, that I congratulate you, my dear 
 Sir, and our Swiss friends in general, on the vast growth of our 
 engagements, and on the prodigious extent to which the good 
 pleasure of the Lord seems to be prospering in our hands. The 
 paper I inclose (the first of a proposed series) will tell you some- 
 thing of what is doing; but volumes would not suffice to give 
 even a general idea of these immense, and even increasing opera- 
 tions. And when it is considered, that all these operations, and 
 the exertion and expenditure with which they are attended, have 
 no other aim, or object, or effect, than to make men wise, and 
 good, and happy ;—what heart does not exult in contemplating 
 their extension, and the blessing of God, visibly resting upon 
 them? May you, my dear Sir, be long preserved as a fellow- 
 labourer with us in this work of genuine piety, and pure benevo- 
 lence; and may your patriotism be gratified by seeing the country 
 you love partake largely of that light, which, we trust, ere long, 
 will illumine the world ! 
 
 With christian remembrance to your household, and to all our 
 brethren in the bonds of the Bible cause, 
 
 I remain, &c. 
 JoHN OWEN. 
 
 At a Meeting of the Committee, held October 
 20, 1817 :— 
 
 ‘* Read a letter* fromProfessor Levade, President 
 of the Bible Society at Lausanne, dated October 
 3, 1817; communicating thanks for the grant of 
 £500, voted on the 1st of September, in aid of print- 
 ing a French Bible for the use of several Societies ; 
 and assigning the reasons which induced them to 
 adopt the quarto form; the Professor states, that 
 the Waldenses Bible Society will participate in 
 the benefit in common with those at Lausanne, 
 Neufchatel, Bern, and Geneva.” 
 
 Extract of a Letter from Professor Levade, to the Foreign 
 Secretary. 
 Lausanne, October 4, 1817. 
 
 I beg to tender you my sincerest acknowledgments for the 
 continued proofs of your friendship. Your letter of the 6th of 
 
 * This letter, which was addressed to the Rey. Mr. Owen, cannot be found. 
 
9 
 
 August, informed me of the interest you take in the French Bible 
 Societies in Switzerland; and we have received a very affecting 
 proof of it in the generous grant of the Committee to which you 
 are Secretary. I have answered the letter of the Rev. Mr. Owen, 
 in order to communicate the thanks of our Committee to your 
 venerable President, and the respected members of your Com- 
 mittee. I therein inform him, that at Geneva, Neufchatel, and 
 here, we are hitherto perfectly agreed on printing, with the 
 greatest care, an edition of 6,000 copies of Ostervald’s Bible, in 
 quarto, in two volumes, and I trust, with the assistance of God, 
 that the printing will be begun before the close of the present 
 year. It has occurred to me, my dear friend and brother in 
 Christ, that it would be acting up to the intentions of the London 
 Committee, and in conformity with the sentiments of affection 
 manifested by you towards all the French Bible Societies in 
 Switzerland, to make an offer to the Committee of the Bible 
 Society at Bern, to share in your generous grant, in a manner 
 proportioned tc the number of French churches in their Canton ; 
 I propose uiso to do the same in respect to the thirteen churches 
 of the Vallies of Piedmont; that is, to furnish them with Bibles 
 at the cost price of printing, after the deduction of your gift of 
 £500 sterling. Still, as the Committee of London signified, by 
 their letter of the 2d of September, that the grant in question 
 was made to the Societies of Geneva, Neufchatel, and Vaud, 
 I deem it my duty to apprize you of the extended use which 
 I propose to make of that grant, in order not to incur any blame 
 hereafter. 
 
 From the Foreign Sceretary to Professor Levade, in Lausanne. 
 
 London, November 26,1817. 
 
 I thank you affectionately for your welcome letter of the 4th of 
 October, and rejoice in Mr. Owen’s having anticipated my wish 
 to communicate to you the Resolution of the Committee respecting 
 the £500. Though, in the grant, only the Societies of Geneva, 
 Neufchatel, and Lausanne, were mentioned by name, I am 
 certain there can be no possible objection on our part, if you can 
 prevail on other Swiss Bible Societies to take a share in this 
 important and most beneficial work; and may it abundantly 
 prosper ! ri 
 
 As our friends in Basle have bestowed a great deal of pains on 
 the correction of many errors of the press, which had crept into 
 almost all the editions of Ostervald, you would do well to 
 request them to send a list of those corrections. In the edition 
 which was printed here, you will find particular attention paid 
 to those words being put in Jtalics that are not in the original. 
 Experience has convinced us that too much care can never be 
 bestowed on the correction of the press, 
 
10 
 
 With you I lament exceedingly the unhappy differences which 
 have taken place at Geneva. O that those modern divines might 
 consider the mischief which they have done and are still doing ! 
 The utter ruin into which they plunge so many immortal souls, 
 the grief which they occasion to all genuine believers, the dis- 
 grace which they bring upon the Protestant cause, and the 
 triumph which they afford to the great enemy of God and man. 
 But 1 am afraid that what our Lord said respecting the inhabi- 
 tants of Jerusalem, may be applied to them, that “ the things 
 which belong to their peace are hid from their eyes.” 
 
 In some Catholic publications advantage has already been taken 
 of this unhappy deviation from the plain letter and evident 
 spirit of Scripture. Our excellent friend, M. Chabrand, from 
 Toulouse, expressed a hope, that if the Archbishop of Canterbury 
 could be prevailed upon to write a letter to the Geneva Pastors, 
 it might produce a favourable change, but I am disposed to think, 
 that it would have as little effect as the friendly letter which you 
 addressed to them. I send you the fourth sheet of our Extracts, 
 which contains much interesting matter. 
 
 I remain, &c. 
 C. F. A. STEINKOPFF. 
 
 Extract from the Third Report of the Bible Society of the Canton 
 de Vaud, 1818. - 
 
 A circumstance more particularly deserving to be noticed 
 in our Report, is, the undertaking, in concert with the Bible 
 Societies of Neufchatel and Geneva, to furnish the public 
 with an edition of the Bible, after Ostervald’s version, in one 
 volume, quarto, on good paper, with broad margins and new 
 types. This undertaking, which at first sight appears easy, was, 
 however, attended with various difficulties. Of the different 
 French versions of the Sacred Scriptures there are some which 
 are more generally approved of; it was, therefore, necessary, 
 for three separate Societies to be agreed on the choice of one or 
 another of these versions, and to decide on the propriety of adopt- 
 ing either the original edition of the version which might be 
 preferred, or of selecting one of the subsequent editions of the 
 same version, which have been revised and corrected by different 
 communities. Admitting that the original and first edition of any 
 version were adopted as the basis, it was still necessary to ascer- 
 tain, if, among the subsequent editions, there were not some, 
 that, in respect to certain contested emendations, had adopted 
 such as gave the passages with more clearness and fidelity. But 
 which of the three united Societies was to assume the right of 
 instituting the examination and authorizing the alterations? To 
 which of the Societies was this important work to be confided ? 
 To which was to be allowed the casting vote? What were to be 
 the size, the paper, the types to be chosen? What number of 
 copies was to be printed, and in which of the towns, where the 
 
i 
 
 three Bible Societies are established, was the printing to be 
 undertaken ? Who was the printer to be employed? And lastly, 
 in what proportion were the three Societies to contribute towards 
 the expenses of the undertaking? These were all questions re- 
 quiring to be taken into mature deliberation. Thanks, however, 
 to the good Spirit, which, I* venture to say, is inherent in Bible 
 Societies, and which is connected with their constitution, the 
 most perfect agreement was speedily effected. During the course 
 of the discussions which took place, the British and Foreign 
 Bible Society being informed of the plan formed by the three 
 Swiss Cantons, in which the French language is prevalent, 
 unanimously resolved, at a meeting of the Committee, on the 
 1st of September, 1817, to place the sum of £500 at the disposal 
 of the Society of the Canton de Vaud, on the sole condition, 
 of the projected edition being printed either according to the 
 version of Ostervald or Martin. The Rev. John Owen was 
 pleased to announce this unexpected kindness to us, in a 
 letter, dated the 2d of September; and his colleague, the 
 Rey. Dr. Steinkopff, when confirming the same to us gave 
 us some directions, of which we have availed ourselves. 
 The Committee of the Bible Society of the Canton de Vaud, 
 have been finally entrusted by the Societies of Geneva and 
 Neufchatel, to get the Bible printed, at Lausanne, on the terms 
 proposed by the Brothers Blanchard, who are at present engaged 
 in the work, and trust that they will be found worthy of the 
 confidence placed in them by their associates. They have de- 
 cided, conformably with the wishes of the Committee of Neuf- 
 chatel, and with the consent of that of Geneva, to adopt as the 
 basis, the version of Ostervald, of 1744, printed by Boyve, at 
 Neufchatel, in folio; and they have agreed to propose to the 
 Societies of Bern, and the Vallies of Piedmont, to join in the 
 undertaking, by subscribing for a fixed number of copies. They 
 haye, moreover, engaged two confidential persons to reconsider 
 verse by verse, all the alterations or corrections which it was 
 deemed necessary to introduce into the edition of Ostervald’s 
 Bible, prepared with so much care, and now on the eve of leaving 
 the press at Basle. A Sub-Committee, consisting of the Rev. 
 Francois Chavannes, Professor Leresche, and the Rev. Augustus 
 Rochat, has been appointed to examine into these variations, 
 with instructions only to retain such as appear clearly more con- 
 formable with the original, and the rules of the language. This 
 Sub-Committee has been requested, in doubtful cases, respecting 
 the sense of the original, to consult persons known to be eminently 
 versed in Hebrew and Greek. The Committee will, therefore, 
 preserve that edition, which is adopted as the basis, as much as 
 possible in its integrity, and will vindicate to the reader the 
 slight emendations which they may think it their duty to adopt, 
 
 * These Reports being in the form of an Address from the President, to 
 the Members of the Society, are often expressed in the singular number. 
 
12 
 
 by inserting them on a separate sheet, accompanied with the 
 corresponding passages of the edition of 1744. The Committee being 
 fully understood by their colleagues on these points, have more- 
 over resolved, that the alterations approved of by the Sub- 
 Committee, shali be finally submitted for examination to the 
 Committee of Neufchatel, being aware of the great responsibility 
 which they have incurred, in preferring the version of Ostervald 
 to that of Martin, which is equally esteemed in our Canton. 
 These preliminary proceedings being settled, the President of 
 the Society drew, on the Treasurer of the British and Foreign 
 Bible Society, for the amount of the grant made to our Com- 
 mittee, December 23, 1817. 
 
 Extract of a Letter from the Rev. Professor Levade, of Lausanne, 
 to the Foreign Secretary. 
 
 Lausanne, January 6, 1818. 
 
 I must now give some account of our labours respecting the edi- 
 tion of the Bible, which we are about to print, in order to justify the 
 generous donation we have received. After having communicated 
 to our associates your intentions, and that you leave us to choose 
 between Martin’s and Ostervald’s version, I went to Geneva, to 
 confer on the detail of the execution, with the Rey. Mr. Vernet, 
 President, and Professor Pictet, Secretary of the Geneva Bible 
 Society, after having written to Dean Pasquier, of Neufchatel. 
 The result of our conference was, that the Society there could so 
 far interest itself in our work, as to apply the whole of their 
 present funds, consisting of 100 louis, to the purchase of copies of 
 our Bible,— Ostervald’s version; and after a very friendly ex- 
 change of ideas, and judicious observations on the part of the 
 Geneva Committee, the latter agreed to be satisfied with any 
 further arrangement between Neufchatel and Lausanne; accord- 
 ingly, we have not been tardy in settling with Neufchatel respect- 
 ing the edition to be chosen for the copy, the paper, and the type. 
 
 It is therefore resolved, to conform ourselves to that edition of 
 Ostervald, which is the most authentic, and the most pure, namely, 
 that printed in folio, at Neufchatel, by Boyve, in 1744. That the 
 size shall be quarto, the type (Ciceronian III.) new; that the 
 Committee of Neufchatel shall take 2000 copies; Geneva, for the 
 sum of 100 louis, about 400 or 600 copies. 
 
 We have not yet decided whether the edition which is to be of 
 6,000 copies at least, might not be extended to 7,000. It seems 
 that the Committee of the Waldenses Bible Society will have 
 occasion for 1,000 copies. That of Bern, to whom we have offered 
 likewise a share in your bounty, has not answered as yet. We may, 
 therefore, calculate upon 3,600 copies being disposed of immedi- 
 ately, and the rest would then become the property of the Bible 
 Society. 
 
 We shall employ a funded capital, which we had collected 
 from the beginning of the formation of our Society, to cover the 
 expenses and advances. 
 
13 
 
 What has occupied our attention most, has been, to try how 
 far it might be practicable without altering the version of Oster- 
 vald, which is our model, to correct some small imperfections, 
 and eyen faults, that are in it; I have determined to engage 
 two very able friends, to compare, word for word, the 
 Neufchatel edition of 1744, with that now printing at Basle, 
 of which I have the sheets sent me as they leave the press. 
 The work confines itself for the present to exhibiting, in two 
 columns, the alterations adopted in the last revise, executed at 
 Basle, under the direction of the Rev. Mr. Ebrahe; when this 
 comparison shall have advanced to a certain point, we shall ex- 
 amine the same in a Committee of three able clergymen, who will 
 determine with sobriety and caution, how far the corrections made 
 at Basle will be justifiable to every body. After this, we shall 
 submit our resolutions to the clergy of Neufchatel, who are as 
 much afraid of unnecessary alterations, as we ourselves; and 
 by their determination we shall ultimately abide. Nay, in order 
 to screen ourselves from all blame, we mean to print the list* of 
 alterations in front of the Bible, or at the end of a separate sheet, 
 with the ancient text opposite. 
 
 As the whole is now thus arranged, and the payments for paper 
 and types are to be made, I have taken the liberty of drawing 
 upon your Treasurer, J. Thornton, Esq., for the sum of £500,which, 
 owing to the state of exchange, has furnished us with 16,000 
 Swiss livres, or 1,009 louis. 
 
 Notwithstanding the great dearth which has drained our 
 country, I have received many contributions for the Bible 
 Society, more even than I could have expected, and have every 
 reason to hope that we shall distinguish ourselves more and more, 
 in that noble career which England has opened before us. 
 
 Please to present my respects to the Rey. John Owen, and to 
 communicate to him the precaution we are using, to secure an 
 edition of the Word of God in as pure a state as possible, without 
 any human additions. This edition (supposing it to consist of 
 6,000 copies) will occasion a probable expense of about 1,500 
 louis; or let me rather say, present a monument of your country, 
 for which we owe you a thousand thanks. 
 
 T have the honor to be, &c. 
 LEVADE. 
 
 From the Foreign Sceretary, to Professor Levade, Lausanne. 
 
 London, February 17, 1818. 
 
 I have duly received your kind letter of January the 6th, and 
 immediately procured a translation of its contents as far as they 
 refer to the Bible Society. 
 
 * This list does not appear in the copy of the Lausanne Bible transmitted 
 to the British and Foreign Bible Society. 
 
14 
 
 These gave me great satisfaction, and would have already 
 yesterday been communicated to our Committee, had not a mass 
 of other important business prevented it, but your letter will be 
 read at the next meeting. 
 
 For my own part, I highly approve of the arrangements which 
 you have made for giving to the public as pure an edition 
 of Ostervald’s version as possible. The more I become acquainted 
 with biblical labours of this description, the more I am convinced 
 that too much conscientious care and unremitting attention can 
 never be bestowed upon them. 
 
 I remain, &c. 
 C. F. A. STEINKOPFF. 
 
 Ata Meeting of the Committee, held March 2, 
 1818 :— 
 
 ‘‘ Read extract of a letter from Professor Levade, 
 of Lausanne, dated January 6, 1818, detailing the 
 proceedings of the Bible Society there, preparatory 
 to printing an edition of the Bible, and expressing 
 their Resolution to conform themselves to the 
 version of Ostervald, printed at Neufchatel, by 
 Boyve, in 1744, and proposing to print 6,000 or 
 7,000 copies. He advises having drawn for the 
 grant of £500, and expresses strongly the thanks 
 of the Lausanne Bible Society for it. 
 
 “‘Resolved, that the Professor be informed, 
 that, if they should find it practicable and 
 expedient to extend the impression to 10,000 
 copies, this Committee will augment their 
 grant of £500, voted on the Ist of September 
 last, to £750. 
 
 Translation of a note appended to the Third Report of the Bible 
 Society of the Canton de Vaud, 1818. 
 
 This Report was already in the press, when we received the 
 following Extract from the Minutes of the Committee of the 
 British and Foreign Bible Society, of March 2, 1818. (See 
 the preceding Resolution. ) 
 
 I abstain from making any comment. The Committee, at a 
 Meeting held the 15th of March, requested their President to 
 write to the Right’ Honourable Lord Teignmouth, that they 
 would accept this new grant, under the conditions proposed. 
 
15 
 
 Extract of a Letter from the Rev. Professor Levade, at Lausanne, 
 to the Foreign Secretary. 
 
 Lausanne, March 11, 1818. 
 
 I perceive happy effects are produced through the activity of 
 the Bible Society. Religious worship is better attended, the 
 Sabbath-day kept more holy, and wise regulations, promoting 
 order and decency, have been established; the younger ministers 
 distinguish themselves by a truly apostolic zeal; there is a per- 
 fect agreement in doctrine, and I see our labours repaid an 
 hundred-fold. I bless God every day for having called us to 
 follow the bright example of your great Society. 
 
 A fresh labour now lies upon me, and this is the edition 
 of 8,000 copies of the quarto Bible already commenced. Here I 
 have procured the aid of two Committees, one of which, being 
 purely mechanical, extracts for me the whole of the alterations 
 adopted in the best editions of Ostervald’s Bible, from 1744 to 
 1818; the second, consisting of three clergymen, wise and well - 
 skilled in the Hebrew and Greek languages, selects from the 
 great number of these corrections and alterations those which 
 answer the clear purport of the original text, and the established 
 rules of grammar; and in the small number of cases which are 
 rather embarrassing, the Committee of three members is re- 
 quested to call in the assistance of two other clergymen, known 
 to be well versed in the Hebrew and Greek. I then send the 
 result of their labour to the gentlemen at Neufchatel. 
 
 As we proceed, we have reason to judge favourably of the 
 edition from the press at Basle, the sheets of which I successively 
 receive. I flatter myself, however, that in some points we shall 
 even outdo them. The corrections of the press pass through the 
 hands of two successive correctors at the printer’s; after which, 
 the proofs are to be revised by myself, and several other friends, 
 who have claimed this task as an honour. God will bless our 
 labour, for it is undertaken with zeal and disinterestedness. 
 
 My prayers will daily ascend to God for success to your 
 Society, and often moisten my eyes with tears of joy. 
 
 I have the honour to be, &e. 
 LEVADE. 
 
 Extract of a Letter from the Rev. Professor Levade, of Lausanne, 
 addressed to the Rev. John Owen, M.A. 
 
 Lausanne, March 27, 1818. 
 
 Ourwork is proceeding; 10,000 copies of the firstsheet of Genesis 
 left the press the evening before Easter, an auspicious circumstance: 
 I send it to you as the first fruits of our gratitude. It is super- 
 fluous to tell you with what lively sensations your new gift has 
 been received, and with what care we shall fulfil the conditions 
 under which it was granted. We are ten of us, who are all 
 engaged, with full purpose of heart, and without looking to any 
 
16 
 
 remuneration, to render our edition superior to all those we 
 know, both as to the version, and to the correctness of the press. 
 We introduce no alterations into Ostervald’s version, except such 
 as are recognized as evidently necessary. 
 
 Your Society, and its progress, animate my existence, and 
 make me wish to prolong my sojourn, though it has been pretty 
 long already. Never did a similar spectacle present itself to the 
 world. Your Reports make me young again; my eyes behold 
 clearly what Simeon could see only afar off. The world has 
 quite altered its aspect to me. 
 
 I remain, &c. 
 LEVADE. 
 
 At a Meeting of the Committee, held April 27, 
 1818 :— 
 
 “The Rev. Mr. Owen reported that the Lau- 
 sanne Bible Society accepts the enlargement of 
 the grant proposed on the 2d of March last, and 
 will print 10,000 copies of their French Bible, 
 agreeably to the recommendation of this Com- 
 mittee.” 
 
 Extract from the Fourteenth Report of the British and Foreign 
 Bible Society, 1818. 
 
 The Bible Societies of Geneva, Lausanne, and Neufchatel, 
 have concurred in a measure, which will, when completed, be 
 likely to prove very acceptable to the French population of 
 Switzerland in general. The measure alluded to, is, the printing 
 of a revised edition of Ostervald’s French Bible in quarto. To- 
 wards this object your Committee had contributed £500: a 
 grant of £250 has since been added, in consideration of the pro- 
 posed edition of 6,000 copies having been increased to 10,000. 
 The Extracts from the Reports of the Geneva and Lausanne 
 Bible Societies, contained in the Appendix, will be read’ with 
 considerable interest. 
 
 Extract of a Letter from the Rev. Professor Levade, to the 
 Foreign Secretary. 
 
 Lausanne, May 21, 1818. 
 
 I have addressed a letter to Lord Teignmouth, for the purpose 
 of thanking him, in the name of our Committee, for your 
 generous grants, and have sent him the first sheet of our Bible. 
 I send you also herewith a copy. The ninth sheet leaves the press 
 this week; and if God enables us, by his grace, to prosecute 
 this holy work-with the same zeal with which it has hitherto been 
 
17 
 
 carried on, I dare venture to assert, that our edition will be 
 superior to all that haye preceded it. It is the Hebrew text, in 
 the hands of four persons, capable of understanding it; 
 of four persons who unite in carrying on their work jointly 
 divested of prejudice; we carefully consult the corrections 
 which have been adopted, in order to avail ourselves of the 
 labours of those, who, before us, have employed themselves in 
 perfecting the original edition of 1744. I venture to say, that 
 our corrections have hitherto met with the approbation of the 
 Clergy of Neufchatel, to whom we submit them, and who are 
 so fixed on adhering to the original model, that the conviction of 
 our prudent proceeding has secured us their approbation. Our 
 number for correcting the proofs, is ten in all, and we take the 
 labour alternately every month, three being always employed 
 thereon, 
 
 Extracts of Letters from the Rev. John Owen, printed in the 
 Appendia to the Fifteenth Report of the British and Foreign 
 Bible Society. 
 
 Bern, October 12, 1818. 
 
 On Friday morning, there assembled,at my apartment in the inn, 
 {at Neufchatel,] the President of the Neufchatel Bible Society, 
 Mr. Merveilleux, (Banneret, or Chief of the Government,) the Dean 
 Berthoud, and the Rev. Messrs. Pasquier and Mouvert; other 
 Members of the Committee were prevented from attending by 
 their absence from town, at this season of the year. Our business . 
 commenced by the introduction, on their part, of a portion of copy 
 of the Bible, as corrected by the Committee of Lausanne, and 
 forwarded regularly to the Corresponding Committee at Neuf- 
 chatel, for their examination and approval. We read over to- 
 gether an entire chapter, collating the alterations made in the 
 text of Ostervald with the corresponding passages in the English 
 version, and the German of Luther. By this process, and a full 
 conversation on the subject, we were enabled to ascertain the 
 caution and fidelity with which the text is revised, and the scru- 
 pulous adherence observed to the present version, wherever a 
 change of expression does not appear to be absolutely required. 
 
 Geneva, October 15, 1818. 
 
 On Tuesday I took my leave of Bern; and, after a long and 
 fatiguing day’s journey, arrived at Lausanne. But death had gone 
 before me, and made such an inroad upon- the house of the 
 President of the Lausanne Bible Society, as clouded, if it did not 
 extinguish, my prospects of enjoyment in visiting this station. The 
 wife of Professor Levade was no more; the Professor was seek- 
 ing relief from his sorrows in a country excursion; and that 
 valuable inmate who made the third in this once united family, 
 had taken her departure for Italy. 
 
 B 
 
18 
 
 All this was the affair of a very few days. Judge of my situation, 
 and of my feelings and reflections, when, on entering the Pro- 
 fessor’s garden, and taking my seat on a little elevation, I found 
 the grave of his wife was before my eyes, (for he has buried her 
 where she was accustomed to sit,) and the vacated apartments of 
 my friends were at my feet. I could not meditate on the disap- 
 pearance of those who for some years past have been pressing me 
 to come to Lausanne,—two of whom were, a short time before, 
 anticipating my arrival, and preparing to assist me in my labours; 
 and. between all of whom and me the mountains of Switzerland, 
 or the Alps, or a more serious boundary, were interposed,—with- 
 out the gravest and most affecting emotions. 
 
 I had suffered so much ‘from exertion at Bern, and fatigue in 
 my journey to Lausanne, that I had a difficulty in composing 
 myself, after a feverish night, for the business of yesterday. 
 However, through the blessing of God, I was enabled to proceed 
 to the place of meeting, at ten o’clock, where Professor Laresche, 
 and a number of Pastors, and Lay Members of the Committee, 
 were convened, in order to testify their respect for the Society I 
 represented, and to give me a friendly reception. The course of 
 business was little dissimilar to that of which I have had occasion 
 so often to give account, in the reports of my visits to other 
 Societies. Professor Laresche, who is a man of sound learning, 
 solid judgment, and excellent character, detailed the steps which 
 the Bible Committee of the Canton de Vaud take, in preparing 
 their edition of Ostervald’s Bible. His statement of their mode of 
 procedure, united with the observation I had the opportunity of 
 making at Neufchatel, was highly satisfactory. Perceiving that 
 the interval of delay, before this edition could be completed, 
 would be necessarily considerable, and understanding from the 
 Committee, that the Pastors in the Canton would be very glad 
 to receive some copies of the Bible, if the circumstances of their 
 parishioners were duly consulted in the reduction of the price; I 
 thought it my duty to offer them 1,000 of the Basle French 
 Bibles; an offer which was very cheerfully and thankfully ac- 
 cepted. The impression I received from the Lausanne Committee 
 was very satisfactory. The members who compose it, appear to be 
 sound in principle, and united in spirit; and there seemed to 
 reign in their proceedings such order and sobriety as justify the 
 hope of correct and persevering exertion. When to this it is 
 added, that many pious young men have of late been admitted to 
 the office of the ministry, there is great encouragement to believe, 
 that, through the activity of their pastors, the Word of God will 
 be not only generally distributed, but also profitably studied by 
 the inhabitants of the Canton. 
 
 At a Meeting of the Committee, held Nov. 2, 
 1818 :— 
 
 “Read letters from the Rev. John Owen, dated 
 Bern, October 12, and Geneva, October 15, 1818. 
 
19 
 
 «¢ At Lausanne, the Rev. Mr. Owen attended a 
 Meeting of the Committee of the Bible Society. 
 The information he received of the edition of Oster- 
 vald’s Bible, printing there, was highly satisfac- 
 tory ; but, considering that a long interval would 
 elapse before it is completed, and also the want of 
 the Scriptures in the Canton, Mr. Owen has 
 granted the Lausanne Bible Society 1000 Bibles 
 from Basle. The intercourse Mr. Owen had with 
 the Society has impressed him with a favourable 
 Opinion of their energy and zeal in the cause in 
 which they are engaged. 
 
 «« Resolved, that the grant of Bibles to the So- 
 ciety at Lausanne, as specified by Mr. Owen, 
 be confirmed.” 
 
 Extract of a Letter from the Rev. Dr. Levade, to the Rev. 
 John Owen. ~ 
 
 Lausanne, November 2, 1818. 
 
 It would be in vain for me to attempt to express my regret at 
 not having had an opportunity of forming your personal ac- 
 quaintance : on my return from Milan, I wrote to Geneva to 
 know if I could reach you, but you had left that city, for I 
 received no reply to the letter which I wrote to you there. I 
 have, therefore, been obliged to content myself with gathering 
 from the lips of such of my friends; as had the happiness of 
 seeing you, all the words which fell from your lips, and which 
 they had treasured up in their memory. I quitted Vevay for 
 Bern, not feeling myself sufficiently strong to re-enter my 
 solitary dwelling, and busied myself in promoting the growth of 
 those plants which you had set in that city. At the house of 
 Madame Sinner, and in conjunction with Messrs. Wittenbach, 
 Galland, Schaffter, and Lerber, I assisted in forming a Ladies’ 
 Association, and by the inclosed article, which I caused to be 
 inserted in the newspaper of the Canton, you will see the fruits 
 of your visit at Bern. At present, Iam forming a Bible Society 
 of all the members attending my theological lectures, consisting 
 of 68 students, and the plan which I propose to adopt will not 
 displease you. The result will be, to place in the hands of such 
 young Ministers as are annually ordained, the whole yearly 
 amount of the receipts of the Bible Society, in Bibles, for the 
 purpose of being distributed every year, by them, among the 
 
 B 2 
 
20 
 
 poor and pious families of the different parishes, whither they may 
 be sent as Curates. I intend also speedily to try to establish 
 a Ladies’ Association, the anuual funds of which, are to be 
 appropriated to the benefit of poor young females preparing 
 for confirmation. : 
 
 Overwhelmed as I am by the deepest grief, my only solace 
 and enjoyment consist in promoting the interests of the Bible 
 Society; and, without having seen you, it seems to me that the 
 idea of your having been at Lausanne, inspires me with new 
 strength. I ought to inform you, that the Committee chosen by 
 me, for the correction of the text, manifest a zeal which I dared 
 not to expect, they being composed of four persons, all of whom 
 are otherwise hourly engaged with their respective avocations. 
 We meet together (for I have joined them myself since my 
 return) three times every week, from four o’clock till eight 
 or nine. 
 
 The Society, overcome by your reiterated proofs of generosity 
 and kindness, has received 100 New Testaments, neatly bound. 
 I shall direct my whole attention to cause this heavenly seed to 
 bring forth fruit. I have commenced a correspondence with a 
 rich Protestant Bookseller, of the name of Giegler, at Milan. 
 He supplies books at Brescia, where attempts are making to 
 establish a Protestant congregation. 
 
 I remain, &c. 
 LEVADE. 
 
 Extract of a Letter from Dr. Levade, to the Foreign Secretary. 
 
 Lausanne, December 4, 1818. 
 
 I am convinced, that the amended version which we are 
 printing, will be very superior to all preceding translations, 
 from the good spirit by which the revisors are animated, and 
 their great endowments; for one of them, the Rev. Mr. Mellet, 
 reads Hebrew with the greatest ease. In case of any doubt 
 arising, we consult the best versions in Greek, Latin, French, 
 German, (according to Luther,) and English; besides this, we 
 refer to Le Clerc, Chais, Roesel, Michaelis, &c.; we are all 
 perfectly agreed on seeking for nothing but the truth, and 
 adhering to the copy of the sacred text; our corrections are 
 transmitted to Neufchatel, and as far as we have hitherto gone, 
 we have been animated by one mind. We have reached the 
 middle of the Second Book of Chronicles, and our printer keeps 
 pace with us. 
 
 I venture to flatter myself, that the generosity of your Society 
 towards us, will be rewarded by the gratuitous labour of correc- 
 tion, which we follow with a zeal, a regularity, and a delight, 
 which proves that God himself assists us in this noble under- 
 taking. I thank you sincerely, my worthy friend, for all you have 
 done for us. You will participate largely in our success, and in 
 our prayers. 
 
. At a Meeting of the Committee, held Jan. 25, 
 1819 :— 
 
 ‘‘ Read a-letter from Professor Levade, dated 
 Lausanne, November, 27, 1818, transmitting an 
 account of his proceedings in promoting the object 
 of this Society by the formation of Female Bible 
 Associations; and also by his endeavours to ren- 
 der the visit of the Rev. John Owen more produc- 
 tive in a moral and religious point of view. Under 
 a heavy domestic affliction, Mr. Levade feels plea- 
 sure only in promoting the distribution of the 
 Sacred Volume. 
 
 “The individuals selected for the correction of 
 the French Bible are pursuing their labours with 
 zea).” 
 
 Extract from the Fourth Report of the Bible Society of the Canton 
 de Vaud. 1819. 
 
 The short visit of the Rev. Mr. Owen, one of the Secre- 
 taries of the British and Foreign Bible Society, in company 
 with Mr. Rénneberg, formerly of Bremen, will long be held in 
 remembrance by those who had the pleasure of seeing and 
 conversing with him. He attended a meeting of our Committee, 
 on the 14th of October, specially convened, at the house of 
 Professor Leresche, Vice-President of the Society, in the absence 
 of the President.. After having made inquiries into the state of 
 our Society, its proceedings, and the courage with which it had 
 undertaken the revision, the printing, and correcting of the 
 version of Ostervald, the Rev. Mr. Owen announced the grant 
 of 1,000 bound Bibles, of the amended Basle edition of 1818, 
 free of carriage, for the present use of our Canton, the Vallies 
 of Piedmont, and two Protestant parishes in the Canton of 
 Fribourg, until the edition of 10,000 Bibles, printing at Lau- 
 sanne, be completed. 
 
 Let us now come to the most important subject of our Report, 
 a subject which engrosses all our exertions, and our whole atten- 
 tion, and which occasions expenses which far exceed the amount 
 of our contributions, and the income derived from the Society’s 
 capital; I allude to the revision of Ostervald’s Bible, its correc- 
 tion and printing in quarto, to the number of 10,000 copies. This 
 great work is carrying on under our immediate inspection, and 
 the first sheet lett Messrs. Blanchard’s press the day before 
 
 B 3 
 
22 
 
 Easter Sunday. We mentioned, in our preceding Report, the 
 difficulties attending an undertaking which the scarcity of Bibles, 
 and the incorrectness of former editions had rendered necessary ; 
 an undertaking, requiring a capital of more than 40,000 francs ; 
 the uninterrupted co-operation of several men of learning, and a 
 perfect harmony between themselves, and with three independent 
 Societies. We shall content ourselves to-day with conveying 
 some idea of the work which the Society of the Canton de Vaud 
 has undertaken, at the instance of their associate Societies for 
 the Cantons of Geneva and Neufchatel. 
 
 The most esteemed versions of the Bibles in this Canton, were 
 those of Martin, in 1707, and of Ostervald, in 1744; the latter 
 was preferred at Neufchatel, and was used in our own churches. 
 But in taking it for our model it could not be concealed, 
 that there was room for purging it of sundry imperfections re- 
 lating to style, perspicuity, punctuation, and orthography; it 
 was observed to contain several marks of negligence, and some 
 
 _ omissions inseparable from so great a work, undertaken by a 
 single man. 
 
 At the request of the Bible Societies of Geneva and Neuf- 
 chatel, our Committee consented to undertake not a new version, 
 but the revision and careful correction of that of Ostervald, and 
 felt themselves justified in confiding this important work to the 
 Rey. Mr. Leresche, Professor of Divinity, the Rev. Mr. Mellet,- 
 Sen. Regent of the Second Class, the Rev. Frangois Chavannes, 
 Minister at Lausanne, and the Rev. Augustus Rochat. These 
 four respectable clergymen felt the importance and the weight of 
 the charge entrusted to them; and although every one of them 
 might have reasonably urged the duties of their several situations 
 as a sufficient excuse for not engaging in a work of three years’ 
 uninterrupted continuance, they accepted it with that resolution 
 which often increases our strength, and began the correction in 
 the early part of 1818. Thanks be to God, in whose hands the 
 weak things confound the mighty, and who frequently places 
 treasure in earthen vessels, the Sub-Committee, zealous for the 
 glory of God, and the advancement of his kmgdom, and united 
 by the love of truth, and the bonds of peace, proceeds quietly and 
 without noise in its pious undertaking. The persons of which it 
 is composed are not Savans, who are anxious to have their 
 names quoted in the journals of the day, on account of the 
 hardihood of their systems, or the extravagance of their para- 
 doxes. They are Christians, who, abandoning the rage for novelty 
 which misleads so many writers of our times, are equally remote 
 from aiming at an elegance which could only tend to rob their 
 model of its noble simplicity, and its ancient character, and 
 from indulging in a temerity of opinion, which gives itself up 
 to paraphrases and allegorical interpretations. They are Chris- 
 tians, who, duly prepared for their labour by prayer, seek truth, 
 and nothing but the truth. Yes, thanks, thanks be to the Author 
 of every perfect gift, these coadjutors, whose devotedness and un- 
 wearied exertions are unknown to the majority of those for whose 
 benefit they are employed, these faithful labourers redouble their 
 
23 
 
 zeal in proportion to the difficulties of their task, their strength 
 is increased by the numerous obstacles which present themselves 
 in their way; sensations of joy accompany their exertions; the 
 time flies rapidly along in their meetings, and in a short time they 
 will have completed a moiety of their labours : more than twenty 
 hours are devoted every week to the revision of the text, and 
 the fatiguing correction of the proofs, and several of these hours 
 are stolen from the time usually allotted to rest. 
 
 Let not the worldling attribute this zeal, this activity and per- 
 severance, to those motives which frequently call forth his own 
 exertions, in the various paths of life which he may tread in the 
 pursuit of wealth, honour, pleasure, or even literary glory. I 
 can with truth declare, that in this devotedness there is no share 
 of alloy: it would appear but just that the workman should re- 
 ceive his hire, and a very trifling addition to the price of 
 every copy of the Bible, would have placed a sum at the 
 disposal of the Committee, which might have lawfully been 
 appropriated to the remuneration of persons, who, in considera- 
 tion of the extent of their acquirements, might have honourably 
 estimated both their time and their labours at a high price; such 
 a measure was intended to have been carried into effect by the 
 Committee, and their President was authorized to mention the 
 same preliminarily. At a bare allusion to the subject, how- 
 ever, the four Revisors stated unequivocally that they would 
 accept of no remuneration whatsoever, save and except a copy 
 of their own labours; nay, they even went so far as to refuse the 
 re-payment of various expenses occasioned by their frequent 
 meetings. I said, this laborious work, this devotedness, these 
 unwearied exertions, will remain unknown to the most of those 
 who will reap the fruits of them; they labour for many who will 
 not allow themselves to examine, for a moment, into the criticisms 
 of a passage, to obtain the true sense of which the most learned 
 translators may have spent a whole hour in examining the original 
 text, and consulting various commentators; while very few in- 
 deed will appreciate the difficulty of the undertaking, and the 
 honour which it will reflect on our Canton, in which editions of 
 the Scriptures have been left to the chance of- mercantile specu- 
 lators, unauthorised by the government, the clergy, the university, 
 or any literary body; without any attention being paid to typo- 
 graphical correctness, or to the choice of the versions to be re- 
 printed ; so that the tables of errata of the translations adopted 
 for printing, are increased by new errata, and thus the difficulties 
 of the reader are multiplied. 
 
 The zeal which guides the Committee of Revision at Lausanne, 
 is encouraged by a Corresponding Committee at Neufchatel, to 
 whom the corrected sheets are forwarded: it has been agreed, 
 that in case of difference of opinion, or alterations of moment, 
 recourse shall be had to arbitrators, qualified to act as such by 
 their acquirements, and chosen by mutual consent; up to the 
 present period, however, the most perfect unanimity has reigned 
 among us, and the correspondence with the gentlemen of Neuf- 
 chatel only exhibits, on our part, marks of that deference which 
 
 B 4 
 
24 
 
 is due to their talents; and on theirs, the most flattering assur- 
 - ances of confidence. The same proofs of confidence have been 
 granted to us by the Bible Society at Geneva, which being 
 informed of our proceedings, has not deemed it necessary to have 
 the proofs forwarded thither. 
 
 The first object of the Committee of Revision was nothing 
 more than to ascertain inaccuracies of style, punctuation, and 
 orthography, from their edition of the Bible of Ostervald ; but 
 while pursuing this easy mode, they detected several omissions, 
 and also passages the meaning of which did not appear con- 
 formable with the original; they therefore resolved to extend 
 their labours, and examine if the meaning of the version which 
 they had once undertaken to print, was strictly agreeable to the 
 original, if the construction of a phrase exhibited a perfect clear- 
 ness, and if no expression was contained in it, which was con- 
 demned by use. Let it not, however, be supposed, that the work 
 im its complete state is calculated to overthrow the beautiful 
 version of Ostervald ; the care which is taken to preserve it by 
 making as few alterations as possible, causes it to be a labour of 
 longer duration, and greater difficulty, than if a translation from 
 the original were attempted without being subjected to any 
 trammels; the difficulty consists in preserving as much as 
 possible, and in making the alteration of one or two words 
 in a phrase square with the other parts of the phrase ; it is as it 
 were detaching from a Mosaic pavement one or more stones, and 
 substituting others in their place without changing the design, 
 which it is desirable to preserve. 
 
 The mode of carrying on this work is as follows :—a verse of 
 Ostervald’s version is read and compared with the Hebrew text; 
 if the meaning appears to be faithfully given, the chief labour is 
 removed ; if any doubt arises on the perfect conformity to the 
 original, the best dictionaries are successively consulted, as well as 
 the Greek, Latin, and English versions, the translations of 
 Luther, Chais, and Martin, and the most approved Latin, 
 German, and French commentators ; nor is it till after these 
 authorities have been maturely weighed, that a decision is formed. 
 Such an examination, however long, is sufliciently interesting, 
 and uniformly ends in an unanimous accordance, because the 
 sole object of the parties concerned is to give a faithful version. 
 
 Extract from the Fifteenth Report of the British and Foreign 
 Bible Society, 1819. 
 
 The Bible Societies of Neufchatel and Lausanne are chiefly 
 occupied in printing the quarto edition of Ostervald’s French 
 Bible, the text of which is carefully revised and corrected. 
 This work, to which the Bible Society of Geneva subscribed 
 nearly the whole of its funds, is printing at Lausanne, under the 
 
25 
 
 direction of a Committee of Revision, aided by a similar Com- 
 mittee of Correspondence at Neufchatel. Too much cannot be 
 said of the diligence and fidelity with which these gentlemen are 
 performing the duty which they have voluntarily undertaken: 
 the work, which is far advanced towards its conclusion, is ex- 
 pected with much anxiety; and will, when it is issued, prove 
 highly acceptable to the many churches and families for whose 
 use it is more particularly designed. 
 
 Extract from the Sixteenth Report of the British and Foreign 
 ‘ Bible Society, 1820. 
 
 In the Cantons of Vaud, Neufchatel, and Geneva, the sup- 
 plies furnished at the expense of your Society have been usefully 
 distributed; and, if your Committee are not enabled to specify 
 exertions commensurate with the population and territory for 
 which these Societies have to provide, it is because the distribu- 
 tion (except on a limited scale) is delayed till the quarto edition 
 of the revised translation of Ostervald shall be ready for de- 
 livery. The Committees of Lausanne and Neufchatel are inde- 
 fatigably employed in preparing this revised edition; and, while 
 they guard against sacrificing accuracy to haste, they leave no 
 means unused by which they may hope to expedite its completion. 
 In this undertaking, and in whatever regards the interests and 
 operations of the Lausanne Bible Society, Professor Levade, its 
 President, takes a lively and unceasing interest; and he is sup- 
 ported in his exertions by the cordial co-operation of the Pro- 
 fessors and Pastors. ‘‘ Domestic affliction” (says the President 
 of the Lausanne Bible Society) ‘‘ has discoloured every thing 
 around me; but, in detaching me from many affections more or 
 less transitory, it has increased my attachment to the Bible So- 
 ciety. Its course and its progress occupy me day and night: 
 I ask a few more years of life, only that I may witness its deve- 
 lopement, and pour my mite into this treasury of spiritual 
 blessings.” 
 
 Extract of a Letter from the Rev. Professor Levade, to the Rev. 
 John Owen. 
 
 Lausanne, May 16, 1820, 
 
 The work of the correction of the text continues with re- 
 doubled zeal and indefatigable activity. We are as far as the 
 middle of Jeremiah. We have (I should almost say) lost four 
 months in the re-translation of the Apocryphal books. I had 
 wished they might be entirely suppressed; the gentlemen of 
 Neufchatel have been of the contrary opinion ; we have thought it 
 necessary to give way; these books will, however, be placed at 
 the end of the volume, printed with another type. If any thing 
 
26 
 
 were capable of stimulating the zeal of our fellow-labourers, 
 it would be the approbation of their labours which you have re- 
 corded in your letters, written during your journey. 
 
 The moment when we shall be able to transmit to you our 
 new edition, will be delightful to us, because you will then have 
 a proof of our having rendered an essential service to the French 
 churches of Switzerland, of France, and of Piedmont, by cor- 
 recting many omissions, obscurities, and grammatical errors, in 
 the versions both of Martin and of Ostervald, and the editions 
 which will hereafter be printed either at Basle or in France, will 
 certainly adopt our corrections, which are all sanctioned by the 
 text of the original. 
 
 This work has led us to discover the numerous distortions 
 which dishonour the version of Geneva, which was indeed no- 
 thing but a mercantile speculation, as I termed it soon after its 
 publication. Elegantius potius quam verius, (rather elegant than 
 faithful,) is the most charitable inscription applicable to this 
 version. 
 
 I am not superstitious ; but you would be astonished were I to 
 relate to you the happy concurrence of circumstances, which 
 have made me choose those four fellow-labourers in the revision 
 of the Bible, who have successively facilitated and furnished the 
 means of doing this great work with success, and who continue all 
 four in unanimity. 
 
 You have seen, Sir, the place where I have deposited the re- 
 mains of my partner; I have contented myself with covering 
 her body with a large basket of iron, the sides of which are inter- 
 laced with ivy, and its surface covered with small rose bushes. 
 The inscription on the black marble fixed against the wall is, 
 «© Unto me to live is Christ, and to die is gain,” (Phil. i. 21.); 
 and below this, ‘‘ 27 Sep. 1818, on the Lord’s Day, at the sound 
 of bells, at seven o’clock.” 
 
 You know, also, that I have established a fund, for distributing 
 ten Bibles annually, in the name of this Christian woman, and 
 chosen several ladies to be the distributors of them. The number 
 of the ladies is increased, each bringing a Bible with her as an 
 introduction. Thus twenty-two Bibles were added on Easter, 
 1819, to the original ten copies. Last April, fifty-two have 
 been distributed, and funds raised sufficient for sixty copies. Thus 
 eighty-four Bibles have already come forth out of this humble 
 grave; Bibles which have been given to worthy young people, 
 who are alternately watched by one of the donors for the space 
 of ayear. I hope next year to be able to announce to you the 
 establishment of similar institutions in every town of the Canton. 
 
 I remain, &c. 
 LEVADE. 
 
27 
 
 Extract from a Circular Letter addressed to the Bible Societies, 
 of Germany, Prussia, and Switzerland, on the occasion of the 
 Tour of the Rev. Dr. Steinkopff. 
 
 London, May 15, 1820. 
 In conclusion, we beg leave to observe, that the British and 
 Foreign Bible Society owes its present prosperity, next to the 
 blessing of the Most High, to the simplicity of its object, and 
 the zeal, fidelity, and perseverance, with which that object has 
 been pursued ; and we respectfully solicit all our fellow-labour- 
 ers and friends, never to deviate from the plain and avowed ob- 
 ject of all Bible Societies, ‘‘ the circulation of the Holy Scrip- 
 tures without note or comment.” 
 (Signed,) 
 The Secretaries of the British and Foreign Bible Society, 
 JOHN OWEN, 
 JOSEPH HUGHEs, 
 C. F. A. STEINKOPFF. 
 
 Extract of a Letter from the Rev. F. Cunningham, to the Rev. 
 John Owen. 
 
 Lausanne, Sept. 27, 1820. 
 
 I have sent you as much of the new version of the Bible as 
 
 they have as yet accomplished at this place. They are working 
 
 with real zeal at it, generally four evenings in the week for some 
 
 hours. I have had the copy so little time, that I have not been 
 
 able to examine it, and now I make use of the opportunity of 
 
 Miss * * * tosend it to you. I only suspect that, in some cases, 
 
 they may have given a more definite sense than the original, in 
 
 order to make the meaning clear, as Prov. iii. where they seem 
 
 to me to have spoiled the passage. Professor Levade is at present 
 out. I hear, however, that the Society goes on well. 
 
 Your’s, &ce. 
 F. CUNNINGHAM. 
 
 At a Meeting of the Committee, held Dec. 4, 
 1820 :— - 
 
 ‘* Read a letter from the Rev. Francis Cunning- 
 ham, dated Lausanne, September 27, 1820. The 
 Committee of the Bible Society there, are pro- 
 ceeding with much zeal and assiduity in the revision 
 of the New Version of the Bible, and the Society 
 is in a prosperous state, &c. 
 
28 
 
 Extract of a Letter from the Rev. Professor Levade, to the 
 Foreign Secretary. 
 
 Lausanne, Oct. 20, 1820. 
 
 Our work in revising and printing the Bible continues with 
 redoubled zeal, and with a perfect accordance among our own 
 labourers, and the Corresponding Committee of Neufchatel. 
 This week we shall finish the book of Daniel, and there is every 
 appearance, that, with the blessing of God, after an uninterrupted 
 labour of more than three years, we shall complete this undertak- 
 ing about Midsummer 1821. The first volume of our Bible has 
 been sent by the Rev. Francis Cunningham, for the Rev. Mr. 
 Owen, who had forgotten it at Lausanne. It isan undoubted fact, 
 that a religious revival has manifested itself for these several 
 years past in our Canton; and it must, in a great measure, be 
 attributed to the efforts which an abundant dissemination of the 
 Word of God has produced. I have sold this week three Bibles 
 to a music-master, whose religious principles had formerly been 
 of a very suspicious cast, but who now has made it a point to 
 distribute the Holy Scriptures among all his nephews and nieces. 
 
 I remain, &c. 
 LEVADE. 
 
 Extract of a Letter from the Foreign Secretary, to the 
 Rev. Professor Levade. 
 
 London, December 27, 1820. 
 
 After my return from the Continent, on the 30th of November, 
 I received your truly affectionate letter, sent by Mr. * * * *, 
 which informs me of a tour which you made through different 
 parts of Switzerland in August and September last. I quite 
 rejoiced to hear, that, on this occasion, you paid a friendly visit 
 to several of the Swiss Bible Societies; for such a visit is quite 
 calculated to cherish and to increase that friendship and christian 
 affection which ought to subsist between the different constituent 
 parts of the biblical body. 
 
 It also gave me unfeigned satisfaction to learn that you have 
 thus far advanced in the printing of your quarto Bible, and are 
 cheered by the pleasing prospect of seeing it completed by the 
 middle of next year. I consider this work a very important 
 undertaking, the happy completion of which will, no doubt, 
 prove highly gratifying to your own feelings, as well as conducive 
 to the best interests of your Society. 
 
 I remain, &c. 
 
 C. F. A. STEINKOPFF. 
 
29 
 
 _ At a Meeting of the Committee, held Jan. 1, 
 1821 :— 
 
 «< A letter was presented from Professor Levade, 
 dated Lausanne, October 20, 1820; stating, that 
 the revision and printing of the Bible continues, 
 with redoubled zeal; and he expects that the 
 work will be completed about Midsummer next.” 
 
 Extract from the Sixth Report of the Bible Society for the Canton 
 de Vaud, 1821. 
 
 It now remains, for the last time, to make mention of the 
 revision of the Bible of Ostervald, projected in October, 
 1816,—matured in March, 1817,—and decided upon in June and 
 October of the same year. The first sheet of this edition, in 
 quarto, left the press the day before Easter Sunday, 1818. The 
 Committee entrusted this work to four clergymen, chosen from 
 among themselves, namely, the Rev. Alexander Leresche, Pro- 
 fessor of Divinity; the Rev. F. Chavannes, Minister at Lausanne; 
 the Rev. Mr. Mellet, Teacher at the Academical College, and 
 the Rev. Augustus Rochat. 
 
 These four zealous fellow-labourers, from the commencement 
 of the year 1818, held their meetings three times a week, in the 
 study of the Rev. Mr. Chavannes, and engaged in a work which 
 they would hardly have undertaken, had they been previously 
 aware of its extent and duration. The revision of the Old Tes- 
 tament, carried on without interruption, was completed on the 
 15th of January, 1821; the revision of the New Testament is 
 now carried on, and will be finished in the course of this year. 
 
 Without taking into account the visits of different clergymen 
 of our Canton, and from other parts, who, being apprised of the 
 days on which the meetings were held, and interested in behalf 
 of a work which was in some degree of a public nature, were 
 sometimes present, and of their own accord, and without any 
 invitation, took a part in the business; without noticing farther 
 the separate labours of the Committee at Neufchatel, who under- 
 took to examine, sheet by sheet, the alterations suggested by the 
 Sub-Committee of Lausanne; ; and without speaking of the pre- 
 paratory labours which were often indispensably necessary ; or of 
 
 correcting the proofs, it may be safely affirmed, that three entire 
 evenings in each week were devoted to this important under- 
 taking, during an uninterrupted course of nearly four years. We 
 hesitate not to assert, also, that the difficulties which this work 
 has presented, have been so numerous, that a complete new 
 version of the Bible would probably have been an easier task ; 
 
30 
 
 from respect, however, for a name justly revered, it was thought 
 best to preserve as much as possible of the version of Ostervald, 
 and to square the alteration of one or more words in most phrases, 
 with the remaining members of the sentence; in fine, it was like 
 detaching a stone of one colour from a piece of mosaic, and sub- 
 stituting a different one in its stead, without altering the unity 
 of the design. 
 
 I shall not speak in this Report of some remarkable circum- 
 stances which occurred in the course of this work, and tended to 
 facilitate it; those who have watched it narrowly, have had an 
 opportunity of convincing themselves of a marked interposition of 
 that divine Providence which not only pre-ordains, knows, and 
 permits whatever takes place; but which can interfere, and 
 without doubt, does interfere in the direction of all human 
 affairs, by ways which to many appear merely natural. I con- 
 tent myself with noticing a circumstance, which is, perhaps, 
 unprecedented in a literary undertaking of so long a duration, 
 rendered complicated by a thousand critical discussions of an 
 exegetical, philological, and grammatical nature, among four 
 persons, each \possessing individual merit, talents, and peculiar 
 acquirements, and having an equal right to state his own opinions. 
 —I allude to the fact, that at no time has an undue warmth or 
 predilection for private views tended to disturb the harmony 
 existing during the course of the work, but that every discussion 
 was carried on in perfect good will. I go even farther, and assert 
 that the same spirit of unanimity characterized the Committee at 
 Neufchatel, with this difference, that the members.composing it 
 not being able, on account of their distance from us, ‘to take part 
 in the discussions, and the resolutions founded thereon, but 
 having perfect confidence in the talents and good faith of the 
 Sub-Committee at Lausanne, were uniformly so modest as to 
 permit their remarks to be laid aside, if they did not meet the 
 approbation of the Sub-Committee. And to what can so affect- 
 ing, and at the same time, so rare a union be attributed, if it be 
 not to that spirit of charity, humility, sincerity, and piety, 
 which animated those, who, previously prepared by prayer, did 
 not regard their work as merely of a literary nature? They aban- 
 doned all private views; they rejected that human science which 
 fosters the pride, and those systems which obscure the light of 
 reason; they were as brethren, who, meeting together by acci- 
 dent, carried nothing with them into their meetings but a desire 
 to be themselves enlightened by the word of life, and diligently 
 to search the Scriptures; their ideas, their sentiments, elevated 
 by the sublimity of their undertaking, had no other object in 
 view than the glory of God, and the promotion of ‘the kingdom 
 of Christ. 
 
 Praised be God for the signal protection vouchsafed to those 
 men who have approached the holy ark, it is true, but who have 
 approached it with respect and pure intentions. God be thanked 
 for having preserved them in good health during their laborious 
 work; and on our side, let us, who have witnessed their dis- 
 interested exertions, be disposed to reap with gratitude the fruits 
 
31 
 
 of their labours, adopting their humility, their unanimity, and 
 
 _ their piety. Let us not be backward in receiving their work with 
 confidence ;—let us not imagine that some superficial acquire- 
 ments may authorize us to criticise one or another alteration of a 
 passage, to the careful investigation of which they have devoted 
 whole hours in consulting various commentaries, notes, and para- 
 phrases, in six different languages, which were familiar to one or 
 other of the four co-labourers;—let us not refuse to imitate 
 the example of ministers of parishes, and even of individuals who 
 have advanced sums of money to us, to the amount of 3,000 livres, 
 with the understanding of its being repaid in Bibles, in order to 
 assist in an undertaking for which the Society has to provide 
 42,000 francs, by regular instalments. Should any further argument 
 be wanting, to insure a favourable opinion in behalf of a work 
 which is not yet known; let it be permitted us to state, that the 
 Rey. Mr. Owen, one of the Secretaries of the British and Fo- 
 reign Bible Society, having endeavoured, on his visits to Neuf- 
 chatel, Lausanne, and Geneva, to obtain a clear insight into the 
 plan, the proceeding, and the execution of this undertaking, 
 has spoken of it in the following terms, in the Fifteenth Report 
 of the Society: 
 
 ** Too much cannot be said of the diligence and fidelity with 
 which the Committee of Revision are performing the duty which 
 they have voluntarily undertaken; the work which is far ad- 
 vanced towards its conclusion, is expected with much anxiety, 
 and will, when it is issued, prove highly acceptable to the many 
 churches and families for whose use it is more particularly 
 designed.” 
 
 The anxiety for the completion of this work is also mani- 
 fested in a letter of the Rev. Dr. Steinkopff, another of the 
 Secretaries of the Parent Society, addressed to the President 
 of the Bible Society for the Canton de Vaud, dated December 
 27, 1820.* 
 
 Extract from the Seventeenth Report of the British and Foreign 
 > Bible Society, 1821. 
 
 Lausanne, Neufchatel, and Geneva, continue to take their 
 respective shares in the common work. The revision of the text 
 of Ostervald is carried on with indefatigable attention and per- 
 severance: and, although it delays the completion of the quarto 
 edition of the Bible which has been so long in hand, the evil of 
 that delay will, it is believed, be abundantly compensated by 
 the improved state in which this version will eventually appear. 
 
 * Vide page 28. 
 
32 
 
 Extract of a Letter from the late Assistant Foreign Secretary, to 
 the Rev. Dr. Levade. ° 
 
 London, March 5, 1822. 
 
 The time for publishing our Report drawing nearer and nearer, 
 without our having received any official news of your Bible 
 Society, Mr. Owen has begged me to request that you would 
 send him, as soon as possible, some information respecting the 
 state of the Bible Society of the Canton de Vaud, the new 
 edition of Ostervald, &c. We are completely taken up-with a 
 multiplicity of affairs; the continually increasing sphere of the 
 operations of our Society requiring an extraordinary application 
 of all our exertions. One consequence of this is, that our corres- 
 pondence has not been so strictly kept up as we might have cor- 
 dially wished: another, that we see ourselves forced to let every 
 thing go on in its regular course, that is going on well, in order 
 to be the better able to watch over the proceedings of other 
 branches of this great union, which stand more in need of our 
 aid and our advice. 
 
 Your’s, &c. 
 E. F. ROENNEBERG. 
 
 oo 
 
 Extract of a Letter from the Rev. Dr. Levade, to the Rev. 
 John Owen. 
 
 Lausanne, March 1, 1822. 
 
 ’ By the blessing of God, we have at length completed our four 
 
 years’ labour ; and it will afford you satisfaction to reflect, that 
 
 you have not a little contributed, by means of your bounty, to 
 
 procure a translation of the Bible far superior to that of Martin 
 
 or Ostervald, and one which will serve as a model for succeed- 
 ing editions. 
 
 I avail myself of the kindness of Mr. * * * * to forward 
 to you the only copy which we have had taken off on fine paper, 
 and which you will please to accept, as a mark of our gratitude, 
 for your library. The Committee have also commissioned me to 
 transmit a copy, for each of the Secretaries of the British and 
 Foreign Bible Society, which I shall not fail to do. 
 
 I remain, &c. 
 LEVADE. 
 
 Ata Meeting of the Committee, held March 18, 
 1822 :— 
 “Read a letter from the Rev. Mr. Levade, dated 
 
 Lausanne, March 1, 1822, stating, that the edition 
 of the French Bible, which has been in progress 
 
33 
 
 there during the last fonr years, and which this 
 Committee had assisted, was now completed, and 
 he considered it superior to the versions of Martin 
 and Ostervald. 
 
 Extract of a Letter from the Rev. Dr. Levade, to the Rev. John 
 Owen. 
 
 Lausanne, March 16, 1822. 
 
 I presume you have received, through Mr. ** * *, the copy 
 of our Bible destined for your Society. I shall avail myself of 
 some other opportunity, if possible, to transmit three other copies 
 to you, or even more, if you wish it, for to you we owe every 
 thing; without your voluntary generosity in our behalf, I even 
 doubt whether we should have risked the printing of 4,000 Bibles, 
 and whether we should have undertaken the correction. To you 
 all our success is owing, and we esteem it both our duty and 
 honour to acknowledge this. I think I recollect once having 
 addressed a letter of thanks, in the name of our Society, to your 
 noble President, which I hope he has received, for we shall 
 reproach ourselves if we are wanting, or have been wanting, in 
 
 any mark of gratitude whatsoever. 
 
 Extract of a Letter from the Foreign Secretary, to Professor 
 Levade. 
 : London, May 8, 1822. 
 
 You have addressed a letter to our invaluable friend, Mr. 
 Owen, the latter part of which contained a short abstract of your 
 last Report. He would have replied himself to your truly 
 affectionate epistles, but I regret to say, that for nearly two 
 months past he has been very unwell. There was more than once 
 something alarming in his attacks, and he was prevented from 
 attending our last Anniversary, on May 1; but I trust he is now 
 getting better. May his life be long spared to us, and his health 
 be speedily restored. We rejoice to hear, that your quarto 
 Bible has, after four years’ constant labour, been completed, 
 and we hope soon to receive the copies which you have so kindly 
 destined for my esteemed colleague and myself, as well as that 
 for our Society, on superior paper. We also are glad to hear 
 that your Bible Society has completely detached itself from all 
 concerns with the Tract Society. The simplicity of our object 
 and plan is our strength; we have nothing to do either with 
 politics, or with ecclesiastical affairs, or with polemics. Our 
 only aim and design is to circulate the Word of Truth and Life, 
 without note or comment. In this we have hitherto wonder- 
 fully succeeded. 
 I remain, &c. 
 
 C, F. A. STEINKOPFF, 
 
34 
 
 From the late Assistant Foreign Secretary, to the Rev. Dr. Levade. 
 
 London, June 5, 1822. 
 
 When Dr. Steinkopff wrote to you on the 8th ult. he was not 
 aware that a copy of the quarto edition of Ostervald’s Bible, 
 destined for our library, was already in the Bible Society’s House 
 here; in fact, it had not then been presented to the Committee. 
 This was subsequently done, but want of time, and the continued 
 indisposition of Mr. Owen, have hitherto prevented us from 
 examining it, and thereby ascertaining the importance of the 
 care and assiduity bestowed by your Committee on the revision. 
 We long for the time when Mr. Owen will be enabled to take 
 
 ‘his seat again in the Committee, and, the Lord be praised, there 
 is a ray of hope for him; the re-establishment of his health 
 appears to have begun, although its progress is very slow. 
 
 In the mean time, the Committee, considering the size of your 
 edition seems to render a depét for present wants necessary, 
 composed of copies of a more portable size, fit for children and 
 young people, have resolved to purchase for you 500 copies of 
 the Bible, bound, of the Basle edition of Ostervald, recently 
 published and printed in a very fair type. Be pleased to com- 
 municate this grant to your Bible Society, and in due time have 
 the kindness to favour our Committee with a statement of the 
 manner in which you have disposed of these books. 
 
 I have great pleasure in transmitting to you the first part of 
 a copy of the transactions of our last Anniversary; the second 
 part will be published towards the end of the present month. 
 
 Before I conclude, permit me to state, that Mr. T. P. Platt, 
 a friend of our Committee, and belonging to the University of 
 Cambridge, may probably pay you a visit. He has been en- 
 gaged at Paris in certain literary researches, on behalf of our 
 Society, and will probably proceed to Lausanne, to profit by the 
 salubrious air of your mountains. In order to procure a favour- 
 able reception for him, I need only add, that Mr. Platt is a very 
 intimate friend of Mr. Owen. 
 
 I remain, &e. 
 E. F. RoENNEBERG. 
 
 Extract of a Letter fron T. P. Platt, Esq. to the Rev. John 
 Owen. : 
 Paris, June 1, 1822. 
 
 At my departure from hence, I purpose to address a letter to 
 the Paris Committee, stating a little of the history and destina- 
 tion of the works in which [I have been occupied here among 
 them. This letter I have shown to Professor Stapfer, whose 
 revision it has undergone, and he considers it may be interesting 
 and beneficial. I then set out to make my proposed short 
 excursion into Switzerland, and shall be furnished by Pro- 
 
30 
 
 fessor Stapfer and General Macaulay with the most efficient 
 introductions. With the latter, whose prudence and knowledge 
 of affairs you can well appreciate, I have been concerting mea- 
 sures to obtain the alteration of the unfortunate passage * which 
 has been left as before in the Lausanne revised edition, which he 
 has no doubt might be accomplished. There was an animated 
 discussion in the Committee here, a short time since, about the 
 adoption of this edition by them, or rather an examination of it, 
 with a view toits adoption. The proposal was set aside, and I 
 think, on the whole, very happily, by reference to the general 
 principle, that they circulate no Bibles but such as are acknow- 
 ledged and received by the churches of France. You see, that 
 if it had been carried, other versions would have put in the same 
 elaim to examinatiou and adoption also. 
 
 Extract of a Letter from T. P. Platt, Esq. to the Rev. John 
 Owen. 
 
 Geneva, June 17, 1822. 
 
 I resume the detail of my proceedings from the point at which 
 my last communication closed. Some of the circumstances to be 
 now detailed, relate to the passage which has been urged against 
 the Society, as falsely translated in the French version circulated 
 by it; I mean the verse 2 Corinthians, v. 19; and you will see 
 that the members of the Bible Societies abroad are not less 
 anxious than their friends at home, to remove every scruple, 
 which can, with any appearance of reason, be said to exist in 
 their path. 
 
 On the day on which my last letter was despatched, I was 
 conversing on this subject, L may almost say, accidentally, in the 
 presence of Mr. Wilder, one of the most active members of the 
 Paris Committee. He was struck with the circumstance. ‘‘ We 
 are about,” said he, ‘‘ to arrange matters definitively for our new 
 stereotype edition of Ostervald’s version. 1 am a member of the 
 commission appointed for this purpose; only show me that the 
 passage has been printed differently in any former edition, and I 
 will endeavour to have the ancient reading restored.” We lost 
 no time in repairing to the Royal Library, where, after a search 
 of some extent, conducted by the principal librarian, with his 
 usual patience and urbanity, we succeeded in finding the edition 
 of 1724, in which, you know, the passage stands as in Martin’s 
 version. In two days more, the alteration had been proposed to 
 the above-mentioned commission, and to the Sub-Committee, 
 and adopted by both those bodies; nor have I any reason to 
 doubt that the General Committee have since confirmed their 
 resolutions. 
 
 * 2 Corinthians, v. 19. 
 c 2 
 
36 
 
 I reached Lausanne on Tuesday evening, the 11th, and was 
 received by Professor Levade, I may literally say, with open 
 arms. He constrained me to take up my abode in his house, and 
 put me in possession of a most pleasing little suite of apartments, 
 which he told me he had once destined for your reception, when 
 domestic affliction intervened, and precluded him from becoming 
 your host. He seems to be indeed the very life of the Lausanne 
 Bible Society. Besides his duties as President, and his labours 
 in revising the recent edition of the Scriptures, all the details of 
 business seem to pass through his hands. He took me from one 
 cabinet and closet to another, and I found them as full of Bibles 
 of all types and dimensions, as the warehouses in Earl Street; 
 he opened his desk and drawers, and showed me his packets of 
 letters, his books and registers, arranged and drawn up with an 
 accuracy and regularity, which would have reflected no discredit 
 upon the most able Agent in the Society’s offices. Amidst the 
 doubts and perplexities arising from the present awakened state 
 of religious feeling in the Canton, and the opposition which it 
 excites, the mind of the Professor seems to rest on the Bible 
 Society, as on a ground of security and peace. May he find in 
 the book which he is thus disseminating, that wisdom from above 
 which alone can guide him aright in this trying conjuncture ! 
 
 The principal members of the Committee being closely occu- 
 pied in the Academical examinations which are at this time pro- 
 ceeding, I saw only one of them, Professor Mellett. This gen- 
 tleman, who is of some literary eminence, was much interested 
 with some specimens of Ethiopic printing, which I was able to 
 show him, and with the paper containing a list of languages and 
 dialects, in which the Society has published the Scriptures, which 
 I presented to him. Professor Levade was present, and we dis- 
 cussed together the disputed passage above alluded to, in the 
 commencement of my letter. Not the least difficulty was made 
 about the alteration; only, as more than half of the present edition 
 was circulated already in different quarters, it seemed impossible 
 to cancel the leaf, and they could only promise a change in the 
 next impression. Indeed I was commissioned to request that it 
 might take place in the edition of this same Bible in a smaller 
 form, now printing at Basle, on my arrival at that place. ‘“‘ We 
 think,” they said, ‘‘ that the present rendering does not disagree 
 with the original, and we think also that Martin’s version of the 
 passage is not classical French ; but we accede to the recommen- 
 dation of the British and Foreign Bible Society. To them we owe 
 every thing, and for them we would do this, and much more than 
 this if required.” 
 
 Unhappily, it seems that the sincerity of this profession must 
 soon be put to the test. A passage has been pointed out to me 
 since my arrival in this place, just preceding that in question, 
 the 17th verse of the same chapter, in which the received version 
 is altered, and altered in a manner that calls for the gravest 
 consideration. I have not the book at hand, but you will find 
 that instead of saying, ‘‘ If any man be in Christ, he is a new 
 creature,” they read, ‘‘ If any man be in Christ, let him become 
 
37 
 
 a new creature,” or something* to that effect. I fear, I have much 
 reason to fear, that this alteration may have been dictated by a 
 spirit of opposition to the doctrine which this passage, as given in 
 our own version, conveys. If the matter appears to you as it 
 has done to me, it will be for you to consider how best to act in 
 so delicate an affair. 
 
 I say no more; for, if I were to begin upon the feeling 
 that seems to exist in the Academy at Lausanne, the state 
 of religious affairs in the Canton, and the very painful con- 
 versations which I have had with Professor Leyade himself,+ I 
 feel that it would be difficult to come to a conclusion. Never 
 have I been in greater perplexity, and never experienced more 
 painful emotions than during the past week. 
 
 ' Extract of a Letter from T. P. Platt, Esq. to the Rev. John 
 Owen. 
 
 Lucerne, July 6, 1822. 
 
 My stay in Neufchatel being so very limited, I did not even 
 see the Governor of the Canton, who isthe President, nor M. 
 Du Pasquier, who is the Secretary, of the Society. I had con- 
 versations, however, with the Dean ofthe Clergy, M. Berthond, 
 with an exceilent private individual, M. Perrot Droz, and 
 others. It appears, that the Society of Neufchatel, though, like 
 most others in Switzerland, it has not much expansive force, is, 
 nevertheless, the instrument of doing good, and supplies very 
 generally the wants of the Canton. A system of Parochial 
 Committees has been established, to report upon the existence 
 and extent of such wants, which seems likely to prove beneficial ; 
 while at the same time I must observe, that a greater regulari 
 than at present exists in the detail of business in the Central 
 Committee, might perhaps be desirable. As these gentlemen 
 have taken part in the recent revision of Ostervald’s Bible, I 
 mentioned the subject of the disputed passage, 2 Cor. v. 19. 
 Their assent to the proposed alteration was expressed with the 
 same cheerfulness as that of their colleagues at Lausanne. 
 
 * The verse is as follows:—2 Cor. v. 17. 
 “‘If any man therefore will be in Christ,-let him be a new creature; old 
 things are passed away, behold, all things are become new.” 
 
 “Si done quelqu’un veut étre en Christ, qwil soit une nouvelle créa- 
 ture; les choses vieilles sont passées, voici toutes choses sont devenues 
 nouvelles. 
 
 + Mr. Platt has stated to the Committee, that the conversations here 
 mentioned had no reference to the Lausanne edition of the Bible. 
 
38 
 
 Extract of a Letter from T. P. Platt, Esq. to the Assistant 
 Foreign Secretary. 
 Paris, July 20, 1822. 
 
 I have been much grieved, in common with the frignds of the 
 Society in this place, by the afflicting intelligence of Mr. Owen’s 
 continued illness.—Partly from this cause, and partly from 
 having little of interest to detail, 1 have abstained from writing 
 to him, and have embodied what I had to say in this letter, 
 which was destined for a communication on certain other 
 
 Di SS Rea ho al rd 
 £ If mention is made in any of your pnblications of any thing 
 that I have seen or heard in Switzerland, I would suggest that 
 my name be not introduced as though I had been on that tour as 
 an Agent of the Society. My official business was only at Paris, 
 about the Ethiopic MSS. 
 
 I would also request that no further mention be made at 
 present about the new Lausanne edition, or its errors, in your 
 Continental Correspondence ; we can speak of it more fully at 
 my return. 
 
 At a Meeting of the Committee, held September 
 2, 1822 :— 
 
 ‘Read letters from T. P. Platt, Esq.—dated 
 Paris, June 1, 1822, announcing the termination of 
 his engagements in that Capital for this Society. 
 From Paris, Mr. Platt was about to proceed to 
 Switzerland, and had been furnished with intro- 
 ductions from Professor Stapfer and General 
 Macaulay. With the latter, he had concerted mea- 
 sures to obtain the alteration of the 2 Corinthians, 
 v. 19, in the Lausanne revised edition of Oster- 
 vald’s Bible. There had been a discussion in the 
 Paris Committee, about the examination of that 
 edition, with a view to its adoption by them. The 
 proposition was rejected on the general principle, 
 that the Paris Society circulated no Bibles but 
 such as were acknowledged and received by the 
 churches in France. 
 
 “ From Geneva, dated June 17, 1822, referring 
 again to the disputed passage in the Second Epistle 
 to the Corinthians. Mr. Platt states, that having 
 mentioned the subject in the presence of Mr. 
 
39 
 
 Wilder, a Member of the Committee of the Paris 
 Bible Society, and also of a Commission appointed 
 by them to make arrangements for a new ste- 
 reotype edition of Ostervald’s Bible, that gentleman 
 directly said, that should it appear that the verse 
 in question had been printed differently in any 
 former edition, he would endeavour to have the 
 ancient reading restored. Upon an examination in 
 the Royal Library, they discovered the edition of 
 Ostervald, in 1724, in which the passage stands 
 as in Martin’s version. Mr. Wilder, in consequence, 
 proposed the alteration both to the Commission, 
 and the Sub-Committee, who readily adopted it; 
 and no doubt was entertained that the General 
 Committee would also give their consent. On his 
 arrival at Lausanne, Mr. Platt called the attention 
 of Professor Levade, and Professor Mellet, to 
 the verse in Corinthians already referred to; they 
 willingly agreed: to make the alteration in future 
 impressions; but the present edition was too 
 far advanced: to admit of it. The Professors 
 said, they thought ‘the present rendering did 
 not disagree with the original, and that Martin’s 
 version of the passage was not classical French, 
 but” said they, ‘‘ we accede to the recommen- 
 dation of the British and Foreign Bible So- 
 ciety. To them we owe every thing, and for them 
 we would do this, and much more than this, if 
 required.” Mr. Platt speaks highly of the general 
 attention which Professor Levade pays to the 
 concerns of the Lausanne Bible Society. 
 
 ‘¢From Lucerne, dated the 6th, and from Paris, 
 dated the 20th of July, 1822. At Neufchatel, 
 Mr. Platt had conversations with the Dean of 
 the Clergy, and some other individuals, connected 
 with the Bible Society, who had been engaged in 
 the recent revision of Ostervald’s Bible; they very 
 readily consented to make the proposed alteration 
 in the 2 Corinthians, v. 19. 
 
 «‘ Resolved, that this Committee beg leave res- 
 pectfully to tender to Thomas Pell Platt, Esq. 
 | c 4 
 
40 
 
 their grateful acknowledgments for the above 
 communications, and for the important ser- 
 vices he has rendered to this Institution, both 
 at home and upon the Continent. 
 
 At a Meeting of the Committee, held January 20, 
 1823 :— 
 
 “The Rev. Mr. Hughes having called the atten- 
 tion of the Committee to the French quarto Bible, 
 printed at Lausanne, in 1822 :— 
 
 “Resolved, that a communication be made to 
 the Lausanne Bible Society, expressing the sur- 
 prise and regret of this Committee, that the fan- 
 damental principle of this Institution has not been 
 adhered to, in preparing that work for the press ; 
 the charge thereof having been chiefly defrayed by 
 this Society. 
 
 From the Foreign Secretary, to the Rev. Dr. Levade, Secretary 
 of the Lausanne Bible Society. 
 
 London, Jan. 24, 1823. 
 The copy of your new edition of the Bible, which you have 
 transmitted for our library, has been duly received, and laid 
 before our Committee. Permit me on this occasion to assure 
 you of the sincere pleasure we feel, in finding that your long 
 and important labours have at length been brought to a close. 
 May the Lord lay his blessing upon them, and render them sub- 
 servient to the promotion of his kingdom among you! At the 
 same time, however, 1 am charged, on the part of the Committee 
 of the British and Foreign Bible Society, to state to you, that we 
 have seen, with surprise and regret, that, in regard to this new 
 edition, you have not adhered to the fundamental law of the 
 Society, which enjoins that Bibles printed and circulated by it be 
 entirely without note or comment. Thus, in hastily looking 
 over the New Testament, we have met with several instances, in 
 which this leading principle of our Society is violated, e.g. it 
 page 89, 107, 138, 180,195, 199. 212,260. Weare, neverthe - 
 less, persuaded, that it was neither your intention, nor that cf 
 your learned fellow-labourers, to act in any respect contrary t> 
 
Al 
 
 the rules of the Bible Society; and we are convinced, that the 
 notes here complained of were not introduced for the purpose of 
 defending any particular tenets. We are of opinion, that you 
 conceived that short notes, which are forthe most part merely 
 explanatory, could not be objected to, or regarded as a violation 
 of our laws, and under that notion you have, as it were, by an 
 involuntary inadvertency, suffered yourselves to introduce them 
 into the sacred text. Still it is proper that I should inform you, 
 that it is the unanimous opinion of our Committee, that the 
 fundamental principle of our Societies has been contravened by 
 the insertion of the notes in question, and that you ought not to 
 have inserted a single one. Lastly, I am enjoined to request, 
 that in all the copies of your translations, which may be still 
 in your warehouse, you will have the goodness to cancel the 
 pages containing these observations or notes, or at least to 
 eradicate them in such a manner as you may judge best. Such 
 a measure appears to us to be the more necessary, as your 
 edition of the Bible is announced in the title-page, as having 
 been printed by the Bible Society of Lausanne. 
 I remain, &c. 
 C. F. A. STEINKOPFF. 
 
 Extracts of a Letter from Professor Levade, in Lausanne, to the 
 Foreign Secretary. 
 February 12, 1823. 
 
 Your letter most deeply affected me, and would have affected 
 me still more, if I had not been able to give you some explana- 
 tion, which may tend to exculpate me. I take God to witness 
 the sincerity of what 1 am about to say. No one understands 
 better than myself, the wisdom of your fundamental regulation. 
 A hundred times I have defended this principle by word of 
 mouth, and by writing, as my reports sufficiently testify. How 
 justly then have I deserved the reproaches of your respecta- 
 ble Committee! You will please to observe, that the work was 
 begun under my own eye; the first 160 pages were printed 
 without notes; I even had the marginal parallels suppressed, as 
 I considered that some passages might be indirectly commented 
 on by others, the propriety of which references might be disputed. 
 From the very first I opposed, in the strongest manner, the inser- 
 tion of the Apocryphal books; and I should have succeeded but 
 for the earnest wish of my brethren, at Neufchatel, for their 
 admission. From the introduction of the first* note, I had to 
 contend with my four fellow-labourers, who confidently main- 
 tained, that explanatory notes were not prohibited; and that 
 they were to be met with in the margin of the Bible Society’s 
 own authorised Bibles. To these arguments I too easily yielded: 
 
 * Note, upon Numb. xviii. 1. ‘‘ Vous serez responsables des péchés qui 
 se commettront dans le sanctuaire et dans le service divin, par votre 
 faute.” 
 
42 
 
 as it is a defect in my character to concede rather than maintain 
 my point. Advantage was thus taken of my defeat, to justify the 
 note in page 213,* and others. I often prevailed in obtaining 
 suppressions ; but in this state of continual struggle, after two or 
 three concessions had been made to me, I relaxed in other in- 
 stances. I continually appealed to the rule, but 1 sometimes met 
 with opposition, and a little temper. .... It was hinted 
 to me that I was alone against four...... At other times 
 it was objected, that our Bible would not go beyond the 
 limits of our three Cantons; that our brethren of Neufchatel, to 
 whom I sent all the sheets, never made any remarks on any one of 
 these notes, although well aware of the rule of the British and 
 Foreign Bible Society, and that the Secretary of the Bible 
 Society at Geneva, who had assisted us in some portions of the 
 work, had said nothing on the subject. My remonstrances con- 
 tinuing, they endeavoured to convince me that 1 only knew 
 the letter, not the spirit, of this regulation; which tended to 
 prevent controversies, to which commentaries might give rise. 
 I was compelled to use great discretion, being opposed to re- 
 spectable men, unsalaried labourers, whom I had had great trouble 
 in engaging in an enterprise of long continuance ; their zeal carried 
 me along; I avoided any thing that would interrupt our har- 
 mony ; certainly, I should have broken it if I had dared to say, 
 —<‘ IT command,” —*‘ I desire,” —‘‘ Submit to me.” 
 
 In September, 1818, I was deprived by death, of her who 
 had constituted the happiness of my life, and left Lausanne for 
 a time. At this juncture, Mr. Owen arrived in our city, and took 
 cognizance of the work which was proceeding in my absence. I 
 expected that having received at his inn all the printed sheets, and 
 assisted the labours of my four coadjutors, he would have made 
 some observations, to which more attention would have been 
 paid than to mine. On my return, my renewed complaints were 
 speedily silenced, by the assurance that Mr. Owen had made no 
 observation whatever, on the work submitted to his inspection. 
 I was therefore obliged to submit in silence, although I had reason 
 to believe, that this estimable man did not look for violations 
 of a rule which he never suspected had been infringed. How- 
 ever, in February or March, 1819, I took occasion to send 
 him a volume of the work, I believe as far as the book of Job, 
 which I thought it my duty to do, since he had left on the table 
 of his inn the shéets which he had asked for on his arrival. I 
 felt consoled by having sent them to him, as I never could be 
 reconciled to the notes, which were like so many lashes on my 
 back, while my friends only laughed at my scruples. I now re- 
 proach myself for not having accompanied the above volume with 
 a letter, explanatory of my motives in sending it. However, not- 
 withstanding the visits of several members of your Society, as the 
 Rev. Mr. Cunningham, Mr. Stuart, and I believe also General 
 
 * Note, upon Deut. xxvi. 14. ‘‘ Les idolatres faisoient des repas funébres 
 pour les morts, et apportoientdes offrandes sur leurs tombeaux.” 
 
43 
 
 Macaulay, and the entire publicity with which our labours were 
 carried on, I can declare, that my memory does not afford me a 
 single instance of any observation being made by those gentlemen 
 in reference to the notes; for, if that had been the case, it would 
 have been a support of which I should not have failed to avail 
 myself. I then began to imagine that I had gone too far in my 
 scruples, in continually making them suppress many notes, not 
 prohibited, but useless. 
 
 In the years 1819, 20, 21, and 22, | was absent two months 
 each year, at the Baths of Aix, Baden, and other places; and 
 had I noted dates relating to the portions of the work performed 
 in my absence, many more notes would be found inserted than 
 when I was present. I have, then, resisted, sometimes vigorously, 
 sometimes faintly, but 1 never laid down my arms; being fully 
 persuaded of the wisdom of the regulation. I may say, in vin- 
 dication of my friends, that they never thought they were violat- 
 ing the regulation; and they persisted to think that they under- 
 stood it better than me. They still continue in this error, and it 
 was only last Sunday that I communicated to the Committee 
 the letter of your Committee. 
 
 Let us now come to the point, my much esteemed brother. 
 The severe reproaches of your Committee, in their letter_of the 
 24th of January, are well founded and merited on my part. I 
 humble myself before you on account of the weakness of my 
 character, which, through an aversion to all literary, political, 
 and religious controversy, has kept me in peace with every 
 one; but has likewise led me to concede with too much 
 facility to the opinions of others, when proceeding from men of 
 worthy and religious character. What can be done in this dilemma? 
 The method proposed by your Society, of cancelling the pages in 
 which the notes are found, in such copies as are yet unsold, 
 appears to our printer very expensive, and would be attended with 
 great difficulty, 5,800 copies having been either sold or given away ; 
 nearly 200 are bound, and the rest are not likely to leave our 
 Canton. Geneva, Neufchatel, and the vallies of Piedmont, have 
 received their share; the only copies which have been sent out of 
 Switzerland amount to 225, which were ordered by the Bible 
 Society at Paris, and paid for at the reduced price, which the 
 clergy of our Canton pay, being seven francs, ten cents. The re- 
 maining copies are intended exclusively for the poor, as the 
 richer classes have had time enough to procure them. Allow me, 
 therefore, to submit the following propositions to the consideration 
 of your Committee, in order to prevent similar infringements for 
 the future. 
 
 First.—A public acknowledgment of my error, to be published 
 in your next Report, and ours, in whatever form your Committee 
 may think fit to prescribe, for having, through weakness, per- 
 mitted a violation of your Society’s rule. All the blame must rest 
 upon me; for, as I am on the point of soliciting three of my 
 fellow-labourers to undertake the correction of the Pentateuch, 
 for a projected second edition, in octavo, and for the correction of 
 some passages in other books, on which observations have been 
 
44 
 
 made; you will perceive, that if any blame be attached to 
 them, they will not be willing to render their assistance. 
 
 Second.—Should youy Society publicly disown our version, and 
 reclaim the £750 tit you have generously granted to this 
 undertaking, such a reclamation would be just; but then Geneva, 
 Neufchatel, and the Canton de Vaud, by their silence, having 
 participated in the fault, are also implicated. However, I take 
 the blame on myself, individually, for our Committee, and con- 
 sider myself indebted to your Society for the sum of £250, which 
 I am ready to pay whenever your Committee should appoint. 
 
 Third.—W ould your Committee wish a solemn engagement on 
 the part of our Society, that the next edition to be printed, after 
 revising the work, shall be strictly conformable to your regula- 
 tions, and that the slightest deviation, shall be followed by a 
 forfeit of £500 to your Society? Command, direct, we are 
 wrong; I have only to request that all the blame may fall upon 
 myself; and that for reasons which you will understand; haying 
 had need of my associates, and their labours to assist in perfecting 
 the work in hand. 
 
 Could it have been expected that he,—who, as every body 
 knows, at the age of seventy-four, consecrates nearly all his 
 powers, his time, and no inconsiderable portion of money, to the 
 promotion of Bible Societies; who delights in no reading except 
 that which is connected with his labours ; who, overburthened with 
 employment, has lately requested and obtained leave of his go- 
 vernment to resign his situation of a Professor in the Academy, 
 and to divide his salary with an Assistant, for the sole purpose of 
 being wholly devoted to his adopted child the Bible Society of 
 the Canton de Vaud, his exclusive delight ;—that he, who has 
 made his home a warehouse of bound Bibles, which he sells, one 
 by one, at different prices, every hour;—that he, who is solely 
 responsible for the correspondence, for the accounts of purchases 
 and sales of 10,000 copies of the Bible, frequently with the 
 packing and the care of binding them, of the writing out bills, 
 and the receipts of money to be carried to the funds; who keeps 
 the Secretary’s book, and who has the examination of all appli- 
 cations for grants, and is authorised to give or sell copies at one, 
 two, three, four, or five shillings, according to circumstances,— 
 could it have been believed that he could have given just cause 
 of offence to that Committee, who are his generous benefactors, 
 and to whom he owes the purest enjoyments of his life? 
 
 I must add here, (for an accused person is ingenious in his own 
 defence,) that, by an unfortunate fatality, not one of the numerous 
 letters of your Society, contains a word respecting the sine qua 
 non condition. This may seem strange from one who is so well ac- 
 quainted with that condition to which he has referred, and which 
 he has even explained and paraphrased at length, in the 32nd 
 page of his First Report; but it is no less true, that one word by 
 which he might have been reminded, would have given addi- 
 tional vigour to his resistance in opposing his associates. 
 
 I forgot to mention, that besides the 10,000 Bibles, we have had 
 500 New Testaments printed in quarto, and 3,000 in octavo, of 
 
45 
 
 our version, which are more than half disposed of. By the aid of 
 the Academical Council, we are endeavouring to introduce them 
 into all the schools. 
 
 I have written this letter in the bitterness of my soul; get 
 your Committee to excuse its disorder and lengthiness ; but [cannot 
 copy it. If I should obtain a sort of absolution by means of the 
 conditions which I offer, I shall feel bold enough to go to England 
 in July or August, to make the amende honorable for my faults 
 before your Committee. 
 
 IT remain, &c. 
 LEVADE. 
 
 At a Meeting of the Committee, held March 3, 
 1823 ;— 
 
 “The following communications were pre- 
 sented, and referred to the Sub-Committee, for 
 printing and general purposes. 
 
 From Professor Levade, dated, Lausanne, 
 February 12, 1823. 
 
 SCE. SE: 
 
 At a Meeting of the Sub-Committee, held 
 March 20, 1823 :— 
 
 “Read a letter from Professor Levade, of Lau- 
 sanne, dated February 12, 1823, referred to the 
 Sub-Committee ; in which he explains the circum- 
 stances that led to the deviation from the principle 
 of this Society in the French quarto Bible com- 
 plained of by the Committee of this Society on the 
 twentieth of January last. 
 
 ‘‘ Resolved, that the Lausanne Bible Society 
 be informed, that the principle in question 
 must in future be rigidly adhered to, agreeably 
 to the communication forwarded in pursuance 
 of the minute above-mentioned.” 
 
 Ata Meeting of the Committee, held March 24, 
 1823: 
 
 ‘The Minutes of the Printing Sub-Committee 
 of the 20th instant were read .and confirmed.” 
 
46 
 
 From the Foreign Secretary, to the Rev. Dr. Levade, President 
 of the Bible Society of the Canton de Vaud. 
 
 London, March 31, 1823. 
 
 I have received your letters of the 31st of January, and 12th 
 of February. The very open and candid manner in which you 
 stated the circumstances which led to a deviation from the funda- 
 mental rule of the British and Foreign Bible Society, and the 
 deep regret you expressed on this account, produced a most 
 favourable impression on the minds of all the Members of our 
 Committee who were present at the meeting, held the 20th 
 instant, and led them to adopt the most lenient resolution which 
 they could, a copy of which you will find on the other side. At 
 the same time, our Committee confidently expect, that should you 
 proceed to another edition of the Bible, the most conscientious 
 and strict adherence to the fundamental rules of our Society will 
 be observed. If in your quarto Bible such passages only had 
 occurred, as in Judges, xviii. 12, where the Hebrew term 
 Mahanédan, is explained in a note by a literal translation of the 
 same in French, le campement de Dan, or such passages only, as 
 in Judges, xi. 31, and 40, where a different rendering of the same 
 passage is added; namely, instead of 
 
 “¢ et je Voffrirai en holocauste, 
 “¢ ow je Voffrirai en holocauste,” 
 
 no complaints would ever have been made on the part of our 
 Society. But when we discovered in your edition passages such 
 as are contained in pages 334, 522, 523, 662, 671,672; or in the 
 prophetical books, pages 8, 15, 46, 66, 68; or in the New Tes- 
 tament, pages 199, 260, and many others; you will at once 
 allow that they are, to all intents and purposes, notes and com- 
 ments ; and that their insertion is a direct violation of the simple 
 principle of our Institution. The longer we advance in our great 
 work, the more we become convinced, that a dereliction of the 
 simple object and plan of the Bible Society, would soon prove 
 its entire ruin and destruction. Odsita principiis. 
 I remain, &c. 
 C. F. A. STEINKOPFF. 
 
 Extract from the Eighth Report of the Bible Society for the 
 Canton de Vaud, 1823. 
 
 The Bible Society for the Canton de Vaud was called 
 upon by Providence to improve the French version of the 
 Bible: after an uninterrupted labour of four years, with the 
 approval of the Society of Neufchatel, and by the assistance of 
 its remarks, it published, in 1822, an edition of the Bible, con- 
 sisting of 10,000 copies in quarto, This version, which, is now 
 
47 
 
 in your hands, was presented to the public without any degree of 
 presumption, as being less imperfect, and more intelligible, than 
 translations could well be, which were corrected more than a 
 century ago; on the ground that four clergymen of literary ta- 
 lents, who undertook the work, availed themselves of the re- 
 searches of learned English orientalists, and of various German, 
 Latin, and French writings, which did not exist at the time when 
 Martin, and after him Ostervald, endeavoured to amend the old 
 version of Olivetan, published in 1535. We may this day 
 assert, that the honourable and numerous testimonies of all 
 classes of readers, added to the circulation of more than 6000 
 copies in the course of one year, have done justice to the fidelity 
 of more than 50,000 corrections, in orthography, grammar, and 
 interpretation. It must not, however, be lost sight of, that a 
 Book which has descended to us from the remotest antiquity, 
 and which, in the thirteenth century, was (at the risk of inter- 
 rupting the intimate connexion of its contents) divided into 51,173 
 portions or verses, for the convenience of readers or interpreters, 
 may still require many corrections; it is in full confidence of re- 
 ceiving such observations on this subject, as may be hereafter 
 communicated to the Society, that it contemplates publishing 
 another edition, which, it trusts, will be still less imperfect than 
 the present. 
 
 Of the number of Bibles issued from our warehouse, about 
 3000 have been forwarded to Geneva and Neufchatel, 225 to 
 Paris, 50 to Bern, and 352 into the valliesof Piedmont. More 
 than 2000 have been circulated in our own Canton, the greatest 
 proportion of which have been distributed among the abodes of 
 poverty, at prices considerably under the cost price. If, on the one 
 hand, we have discovered, with extreme regret, the great waut of 
 Bibles among many families in our Canton, notwithstanding the 
 circulation of many thousand copies during the space of seven 
 years, by the exertions of the Bible Society, it has, on the other 
 hand, afforded us the liveliest pleasure, to witness the ample 
 contributions made by several parishes, with a view of providing 
 among themselves against this famine of the bread and word 
 of life. 
 
 The Bible Societies have been influenced by profound 
 wisdom, in confining themselves to the circulation of the 
 Bible without comments, and in the form in which God in his 
 wisdom has revealed it to mankind. The motto of the Societies 
 is to be readily found in the words of St. Paul, 1 Cor. xi. 16. 
 «« If any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom.” 
 
 ——— 
 
 Extract from the Ninth Report of the Bible Society for the Canton 
 de Vaud, 1824. 
 
 Let us now direct our attention to the Bible Society for the 
 Canton de Vaud, The founder had three objects in view; and the 
 
48 
 
 means he has pursued, have been uniformly directed to their 
 attainment. His primary object was, with the blessing of God, 
 to see all, families and individuals, in a Canton containing a 
 population of 160,000 persons, furnished with a Bible in their 
 dwellings. This purpose is doubtless yet far from being accom- 
 plished, although it may be asserted, that since the commence- 
 ment of the Society, in 1815, more than 6,000 Bibles, and a still 
 greater number of New Testaments, have been disposed of, either 
 gratuitously, or far below the trade price. The Committee judge, 
 from credible information, that 10,000 more Bibles might be 
 dispersed in the Canton. This may appear an exaggerated state- 
 ment, especially considering that more than one half of the 
 families possessed the Sacred Scriptures before the formation of 
 the Society; but in making our calculations, besides families in 
 the strictest sense, we include artizans, unmarried labourers, and 
 solitary widowers and widows, beside male and female servants, 
 many of whom live in families who are not in the practice of 
 family worship, and where the master’s Bible is not accessible to 
 the domestics. 
 
 The second object proposed by the founder, was, to insure the 
 permanence of this provision of Bibles, by creating a capital, the 
 interest of which might supply the annual demand occasioned by 
 an increasing population, and the wear and accidental destruction 
 of copies of the Scriptures. The administration of this capital 
 would necessarily involve the existence of a Bible Society; to 
 disperse to the different parishes the benefits arising from an 
 unalienable fund, it appeared to him necessary to give this 
 permanency to the Institution, in order to keep alive that 
 religious feeling which must ever be more or less the principle of 
 action in every description of Bible Societies. The founder con- 
 sequently resolved on the gradual formation of a capital, com- 
 posed of grants for this special purpose from the different 
 parishes, of the contributions of travellers from distant parts, 
 and of legacies bequeathed to the Society, while the contributions 
 of benevolent persons, and of the different parishes, should be 
 reimbursed at once, and to the full amount, in Bibles and 
 Testaments. It was also decided, that the annual interest of this 
 increasing capital should be applied towards the expense of 
 printing the Reports, which are gratuitously distributed, and 
 to assist the poorer parishes and individuals by gifts of the Holy 
 Scriptures. We should have nearly attained this object, namely, 
 of realizing a capital of 2,000 Louis d’Or, which was judged 
 a sufficient sum, were not the Society retarded by a stock of 
 Bibles and Testaments, to the value of 1,000 Louis d’Or, and by 
 the rent of a warehouse, and the salary of a warehouseman. 
 
 The third object was, undoubtedly, the most difficult of attain- 
 ment, yet even this is now on the point of being accomplished. 
 I allude to the revision and correction of Ostervald’s version, 
 in usein the Cantons of Neufchatel and Vaud. The pastors, Martin, 
 and subsequently, Ostervald, had revised and corrected, after the 
 Pastors of the church of Geneva, the obsolete text of the old ver- 
 sion of Olivetan, in order, as Martin asserts, in his Preface, ‘to 
 
49 
 
 render its perusal more intelligible and agreeable ;” but, after the 
 lapse of a century, the present revision had become necessary ; 
 Martin having published his Bible in 1707, and Ostervald’s last re- 
 vision having been made in 1744. Neither of these had the courage 
 - to undertake the complete correction of the text, by comparing it 
 verse by verse, with the originals; this arduous task has now been 
 uninterruptedly pursued, during four years, by four indefatigable 
 fellow-labourers ; who, sensible that, notwithstanding all the care 
 they have bestowed ona work of such vast importance, much must 
 still remain to be revised and improved ; have solicited the aid of 
 any observations which might be addressed to them from the mem- 
 bers of the Societies in London and Paris, and of some learned 
 Orientalists ; intending, with the assistance of Mr. Dufournet, 
 Professor of the Hebrew language and Antiquities at the 
 Academy at Lausanne, to continue the correction of Ostervald’s 
 version, so as to be ready, as soon as the first edition is exhausted, 
 to demonstrate the care with which they have endeavoured to 
 profit by the suggestions they have received.* 
 
 * “The Committee have read, with much interest, the honourable, and I 
 may venture to add, the well-deserved testimony bestowed by the highly- 
 respected and learned Doctors and Clergymen of Montbeillard, on their 
 work of correcting the old versions of the Bible, undertaken by four mem- 
 bers of the Academy, and of the Clergy of the Canton de Vaud, assisted by 
 the talents of the Professors and Pastors of Neufchatel. Among the rest, 
 they observe :—‘ This new revision of Ostervald will have the unanimous 
 approbation of the Consistories ; the Clergy of the Committee, and many 
 other Ministers, who have examined it, approve of the alterations made by 
 the Societies of Lausanne and Neufchatel, as being more conformable with 
 the original.’ To this, we add the testimony of the Protestant Bible Society 
 at Paris,* which asserts that the reputation of the Lausanne version begins 
 to be established in different parts of France ; a desire has been manifested 
 to obtain it; and in some places, an inclination has been evinced to give it 
 a preference over other French translations.” 
 
 * Paris Bulletin, November 19, 1823. 
 
 b 
 
30 
 
 A partial quotation having appeared from the Introduction 
 to the Apocrypha in the Lausanne Bible of 1822, as constituting 
 “‘ The Preface ;”—the whole of the Preface is here subjoined; the 
 passage thus partially quoted being printed in Italics. 
 
 Préface des Livres Apocryphes. 
 
 Le mot Apocryphe signifie caché, inconnu. C’est le nom que 
 
 Von donne a des livres dont l’autorité n’est point reconnue comme 
 
 ’ divine, pour les distinguer de ceux qu’on appelle Canoniques, 
 parce qu’ils sont compris dans le Canon ou catalogue des Livres 
 Sacrés de l’Ancien Testament. 
 
 Nous ne regardons pas ces livres comme canoniques, parce 
 que les Juifs ne les ont point mis au nombre des livres reconnus 
 pour étre divins; parce que Jesus-Christ et ses Apédtres ne les 
 ont point cités; parce qu’ils ont tous été ecrits depuis que Dieu 
 eut cessé de susciter des Prophétes en Israél; parce que les 
 auteurs de ces livres sont restés inconnus; enfin, parce qu’on y 
 trouve des choses contraires 4 ce qui est contenu dans les livres 
 canoniques, et qui ne permettent pas de les attribuer 4 des hommes 
 inspirés par le Saint-Esprit. , 
 
 Si nous les placons ici @ la suite des Livres de lV Ancien et du 
 Nouveau Testament, c’est pour nous conformer @ un usage suivi 
 jusqwa présent ; usage fondé sur Vexemple des Juifs eux-mémes, 
 qui les placérent comme des livres instructifs et moraux, a la 
 suite de lewrs livres canoniques, dans la version Grecque dite des 
 Sepiante, de laquelle ils se servirent communément depuis que 
 la langue Hebraique eut cessé de leur étre familiére ; cet exemple 
 fut imité par les Chrétiens dés les premiers siécles de V Eglise. 
 En effet, quoique l'on ne puisse pas citer ces Livres comme une 
 régle en matiere de foi, ils peuvent servir a@ Vinstruction et a 
 Pedification des fideéles; quelques-uns nous i e des beaux 
 exemples de vertu et de piété; les Livres de la Sapience et de 
 VEcclésiastique fournissent d’excellentes legons de morale pour 
 tous les états dans les diverses circonstances de la vie, et l’on 
 trouve dans les Livres Historiques la suite de Histoire des 
 Juifs, et les destinées de ce peuple depuis la captivité; période 
 trés-intéressante. Ces Livres n’ont pas été ecrits en Hébreu 
 comme les Livres de l’ Ancien Testament, mais en Grec. 
 
 Preface to the Apocryphal Books. 
 
 The word Apocrypha signifies concealed, unknown. It is the 
 name which is given to books the authority of which is not ac- 
 knowledged as being divine, in order to distinguish them from 
 those which are called canonical, on account of their being 
 comprised in the Canon, or catalogue of the sacred books of the 
 Old Testament. 
 
ol 
 
 We do not regard these books as canonical, because the Jews 
 did not include them in the number of those books acknowledged 
 to be divine; because Jesus Christ and his Apostles did not 
 quote them; because they were all written after God had 
 ceased to raise up prophets in Israel; because the authors of 
 these books have remained unknown; lastly, because things are 
 found in them contrary to what is contained in the canonical 
 books, and which do not allow us to attribute them to men in- 
 spired by the Holy Ghost. 
 
 If we place them here, after the books of the Old and New Tes- 
 tament, we do so in eonformity with a usage followed down to the 
 present day; a usage grounded on the example of the Jews them- 
 selves, who placed them, as instructive and moral books, after their 
 canonical books, in the Greek version, called the Septuagint, of 
 which they generally availed themselves, after the Hebrew language 
 had ceased to be familiar to them ; this example was imitated by 
 Christians, from the first ages of the church. In fact, although 
 these books cannot be quoted as a rule, in a matter of faith, they may 
 be made use ef for the instruction and edification of the faithful ; 
 some of them exhibit to us beautiful examples of virtue and piety ; 
 the books of Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus afford excellent moral 
 lessons for all classes under the various circumstances of life ; 
 and in the historical books we trace the continuation of the 
 history of the Jews, and the fate of that people subsequent to 
 the captivity, during a highly interesting period. These books 
 were not written in Hebrew, like the books of the Old Testa- 
 ment, but in Greek. 
 
 THE END. 
 
The Committee of the BririsH AND FoREIGN 
 BisLeE Socrery deeply regret the errors that 
 have been brought under their notice in the 
 Lausanne edition of the Holy Scriptures, and 
 they have REsoLVED that the subject shall pass 
 under the early review of a Sub-Committee spe- 
 
 cially appointed for that purpose. 
 
 a 
 PRINTED BY J. S» HUGHES, 66, PATERNOSTER ROW. 
 
 a 
 
a THE SIXTEENTH 
 
 ANNUAL REPORT 
 
 OF THE 
 
 GLASGOW 
 
 AUXILIARY BIBLE SOCIETY: 
 
 M.DCCC.XXVIII. 
 
 LIST OF SUBSCRIBERS. 
 
 GLASGOW: 
 PRINTED BY EDWARD KHULL & SON; 
 
 AND SOLD AT THE SOCIETY'S DEPOSITORY, 11, SOUTH FREDERICE STREET ; 
 -B¥ WARDLAW & CO. GLASSFORD STREET ; WILLIAM COLLINS, 37, WILSON STREET ; 
 
 AND BY ALL THE BOOKSELLERS. 
 
 1829. 
 
OFFICE-BEARERS. 
 
 restdent, 
 
 * Kk F 
 
 Gice-Jrestients. 
 
 JOHN MAXWELL, Esq., M.P. 
 
 WILLIAM CUNNINGHAM, Esq. of LainsHaw, 
 
 JAMES EWING, Esq. 
 ANDREW MITCHELL, Esq. 
 
 Committee of Hanagement. 
 
 Rey. Robert Brodie, 
 Dr. Dick, 
 Greville Ewing, 
 Valentine Ward, 
 William Kidston, 
 A. O. Beattie, 
 Robert Muter, 
 Dr. Mitchell, 
 George Almond, 
 Gavin Struthers, 
 William Anderson, 
 John Macfarlane, 
 William Ney, 
 James Ewing, 
 Messrs. William Kelly, Junior, 
 James Wright, 
 William Collins, 
 William M‘Gavin, 
 George Melville, 
 John Robertson. 
 
 Messrs. William Penman, 
 
 Richard Thompson, 
 John Downie, 
 William Wardlaw, 
 Archibald Bayne, 
 Archibald Fullarton, 
 James Somerville, 
 
 J. E. Henderson, 
 Matthew Anderson, « 
 Robert Thom, 
 Patrick Lethem, 
 Robert Walker, 
 William Cassils, 
 William Cochran, 
 John Cochran, Junior, 
 David Anderson, 
 John Watson, Junior, 
 Patrick Black, 
 
 John Penman. 
 
 *,* All Ministers of the Gospel, and Pastors of Churches, who are 
 Members of the Society, are considered, ex officiis, as Members of 
 
 the Committee. 
 
 Creasurer. 
 
 THOMAS MITCHELL, Esa. 
 MitrcHeLL STREET. 
 
 Decretary, 
 
 Rey. Dr. WARDLAW, 
 West REGENT STREET. 
 
EDITIONS OF THE SCRIPTURES, 
 ON SALE TO SUBSCRIBERS, 
 
 Art tHE Derrosirory oF THE GLAscow Avuxitiary Bistz Society, 
 
 11, Sourn Freprrick Srreer, 
 
 NV. B. It is requested, that orders for Bibles and Testaments , 
 from Institutions connected with the Society, be sent, in the 
 first instance, to the Secretary or Clerk. 
 
 ENGLISH BIBLES. 
 Printed by the King’s Printer in Scotland. 
 
 Prices. 
 No. Sen idle 
 1. Small Pica, Royal 8vo. Bible, calf, hollow-back : 12 6 
 2. Brevier Bible, 8vo. with marginal references, b bound in calf 8 10 
 3. Ditto ditto, sheep 8 0 
 4. Nonpareil Bible, 12mo. calf : - - 3,0 
 5. Ditto, sheep 2 6 
 6. Ditto, 24mo. calf 4 0 
 a Ditto, sheep 3.7 
 8. Pearl Bible, 24mo. calf : ie 
 io Ditto, sheep : 2 10 
 ENGLISH TESTAMENTS. 
 10. Pica, 8vo. calf, fine 4 0 
 Ee Ditto, sheep, fine 3 4 
 12, Brevier, 12mo. calf eG 
 13 Ditto, sheep, 1 3 
 14. Ditto, . cloth Wis 
 15. Minion, 24mo. calf LONG 
 16 Ditto, sheep : : “bere Boe 
 17. Pearl, small 24mo. calf : : : f 5 110 
 18. Ditto, sheep 168 
 GAELIC BIBLES. 
 
 Costs Price to 
 the Subscri- 
 
 Society. bers, 
 SuURCeN mush ds 
 Burgeois Bible, 8vo. calf : . ‘ : : 76 4 9 
 
 Nonpareil Bible, calf _. : ‘ : : ° 4 8 3 0 
 
4 
 
 GAELIC TESTAMENTS. 
 
 Costs 
 the 
 Society 
 & ae 
 Nonpareil Testament, calf 2 3 
 Ditto “sheep ° : . Pee 
 Pica Testament, 8vo. calf ; : - - p 4 3 
 Ditto, sheep 3°°3 
 : WELSH. 
 Nonpareil Bible, 12mo. : - : : : - 4 0 
 Brevier Testament, 12mo. sheep Ls 
 MANKS. 
 Brevier Testament, 12mo, sheep 3 y 5 1 10 
 FRENCH. 
 Nonpareil Bible, 12mo. calf (Ostervald) - (848 
 Brevier Testament, 12mo. sheep ( Ostervald or de ‘Sacy) 270 
 SPANISH. 
 Burgeois Bible, 8vo- (Scio) calf _. : : F 8 0 
 Testaments, 12mo. sheep : . - . : 2 0 
 PORTUGUESE. 
 Long Primer Testament, 8vo. os aa : ; ~ 2 9 
 DUTCH. 
 Burgeois Bible, 8vo. calf - : : : 7.16 
 Burgeois Testament, sheep - : : . : 29 
 ITALIAN. 
 Burgeois Bible (Martini) 8vo. calf 3 <i QENO 
 Testament, 12mo. calf . : h aS AS 
 GERMAN. 
 Bible, 8vo. calf _- A : : : : 2 ROMIG 
 GREEK. 
 Modern Long Primer Testament, 8vo. sheep 3 0 
 Ditto, with the Ancient Greek i in Parallel Golanink, 
 small 8vo. calf : 5 0 
 SYRIAG. 
 New Testament, crown 4to. calf 3 , “ «(i leone 
 
 Price to 
 Subscri- 
 bers. 
 
 NWR eS 
 he 
 
 mm OO 
 o 
 
 me Or 
 i) 
 
 ht 
 f->) 
 
 12 6 
 
SPECIMEN OF THE TYPES 
 
 OF 
 
 SCOTTISH PRINTED BIBLES AND TESTAMENTS. 
 
 BIBLES. 
 
 wee 
 
 SMALL PICA, Royal 8vo. 
 
 7 gq How beautiful upon 
 the mountains are the feet of 
 him that bringeth good tid- 
 ings, that publisheth peace; 
 that bringeth good tidings 
 of good, that publisheth sal- 
 vation; that saith unto Zion, 
 
 Thy God reigneth! 
 
 BREVIER, 8vo. 
 With Marginal References. 
 
 7 ¥ How beautiful upon the moun- 
 tains are the feet of him that bringeth 
 good tidings, that publisheth peace ; 
 that bringeth good tidings of good, 
 that publisheth salvation; that saith 
 unto Zion, Thy God reigneth ! 
 
 we. ee ene re 
 
 NONPAREIL, 12mo. 
 
 7 7 How beautiful upon the mountains 
 are the feet of him that bringeth good tid- 
 ings, that publisheth peace; that bringeth 
 good tidings of good, that publisneth sal- 
 vation; that saith unto Zion, Thy God 
 reigneth ! 
 
 NONPAREIL, 24mo. 
 
 7 ¥ How beautiful upon the 
 mountains are the feet of him that 
 bringeth good tidings, that pub- 
 lisheth peace ; that bringeth good 
 tidings of good, that publisheth 
 salvation; that saith unto Zion, 
 Thy God reigneth! 
 
 OOOO ELLIE LOLOL DOLLOP BLO PL DLL PLO OL OLDE OLDIES 
 PEARL, 24mo. 
 
 7 { How beautiful upon the mountains 
 are the feet of him that bringeth good 
 tidings, that publisheth peace; that 
 bringeth good tidings of good, that pub- 
 lisheth salvation; that saith unto Zion, 
 Thy God reigneth! 
 
 TESTAMENTS. 
 PICA, 8vo. 
 
 13 And the sea gave 
 up the dead which were 
 in it; and death and hell 
 delivered up the dead 
 which were in them: and 
 they were judged every 
 man according to their 
 works. 
 
 BREVIER, 12mo. 
 
 13 And the sea gave up the dead 
 which were in it; and death and hell 
 delivered up the dead which were in 
 them: and they were judged every 
 man according to their works. 
 
 MINION, 18mo. 
 
 13 And the sea gave up the dead 
 which were in it; and death and hell 
 delivered up the dead which were in 
 them: and they were judged every 
 man according to their works. 
 
 PEARL, Small 24mo. ~ 
 
 13 And the sea gave up the dead which 
 were in it; and death and hell delivered up 
 the dead which were in them: and they 
 were judged every man according to their 
 works. 
 
MINUTES OF THE 
 
 SIXTEENTH ANNUAL MEETING. 
 
 Guascow, Dec. 23d, 1828. 
 
 Tuis Evening, agreeably to previous advertisement, the Sixteenth 
 Annual Meeting of the GLascow Auxitiary Bisie Society was held 
 in George Street Chapel, 
 
 Joun Maxwett, Esq. M. P. in the Chair. 
 
 The Annual Report having been read by the Secretary, the following 
 Resolutions were moved, seconded, and unanimously adopted. 
 
 I. Moved by the Rev. Dr. Mitchell, and seconded by the Rey. John 
 Macfarlane :-— 
 
 “ That the Report now read be adopted, printed, and circulated, 
 under the direction of the Committee.” 
 
 II. Moved by the Rev- Robert Muter, seconded by Mr. Wm. 
 M‘Gavin :-— 
 
 “That this Meeting most sincerely regret the divisions that have 
 recently prevailed in the prosecution of the great cause of Bible circula- 
 tion; and fondly cherish the desire and the hope of restored union and 
 co-operation among all the friends of revealed truth.” 
 
 III. Moved by the Rev. Dr. Wardlaw, seconded by the Rey. V- 
 Ward :— 
 
 “ That this Meeting publicly repeat their decided hostility to Apocry- 
 phal, and attachment to pure circulation; and that they conceive them- 
 selves fully warranted in continuing their connexion with the British 
 and Foreign Bible Society, as maintaining a faithful adherence to the 
 Resolutions by which the former is finally relinquished. 
 
 IV. Moved by the Rev. Mr. Beattie, seconded by the Rev. Mr. 
 Brodie :— 
 
 “ That this Meeting are sensible that the great cause of Bible Societies 
 is entitled to a deeper interest in their heart’s desires than it has ever 
 hitherto had; and that they sincerely wish God-speed to all institutions 
 ' by which that cause is purely and efficiently promoted ; especially to 
 that still noble Institution to which all the rest have owed their origin.” 
 
 V. Moved by the Rey. Mr. Marshall (of Kirkintilloch), seconded by 
 Mr. Nathaniel Stevenson :— 
 
 “ That the adoption by the American Bible Society of the anti-apo- 
 cryphal laws of the British and Foreign Bible Society, and the favour- 
 able reception, though as yet very partial, of the principles of pure 
 circulation on the continent of Europe and elsewhere, afford matter of 
 
7 
 
 pleasing congratulation ; and are hailed by this Meeting, as the prelude 
 to the universal exclusion, in due time, of all contaminating mixtures 
 from the Sacred Oracles of Divine truth.” 
 
 VI. Moved by the Rev. Mr. Almond, seconded by Mr. Anthony 
 Wigham :— 
 
 “ That the following be the list of Office-bearers for, the ensuing 
 year” (see list on 2d page). 
 
 It was then moved by Mr. Andrew Mitchell, and carried by unani- 
 mous acclamation, “ that the cordial thanks of the Meeting be given to 
 Mr. Maxwell, for the kind, able, gentlemanly, and Christian manner in 
 which he has conducted the business of the evening”—to which vote 
 the Chairman replied in a high?y appropriate concluding address. 
 
‘ ~ 
 
 a 
 
 ' »lyeriariey wd ©8, yin 1. eee 0 behing MARRY 
 erie nae! 2 Pratik 1 (oh Se with» eee wer 
 ‘ . J. Spey gageaml ies 
 
 it 
 . Ate Ree 
 i ST eS : pe te Ss 2 i : 
 a ee. TT ba Ener ae ae 
 
 " 4h i.) i y Oy 
 . snebh ea por % ' iit ¥ 
 Weel) rt Bh: Rh Sas 
 * Mit * w * 
 | Tea oC ie ped 
 Mae ia fijeely heh A 
 °) Lee 
 hen De 
 a a ‘ 
 
 = | o 
 7 is rf Mi eT ay tia 
 § . 
 ) VET qT ‘ 
 7 - fo a ' 
 ¥ 
 4 i = 
 : 2 1 , " 
 > 5 i i 
 , : 
 ‘ 
 - , 
 4 ) . 
 gnns ‘ 
 y 
 ee : 
 « 
 ¥ ‘ 
 y 
 ! 
 : . 
 eae , 
 ad J | an 
 ’ 
 be “ 43 om 4 
 ' » 
 - = 
 ane i 
 ke i | 
 a 
 ' 
 DY adh > hae 
 
SIXTEENTH 
 
 ANNUAL REPORT. 
 
 eee 
 
 Your Committee will commence their Annual Report 
 with a simple statement of their funds, and of the issues 
 of the Scriptures during the past year. 
 
 The amount of their pecuniary receipts, they are happy 
 to say, has turned out more favourably than at last anni- 
 versary, considering the state of the public mind, they 
 -could venture to anticipate. The preceding year from 
 Nov. 1826 to Nov. 1827 had presented the rather dis- 
 couraging sum of £65 2s. 2d.:—on which they find the 
 Committee of that year remarking :—“ Your Committee 
 will henceforward, as circumstances may direct, extend 
 their solicitations. It will give them pleasure, if they 
 shall so far find favour with the public as to realize their 
 wishes; and should it for a time be otherwise, they will 
 satisfy themselves if they obtain the simple commendation 
 bestowed on her, the memorial of whose love and liberality 
 stands recorded in the words of the Saviour; ‘ She hath 
 done what she could; and, persevering in this course, 
 they will hope for a progressive enlargement.”—The 
 amount for the year now closed will show that the expec- 
 tations thus modestly expressed were far from being over 
 sanguine. ‘The following is the statement of your Treas- 
 urer. 
 
 B 
 
10 
 
 The Treasurer of the Glasgow Auxiliary Bible Society. 
 
 Dr. 
 To Cash on hand last year . + . £29 4 113 
 To Collections at Public Meetings : : 13 Si 8s 
 To Amount of Subscriptions and Donations 2 142 6 5 
 To Do. received from Associations, &c. 4 13358) 70 
 To Do. Do. for sales of Bibles and Extracts A 16 7 33 
 £33415 43 
 To Interest on this Account - . - - 112 5 
 £336 7 93 
 Cr. 
 By remitted to the Parent Society - 7 £137 0 0 
 By paid for Bibles, &c. : 5 - 6 te 16-0 
 By Printing and Advertising : - : 43 0 0 
 By Legacy Duty and Stamp : . 2 alyell 
 By Poundage for collecting Sica . 1 .6).6 
 By Rent of Institution house 3 half years - 22 10 O 
 By Repairs on Depository 2 - 3 ‘ 214 0 
 By Carriage, Postages, and Stamps 3 : 715 14 
 By Expenses of Public Meetings : : : 4 4.3 
 £294 6 113 
 By Cash on hand . : cs : c 42 0 103 
 £336 7 93 
 
 Examined and found correct, the balance in the Treasurer’s hands 
 being Forty-two Pounds and Tenpence farthing. 
 
 (Signed) N. STEVENSON 
 Arca, Bayne. 
 
 An increase your Committee did expect: but an in- 
 crease approaching to five times the amount of the 
 former year’s income they did not look for; and they 
 cannot but regard it as affording an indication of that 
 gradual return of a favourable disposition in the public 
 mind towards the British and Foreign Bible Society, 
 which they confidently believed would in due time take 
 place, but which they hardly dared to flatter themselves 
 was likely to be rapid. They trust that by the subse- 
 
TE 
 
 quent statements of the present Report it will be effectu- 
 ally helped forward. 
 
 In consequence of the existence of two Societies, and 
 the consequent division between them of the supply of 
 local wants, your committee have not, of course, the same 
 variety and extent of issues from your Depository to 
 bring before you as in days of yore. The following 
 statement will show what has been done in this depart- 
 ment. 
 
 Issued from the Depository of the Glasgow Auxiliary Bible Society 
 from 6th November 1827, till 17th December, 1828. 
 
 Bibles. Tests. 
 
 To Thomas Houston, per Mr. Wm. Boyd t : 1 
 
 Mary Watt, per Rev. Dr. Wardlaw #3 . is 
 
 Mary Brownside, per Do. : 1 
 
 Mark Macfarlane, per Mr. Daniel M‘Donald | 1 
 
 Wesleyan Bible Association s : 2 TRS? 187 
 
 Poor Persons, per Mr. Joseph M‘Gregor, Dumbarton 1 1 
 
 A poor woman, per Rev. Mr. Tait, Barrhead 4 1 
 
 Mrs. Ross, per Mr. George Gallie : : = 1 
 
 Hugh Paulson, per Mr. James M‘Clure - 3 1 
 
 Mr. Richard Cartwright, for his Sabbath School 20 40 
 
 Mr. M‘Lean, Tirree , b 5 A z ; 4 6 
 
 Rey. Alex. Mackay, Arran . - 6 24 - 
 
 Miss B. Maclean, Drimfin 0 48 
 
 Poor Person, per Mr. William Wardlaw 1 
 
 Donald M‘Innes, per Rev. Dr. Wardlaw : 1 
 
 Bridewell, per Mr. John Muir : , : 36 48 
 
 A poor Woman, per Mr. John Robertson 0 1 
 
 Rey. Mr. Campbell, Tarbolton < : : 6 6 
 Sold to Individuals - : - ; : - 32 49 
 
 Total 251 410 
 
 Your Committee abstain from any comment on the 
 different items of this statement, to leave room for topics 
 of more comprehensive and fundamental importance, on 
 
 *In these are included 23 Bibles and 3 Testaments, which were 
 wrong delivered and lost. 
 
12 
 
 which they feel it incumbent upon them to enter some-. 
 what into detail. 
 
 Before proceeding to these, they have only further to 
 state, that although the proposal of an effort being made 
 to resuscitate old and to institute new associations in con- 
 nexion with this Auxiliary has been repeatedly under 
 consideration, it has not been deemed advisable to make 
 the attempt, till time and information might bring the 
 public mind to such a state of settlement as to afford a 
 greater likelihood of success; your committee being satis- 
 fied that delay, though usually dangerous, is, in some 
 instances, the clear dictate of prudence. 
 
 The office of President has been left in the mean time 
 vacant :—but it has given your Committee a pleasure in 
 which they anticipate the cordial sympathy of their con- 
 stituents, that they have been able to add to the list of 
 Vice-presidents the name of John Maxwell, Esq. M. P. 
 younger of Pollok. 
 
 Your last year’s Committee concluded their Report in 
 the following terms :—They will hail with delight the 
 auspicious day, when controversy shall be banished from 
 their reports, and jealous timidity from their meetings, 
 and when, as. in former days, they shall experience with 
 mutual open-hearted confidence “ the unity of the Spirit 
 in the bond of peace.”—Your Committee, entering cor- 
 dially into the feeling thus expressed, regret that this 
 auspicious day has not yet arrived. ‘The whole of their 
 observation and experience, however, during the past year, 
 have served to confirm their expectation of its accelerated 
 approach. No new obstacles, as they trust they will be 
 able to show, have been thrown in the way; but the path, 
 on the contrary, has been opened and cleared of obstruc- 
 tions. 
 
 The continued connexion of this Anxiliary with the 
 British and Foreign Bible Society, was, by last Report, 
 and indeed from the time of the unhappy division of Nov. 
 16th, 1826, suspended on one condition, —namely the con- 
 
13 
 
 scientious adherence of the Committee of that Institution 
 to the anti-apocryphal regulations of the preceding May. 
 These Regulations, which it is of importance the public 
 should not forget, were as follows :— 
 
 I. That the fundamental law of the Society, which limits its opera- 
 tions to the circulation of the Holy Scriptures, be fully and distinctly 
 recognised as excluding the circulation of the Apocrypha. 
 
 II. That, in conformity to the preceding resolution, no pecuniary aid 
 can be granted to any Society circulating the Apocrypha; nor, except 
 for the purpose of being applied in conformity to the said resolution, to 
 any individual whatever. 
 
 II]. That, in all cases in which grants, whether gratuitous or other- 
 wise, of the Holy Scriptures, either in whole or in part, shall be made 
 to any Society, the books be issued bound, and on the express condi- 
 tion, that they shall be distributed without alteration or addition. 
 
 IV. That all grants of the Scriptures to Societies which circulate the 
 Apocrypha be made under the express condition that they be sold or 
 distributed without alteration or addition; and that the proceeds of the 
 sales of any such copies of the Scriptures be held at the disposal of the 
 British and Foreign Bible Society. 
 
 To this one point, therefore, your Committee have kept 
 their eye directed, with all the vigilance, and all the free- 
 dom from biassing prepossession, they could command :— 
 and it affords them peculiar gratification to be able to say, 
 with a clear and unhesitating conscience, that the adher- 
 ence has been maintained with a punctilious strictness. 
 
 Since last Anniversary, they are not aware of any cases 
 having being alleged to the contrary, but three. Of these 
 the first two may be dismissed in very few words:—the 
 third will require more enlarged explanation. 
 
 I. The anti-apocryphal Resolutions, which now form 
 the laws of the British and Foreign Bible Society’s pro- 
 cedure, were adopted, three of them in May 1826, and the 
 fourth in May 1827. The period, therefore, of the trial of 
 the Committee’s fidelity must of course be dated from the 
 former of these times. But the first of the three charges 
 states, that an edition of Scio’s Spanish Bible, with the 
 Apocrypha interspersed, passed through the press in the 
 years 1823 and 1824, and was issued (to what extent the 
 
charge does not say) in 1825. The indictment, conse 
 quently, is irrelevant. The delinquency charged comes 
 not within the period of probation. With the vindication 
 of the measures adopted previously to May 1826, your 
 Committee have no concern. Let an Apocryphal Bible 
 be produced, in Spanish or in any language, printed or 
 issued subsequently to that date, and your Committee will 
 admit the trust-worthiness of the Earl Street Junta, as 
 they may then deserve to be designated, to be effectu- 
 ally disproved. ‘Till that is done, they retain their confi- 
 dence. 
 
 II. In some Gaelic Bibles, it seems, which came down 
 from the London Depository to the North of Scotland, 
 there was discovered to have been bound up some portion 
 of the Apocrypha in the Spanish language! Your Com- 
 mittee feel it difficult to persuade themselves that this 
 circumstance could ever have been adduced as a ground 
 of accusation, otherwise than in jest. False views and 
 impressions of it, however, having got abroad, and having, 
 in some minds, made that appear serious which in itself 
 is trivial and ridiculous, an explanation has become neces- 
 sary. And the explanation, as given officially, in reply to 
 a query on the subject by your Committee, is very 
 simple :-— 
 
 “In the year 1821, Mr. Bensley printed for the Society a Gaelic 
 Bible, and a Spanish Bible, at the same time; when the character in 
 each work being Roman, and the language foreign, it is not matter of 
 surprise, that the person who gathered the sheets and put them up as 
 books, should have taken one signature from a wrong heap, and inter- 
 mixed it with those of another language ; and, as the Binders also work 
 by signatures, without reference to the contents of the sheets, the 
 error could not be discovered till the books came into use, although 
 they had been six or seven years in our warehouse.” 
 
 Your Committee will not offer an insult to the under- 
 standings of their constituents and of the Public, by dwell- 
 ing on a circumstance like this. Some such simple 
 explanation of it, as that now given, might have been 
 anticipated by any person, it need not be said of common 
 
15 
 
 candour, but of common sense. It does not afford a 
 proof even of the existence of Spanish Apocryphas in the 
 London Depository subsequently to May 1826; and 
 indeed, the very writing of a single sentence about it gives 
 it an importance to which it is not entitled. 
 
 Ill. A charge of a more serious nature has been founded 
 on a recent resolution of the London Committee to print 
 an edition of the Septuagint, or ancient Greek version of 
 the Old Testament Scriptures.— Your Committee regarded 
 this proposal as one which called for special inquiry ; and, 
 anxious to be in full possession of the facts of the case, 
 that they might repel the charge should it appear to be 
 groundless, or take such steps as consistency required, 
 should they find any thing in it at variance with the 
 Resolutions of 1826, they corresponded, through your 
 Secretary, with the Committee in London, as well as with 
 different individuals there; and from all the information 
 now before them, they will proceed to give as distinct 
 and impartial a statement as they can, of this rather inter- 
 esting case. 
 
 1. First, then, it appears, that the measure was strongly 
 recommended to the Committee by three of their accre- 
 dited Agents, the Rev. Mr. Leeves of Constantinople, the 
 Rev. Dr. Korck of Egina, and the Rev. Mr. Jowett of 
 Malta; and that it was recommended by each of these 
 gentlemen on the ground of his own observation, without 
 the privity of the other two, as a measure in a high 
 degree expedient and desirable. It issurely not too much 
 to say, that such a threefold recommendation entitled the 
 proposal to, at least, a serious and deliberate consideration. 
 
 2. Fhe general grounds on which the proposal was 
 _ vested, appear to have been; that many and pressing 
 applications had been made for the ancient Greek Bible, 
 which the agents were pained at having no means of grati- 
 fying ; that the cultivation of Greek literature is making 
 rapid advances, and along with it the study of religious 
 subjects ; that on various grounds, it was desirable that 
 
“a. 
 
 16 
 
 Missionaries should have in their hands complete copies 
 of the Bible, suitable to the various descriptions of persons 
 with whom they came into contact, the learned as well as 
 the illiterate; that amongst the former, (an increasing 
 class, and fondly attached to the language of their fore- 
 fathers), the want of the Old Testament had begun to be 
 deeply felt; that to the Greek church, the Septuagint 
 version would be particularly acceptable, as the version 
 which at the present day they venerate, and as haying, it 
 should seem, been more or less in use in the churches of 
 the East from the days of the Apostles; that this version 
 was in the hands of our Lord and his Apostles themselves, 
 and that from it the larger proportion of the citations 
 from the Old Testament into the New are evidently 
 taken—(a circumstance, which, although it can by no 
 means be considered as sanctioning the entire version, the 
 adherence to it not being at ail universal, and the inspira- 
 tion of the New Testament writers themselves ensuring 
 our having always the true sense,—yet ought, without | 
 question, to save it from hasty condemnation, and even 
 to ensure for it no small measure of serious respect) ;— 
 that, although the ancient Greek be a dead language, it 
 still approaches to the higher styles of the living language, 
 and is read with ease by persons having any pretensions to 
 learning and education,—and, moreover, the Syriac, the 
 Armenian, the Ethiopic, the Sanscrit, are also dead 
 languages, in which, notwithstanding, versions of the 
 Scriptures have been widely and beneficially circulated. 
 3. Although the Septuagint version contains the apocry- 
 phal books, so far was it from ever being for a moment 
 in the contemplation either of the proposers of the measure 
 or of the Committee, to include these, that the very terms 
 of the original suggestion were, “that a small edition of 
 the Canonical books of the Old Testament, with the New 
 Testament attached, would be a desirable undertaking ; 
 and that it should be distinctly stated in the titlepage, 
 that the work consisted of the canonical books only.” 
 
17 
 
 The canon of the Greek church is the same with our 
 own; the distinction is well known amongst them between 
 canonical and apocryphal books; and one of the proposers 
 of the measure further suggests, that the appearance of an 
 edition without the Apocrypha will operate with a bene- 
 ficial tendency, in marking out this distinction still more 
 forcibly, and exciting inquiries, such as may lead to the 
 most favourable results. But, 
 
 4. The exclusion of the Apocryphal books was not 
 enough. In the canonical books. themselves, there are 
 passages omitted, interpolated, and transposed ; and pas- 
 sages that differ in meaning from the present Hebrew 
 text.—A careful revision of the whole version was there- 
 fore necessary, that every thing apocryphal might be 
 removed, omissions supplied, transpositions rectified, and 
 such passages as required alteration brought, by compari- 
 son of different editions and MSS. of the Septuagint, into 
 conformity, as far as attainable, with the Hebrew text.— 
 The strict adherence of the London Committee to their 
 anti-apocryphal resolutions, will best appear from a rehears- 
 al of their minutes; and, to show the cautious delibera- 
 tion with which the subject was discussed, and the deter- 
 mination (as far as it can in the present stage of the mea- 
 sure be called so) finally adopted, these minutes shall be 
 given entire,—omitting only the lists of members present. 
 
 “ At a Meeting of the Committee, September 3d, 1827, a letter from 
 the Rey. H. D. Leeves, was read, and it was Resolved, ‘ That such 
 parts of the letter of the Rev. Mr. Leeves as relate to the Septuagint 
 and the Armenian versions, be referred to the Sub-Committee for 
 General Purposes.’ 
 
 “ At a Meeting of the Sub-Committee for General Purposes, Septem- 
 ber 20th, 1827, it was Resolved, ‘ That the subject of printing the Can- 
 onical books of the Septuagint version, be referred for reconsideration 
 by the General Committee.’ 
 
 “ At a meeting of the Committee, December 12th, 1827, it was 
 Resolved, ‘That as the Rev. Mr. Leeves may be shortly expected in 
 this country, it appears to this Committee, that the consideration of 
 printing the Septuagint should be deferred until the Committee can 
 have the advantage of his personal assistance.” 
 
 c 
 
18 
 
 “ At a Meeting of the Committee, June 2d, 1828, Read a letter froth 
 the Rev. Dr. Korck, dated Egina, January 23d, 1828. He represents 
 the great desire manifested by the Greeks to obtain the Scriptures, and 
 suggests the expediency of printing a new edition of the Canonical 
 books of the Septuagint, of which there is not a copy to be met with in 
 Egina. 
 
 “ Resolved, ‘That the Rev. Wm. Jowett, who has returned from 
 Malta, be requested to attend the Sub-Committee for General Purposes, 
 when the consideration of his own and other recommendations for 
 printing the Septuagint are to be taken into consideration.” 
 
 «July 14th, 1828. 
 
 “ At a Meeting of the Sub-Committee for General Purposes, specially 
 summoned, to consider the references respecting the printing of the 
 Septuagint, to which all the elected members of the Committee were 
 invited. 
 
 “This Sub-Committee having fully considered the subject eas to 
 them, together with the communications made thereon at the present 
 Meeting, Resolved, ‘ that it be recommended to the General Committee 
 to print an edition of the Septuagint to consist of 5000 copies.’ 
 
 “That the General Committee be specially summoned for Monday 
 next, to receive the Report of this Sub-Committee upon the subject of 
 the Septuagint.” 9 
 
 “ July 21, 1828. , 
 “ At the Meeting of the Committee, specially summoned to receive 
 the Report of the Sub-Committee on the subject of the Septuagint. 
 “The minutes of the Sub-Committee for General Purposes of the 
 14th instant, on the subject of printing the Septuagint version of the 
 Holy Scriptures, which conclude with a recommendation to print an 
 edition of 5000 copies, were read. 
 “Resolved, ‘ That the above minutes of the Sub-Committee be con- 
 firmed, it being understood to extend only to the Canonical books of 
 the Old Testament, with the omission of all Apocryphal matter.’ 
 “ Resolved, ‘ That it be referred to the same Sub-Committee to con- 
 sider of the best means of carrying the above resolution into effect.’ ” 
 
 “ August 15th, 1828. 
 
 “ At a Meeting of the Sub-Committee for General Purposes. f 
 
 “This Sub-Committee having taken into consideration the reference 
 made to them on the 2Ist July, as to the best means of printing an 
 edition of the Septuagint. 
 
 “ Resolved, ‘ That the text of the edition of the Septuagint to be 
 printed by the British and Foreign Bible Society, be that of the Alexan- 
 drian manuscript, it being understood that the Alexandrian text is most 
 generally acceptable to the Greek church. 
 
19 
 ! “ That the edition printed at Moscow in 1821, be taken as the basis 
 of that edition. 
 _ “That the various readings of the Vatican manuscript be subjoined 
 at the foot of each page. 
 
 “That the New Testament in ancient Greek be printed uniformly 
 with the edition of the Septuagint, in order to be connected with it, and 
 that the edition of the Testament printed by the Bible Society in 1810, 
 be that used ; it having received the approbation of the Greek Patriarch. 
 
 “That for the purpose of carrying into execution the resolution of 
 
 the Committee, for printing the Septuagint with the omission of all 
 Apocryphal matter, Dr. Macbride, and the Rev. Mr. Leeves, be requested 
 to examine the Moscow edition, and to report to the Committee such 
 passages as in their judgment ought to be omitted as Apocryphal.” 
 . “At a Meeting of the Committee, September 2d, 1828, Resolved, 
 * That the Rey. William Jowett be requested to assist Dr. Macbride and 
 the Rey. Mr. Leeves, in the examination of the Septuagint text, pursu- 
 ant to the minute of the 14th of July last.’” 
 
 5. Such being the state of the case in regard to its 
 bearing upon the Apocryphal question—it is further de- 
 serving of notice, that the Text from which the Society 
 has it in contemplation to print, is one which, from its 
 peculiar correctness, greatly facilitates the labour of revi- 
 
 ‘slon.— 
 
 “ It is,” says the Rev. Mr. Leeves, “a simple reprint of Grabe’s well 
 known Edition of the Alexandrian MS. of the Septuagint published at 
 Oxford in 1702. In this learned and laborious work, Grabe has not 
 confined himself to giving a mere representation of this Manuscript ; but 
 has, froma collation of the MSS., introduced into the text many useful 
 emendations ; and, following the example of Origen has also upon the 
 authority of the MSS. supplied all the passages wanting in the Alexan- 
 drine; so that every part of the Hebrew text here has its counterpart. 
 This Edition has therefore, for our purpose, great advantages over the 
 common Editions of the Septuagmt printed from the Watican MS. 
 whereim, more particularly in the book of Jeremiah, we find many pas- 
 sages, and some of considerable length, omitted.”—“ It is proposed,” 
 he adds, “ that the order of the books of the Old Testament should be 
 our usual Protestant one ; and that such transpositions of passages as 
 occur, which are chiefly to be found in the book of Jeremiah, should be 
 remedied, by being bronght back to the Hebrew standard.” And he 
 goes on to show that “ it will be no new thing to the Greeks to see a 
 Bible very much in this form.” 
 
 6. Still farther :—while the primary object of the ex- 
 
20 
 
 amination with which the three revisers are intrusted 
 is, in the language of Mr. Leeves— 
 
 “ To collect and lay before the Committee a report of all interpolated 
 passages in the Version ;” 
 
 Yet— 
 
 “ They do not consider themselves strictly confined to this, but feel 
 it to be a duty to note such passages as, from the corruptions of time 
 or other causes, manifestly give no longer the general sense of the ori- 
 ginal, especially should they touch. matters of importance. It will rest 
 with the Committee, when they receive this Report, to take such 
 ulterior measures as they may deem most advisable.” 
 
 ‘ 
 
 Lastly, From the preceding statement it will be per- 
 ceived, that the impression which your Committee believe 
 to have gone abroad, as if the Septuagint had been 
 already printed, and put into circulation, is entirely false ; 
 that the preparatory steps are only in progress; that the 
 revision is proceeding, as your Committee have every 
 ground for believing, with the most assiduous care and 
 scrupulous fidelity; and that the time is yet uncertain 
 when the result shall be laid before the Committee 
 and their ultimate determination adopted.—Reflections 
 against the London Committee are, till that time, to say 
 the least of them, premature :—and, from the manner in 
 which the affair is going forward, your Committee con- 
 ceive they may affirm with the fullest confidence, that 
 there is as yet a perfect harmony between their procedure 
 and their publicly declared principles and laws.* 
 
 * It has been stated in the Report, that various opinions may be 
 entertained by Christians on both sides of the controversy, respecting 
 the merits of the British and Foreign Bible Society, on the question of 
 the expediency and propriety of the proposed measure. But our 
 present question regards the integrity of the Committee’s purpose of 
 adherence to their anti-apocryphal regulations. And the proposal, so 
 far as it has hitherto gone, affords no ground whatever for calling this 
 into question. The most decided anti-apocryphists and opposers of the 
 measure in the Committee have strongly admitted this.—But with 
 regard to the proposed measure itself, it is proper to state, that from a 
 letter received since this Report was put to press, it appears, that the 
 difficulties in the contemplated revisal have been found to inerease 
 
21 
 
 But your Committee cannot quit this subject, without 
 adverting to another charge against the Earl Street Com- 
 mittee, closely connected with it, but of a more general 
 complexion: because, were they to say nothing on what 
 they here refer to they are well aware how ready the 
 conclusion would be, that they had nothing satisfactory 
 to say.—It has been openly and confidently alleged, then, 
 that certain sentiments were uttered by a member of the 
 London Committee at the discussion about the Septua- 
 gint, amounting to a denial of, the existence of any 
 standard for the canon of the Old Testament Scriptures ; 
 and that these sentiments, which are characterized as 
 horrible and impious, were received in the Committee 
 with general acclamations of approval.—Your Committee 
 would not certainly have deemed it worth their while, to 
 take pains to ascertain the opinions held or uttered by 
 any one individual, had it not been for the sanction thus 
 alleged to have been given to them by the general body 
 of the Committee. ‘They must here be allowed, however, 
 to express their sense of the extreme unfairness of pub- 
 lishing statements, communicated, there is reason to 
 think, from memory only, of sentiments uttered in the 
 free and often desultory conversations of a Committee- 
 meeting, insulated entirely from preceding and subsequent 
 connexion, and of which a mistake in a single word may 
 essentially vary the meaning; and publishing these with 
 the strongest terms of reprobation, and with all the em- 
 phasis of amazement which typography can convey. 
 By the great majority of readers, who have not the 
 means of inquiry, or who are too indolent or too busy to 
 
 rather than diminish in the progress of the attempt; so that, in the 
 judgment of the writer, it is quite uncertain what the revisers may be 
 able to accomplish, or what may ultimately become of the whole ques- 
 * tion, It may not be altogether legitimate for one who acts only offi- 
 cially to express any personal opinion or wish: yet for himself, the 
 Secretary of the Glasgow Auxiliary, may perhaps be permitted to say, 
 that he should be well-pleased, on different grounds, were the measure 
 to be altogether abandoned. 
 
92 
 
 employ them, and who cannot fancy how a thing should 
 
 have got into print if there had not been some truth in’ 
 
 it, such statements are received with all the confidence of 
 
 an unhesitating credulity; and are privately and publicly : 
 retailed, to confirm the disaffected, and alienate the ~~ 
 friendly. The pertinence of these remarks is fully main-’ 
 tained by the facts of the present case. ‘The sentiment 
 alleged to have received such marked countenance from 
 
 the Committee is given by the Edinburgh Obristian In- 
 
 structor, in these terms: : 
 
 “ Mr. Ballance, one of the new members, rose and declared, that after 
 all that was said about the purity of the word of God, he should ‘like to 
 know where the standard was to which they were to appeal on this sub- 
 ject! For his part, he knew of no such standard ; and he should like if 
 any of those who were so strenuous on the subject could lay their hand on 
 such a standard! ! J” 
 
 “Now, how was Mr. Ballance’s speech received by the Committee ? 
 Was it heard with the horror which it ought to have excited ? » Were 
 the impious sentiments, thus broadly and emphatically delivered, repu-. 
 diated by one burst of abhorrence? No :—let the fact be published— 
 the walls of the Committee-room rang with the loudest cheers of approba- 
 tion LI)? 
 
 It is surely no more than justice,’ that a gentleman 
 
 whose sentiments are spoken of in such terms mre be 
 
 allowed to speak for himself :— 
 
 “To say nothing,” writes Mr. Ballance to your Secretary, “of the 
 unfairness of giving to the world ex-parte statements of any sentiment 
 which may be advanced in Committee-meetings ; the Editor of such a: 
 work incurs, I conceive, no small risk of character, if the medium 
 through which he receives such accounts be of this doubtful and treach- 
 erous description,’—(he alludes to the belief he had expressed of the 
 accounts having been furnished from memory), “ and he venture upon 
 their publication, without ascertaining their accuracy. And in fact, my 
 dear Sir, such in this instance is the risk which he has incurred; for 
 the language attributed to me in his Number for September, page 647, 
 I did not use; nor did any of the sentiments which I did utter receive 
 any marked approbation of the Committee.” 
 
 In briefly enumerating the grounds on which he sup-, 
 ported the proposal for printing the Septuagint, he thus 
 clearly states the sentiments for which he is so Mabe 
 
 treated :— 
 
23 
 
 * “ That any objection to its publication, from the circumstance of the 
 Septuagint version differing from our Hebrew text, as it regards the ren- 
 ‘dering of any particular sentence, not involving any one point of faith or 
 ‘practice, would equally apply to any other version: and that indeed it 
 would be difficult, if not impossible, for learned men in our day to deter- 
 mine, upon some of those’cases, which of the two was a more literal 
 transcript of the great originals extant in our Lord’s time,—the Septua- 
 gint version, or the Hebrew text which we now possess.—Now, Sir,” he 
 continues, “ I suspect that it is this sentiment which the Editor has 
 perverted, and so introduced the words ‘purity’ and ‘standard,’ as to 
 make them bear upon the entire Scriptures of the Old Testament. It 
 is the settled conyiction of my mind, that the Hebrew Bible we possess 
 is the sole and exclusive standard of revealed truth; and that this belief 
 is in perfect harmony and keeping with the admission that, in some 
 parts, the Septuagint version may possibly have been a more literal ren- 
 dering of the original Hebrew MS.; and that this difference in the 
 rendering of certain passages, not involving any doctrinal article of our 
 holy faith, forms no solid argument against the printing and circulation 
 of the Septuagint version among the Greek Islands, where that version 
 is received and read as the Scriptures.” 
 
 In this statement, the nature of the misapprehension is 
 at once discernible. Mr. Ballance’s sentiment is so repre- 
 sented, as that the reader understands him to speak of the 
 standard of the Canon, when he was speaking of the stan- 
 dard of the Teat :—and that which he states respecting 
 the latter is a simple matter of fact, from which no person 
 who knows any thing at all of biblical criticism can for a 
 moment withhold his assent—namely, that there is no 
 single immaculate standard of the Sacred text, infallibly 
 determining the true original reading of every passage ; 
 but that a correct text must be produced by a faithful 
 collation of existing MSS. and versions :—and, as a cor- 
 ollary, that, in some instances, the Septuagint translation, 
 chiefly executed from the Hebrew about three hundred 
 years before the coming of Christ, may possibly be more in 
 conformity with the original autographs, than the Hebrew 
 text which we now possess.—It may be granted to have 
 been a pity that this subject of discussion should have been 
 at allintroduced. The probability may be admitted too, of 
 the speaker having, as men are ever apt to do when they 
 
24 
 
 warm in argument, uttered his sentiments with too little 
 qualification. But still, such having been the sentiment, 
 your Committee are, of course, very indifferent as to the 
 measure of approbation expressed when it was delivered. 
 They have good reason, however, for affirming, both from 
 the language of Mr. B. above quoted, and from the repre- 
 sentation of another highly respectable member of the 
 Committee, (who appears, however, to have also unac- 
 countably misconceived Mr. B.’s meaning,) that the state- 
 ment in question is, on this point likewise, greatly exag- 
 gerated. 
 
 Were any thing farther necessary to confirm the minds 
 of your Committee in a full acceptance of Mr. B.’s account 
 of this matter, they find it in the perfect coincidence of 
 that account with the statement of another member of the 
 London Committee, (Mr. Forster, a member of the 
 Society of Friends,) whose sentiments had been the subject 
 of similar misrepresentation, and who, of his own accord, 
 wrote to a friend in this City, to remove from his mind 
 and those of others whose good opinion he valued, the 
 unfavourable impression which, he feared, they might have 
 received of his principles. The passage in the Edinburgh 
 Christian Instructor to which ‘he replies, is as follows :-— 
 
 “ Messrs. Forster, Brandram, and Thornton, were the chief speakers 
 in favour of the resolution. They denied distinctly and unequivocally, 
 that there was any infallible standard of inspired truth. Mr. Forster 
 challenged Mr. Drummond to say if he was prepared to affirm that there 
 was any standard of the Gospels and Epistles to which to refer.”— 
 
 Respecting this statement, Mr. F. writes :— 
 
 “Thave thought it possible, that thou, or some of my friends, on 
 reading this, might be rendered uneasy, from an apprehension that I 
 had laid myself open to a charge of a want of soundness of belief 
 in regard to the standard of Holy Scripture. I wish, therefore, to fur- 
 nish thee with what I consider the exact substance of what I did say. 
 In the course of the discussions, I asked Henry Drummond, whether 
 he could produce a complete exact transcript of the Gospels which the 
 Evangelists wrote, and the Epistles which the Apostles wrote. Iunder= 
 stood him to reply that he could not. All that I said in the course of 
 
Q5 
 
 the discussion did not, I believe, convey any thing beyond that senti- 
 ment,—namely, That we haye not in existence a complete and exact 
 copy of the Books of Holy Scripture, as wriften by the inspired pen- 
 men :—and the whole of the argument used in the Committee, by any 
 who spoke, was not, I believe, intended to convey any thing more.” 
 
 Here is, in substance, the same mistake, and the same 
 explanation. And it is surely a somewhat remarkable 
 circumstance, that, notwithstanding much previous dis- 
 cussion, in which the members diverged from one another, 
 there was, your Committee believe, one hand only lifted 
 up against the conclusion, respecting the preparatory 
 revision of the Septuagint, to which they ultimately came. 
 
 It is thus that reports of an injurious nature, and by 
 which your Committee were themselves somewhat startled 
 on their first announcement, have given way before 
 inquiry. It is the neglect of such inquiry that, instead of 
 wishing, they most of all deprecate and fear. If, in the 
 spirit of the charity that “ thinketh no evil,” all would take 
 the pains to examine into what they hear, the hope which 
 your Committee entertain, confident as it is, would rise 
 to a still firmer assurance, of a rapid turn in the tide of 
 public opinion. They observe, with pleasure, that their 
 friends of the other Society, still express regret at the 
 necessity under which conscience continues to lay them, 
 of maintaining their separation from the British and 
 Foreign Bible Society, and their desire, whenever they 
 ean see the way clear, of reunion with it. May your 
 Committee be allowed to express the hope, that they will 
 evince the sincerity of these professions by a close and 
 candid investigation of every step of its procedure. There 
 is nothing your Committee so much desire as this vigilant 
 and thorough examination; nothing they so much dread 
 as a hasty credence of ill-authenticated rumours. 
 
 Before finally quitting this subject, your Committee would 
 just remark, that amongst candid and impartial men, there 
 may exist differences of opinion respecting the general expe- 
 diency of the printing of the Septuagint, even after such 
 
 D , ’ 
 
26 : 
 revision as has been described, according to the various 
 estimates they may form both of the difficulties of the 
 task, and of the amount of benefit likely to accrue from its 
 accomplishment; differences which do not in any degree 
 affect the question of the London Committee’s fidelity, and 
 the consequent propriety of adherence to them.—And they 
 would also embrace the opportunity of avowing their 
 perfect conviction, that in the discussions respecting the 
 various readings, as they have been termed, of versions 
 and manuscripts, there is nothing that ought in the least 
 degree to shake the confidence of the unlettered mind in 
 the substantial integrity of the sacred text. From no dis- 
 cussions, of this or of any kind, has truth any thing what- 
 ever to fear. Thecollation of manuscripts and versions has 
 been conducted with a minuteness of scrutiny, a fastidious 
 scrupulosity of notation, and an indefatigable perseverance 
 of tedious and plodding toil, such as might almost be 
 termed superstitious ;—such as never were bestowed upon 
 any other writings ;—but such as, instead of invalidating 
 the integrity of the text, have served to ascertain and to 
 establish it. Without such collation, we should have 
 remained in ignorance of the nature and amount of the 
 varieties ; and uncertain, consequently, whether and how 
 far, if known, they might not affect our faith. But the 
 examination has brought them fully to light; has left no 
 room for insinuation and doubt; and has fixed our belief 
 ona well-authenticated basis :—the discrepancies, although 
 their number may to the ignorant have~an appalling 
 sound, having, in the vast majority of them, been found 
 so trivial, in so few instances affecting the sense, and in 
 none disturbing the certainty of a single truth,—that the 
 mind is left under the impression, not indeed of miracle, 
 (for God works not by supernatural when ordinary means 
 suffice), but of the vigilant care of a jealous Providence 
 over those holy oracles, which, with the exception of the _ 
 Son of God whom they reveal, are the best of heaven’s 
 gifts to men. 
 
27 
 
 In the following sentiments of last year’s Report, your 
 Committee have seen increasing reason to acquiesce :— 
 
 “They are enemies to the circulation of the Apocrypha. They 
 deeply regret that so many of the great leading and Protestant Societies 
 on the Continent should decline acceding to the relinquishment of these 
 human additions to the word of God. It is their earnest wish, that all 
 the Societies in Europe were pure Bible Societies. They are not with- 
 out the hope of the day coming, and of their even living to see it, when 
 that wish may, in no inconsiderable extent, at least, be happily realized. 
 But the habits and prejudices of centuries cannot be expected to give way 
 ina day. We have no magical wand, by which to dissolve such power- 
 ful spells at our pleasure. It must be the work of consideration and of 
 time ; and a vast deal is gained, when attention has been strongly drawn 
 to the subject, aiid inquiry extensively excited. Meanwhile, your Com- 
 mittee do still consider the testimony borne against the Apocrypha by 
 the publication of the London Society’s Resolutions, and the practical 
 abandonment, in conformity to those Resolutions, of all concern in its 
 circulation, as being, in the mean time, sufficient. And they are un- 
 friendly to severer measures, not from any light impression of the evil 
 of circulating the Apocrypha, but from the sincere conviction, that the 
 plan which has been adopted, while, by the openness and explicitness of 
 its disavowal, it clears their consciences of the charge of participating 
 in the wrong, and of ‘ doing evil that good may come,’ is in its nature 
 best calculated to bring about, gradually and surely, the accomplish- 
 ment of those desires after an uncontaminated canonical circulation, in 
 which they are one with their separating friends.” 
 
 The experience of the past year has been giving these 
 views ample confirmation. ‘Towards the end of 1827, a 
 deputation was sent over to the Continent, consisting of 
 Dr. Pinkerton and the Rey. R. W. Sibthorpe, for the 
 special purpose of following up the Resolutions of 1826, 
 and ascertaining their being carried into full practical 
 operation. In the discharge of this trust, the members 
 of the Deputation distributed upwards of 6000 copies of 
 the pure Scriptures; they examined the Depositories 
 belonging to the British and Foreign Bible Society, with 
 the various editions of the Scriptures contained in them, 
 and had them cleared of every thing Apocryphal, and 
 brought into full conformity with its principles of 
 canonical cirenlation ; they inculcated on all the Agents 
 
28 
 
 and connexions of the Society, the duty and necessity of 
 a rigid adherence to these principles ; they ascertained, by 
 personal conference, in what places Societies or individuals 
 would undertake the distribution and sale of Bibles with- 
 out the Apocrypha. It has given your Committee sincere 
 satisfaction to observe the extent, even although yet very 
 limited, to which the wishes of last year have been realized. 
 The great cause of pure circulation has been decidedly 
 on the advance. By various Societies—those for example 
 of Nieuwied, Bourdeaux, Dranfeldt (near Gottingen), 
 Chur (in the Grisons), and Lausanne,—approbation of 
 that principle has been formally expressed:—in other 
 places, such as Paris, Nurenberg, Schaffhausen, Gall, 
 Aarau, Basle, Cologne, Elberfeld, Dusseldorf, Stetten, 
 and Gibraltar, a trial is going on, on the part of the Com- 
 mittees, of the distribution of unapocryphal Bibles ;—and 
 where the Committees have not felt themselves at liberty, 
 individuals have been found willing to undertake the 
 duty—as at Halle, Wittenberg, Berlin, Hernhutt, Leipzig, 
 Brussels, Frankfort, Dresden, Buntzlau, and Memel. 
 —The Saxony Bible Society is among those that have 
 declined: but the President himself has offered his per- 
 sonal services, and agreed to make an experiment with 
 300 Bibles.—Agreeably to an important suggestion of 
 Mr. Sibthorp®, the experiment has been set on foot of 
 establishing a central agency in Germany, for the manage- 
 _ ment of the Society’s affairs in that part of the Continent. 
 Frankfort has, on various grounds, been chosen as the 
 most suitable place; and the Agent nominated to make 
 the trial is “the old and well-tried correspondent of the 
 Society, Mr. Claus, of Frankfort, who will devote himself 
 in the distribution of the Scriptures to the service of the 
 Society, to carry their present resolutions, particularly in 
 reference to the circulation of Bibles without the Apocry- 
 pha, into effect.”—Still, however, while there is reason for 
 congratulation and thankfulness, there is much still re- 
 maining for regret, and desire, and prayer. And as the 
 
29 
 
 subject of Continental agency and the gradual spread of 
 anti-apocryphal principles is one of the deepest interest, 
 your Committee cannot withhold the general reflections 
 of Mr, Sibthorpe, at the close of his official tour :— 
 
 “T trust,” says that excellent and justly esteemed Clergyman, “ that 
 under the blessing of God, something was effected towards preparing the 
 Continent to receive the Scriptures as every enlightened Protestant 
 would desire to circulate them. Misapprehensions were removed, mis- 
 understandings cleared up, and fears allayed; the principles of our 
 Society were explained, and not a few approved them. Some ill-will, I 
 hope, was checked ; and the cord of charity, which binds together the 
 members of Christ’s family, of all churches and nations, strengthened, 
 without any dereliction of principle. A considerable number of copies 
 of the Holy Scriptures, without the Apocrypha, were brought into a 
 medium of circulation. We found the door closed, I may say, in most 
 cases, barred, against the operations of our Society. If we were enabled 
 to be in any degree instrumental in some cases in withdrawing the bars, 
 in others to the opening of the door, in others to the actual and present 
 entrance of our Society, to our God and our Saviour be all the glory !”” 
 
 In speaking of the measures to be pursued, he adds, — 
 
 * As I have already said, no obstructions exist to the co-operation and 
 agency of individuals: it may be desirable to increase the number of 
 these ; men of zeal, piety, and judgment, who will give themselves (as far 
 as other claims of duty permit) heartily and wisely to the communicating 
 the treasure of God’s pure word to all to whom they can extend it. It 
 will be an important and interesting object to find and employ such. 
 But where the Bible Societies themselves wil! heartily undertake the work, 
 it will be always desirable to prefer their agency, from the confirmation 
 it will give, in more ways than one, to the measure, andfrom the greater 
 efficiency with which we may expect it to be conducted by a body than by 
 isolated individuals. Where they only will not oppose it, let them not 
 be maligned or contemned, whilst regard to the great object requires an 
 active co-operation to be sought. Where there is actual opposition on 
 their part, let the meekness of wisdom characterize the steady zeal with 
 which our Society shall prosecute its blessed object through the medium 
 of individuals—a medium of necessity, however, rather than of choice.” 
 
 The Rev. Dr. Blumhardt, of Basle, in speaking of the 
 results of the visit of this deputation, says :— i 
 
 “JT cannot suffer the present year to close without previously having 
 returned my warmest thanks for the visit of the deputation, which has 
 proved a blessing to us. Although the object aimed at, has not, as 
 
" 
 
 might in an undertaking of this kind have been foreseen, been fully 
 attained, your visit has, nevertheless, been already productive of much — 
 good fruits, which, in the exercise of patient waiting, will continue to 
 manifest themselves still more clearly. Your visit has been the means 
 of causing the people on the Continent to take a clearer view of the 
 Apocryphal question, to examine into the real value of those books, and 
 to separate them more distinctly than hitherto from the collection of the 
 inspired Scriptures. It is true, all the public papers, and literary jour- 
 nals speak more loudly than ever in favour of the Apocrypha being 
 retained. The Socinian party, which continues still to be very strong, 
 is particularly interested therein, in seeking by these means to envelope 
 in obscurity, and to lower the idea attached to inspiration; whilst the 
 Evangelical party, which is on the increase, dare not, on account of the 
 consequences, suffer the Apocrypha to be given up in the church. 
 However, amidst this mental commotion, the cause itself can only be 
 benefited, and the Lord will care for it, that it be made instrumental in 
 promoting the true interests of the kingdom of God.” 
 
 Your Committee rejoice to say, that all the accounts 
 which have otherwise reached them are corroborative of 
 Dr. Blumhardt’s statement—that evangelical religion is on 
 the increase; and, in opposition to the charges sometimes 
 brought, with so much loose and indiscriminate generality, 
 against the Continental agency of the British and Foreign 
 Bible Society, they have much pleasure in subjoining 
 the following testimony of Mr. Sibthorpe, which is in 
 harmony with that of others :— 
 
 “ T would briefly advert tothe Agents of our Society on the Con- 
 tinent ; under which term I include those whose operation is free and 
 voluntary. I wish to repeat the testimony already borne in our letters 
 to Professor Kieffer of Paris. His agency is highly valuable, discharged 
 with an industry, fidelity, and accuracy to which it is but justice that I 
 bear record. At Frankfort, Berlin, Dresden, Leipzig, Nuremberg, Basle, 
 Cologne, é&c. &c., are men who aid in the circulation of the pure volume 
 of truth, for the love which they bear to it, for the truth’s sake, and 
 that they might be ‘fellow-helpers to the truth,—men who would 
 adorn Christianity in any country and in any church; and the inter- 
 course which the office I was charged with by the Committee led me to 
 hold with many individuals in various stations, and both among clergy 
 and laity, such as Dr. Heubner, of Wittenberg; Count Einsiedel, of 
 Dresden; Bishop Fabricius, of Herrnhut ; Professor Hahn, of Leipzig; 
 Pastor Heim, of St. Gall; the Rey. Mr, Blumhardt, of Basle; Pro- 
 
31 
 
 fessor Schwartz, of Hiedelberg; and others, has afforded me peculiar 
 satisfaction. So far as I could judge from the personal communication 
 I had with them, (and this judgment is confirmed by the testimonies of 
 others), I cannot but conclude, that to whatever extent infidelity, 
 superstition, or error of any kind, may exist on the Continent, there is 
 there also a portion of the true salt of the earth—men with whom it is 
 pleasant to have formed an acquaintance, because such acquaintance 
 shall not be restricted to the church militant, but be renewed and con- 
 tinued for ever in heaven. 
 
 “Of Leander Van Ess I saw but little personally. From the state 
 of bodily and mental weakness to which it had pleased God to reduce 
 _ him, my intercourse with him was limited to what was sufficient to con- 
 vince me of that state, and his consequent inability at the time to enter 
 upon the transaction of business. All that I heard, and every where, 
 was to the same purport, to confirm the high opinion I had had every 
 reason to hold of his piety, zeal, and disinterestedness. Of the latter, 
 indeed, we obtained that full proof, from unquestionable sources, which 
 has been already communicated in our letters :—a proof in every 
 respect satisfactory, as showing that all the emoluments he has derived 
 from the sale of his Testament have amounted only to 32/. or 331. 
 annually.” * 
 
 ® The full account of this matter is given as follows in a letter of the 
 Deputation, dated Darmstadt, October 22d, 1827. 
 
 “ The state in which we found Dr. Van Ess being such as to pre- 
 clude that communication with him which we had hoped he might have 
 been sufficiently recovered to admit of, we think it right not to defer any 
 longer laying before you such information as we have obtained 
 relative to the nature and extent of the emolument received by him 
 from the publication and sale of his New Testament. His own inability 
 to enter upon business is less to be regretted, because we think that we 
 obtained at Sulzbach, sufficient information, from original documents 
 brought before us, to enable us to come to a satisfactory conclusion. 
 We find, that, on the 27th of June, 1808, [four years before he became 
 acquainted with the Bible Society, and ten years before he was engaged 
 as one of its salaried Agents,] an agreement was made-between Mr. Von 
 Seidel on the one part, and Leander Van Ess and Charles Van Ess 
 (since dead) on the other, respecting the publication of their German 
 translation of the Old and New Testament ; by which the latter parties 
 make over to the former their title to the copyright of the same on 
 certain conditions, of which it is only necessary, for the elucidation of 
 the point in hand,.to state, that the remuneration of the translators was 
 to be in proportion to the number of copies printed, and that the fol- 
 lowing has been the result ; viz. That copies of the New Testament, to 
 the number of 461,130, have been printed by Mr. Von Seidel ; and that 
 
32 
 
 “ I cannot close this Report without bearing a testimony to the zeal 
 and ability of your foreign Agent, and my companion in this journey, 
 Dr. Pinkerton. It would be doing an injustice to him, were I not to 
 state my full belief, that no other individual connected with our Society 
 could have effected so much in removing prejudice, softening angry 
 feelings, and opening the Continent, in some degree, to the reception of 
 the Holy Scriptures, as they are now circulated by us. That blessed 
 object, the effecting of which is the grand design of the British and 
 Foreign Bible Society, and the desire and aim of its friends and sup- 
 porters, appeared ever to engage his thoughts, employ his time, and 
 stimulate his exertions; as it was the frequent prayer of us both, 
 * That the word of the Lord might have free course and be glorified, ” 
 
 No one, who knows the character of Mr. Sibthorpe, 
 will venture to question the integrity of these statements. 
 
 The same anti-apocryphal regulations as those adopted 
 by the British and Foreign Bible Society, are now also 
 the recognised and settled principles of the AMERICAN 
 Bible Society—And the accounts too from Mexico, and 
 other parts of South America, show that the cause of pure 
 circulation is gaining ground in all parts of the world. 
 Mr. Thomson alone, one of the London Society’s faith- 
 ful agents in that quarter of the globe, has succeeded, in 
 spite of all opposition, in disposing of above 4000 copies 
 of the pure word. 
 
 The last Annual Report of the British and Foreign 
 Bible Society, a most interesting document, exhibits a 
 scene of busy and well-directed, and, through the Divine 
 blessing, successful activity, in all quarters of the world. 
 
 a sum’amounting, up to the present time, to 4114 dollars, in money and 
 books, has accrued to the two relatives, Leander and Charles Van Ess ; 
 being rather more than £32 per annum, English money, for the nineteen 
 years since the agreement was made. The documents themselves, 
 extracted from Mr. Von Seidel’s books, we bring with us, as confirma- 
 tory of the above statement.—These, then, are briefly the facts of the 
 case: nor, we confess, do we fear the result of the communication of 
 them to you or to the British public.” 
 
 There was indeed no cause to fear. The British public will do this 
 good man justice, when they see the way in which he has been maligned 
 as feathering his nest so comfortably from his publishing engagements ! 
 Sixteen pounds a year, while his brother lived, and Thirty-two since! 
 What a Creesus—what a Rothschild—he must have become to be sure! 
 
 i 
 
 ——E——  — 
 
33 
 
 It is itself drawn up with all possible brevity; and your 
 Committee are sensible that any abstract would of neces- 
 sity be tame, and too general to be interesting. Their 
 only wish is, that it could be universally perused. It 
 would be the most efficient of all means of conviction and 
 reconciliation.—In one feeling which your Committee 
 have experienced in the reading of it, their constituents 
 and all the other friends of pure circulation will, they are 
 sure, cordially participate. Although they were previ- 
 ously impressed with the unfairness of forgetting, in the 
 estimate formed of the British and Foreign Bible Society’s 
 operations, how very small a proportion of the immense 
 field embraced by them was affected by the Apocryphal 
 question; yet still there was the alloying regret, that 
 in any part of that field at all, the incorruptible seed 
 of the word should have been intermingled with tares :— 
 but now, in as far as the administration of the great British 
 Institution is concerned, there remains no painful reflec- 
 tion of this kind to abate their satisfaction. The seed 
 is now unmingled; and so is now their pleasure. Nor 
 have all its adversaries, with all their keen-eyed vigilance, 
 been able to detect one solitary instance, in which any 
 individual of the sowers who have, since May 1826, gone 
 forth “ bearing its precious seed,” has been found scatter- 
 ing along with it one handful of the tares. 
 
 It would be a violation of the claims of justice, to close 
 this Report, without adverting, in terms of commendation, 
 to the dignity which, in their official capacity, the London 
 Committee have maintained in the course of this contro- 
 versy. They have shown that they were not indifferent 
 to the charges brought against them. With becoming 
 deference to the clearly ascertained judgment of their 
 . constituents they have, dona fide, retracted and renounced 
 their error; and have pushed forward their operations, 
 upon their new principle, with unimpeachable fidelity, 
 and unabated ardour. But amidst the profusion of vitu- 
 
 E 
 
34 
 
 peration and abuse with which they have been assailed, 
 they have never “rendered railing for railing.” They 
 have not descended to the littleness of acrimonious debate. 
 And the dignity which they have maintained has not been 
 the dignity of a haughty disdain; for in all their official 
 publications there has breathed at the same time the 
 evangelical spirit of conciliation and peace.—They have 
 merited even a higher commendation than the negative one 
 of * not rendering evil for evil ;” they have done what was 
 in their power to “ overcome evil with good.” Scotland 
 has, toa great extent, been withholding its wonted contri- 
 butions; yet Scotland, during the past year, has been the 
 object of more than wonted beneficence.—That invalu- 
 able Institution, the Gaelic School Society, has obtained 
 a grant of Gaelic Bibles and Testaments to the amount 
 in value of £500. The Inverness-shire Bible Society, 
 formerly an Auxiliary, received, after it had announced 
 its independence, 2000 Gaelic Bibles, with liberty to 
 apply for more,—it being understood that 10,000 may be 
 ultimately required ;—and along with these a donation of 
 English Bibles and Testaments to the value of £100. 
 Other Institutions have also been receiving largely,—and 
 amongst the rest the Catholic School Society, of our own 
 city, has had its application worthily honoured by a grant 
 of 250 Bibles and 750 Testaments, in addition to former 
 ‘supplies. It is calculated that probably not fewer than 
 - 6000 copies of the Holy Scriptures have been bestowed 
 on Scotland, especially for the Highlands and Islands 
 during the past year.—Is not this, your Committee would 
 ask, the spirit of the Gospel? which, instead of resenting 
 the refusal of means by the refusal of returns, only aug- 
 ments its beneficence; takes advantage of the dried-up 
 channels of supply, and sends back in them a tide of bless- 
 ing? 
 
 Ireland too has shared seasonably and munificently of 
 the sacred treasure dispensed by this noble Institution; 
 
35 
 
 no fewer than from 70,000 to 80,000 Bibles and Testa- 
 ments having been voted to that dark but deeply interest- 
 ing portion of the British realms, during the year preced- 
 ing last annual Report. 
 
 The withdrawment of so large a proportion of Scotland 
 has stood in contrast with the addition of fifty new Auxi- 
 liary and Branch Societies in the South :—and, instead of 
 any diminution of issues from the London Depository, 
 those of last year exceeded those of the year preceding by 
 42,264 Bibles and Testaments, having amounted to 
 336,270; a larger number than in any former year of the 
 Society’s history. And all this distribution has been 
 entirely Canonical, not one volume having been contami- 
 nated with the slightest Apocryphal adulteration ! 
 
 But your Committee feel that they must forbear expa- 
 tiating. They will only add the one overwhelming fact, 
 that the British and Foreign Bible Society is still engaged 
 in promoting the translation, printing, or distribution of 
 the Holy Scriptures in upwards of one hundred and forty 
 languages and dialects: —and that in no one of these does 
 it now bestow the smallest fraction of its funds on aught 
 but the pure word of the living God ! 
 
 On a survey of the purified operations of this magnifi- 
 cent Institution,—the extent of its field,_the complete- 
 ness of its system,—the unity of its object pervading the 
 multiplied variety of its details,—the connexions it has 
 already established in every quarter of the globe,—the 
 happy adjustment and harmonious working of its compli- 
 cated yet simple machinery,—and, what is of no trivial 
 importance, considering the difficulties which the cause 
 has in many places to encounter,—the weight which its 
 very name carries with it in all parts of the world ;—your 
 Committee are more and more impressed with the convic- 
 tion, that it is the only Society which can effectually do 
 the business ; and that to divide is to introduce weakness, 
 confusion, and comparative inefficiency. 
 
36 
 
 On the general contemplation of what the Society has 
 from its commencement been honoured to accomplish, 
 your. Committee cannot help asking—And is the whole 
 amount of the doings of this vast Institution—an Institu- 
 tion which, now that its proceedings are purified and the 
 more abundant favour of Heaven may be expected to 
 descend upon them, promises more than ever to bea bless- 
 ing to the whole earth,—is all to be devoted to a sentence 
 of oblivion, and the claims arising from it to be sternly 
 cancelled, on account of one unhappy error, (an error, 
 which, whatever they may still think of its original motive, 
 your. Committee are far from being disposed to palliate, ) 
 when that error has been fully, and, as they confidently 
 trust, for ever abandoned.?—when an open pledge has 
 been given to Britain, to Europe, and to the world, that 
 it shall never be resumed, a pledge, of which the violation 
 is liable to immediate detection by friends and by foes in 
 all quarters of the globe? Because such an error has 
 once been committed, and has even for a time, under the 
 influence of a mistaken principle, been persisted in, is all 
 confidence in the integrity of Christian men, avowing their 
 relinquishment of it, to be permanently and inflexibly with- 
 held? “ Shall the sword devour for ever?” How many 
 returning suns must “ go down upon our wrath ?” Is it 
 just, is it generous, that the failings and sins alone of this 
 Institution should be held up prominently to public view,— 
 should be placed, in all their magnitude; in the fore-ground 
 of the picture, while its excellencies are’ thrown back into 
 diminutiveness and shade ?—that its virtues should be 
 -written on the sand, and its delinquencies engraven on the 
 rock ?—that the dark spots which for a time dimmed its 
 lustre should be held in everlasting remembrance, even 
 after they have passed away from its brightening disk, and, 
 in the estimate of its claims to admiration, all the profu- 
 sion of heavenly light which it has poured on a benighted 
 world should go for nothing?—In answer to such questions, 
 
 _-— 
 
 — 
 
37 
 
 your Committee would simply quote the wholesome words 
 of that Book which it is the end of Bible Societies to cir- 
 culate :—“ The wisdom that is from above is first pure, 
 then peaceable, gentle, easy to be entreated, full of mercy 
 and of good fruits, without partiality and without hypo- 
 crisy. And the fruit of righteousness is sown in peace, of 
 them that make peace.” 
 
 *,* The name of John Campbell Colquhoun, Esq. of Killearmont, was 
 mentioned at the Annual Meeting as expected to accept the office of 
 a Vice-president of this Auxiliary Society. Mr. Campbell, however, has 
 since declined accepting it, expressing his warm interest in the suc- 
 cess of the Society; but at the same time his wish to remain as for 
 some years past in direct connexion with the Parent Institution. 
 
wh at ‘wiih ar vit 
 ‘e ee #30: iby yee: 
 | ov te 
 
 Laie ced sige 
 (ia piri ec 
 
 ne of Vieng Se 
 
 ul ah inte) liachyeound aii 
 it? 2h, aah iM y 
 
Glasgow, February 7th, 1829. 
 
 P.S. The uncertainty mentioned in the Note, pages 20, 21, as to 
 what might ultimately become of the whole measure relative to the 
 printing of the Septuagint, no longer exists. The following letter, from 
 the same correspondent, having come to hand last night, the Secretary 
 takes advantage of an accidental delay in the publishing of the preceding 
 Report, to lay it before the Subscribers and the Public. 
 
 “ Bible Society’s House, Feb. 3d, 1829. 
 
 My pear Sir,—I am happy to say that our difficulties about the Septua- 
 gint are now removed, the Committee having relinquished the under- 
 taking altogether. At the Sub-Committee on Friday last a report was 
 presented from Dr. Macbride and Mr. Leeves, pointing out the plan 
 which they recommended for clearing the Septuagint of Apocryphal 
 matter, &c. Mr. Jowett afterwards stated to the Sub-Committee that 
 as he was the first to urge an edition of the LXX. for the Greek, so 
 now, in the hope of soon seeing a translation into modern Greek from the 
 Hebrew, he was willing to withdraw his request for the LXX. altogether. 
 I also felt myself called upon to point out the various difficulties with 
 which the proposed undertaking seemed to be encumbered, and the 
 result was, that after a discussion of some length, it was resolved to 
 recommend to the General Committee to desist from all further proceed- 
 ings in the matter. 
 
 “This recommendation was adopted unanimously by the General 
 Committee yesterday. 
 
 “ I write briefly, being somewhat in haste. 
 
 “ Believe me, my dear Sir, 
 “ Very faithfully yours, 
 
 OT. ERAT TS. 
 
 * Of course this letter is not an official communication.” 
 
h : ay 
 ay 
 i" hs ww 
 rt 
 
 ’ 
 ty 
 ate ie 
 bogs 
 45,5 
 f 
 “4 / 
 aes 
 i 
 , 
 ‘ 
 
 + 
 
 ‘pi } rt Suwanee Olonte sf? voted 
 Men) one! gaiwolldt off anieeaggaol aa 
 Peto orn ja rt SP ai fiend of ort 
 
 heabhery off byonha = rt gate! $s Vea ¥ 
 “fadperooql, a pte me aa) ieee oF. 
 
 * ay pat fav) richest O00 GOLA Ae @ Qhaet 
 
 * _ 
 Pot avinea egw J yitgiet gaia 6 oj weet 
 
 owe! aT eekteeseto'D regan! 
 
 a) a (fo OS esi Gholl! ody ae 
 
 grils ds Yo siinatbalhe fy ey tk Seedy Be is . 
 kL ads hae emsdinoadtae e 
 
 i 5 
 
 euull ytwieed eldil *- 
 
 ult thy By peiy qe 08 
 
 ae 
 
 day? ‘oot & seal ty. ay go Di 
 
 soll? sentimmatdue 674 0: hovers inka 
 on Hoan alt, wt AIL sift To on Hibo “on om 
 
 ie 
 
 ae 
 
 radtoge tlc YOAE off s6ir tasctpers ait wollen 
 
 ity foitlua euobes aut Sao trlog: Gt SOE 
 
 ati toa: botktininno’ 4d tt hares sett 
 
 «best ita [hy modb seeeh at seta 
 : a 
 iy pr art 3 t ae 
 4 +t 
 (U2 web vin gu 
 wee Vi iuitint am 
 AE a Se as ae 
 
SUBSCRIPTIONS AND DONATIONS 
 
 Alexander, John . 5 
 
 Allan, Alexander (King 
 Street) 
 
 Allan, Alexander, Wellington 
 Factory : 
 
 Almond, Rev. Mr. 
 
 Anderson, David 
 
 Anderson, James : 
 
 Anderson, Matthew 2 
 
 Ballantine, Andrew - 
 Bartholomew, John 
 Bartholomew, Robert . 
 Bartholomew, Thomas . 
 Bayne, Archibald 
 Beattie, Rev. A. O. = 
 Beggs, Thomas : 
 Blackie, J. . S 
 Brand, Mr. . - 
 Brodie, Rev. Robert 
 Brown, Archibald : 
 Brown, Hugh, sen. 
 Brown, Hugh, jun. 
 
 Campbell, Mr. per Rev. 
 G. Struthers : 
 Campbell, Miss, Lasswade 
 Cartwright, Richard . 
 Cassils, William . 
 Do. Do. fora friend 
 Do. Do. Do. 
 Cathcart, Miss Jane 2 
 Chisholm, William . 
 Clark, Dr. Western Moffat 
 Coehran, Jobn, jun. ° 
 Cochran, Subscriptions per 
 Miss FE. a 
 Craig, Mrs. Candleriggs 
 Crum, James 
 Crum, Mrs. Thornliebank 
 Crum, Miss Do. 
 Crum, Mrs. H. E. Do. 
 
 Davie, James 
 Dick, Rev. Dr.  . 
 Dick, Alexander . 
 
 £ 
 0 
 1 
 
 One ee 
 _ 
 
 Kem OnrOOOONH RHF 
 
 m Om MOrPCCOrD 
 
 i Oe | 
 
 i) 
 
 TO THE 
 
 GLASGOW 
 AUXILIARY BIBLE SOCIETY. 
 
 2 
 
 a) 
 = — CO ee eS 
 
 cma oma 
 
 - 
 me ORM OOUONH- 
 
 — 
 
 SWORE OOK OOD 
 
 ee OT et DO Or 
 
 SCOMmOOCDONSOOSSO OS50 © Of 
 
 coo ScSoSD0Om COS SOCoEaASeo 
 
 Maxwell, Dr. 
 
 sé 
 Dick, Alexander, for a friend 0 1 
 
 Do. Do. Do. 
 Downie, John 
 Drummond, James 
 
 Ewing, James, V. P. 
 Ewing, Rey. Greville 
 Ewing, Mrs. Greville 
 Edmond, James 
 
 Farie, Robert . é 
 Fisher, John 
 
 Frew, M. P 
 Fullarton, Arch. . 
 
 F. James, a friend 
 
 Gallie, George - : 
 Gibson, John : : 
 Gray, Thomas - ‘ 
 Graham, Miss : 
 
 Hamilton, Mrs. Nile Street 
 Hamilten, John 
 Hamilton, James . s 
 Henderson, J. E. . - 
 Do. Do. for a friend 
 Henderson, Mrs. J E 
 Henderson, Robert 
 Henderson, John . 
 Hood, Robert 2 
 Hood, James, jun. . 
 Hunter, Dunean . 
 Henry, Mr. for a friend 
 
 oe © © © 
 
 Kelly, William, sen. . 
 Kelly, William, jun. . 
 Kirkwood, John . : 
 
 Lang, William s 
 
 Laurie, James, Manhattan Q 
 
 Buildin : 2 
 Lethem, Patrick 
 L. Miss for a friend 
 
 Maxwell, John, M.P. 
 John 
 
 oM-= S oworo bet DO OO Or Se O 
 _ bt 
 OnWwonro KFWNOS 
 
 ot ee Or 
 
 WW eee HO! 
 
 ) See ORE EH ONO eee Oe 
 = _ 
 fm) — orne 
 
 own ome 
 oo One 
 
 — 
 
 OSS COMED COOSD SOOO” 
 
 ooo oscoooeoooooaso 
 
 _ 
 Ao ooo 
 
> 
 i=) 
 
 Dore tz. 
 Marshall, John 1 1 Of} Small, John 1 
 Mitchell, Rey. Dr. ; t 206 Small, John, Canon Street 1 
 Mitchell, Andrew, V.P. Sesh Vo) Somerville, James 1 
 Mitchell, Thomas 2 3.83 0 Do. Do. fora friend 1 
 Mitchell, Moncrieff 2 2 O| Sommerville, John : 1 
 Mitchell, William G. 1 1 0] Sommerville, Thomas . 1 
 Mitchell, James 1 1 O| Stevenson, Nathaniel . 1 
 Mochrie, Miss : 0 5 0} Stevenson, James ; 1 
 Monteith, Dr. James 2 2 O| Stevenson, Hew ' 0 
 Muter, Rev. Robert 1 1 0} Stewart, Robert c 0 
 Stewart, J. 0 
 M‘Allister, H. 0 5 O| Struthers, Rey. Gavin 1 
 M‘Callum, Malcom. 1 1 O} Stuart, J. - E : 0 
 M‘Farlane, Rev. John 010 6 
 M‘Farlane, M. 3 010 6{| Tannahill and Robertson 1 
 M‘Gavin, John 1 1 O| Taylor, William . ) 
 M‘Gavin, William - 1 1 0] Thomson, Mrs. Camphill 2 
 M‘Gavin, Mrs. William 1 1 0 | Thompson, Richard . 1 
 M‘Intyre, Donald 2 100 
 M‘Keand, James 010 6{| Walker, Robert .  . 1 
 M‘Lean, James, ae Mr. A. Walker, John 2 5 0 
 Wigham_. 010 6} Walker, William 0 
 M‘Lehose, William 0 5 O|} Walker, R. per A. Allan, 
 Wellington Factory . 0 
 Pye, A.- e 0 5 O| Wardlaw, Rev. Dr. 3 1 
 Wardlaw, William : 1 
 Reid, Alexander 1 i 0} Wallace, Ebenezer F; 1 
 Reid, William 0 5 O| Weir, Robert . ‘ 1 
 Risk, John 010 6 | White, William . : 1 
 Robertson, John 1 1 0] Wigham, Anthony 1 
 Robertson, Martha 010 6] Wigham, Mrs. A. ; 0 
 Roxburgh, John. , 1 1 O|} Wilkie, David = A 1 
 Russel, James 1 1 O| Wise, 5 ‘ i. a 0 
 Russel, Dixon 05" 0] Wise, Mrs: 45 = : 0 
 Russel, Mrs. D. 0 5 0; Wright, James . > 1 
 Smith, Duncan Lao 
 CONTRIBUTIONS FROM ASSOCIATIONS, &c 
 Legacy from the Trustees of the deceased Mrs. Isobel Gibson, Ee 
 wife of the late Mr. Walter Moffat, Smith in cont C ce ae 
 South-west Ladies’ Bible Association, : - 2 1 
 Cumnock Society for Religious Purposes, . . é ; ap FO 
 Blantyre Association, per Mr. John Kennedy, 3 
 Female Bible Association, Dumbarton, per Mrs. John ‘M‘Farlane, 37 
 Proceeds of a Collection at Brodick to be expended in Gaelic Bibles, 2 
 Wesleyan Juvenile Bible Society, per Mr. Coldstream, E = thure 
 Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. ‘ 4 
 _ Galston Juvenile Missionary Society, per Mr. A. Marshall, 1a ede 
 Mauchline Missionary and Bible Society, per Mr. R. Nisbet, a ee 1) 
 Collections at two Prayer Meetings at Mauchline, = 1 
 London Bible Association, per Rey. Mr. vik Newmills, + eae 
 Miss M‘Lean, Coll, : 3 
 Associate Congregation, Tarbolton, per the Rev. Mr. "Campbell, 4, 
 
 Subscriptions for 1828, received since the Account was closed. 
 
 Rey. Valentine Ward, a ; 5 ‘i 3 Pitas oe 1 
 John Kirkwood, further, . “ 3 A - @ : 1 
 
 —_ 
 Oo BOR eee ee ee 
 
 -_ 
 et OTT OO et et aco 
 
 — 
 
 a 
 . 
 
 HWOoWSSCONWOOOOWSO 
 
 — 
 
 ecooocococooooo of0 999° AARRRAOOCOOOSOOCO™ 
 
 kh 
 
 3) 
 
REVIEW 
 
 OF THE 
 
 SIXTEENTH ANNUAL REPORT 
 
 OF THE 
 
 GLASGOW 
 
 AUXILIARY BIBLE SOCIETY. 
 
 BY 
 
 ROBERT HALDANE, Ese. 
 
 EDINBURGH : 
 PUBLISHED BY WILLIAM WHYTE & CO. 
 
 13. GEORGE STREET ; 
 
 M. OGLE AND W. COLLINS, GLASGOW; A. BROWN & co. ABERDEEN ; 
 BY THE BOOKSELLERS OF PERTH, DUNDEE, AND BERWICK ; 
 LONGMAN & CO. LONDON ; AND J. CARSON, AND 
 W. CURRY JUN. & Co. DUBLIN, 
 
 M.DCCC.XXIX. 
 Price One Shilling and Sixpence. 
 
vs 7 W a 
 OTAA IAUMINY 
 
 "s at Osean & 
 
 " ¢ ; : sli 4 yb eines 
 
 Woah 
 
 olditt nase dere a ; cays F 
 
 ; ah 
 
 igh. ay te a barat ‘ te: Tak tit 
 
 mf bioien ee) vonitnet oh) jot rojo Yeas Bra \3 
 
 «21g, ob bears, whidiveory “Oe Mealdeebtl qa 
 , a 
 
 4 eeenvesd doves WO: GSE Yoer 
 
 ‘ “ dint ene is dheay aero ' 
 
 aid AEA | if al i. 
 
 . A ne Wil PVT peR a M ow i 
 
 " , At a vi io! F 
 wah a Ver Bartek g Fm -S ph loyal 
 oh NER a miter yyy 
 saan lag ati x “AVAIL pe 
 oe wh it Palade hears Pa se tuk! $2) tA Re, 
 odd qppuadiedi ai yicilored lye... ibys atid 
 abil Ka ty tibia lONlt Fk yt tou oe 
 
 be ods. aud parokiaoidieg: tha) alee ae dl gue 
 
 ; Aes holdate ie 1 Leela Uy Dockets ss Pee Phe 
 sae saeiae vente Ws :Mosiaunege ie 
 
 809.08 cewat ¢ MATA C80 ee 
 Divert dawin aw TRIES amare 
 ty whites SB warble A 7 WwODRA.tOY Amt 
 aceon cata, tahini arnt iefbikiad 
 he a 8 GAD pAOGKaL ft 
 
 é fp Gt Sahil Le High 
 
 ALIAS C 00 wa. at VALUED 3 
 
 SIX KO90G 
 ered, Drm geil, gxO, corel 
 
CHAPTER I. 
 
 "Tne conduct of the Committee of the British and Foreign Bible 
 Society, exhibits a very striking contrast to that of its Auxi- 
 liaries in Scotland. The great object of the former is to avoid 
 discussion, to give as little explanation as possible, and to pre- 
 serve an inviolable silence respecting the accusations preferred 
 against it. The latter, aware of the want of confidence in 
 the integrity of the Committee which so generally prevails, 
 while they have not dared fairly to meet the charges which have 
 been substantiated against its proceedings, endeavour, by partial 
 statemerts and high-wrought expressions of admiration, to re- 
 store the character of the Society, and to enlist in its favour the 
 suffrages of their countrymen. Such was the object of the Edin- 
 burgh Corresponding Board in their late publication; but the 
 answers which they received, confirmed the general conviction of 
 the unfaithfulness of the London Society, and the, same. effect 
 has invariably followed every attempt to extenuate or to deny its 
 numerous malversations. Yet, untaught by experience, the Glas- 
 gow Auxiliaries have published a Report, in which they eulogize 
 that Society in terms the most extravagant. It may, however, 
 be safely predicted, that they will not obtain the approbation of 
 their southern friends for again renewing the contest, and thus 
 preventing the conduct of the Earl Street Committee from sink- 
 ing into oblivion, which alone can secure it against merited 
 censure. 
 A 
 
2 
 
 The Glasgow Reporters formerly reprobated the proceedings 
 of the London Society in no very measured terms. They declar- 
 ed that they were “‘ more and more deeply impressed with the guilt 
 and danger” of being in any way accessary to the circulation of 
 corrupted editions of the Word of God; and that “the only 
 measure which can give security to the public” against the recur- 
 rence of this practice, is ‘ the purification of the Committee, by 
 ‘ the ejection from it of those who have taken so decided a part 
 ‘ with the Apocrypha.” But though the London Society still 
 continues to be accessary to the circulation of corrupted editions 
 of the Word of God, and though the Committee has not been pu- 
 rified, yet the Glasgow Auxiliaries are now “ more and more im- 
 pressed with the conviction” that it is the only Society which can 
 effectually do the business for which it was first instituted. To 
 account, then, for the removal of their former impression of guilt 
 and danger, as well as for their new impression, which, if not 
 yet so deep as the first, is increasing in precisely the opposite 
 direction, is the Herculean task which the Glasgow Auxiliaries 
 have undertaken. And, indeed, if their strength had been equal 
 to their courage, and their arguments proportioned to their 
 assertions, they would have accomplished their purpose in the 
 most triumphant manner, and have satisfactorily accounted for 
 the strange phenomenon which is here presented. But as might 
 have been anticipated from the difficulty of the case, they have 
 entirely failed. It has not been in their power to state one 
 solid reason why their first impression of guilt and danger has 
 vanished, and equally far are they from being able to assign 
 one adequate cause for their present conviction. Yet they 
 boldly assert that their new impression is founded on “a sur- 
 vey of the purified operations of this magnificent Institution, 
 —the extent of its field—the completeness of its system,— 
 the unity of its object pervading the multiplied variety of its 
 details,—the connexions it has already established in every 
 quarter of the globe,—the happy adjustment and harmonious 
 working of its complicated yet simple machinery,—and what 
 is of no trivial importance, considering the difficulties which 
 the cause has in many places to encounter, the weight which its 
 “very name carries with it in all parts of the world;” Such are 
 the grounds on which the Glasgow Auxiliaries not only rest 
 their own vindication, but also wish to persuade others to 
 join the standard they have erected. But not a word eseapes 
 
 nm 
 
 ee  . 
 
3 
 
 them concerning “ the only measure’ which can give security to 
 the public against the recurrence of those evils of which the So- 
 ciety has been convicted. As this Report is calculated, by its 
 specious but hollow statements, to mislead the uninformed, I 
 shall, in the following pages, give ample proofs of its deceptious 
 character. 
 
 After presenting an account of their pecuniary receipts, and 
 adverting to some internal arrangements, the Glasgow Auxilia- 
 ries insert in their Report, the Resolutions of May 1826 and May 
 1827 of the London Society respecting the Apocrypha. Three 
 eases are next stated, in which alone, according to the Reporters, 
 a departure from these resolutions has been alleged. The first of 
 them relates to Scio’s Bible ; the second to the Gaelic Bibles which 
 were sent to Scotland having some portion of the Spanish Apo- 
 erypha bound up in them; and the third to the discussions in 
 Earl Street in regard to the Septuagint. On the two first of 
 these charges any remark would now be superfluous. They have 
 been fully considered in the number of the Christian Instructor for 
 May, where the fallacy of all that the Reporters have advanced 
 respecting them is completely exposed. On the third charge, 
 it may be observed, that their attempt to prove that the inte- 
 grity of the canon was not attacked in the late discussions, has 
 altogether failed. Mr Ballance’s speech, the cheering with 
 which it was received, and the general unsoundness of the Earl 
 Street Committee regarding the canon, are facts now fully 
 substantiated. In proof of this, I refer to what I have stated 
 in a recent publication * in confirmation of all that had been 
 originally advanced on the subject, and especially to what has 
 appeared in the numbers of the Christian Instructor of March, 
 April, and May ; in the last of which, in reference to the argu- 
 ment respecting Mr Ballance, it is said, “ we refer our readers 
 ‘ to it, and we challenge our opponents to meet it, if they dare, 
 * and to overthrow it if they can.” In addition to these three 
 cases, which, the Auxiliaries affirm, have furnished the only in- 
 stances in which a departure from their rules in the issue of 
 
 * « The Conduct of the Rev. Daniel Wilson, Vicar of Islington, on the Conti- 
 nent, and as a member of the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, and of 
 the British and Foreign Bible Society, considered and exposed ; with Strictures on 
 the Church of England Missionary Society, respecting their Seminary at Basle, 
 and their Account of the Religious State of the Continent.” 
 
4 
 
 Bibles by tle London Society sinee May 1826 has been alleged, 
 another very flagrant case is noticed in the number for May 
 of the Christian Instructor. ‘* Spanish Bibles with the Apeery- 
 ‘ pha interspersed were issued in quantities from Earl Street, 
 ‘since the famous May 1826; the fact was witnessed; it 
 ‘ was mentioned in the Committee; but, according to. Mr 
 ‘ Brandram’s sage advice, no answer was given to the i regio 
 p- 389. eG 
 
 The abortive attempt, then, cf the Glasgow Alveatliaarhaat to ex- 
 
 culpate Mr Ballance and the Earl Street Committee, requires no 
 farther notice. It is indeed astonishing, that even before the 
 above statements appeared, they should have so far imposed on 
 themselves, as to believe that Mr Ballance had said nothing de- 
 rogatory to the integrity of the Scriptures. If this had been 
 true, not only Mr Gorham must have mistaken him, whem he af- 
 firmed that Mr Ballance had used language of “ an infidel com- 
 plexion,” and protested so warmly against it, but the Committee 
 and its chairman must have equally mistaken him, since they did 
 not check Mr Gorham; and finally, Mr Ballance must have mis- 
 
 taken his own meaning, when he allowed sach epithets to be ap-. 
 
 plied to what he had advanced, without at once pointing out their 
 irrelevancy, and convincing both Mr Gorham and the Committee 
 that he had been completely misunderstood. But Mr Ballance’s 
 speech was not the only one of the same. “ infidel complexion;” 
 delivered on that memorable occasion. Mr Brandram positively 
 affirmed, that there ts no infallible standard of the Old Testament 
 Seripiures to which we can appeal. And as he had formerly de- 
 
 clared, that the Apocrypha is a part of the Bible, of what advantage. 
 
 would it be to the cause of the Glasgow Auxiliaries, to exeulpate 
 Mr Ballance even if it were in their power, when the principal 
 seeretary, and leader of the Committee, has openly and un- 
 equivocally proclaimed, that he maintains the very opinions 
 imputed to the former gentleman! In addition to this, it is 
 now ascertained, as I have shewn in my late publication, that the 
 
 Committee are conscious that their opinions respeeting the Sa- 
 
 ered Canon are such, that they dare not run the risk of publicly 
 avowing them. 
 
 But it is proper to hear what the Glasgow Auxiliaries ‘share 
 selves advance respecting the Canon of Scripture, . They observe, 
 that .““there “is. no single immaculate standard of, the, sacred 
 ‘ text, infallibly determining the true original reading» ef every 
 
5 x 
 
 ¢ passage; but that a correct text must be produced by a faith- 
 ¢ ful collation of existing’ MSS. and versions:—and, as a co- 
 ‘ rollary, that, in some instances, the Septuagint translation, 
 ‘ chiefly executed from the Hebrew about three hundred years 
 ‘ before the coming of Christ, may possibly be more in confor- 
 ‘ mity with the original autographs, than the Hebrew text which 
 « we now possess,” p. 23. On this assertion, the following just 
 remarks occur in the Sixth Report of the western district of ‘the 
 Fife Bible Society. «“ Admit this principle, and nothing in the 
 ‘ original Hebrew text, as we have it, can be held more sure 
 ‘ than the text of the LXX. Every thing is thrown loose by a 
 « principle like this; and the words ‘in some instances” and “may 
 ‘ possibly’ which seem to contain a safe guard, are but a disguise 
 < of the deadly evil—Tell us in what instances? Till this be 
 ‘ done nothing is sure ;—It may possibly be in those very pas« 
 ‘ sages most essentially important to the faith of the church ;~ 
 ‘ What Socinian can ask more to shake the testimony of the 
 ¢ Scriptures by which he stands condemned.” P. 23. 
 
 The perplexity respecting the Canon, into which the prolate 
 and vain babblings of their leaders have thrown some of the mem- 
 bers of the Committee in Earl Street, may be seen in an obser- 
 vation lately made by one of them. “I am not,” said he, “a 
 ‘ learned man, and don’t know what is in all parts to be called 
 ‘ Seripture; you see how learned men are divided, and how am 
 ‘ I who don’t know Greek and Hebrew to determine.” Sach 
 are the effects produced on individuals in that Committee, while 
 it does not appear that a single member belonging to it, possesses 
 correct views on the subjects of the integrity and inspiration ‘of 
 the sacred canon. “ [ am not aware,” says Mr Alexander Fial- 
 dane, who has often withstood, almost alone, some of their extra- 
 ordinary projects,—“ I am not aware, and I do not believe, that 
 ‘ one solitary individual of the Earl Street Committee, believes 
 ‘ in the plenary verbal inspiration of the Scriptures. _Mr Bran- 
 dram, indeed, ridiculed the ides net many weeks ‘ago. © Fur- 
 ther, I-very much question, if any of them, and if any of them, 
 then certainly only two or three, have any settled, sound notion 
 ‘ of the cae of the whole of the books which saan the 
 ‘ sacred canon.’ git 
 
 ‘ 
 ‘ 
 
 « 
 
 -The main design of the Report: of the Glasgow Auxiliaries, is 
 to impress a conviction on the minds of their constituents, that 
 
6 
 
 there was only one legitimate ground of separation from the 
 London Bible Society, which is now completely removed. With 
 this view they ask, 
 
 « And is the whole amount of the doings of this vast institution—an institu. 
 tion which, now that its proceedings are purified and the more abundant favour 
 of heaven may be expected to descend upon them, promises more than ever to be 
 a blessing to the whole earth,—is all to be devoted to a sentence of oblivion, and 
 the claims arising from it to be sternly cancelled, on account of one unhappy 
 error, (an error, which, whatever they may still think of its original motive, your 
 Committee are far from being disposed to palliate,) when that error has been fully, 
 and, as they confidently trust, for ever abandoned.” P. 36. 
 
 The Reporters were not ignorant of the many heavy charges 
 preferred against the London Society, that have never been re- 
 futed; yet, taking advantage of the notoriety of the Apocryphal 
 controversy, which has occupied so much of the public attention, 
 they here sum up all the aggravated delinquencies of that Society; 
 under the designation of one unhappy error, which they affirm is 
 fully, and, as they trust, for ever abandoned. These positions, I 
 shall now proceed to prove, are in all respects utterly fallacious. 
 
 The expression, “‘ unhappy error,” appears to be selected to 
 conceal, or to palliate as much as possible, the criminality of the 
 London Society in adulterating the word of God. In the same 
 manner, the dissentients from the Edinburgh Bible Society, 
 spoke of this part of its conduct as “ an impropriety,’——“ the 
 unavoidable mistakes of good men,’—“an involuntary aberra- 
 tion,’—“ a well meant error.” This word “error,” in whatever 
 acceptation it may sometimes be employed, will naturally con- 
 vey to the mind of the reader the idea of a mistake in judgment, 
 rather than of a presumptuous sin; and his impression that this 
 is its true import here, will be strengthened by seeing it con- 
 nected with the word “ unhappy,” which denotes blameless mis- 
 fortune, and not deliberate purpose. Now, when it is recollected 
 that these same Reporters formerly characterized the deeds of the 
 Earl Street Committee as “delinquencies,” we are warranted 
 to conclude, that it was not without design that this term, “ un- 
 happy error,” has, in the sentence under review, been substi- 
 tuted by its authors for their former more appropriate ex- 
 pression. But whatever meaning may be affixed to the above epi- 
 thets, so strikingly similar, selected both by the Edinburgh and 
 Glasgow Auxiliaries, the act referred to is, nee 
 sim of the greatest magnitude. 
 
7 
 
 « | know not,” says Dr Johnson, “‘ any crime so great that a 
 * man can commit, as poisoning the sources of eternal truth.” 
 “ Neither know I,” says Bishop Hall, “ whether it be more 
 * wickedly audacious, ¢o fasten on God those things which he never 
 © wrote, or to weaken the authority, and deny the sufficiency of 
 ‘ what he has written.” As no sin can exceed this, so there 
 is nothing against which such awful denunciations of the wrath 
 of God are found in his Word, guarding it alike against aug- 
 mentation, diminution, or alteration. But notwithstanding all 
 these threatenings, the Apocrypha has been joined to the Scrip- 
 tures, and therefore is an addition to the Word of God. For 
 it should ever be remembered, that some of the writers of the 
 Apoeryphal books arrogate to themselves, in the most express 
 terms, the gift of inspiration. This is the grand evil that at- 
 taches to these books. The principal objection is not their pal- 
 pable fictions and falsehoods, their fallacies, their absurdities, or 
 even the heretical dectrine they contain. All of these may be 
 found in multitudes of other human compositions ; but that which 
 stamps the Apocryphal books as positively blasphemous and ac- 
 cursed of God, is their assuming the name and authority of Je- 
 hovyah, and delivering their messages under the sanction of 
 “ thus saith the Lord.” They are therefore direct and most auda- 
 cious forgeries on God. This view of these books has not always 
 been sufficiently regarded; yet it is the main point respecting 
 them to which Christians ought to direct their attention. Is it, 
 then, in the power of the Glasgow Auxiliaries, to specify any 
 sin of equal enormity to that of intermixing these books with the 
 Holy Scriptures, which they gently term an “ unhappy error” ? 
 
 But this “ unhappy error” of the London Society, does not 
 consist merely in the adulteration of the Scriptures ; it also in- 
 cludes a number of criminal acts, which for many years accom- 
 panied each other. The Earl Street Committee, by adding the 
 Apoerypha to the Bible, both violated the fundamental law of the 
 Society, and misapplied to an enormous amount the funds with 
 which they were entrusted. To all this was superadded, the 
 sinful concealment of these acts from the public; and not only 
 were they concealed by being keeped out of view—their exis- 
 tence was positively denied, and the contrary affirmed in the an- 
 nual reports of the Society, and this, too, with every variety of 
 expression that could be employed. Such, then, is the “ un- 
 happy error,” consisting of a complication of the greatest delin- 
 
8 
 
 quencies, of all of which the Earl Street Committee have been 
 fully convicted. The following are the terms-in which the Glas- 
 gow Reporters themselves described them, in their Resolutions 
 dated 16th March 1826 : 
 
 ‘«« In particular, they are more than ever Brie that the 
 proceedings of that Committee, in aiding the circulation of the 
 Apocryphal books, have involved a most flagrant and intole- 
 rable departure from the grand constitutional principles of the 
 British and Foreign Bible Society,—a departure long conti- 
 nued, widely extended, persisted in against remonstrances, and 
 pursued with a degree of secresy and reserve, such as, in the 
 management of a sacred trust committed into their hands by 
 many thousands of their countrymen, the Committee feel it 
 impossible to regard in the light of a legitimate prudence, but 
 are constrained still to pronounce, whatever may have been 
 the motive, a breach of faith with their constituents. And, 
 moreover, the secresy having been all along accompanied with 
 statements, in their Annual Reports, and in various other 
 ways, of their circulating only the Holy Scriptures, the pure 
 Word of God—that book alone, which has God for its author, 
 salvation for its end, and truth, without any mixture of error, 
 for its matter,—(statements calculated to blind the Christian 
 world in general to the real facts of the case;)—they cannot 
 but consider the entire proceedings as evincing a culpable defi- 
 ciency in the virtues of simplicity and godly sincerity, along 
 with a lurking distrust of the rectitude of their own doings, 
 and a jealous fear of the disapproval of those whose contribu- 
 tions they were thus alienating from their avowed and simple 
 ‘ purpose.” — Siatement, Sc. p. 27. 
 
 The reader must be filled with astonishment, when he observes 
 that all the complicated mischiefs here enumerated, have now 
 dwindled down in the eye of the Reporters, to the contracted 
 dimensions of “ one unhappy error.” And let it not be supposed, 
 that in convicting them here, and in subsequent quotations from 
 what they have written, of the grossest inconsistency, these refe- 
 rences are to be considered as a mere argumenium ad hominem. 
 They are much more. The sentiments they contain were not 
 only solemnly and deliberately expressed and published by them- 
 selves, but are strictly just and irrefragable ; and therefore, 
 ought to be appealed to as unchangeably true. . And, besides, 
 the Reporters have in the mest express manner appropriated 
 
 “ 
 
 n 
 
 ”“ 
 
 n 
 
 x 
 
 n 
 
 n 
 
 n 
 
 n“ 
 
 n 
 
 ” 
 
 n 
 
 a 
 
 w 
 
 n 
 
 a 
 
 a“ 
 
 ” 
 
 a 
 
 n 
 
 n 
 
 ” 
 
9 
 
 them, by insisting t that they are the original Glasgow Auxiliary 
 Bible Society. 
 
 “The Reporters assure their constituents, that the “ unhappy error” 
 of the London Society is now “ fully” abandoned. ‘So far is this 
 from being true, that the resolutions which the London Society 
 have finally adopted, leave it in their power, not indeed directly 
 by their own doing to adulterate the Scriptures, but to counte- 
 nance, to assist, and to support both societies and individuals 
 who are avowedly and pertinaciously engaged in this unhallowed 
 work. In their Resolutions, full provision is made for aiding . 
 and abetting the circulation of the Apocrypha. While the first 
 of them distinctly recognizes the fundamental law of the So- 
 ciety, “as excluding the circulation of the Apocrypha,” the 
 last expressly provides for giving “ ae of the Scriptures to 
 Societies which circulate the Apocrypha.” And, accordingly, the 
 Earl Street Committee, as soon as they were compelled to aban- 
 don its direct circulation, addressed their “ kindred institutions 
 on the Continent” in the following circular. 
 
 “© While the Committee of the British and Foreign Bible So- 
 * ciety have adopted this regulation for their own guidance, no- 
 “ thing is farther from their intention than to interfere, in the smallest 
 ‘degree, with the religious views and opinions, or with the rights 
 “and usages, of foreign churches ;—they respect that liberty of 
 © conscience in others which they themselves so happily enjoy. 
 * The Committee of the British and Foreign Bible Society em- 
 © brace this opportunity of assuring all their Continental brethren 
 “of their most unfeigned Christian regard, and of their anxious 
 € desire to contribute as liberally as possible to the Foreign So- 
 © cieties consistently with their present resolution ; and they shall 
 “deem it their privilege and happiness invariably to mdintain that 
 © pleasing bond of harmony and union which has so long and so 
 “beneficially subsisted between the British and Foreign Bible So- 
 * ciety and the kindred institutions on the Continent.” 
 
 ‘Could any thing more unequivocally prove to their “ Conti- 
 nental brethren” than this circular letter, that the’ British and 
 Foreign Bible Society had been compelled, contrary to’ their 
 _ Own judgment and wishes, to adopt measures which prevented 
 the aid they had been in use of affording them from flowing in 
 its usual channel? Could any thing more clearly express their 
 appfobation of these Societies, or give more full assurance that 
 the Society would render them all the assistance in their power ? 
 
 B 
 
10 
 
 On this extraordinary communication, the Glasgow Reporters 
 formerly remarked, “ That this Committee have observed with 
 extreme concern, the accounts given in a recent publication, 
 of the character and proceedings of some of the Bible Societies 
 on the Continent; and, without assuming that these accounts 
 are, throughout, susceptible of no satisfactory explanation, 
 they cannot but confess their disappointment and vexation, 
 that, instead of any proposal of enquiry into such alleged 
 abuses, in order to an attempt, at least, at their removal, as 
 far as they might be found to exist, the intimation transmitted 
 to these Societies, of the resolution of November 2lst, has 
 been accompanied with an assurance, couched in terms of an 
 almost servile courtesy, and without a single hint of exeeption 
 or qualification of the London Committee’s “ most unfeigned 
 Christian regards,” and of their “ anxious desire to contribute 
 to them as liberally as possible, consistently with the said re- 
 solution ;” and of their still deeming it their “ privilege and 
 happiness, invariably to maintain that pleasing bond of har- 
 mony and union, which has so long and so beneficially sub- 
 sisted between the British and Foreign Bible Society and the 
 kindred institutions on the Continent.” This Committee can- 
 not but regard such a communication as holding forth no very. 
 flattering promise of any radical improvement in the Continen- 
 tal operations of the Parent Society, and as indicating a greater 
 anxiety to keep on good terms with these Apocryphal Institu- 
 tiens, than to retain the countenance, and perpetuate the union 
 of the friends of the unadulterated Bible, in their own aad 
 other countries.” P, 29. 
 
 Such are the terms of decided disapprobation in which the 
 Glasgow Auxiliaries spoke of that Circular Letter, whieh suffi- 
 ciently indicated to the kindred institutions the strong Apoery- 
 pkal predilections of the “ Parent Society,” although no longer 
 capable of indulging them to all the extent they “tgould wish. 
 And in this sense, the Foreign Societies actnally understood it ; 
 as they did the Resolutions adopted by the Society. Accord- 
 ingly we learn from Mr Francis Cunningham’s Letter to Lord 
 Bexley, published April 5. 1827, that, after his explanations, 
 the Committee of Basle instantly “ passed a resolution expres- 
 ‘sive of their kind sympathy towards the British and Foreign 
 « Bible Society,” p, 9.. Could a severer condemnation be pro- 
 nouneed on the Earl Street Committee, by one of the most vio- 
 
 (ee) a a a Se Soeey Ser ey a ey a er ee ee ny oe ee ee eS 
 
11 
 
 lent Apocryphal Societies in Europe, than we find in this fact re- 
 eorded by Mr Francis Cunningham ? 
 
 The Continental Societies, it is well known, are the creatures 
 of the British aud Foreign Bible Society ; to it they owe their 
 existence, and by it they have been all along supported. They 
 are chiefly composed of Arians, Socinians, and Neologians. 
 These Societies are stedfast in their adherence to the Apocry- 
 pha. This is fully attested by the Glasgow Reporters in an ex- 
 tract which they have given. from a letter ef Mr Blumhardt. 
 «“ The Socinian party, which continues still to be very strong, is 
 * particularly interested therein,” (in the Apoerypha being re- 
 tained,) “in seeking by these means to envelop in obscurity, and 
 * to lower the idea attached to inspiration; whilst the Evangelical 
 * party, which is on the increase, dare not, on account of the con- 
 « sequencés, suffer the Apocrypha to be given up in the church,” 
 p- 30. By this extraet, the faet of the continued and universal 
 adherence of the Continental Societies to the Apocrypha is both 
 ascertained, and the reason of it disclosed. Whatever tends to lower 
 thecharacter of the Scriptures as the inspired Word of God, is eager- 
 ly embraced by the Socinian party, which is beyond comparison 
 the predominant party, while the Evangelical party will not suffer 
 the Apoerypha to be given up!!! In short, both parties are una- 
 nimous in “ bringing into circulation a spurious Bible.” Has ever 
 the fixed determination of these Societies stedfastly to adhere to 
 the Apoerypha, been so fully declared as in this extract? Has 
 ever the reason of this adherence of the “ strong” party been 
 so clearly developed? The Glasgew Auxiliaries hastened to pro- 
 elaim that the Evangelical party is on the increase, and they seem 
 not to have been aware, that they were giving in the same quo- 
 tation the most appalling view of the “ Continental Agency” 
 of the British and Foreign Bible Society that has yet heen exhi- 
 bited. After adducing such a fact, shall these Auxiliaries have 
 the confidence any longer to exhort the Christians in Glasgow to 
 join them in re-uniting with this agency? Shall they continue 
 to come forward and boast of the increase of the contributions 
 they have obtained during the last year in aid of sucli associates ? 
 Shall they still have the courage to assure the public, that the path 
 to re-union with the British and Foreign Society has been opened 
 and cleared of obstructions ? t 
 
 Surely the Glasgow Auxiliaries are now converts to the opi- 
 nion, which is said to have been broached in the west, that to 
 promote the circulation of the Bible, it is lawful te employ an 
 
12 
 
 “ infernal agency.” After the view they have given of their ‘¢ Con- 
 tinental agency,” it is certain that they hold this opinion, and it is 
 out of their power to shew the contrary. They believe that So- 
 einians are under the dominion of the prince of the power of the 
 air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience. 
 They believe that Socinians are caught in the snare of the devil, 
 and are taken captive by him at his will. They believe this, and 
 they firmly believe it, and deny it they dare not., On their own 
 showing, then, their Continental agency is an infernal agency,— 
 an agency under the direction of the devil, the leaders,of which 
 are, according to the Auxiliaries themselves, labouring to effect 
 his purposes. In affirming this, I do not exaggerate, but am 
 speaking the words of truth and soberness, .which it is not in 
 their power to gainsay. Instead then of persevering in this their 
 ungodly course, it is the incumbent duty of the Glasgow Auxi- 
 liaries to repent of the sin which they have committed in this 
 matter, and which they are soliciting others to commit by asso- 
 ciating themselves with an agency which is seeking “ to envelope 
 ‘ in obscurity, and to lower the idea attached to inspiration,” and 
 which will not suffer the Apocrypha to be given up in the church. 
 
 .. Such are the Societies to which the Earl Street Committee 
 adhere, and which they address as ible Societies, and their 
 Directors as “ Continental Brethren,” with whom they “deem 
 it their privilege and happiness, invariably to maintain that 
 pleasing bond of harmony and union, which ‘has ‘so long and 
 so beneficially subsisted between the British and Foreign Bible 
 Society and the kindred institutions on the Continent.” It ean- 
 not surprise us, that their Glasgow auxiliaries should have been 
 . at first “somewhat startled” at this ‘“ announcement” inthe cir- 
 cular letter above quoted, as they inform us they haye oecasion- 
 ally been at hearing injurious reports concerning their London 
 friends, and that they should have expressed, with all the warmth 
 we,have witnessed above, their disapprobation, of . that letter 
 addressed to these Apocryphal Institutions. They could mot 
 with any consistency have acted otherwise, considering the ac- 
 counts which, they tell us, they had received respecting these 
 Societies, though at that time they declared they could not 
 assume ‘that these accounts were throughout susceptible, of; no 
 satisfactory explanation.” But that now, when they are! fully 
 aware, not only of the fixed determination of these Societies not 
 to relinquish the Apocrypha, but also of the diabolical reason of 
 that determination—that now when they have themselves brought 
 
13 
 
 forward the heaviest accusation that has yet been preferred against 
 them, namely, of a deliberate purpose to destroy the character of the 
 Bible as a revelation from God—that after this the Glasgow Auxi- 
 liaries should stand forth as the apologists of the London Society, 
 in maintaining such a connection, is beyond measure astonishing. 
 
 As complete provision is made in the Resolutions of the Lon- 
 don Society, for continuing its connection with these Foreign 
 Societies, it is also left at full liberty, to supply these Socie- 
 ties with Bibles, and portions of Bibles, and Testaments, arrang- 
 ed in a way to suit their Apocryphal adulterations, and to enable 
 them to apply the whole of their funds in providing Apocryphas 
 to accompany the Bibles which they receive from the London 
 Society. Accordingly, the Society of the kingdom of Wiirtem- 
 berg, in their resolutions of September 30, 1827, “ after listening 
 ‘ to the address of Dr Pinkerton,’ declare that they “much wish 
 ‘ that the New Testaments” (furnished by the British and Fo- 
 reign Bible Society) ‘may be paged in like manner with those 
 ‘ printed by the Wiirtemberg Bible Society, so that the order 
 ‘ may not be disturbed in the Schools, in which the last mention- 
 ‘ ed Testaments are chiefly used.” Here a mode of accommoda- 
 tion to its plan of continuing the addition of the Apocrypha to 
 the Bible, is suggested by a violent Apocryphal Society—a mode 
 which the resolutions of the London Society allow it to adopt. 
 But the various ways in which these “ Continental Brethren” 
 may be accommodated, aided, and abetted, by the Apocryphists 
 of Earl Street, who consider it to be contrary to the genuine 
 spirit and moral bearing of the Bible, to refuse to join with it 
 the Apocrypha, have been so often pointed out, that nothing 
 more is required to be said on the subject. They all combine to 
 stultify,and contradict, in a manner the most explicit, the asser< 
 tion of the Glasgow Auxiliaries, that “the unhappy error” 
 is fully abandoned. On the subject of maintaining connection 
 with ‘these Apocryphal institutions,” the Glasgow Auxiliaries, 
 in their resolutions already quoted, expressed themselves to the 
 following effect : 
 
 «« That, on more mature deliberation, this Committee feel them- 
 ‘ selves constrained to take higher ground than they formerly 
 ‘occupied ; being now fully convinced, that there is no principle 
 ‘ on which a thoroughly consistent course can be maintained, but 
 ‘ that of an entire cessation of all contribution to any Societies 
 ‘ or individuals by whom the Apocryphais circulated, in as much 
 ‘as there seems to be no way in which security can be given, 
 
14 
 
 that all Bibles, or parts of the Bible, supplied to Foreign So- 
 cieties by the Home Committee, or printed by Foreign Socie- 
 ties at its expense, shall go forth into the world invariably with- 
 out any contaminating Apoeryphal accompaniment ; and all such 
 contribution, therefore, goes directly towards the result of 
 bringing into circulation a spurious Bible—a Bible, of which 
 the uncanonical books form one, or, what is still worse, part 
 of one of the volumes. And, this being the result, it is ob- 
 viously a matter of the purest indifference, what part of the ex- 
 pense of this whole may have been defrayed in British, and 
 what part in Continental money ; the two Societies, by whose 
 united contributions the whole, in whatever proportions, has 
 been printed, bound, and published, being neither more nor 
 less than a joint Stock Company for the production and cireu- 
 lation of corrupted editions of the Word of God ; and the Com- 
 mittee are more and more deeply impressed with the guilt and 
 danger of being in any way accessary to such a result.” 
 
 On what grounds can the Reporters now set aside the view 
 they have here taken of this subject, supported by arguments that 
 are irrefragable. Here is an explicit avowal by the Auxiliaries 
 themselves of their sense of the guilt and danger they incurred by 
 maintaining connection with “ Apocryphal Institutions,” and of 
 the appalling evil resulting from it, of which they were so “fully 
 convinced ;” yet they are now satisfied—now, when they have 
 themselves produced evidence of the determination of the leaders 
 of these Societies, not only stedfastly to adhere to the Apocrypha, 
 but also by means of it to “ envelope in obscurity, and to lower 
 the idea attached to revelation,”—they are now, notwithstanding 
 this, satisfied with resolutions which explicitly provide for con- 
 tinuing that connection, while in the most unqualified manner 
 they affirm, that the unhappy error is fully abandoned!!! — 
 
 In order more clearly to prove their regard for their « Conti- 
 tinental brethren,” to strengthen their hands, and to encourage 
 them to persevere in manufacturing and issuing “ spurious Bibles,” 
 the London Committee, aided by their Glasgow auxiliaries, con- 
 tinue to send to them violent Apocryphal agents. The first fruit 
 of one of these missions, since the “ one unhappy error” respeet- 
 ing the Apocrypha was, according to the Reporters, fully aban- 
 doned, was to re-animate an Apocryphal Society, one of the worst 
 in Europe, and to discourage and send back to it those members 
 who had withdrawn with the purpose of erecting a pure Bible 
 Society. Dr Pinkerton’s success at Statgard, in this meriteriour 
 
 On Ke Tea DA AIR A Gn eee eA Am A 
 
 Cy 
 
 ” 
 
15 
 
 work, realized the most sanguine expectations of the keenest 
 Apocryphists in Earl Street, and this proceeding of their agent 
 proved so satisfactory to his employers, that when a motion was 
 made in the Committee, to instruct him not to act in a similar 
 manner at Gottingen, it was immediately quashed. Thus Dr 
 Pinkerton was left to conclude how little disapprobation his for- 
 mer proceedings at Stutgard had excited. After all this, is 
 it possible, that any of those who have separated from the Lon- 
 don Society can be so far imposed on by the assertion of its 
 Glasgow Auxiliaries, as to believe that the ‘‘ one unhappy error” 
 has been fully abandoned ? 
 
 _ Bat not only do the present Resolutions of the London So- 
 ciety permit it to assist and abet all Apocryphal Societies, they 
 leave it also at liberty more effectually to aid the circulation of 
 the Apocrypha by means of individuals. By these resolutions, 
 it is provided, that only Bibles which are bound can be given to 
 Societies, and this is all the security they afford, (or rather it 
 amonnts to no security at all,) that these Bibles shall not be 
 adulterated with the Apocrypha. It was probably understood 
 by all others except the Apocryphal framers of the resolu- 
 tions, that in accordance with them, unbound Bibles could not 
 be issued to individuals any more than to Societies, especially 
 to those who had been in use of circulating the Apocrypha. 
 This, however, turns out to be a mistake. The resolutions, as 
 explained by the Earl Street Committee, do not prohibit this, and 
 accordingly to individuals, such as Keiffer and Van Hss, both of 
 them notorious Apocryphists, unbound Bibles are issued. When 
 this practice was first adopted in the case of Van Ess, Messrs. 
 Gorham, and White, Dobs, and Irvine, entered a solemn protest 
 against it. Many others remarked on the gross disingenuity 
 evinced by such a proceeding. There was a strong additional 
 reason for not issuing Bibles in this manner to Van Ess, and 
 none but determined Apocryphists would have done so. Van 
 Ess was the last man who ought to have been entrusted with un- 
 bound Bibles, if the intention of the donors was to exclude the 
 Apocrypha. Besides his character on the Continent being such 
 as was sufficient to warn all those who had any desire to main- 
 tain the purity of the Bible against taking such a step, Van Hss 
 had given the Committee a specimen of what he usually terms 
 his “ finesses” in his letter to the Committee, dated June 28. 
 1824, addressed to the Foreign Secretary, Dr Steinkopff. Ex- 
 tracts from that letter were published in the well-known Cam-, 
 
16 
 
 bridge Remarks, in which his Jesuitical proposals for the 
 purposes of evasion and deception respecting the printing of the 
 Apoerypha were altogether.omitted. They were caleulated to 
 put all who had any dealings with him completely on their guard, 
 as they proved what he was capable of doing. That they were in- 
 tentionally omitted, there can be no doubt ; for besides their omis- 
 
 sion, a fraud of the basest description, whieh shall be eben 
 
 in the sequel, was practised on these extracts. 
 That Van Ess was not a man to be trusted even as it sess 
 ed the addition of notes and comments to the Bibles he issued, 
 the Earl Street Committee were well aware. Money was granted 
 to him on “ express condition that the few notes existing in the 
 « former editions should be left out” in that printed for the So- 
 ciety ; yet his Testament is loaded with notes, and to each chap- 
 ter is prefixed a sort of commentary, in the shape of a heading, 
 often completely perverting the tenor of Scripture. ‘This breach 
 of faith and of his contract on the part of Van Ess, the Earl 
 Street Committee had full reason to expect; and had they been 
 at all solicitous on the subject, and determined to act fairly with 
 the funds entrusted to them, according to the law of the Society, 
 and their own reiterated professions, they Would never have trust- 
 ed Van Ess in this matter. That he was not to be depended on; he 
 
 had sufficiently proved, not only by the specimens he had given 
 
 them in the letter above referred to of the deceptions he was ready 
 to practise, in which he had earnestly urged them to participate, 
 but from what he had distinctly told them in the Same letter, of the 
 necessity there was of having notes appended to the Bible. 
 
 “ Truly the moral feelings of right and wrong, entertained by 
 
 the Committee, are very strange, when a Romish Priest is per- 
 
 titted, not only to introduce notes into his Testament, contrary’ 
 
 to the fundamental laws of the Society, but when he is, more-’ 
 over, ‘permitted to introduce headings to the chapters, and 
 thus explain away the truths of Scripture!” To Van Ess, how- 
 ever, notwithstanding his well known character, and notwith- 
 standing his breaking faith with the Committee, were unbound 
 Bibles intrusted, in accordance, as the Earl Street Committee in- 
 sist, with those Resolutions which the Glasgow Auxiliaries hold 
 out to the public as satisfactory, and as having ee a ful 
 abandonment of the unhappy error. 1 Ree 
 
 But there is something more to be told, in relidion to the tran 
 sactions betwixt the London Society and Van Ess. Van Ess re- 
 ceives an allowance of £360 a-year, besides having his travelling 
 
 v 
 
17 
 
 expenses defrayed by the Society. Thus he is the retained agent 
 of Earl Street, and in the judgment of foreigners extravagantly 
 rémunerated for the whole of his time and labours. Notwith- 
 standing this, a letter of January 1. 1827, was dispatched to him 
 from the Committee, by which he is expressly authorized to hold 
 intercourse with all Foreign Societies,—officially to be concerned 
 in the circulation of the Apocrypha,—only to have nothing to do 
 with the Apocrypha, guoad the agent of Earl Street? When this 
 Measure was proposed and carried, Mr Brandram, when it was 
 objected to, scouted as ungenerous the idea of tying up the hands 
 of Van Ess, and preventing him from privately circulating the 
 Apocrypha. Mr Brandram stated, that he himself was going to 
 attend the following day a meeting of the Bartlett's Building So- 
 ciety, yet they circulate the Apocrypha, was he to be prevented, 
 he asked, from doing this on account of his salary? A stranger 
 who was present in the Committee, was much struck with the gross 
 dishonesty of this arrangement. Van Ess, then, is not only permit- 
 ted to employ an indefinite portion of that time which belongs 
 to the London Society, in adulterating the Scripture, but is ex- 
 pressly told by his employers that he is at liberty to do so!!! 
 
 ' From this most shameful transaction, we learn what may be 
 expected, while the affairs of the British and Foreign Bible So- 
 ciety are conducted by determined Apocryphists, who declare 
 they “never will abandon the Apocrypha.” If the Glasgow 
 Auxiliary Society formerly considered “the entire proceedings” 
 of the Earl Street Committee, “as evincing a culpable deficiency 
 in the virtues of simplicity and godly sincerity,” what do they 
 consider this proceeding respecting Van Hss as evincing? And 
 what do they think of themselves, as being, by their adherence 
 to Earl Street, art and part in this proceeding? And what do 
 they think of their attempt to involve the Christian public in 
 the “ guilt and danger” of such a proceeding, which not only 
 provides for the adulteration of the Scriptures, but also for per- 
 petrating this violation of the law of God, in a manner that sets 
 at defiance the virtues of simplicity and godly sincerity ? The 
 public is here furnished with an example of what sort of proceed- 
 ings may take place under the present Resolutions of the London 
 Society, with which the Glasgow Auxiliaries express so much 
 satisfaction, while they unblushingly declare, that the “ one un- 
 happy error” has been “ fully abandoned.” So far from being 
 fully abandoned, it is here explicitly sanctioned, and means are 
 
 c 
 
18 
 
 provided by the Earl Street Committee and their Glasgow Auxi- , 
 liaries, by which it is openly persevered in. That Van Ess is at . 
 present laid aside by sickness, does not in the smallest degree 
 affect the question. 
 The activity of Van Ess in printing the Apocrypha, and adulte- 
 rating the Bible, is attested by Mr Francis Cunningham in his let- 
 ter to Lord Bexley, dated April 5.1827. Van Ess “is making a 
 new version of the Bible, which, by the help of the Continental, 
 Bible Societies, he is about to print; and, although he holds. 
 the opinions of the Church to which he belongs on the subject 
 of the Apocrypha, he wishes this opinion to be no hinderance 
 to others; so that they will, in any way, read the word of 
 God. He is, therefore, preparing his version for publica- 
 tion, in three forms. First, with the Vulgate printed ina small. 
 type at the bottom of each page, and with the Apocrypha in- 
 _termixed; this is the form in which the Catholics wish to re-. 
 ceive it. Secondly, without the Vulgate, and with the Apo- 
 erypha appended, for the Protestants of that country. Thirdly, 
 without the Apocryphal books, for the distribution of our own. 
 Bible Society, if we are disposed to adopt it. Here is a speci- 
 men of that largeness of charity by which every part of his 
 conduct is influenced. So that, by Protestants and Catholics, . 
 who are partakers of the same spirit, he is alike esteemed !...E. 
 consider this Society as privileged, in no ordinary degree, in. 
 having such an agent and friend on the Continent.” P. 19. 
 Here we have an account of the manner in which a retained. 
 agent of the British and Foreign Bible Society was employing 
 himself, after the period of their passing the Resolutions of May 
 1826,—the era at which, according to the Glasgow Auxiliaries, 
 the ‘magnificent Institution” commenced its “purified operations.” 
 We learn that Van Ess was engaged in three separate employ- 
 ments. In one of the three, he serves the Society ; in the other 
 two, he labours to adulterate the Bible both for Protestants and 
 Catholics. He is adulterating it in the very worst form, by in- 
 terspersing the Apocrypha, thus ministering to, and abetting the 
 most atrocious act of the Man of sin. All this he is doing, not 
 merely by connivance, but as expressly authorized by the British 
 and Foreign Bible Society. This account of Van Ess by Mr 
 Francis Cunningham, in which his manner of employing his time, 
 the largeness of his charity, and their high privilege in possessing 
 such an agent, are celebrated, was first read to the Commit- 
 tee, and afterwards published, in a letter addressed to one of 
 
 el a a ee eNO Nee ee i rr a ~ A AW 
 
19 
 
 their Vice-Presidents:; Now>»let it be remembered, that. the 
 Glasgow Auxiliaries have affirmed in their Report, that their 
 connexion with the British and Foreign Bible Society is “ sus- 
 pended on one condition’—namely, the conscientious adherence 
 of the Committee of that institution to the Anti-Apocryphal 
 Regulations of the preceding May, (1826.)...“« To this one point, 
 ‘ therefore, your Committee have kept their eye directed, with 
 ‘ all the vigilance, and all the freedom from biassing pre- 
 ‘ possession, they could command:—and it affords them pecu- 
 ‘ liar gratification to be able to say, witha clear and unhesi- 
 ‘ tating conscience, that the adherence has been maintained with 
 ‘ a punctilious strictness.” —P. 13. In what light, I would now ask, 
 shall this affirmation of the Auxiliaries be viewed? If, in all the 
 business of Van Ess with the Earl Street Committee above re- 
 ferred to, the regulations of May 1826 were maintained with 
 punctilious strictness, how have the Glasgow Auxiliaries the as- 
 surance to call them “ Anti-Apocryphal regulations,” and to 
 refer to them throughout their Report as satisfactory? If, on 
 the other hand, these regulations did not authorize that business, 
 how have they been “ maintained with punctilious strictness ?” 
 The Auxiliaries speak, too, of “ the purified operations of this 
 magnificent institution”! But was it possible that operations 
 could be more opposed to all Anti-Apocryphal principles, than in 
 this case of Van Ess; or for the Harl Street Committee more 
 completely to prove its utter disregard of them, and its determi- 
 nation to encourage Apocryphal proceedings to the utmost of its 
 power, and on every opportunity that presented itself? Yet, 
 after all this, the Auxiliaries come forward, and declare that it 
 affords them peculiar gratification to be able to say, with a clear 
 and unhesitating conscience, that the adherence of the Committee 
 to these Anti-Apocryphal regulations has been maintained with 
 punetilious strictness!!! The conduct of Mr Brandram, and of 
 the Earl Street Committee, when, taking advantage of the in- 
 efficacy of these Resolutions to restrain them from encouraging 
 the adulteration of the Scriptures, they authorized Van Ess to act 
 as has been described, and the complacency with which they 
 listened to the account of his proceedings, are precisely what 
 might be expected. But if their conduct may be easily under- 
 ‘stood, what explanation can be given of that of the Glasgow Auxi- 
 liaries ?, And on what principle shall the affirmation of the latter, 
 that the unhappy error of the London Society is fully abandon- 
 ed, be accounted for ? 
 
20 
 
 ‘We come next to the assertion of the Auxiliaries, that the un- 
 happy error is, “ as they confidently trust, for ever abandoned.” 
 But what are the grounds on which they rest this confidence ? 
 In their own resolutions of March 16. 1826, they expressed them- 
 selves as follows :—“ And, to shew that they are still actuated 
 ‘ by the same conciliatory spirit, and reluctance to part, they 
 resolve, before coming to a final decision, to await the result 
 of the approaching Anniversary of the Parent Institution ; 
 bearing in mind, what seems in danger of being forgotten, that 
 the Commitiee is not the Society, and that some expression may 
 then be made of the general sentiments and feeling. of sub- 
 seribers and Auxiliary Associations, such as may lead to the 
 purification of the Committee, by the ejection from it of those 
 who have taken so decided a part with the Apocrypha,;—the 
 only measure which can give security to the public, for an en- 
 tire abstinence in time to come, from all connexion, direct or 
 indirect, with these unhallowed productions of the wisdom and 
 folly of man, that have been so presumptuously associated with 
 the sacred oracles of God.” P. 30. 
 
 Has then “ the oNLY MEASURE which can give security to the 
 public” been resorted to? Has a “ purification of the Committee” 
 taken place? Has a single member of it been “ ejected?” On 
 the contrary, the old Apocryphists have been retained. Mr 
 Brandram the secretary has been retained; and new members 
 have been elected from year to-year, who are known to be 
 strongly attached to the Apocrypha. The General Meeting at 
 which the “ resolutions” of the London Society were adopted, 
 
 n 
 
 Ce ee ee ee a aT 
 
 and to which the Glasgow Auxiliaries looked, as they inform — 
 
 us, for “the purification of the Committee, and the ejection 
 of the Apocryphal members,” passed no vote of censure on the 
 conduct of the Committee, and expressed no regret for what 
 had been done respecting the Apocrypha. So far from giving 
 any satisfaction to the public on the subject, that meeting treated 
 Mr Irving in what one of the directors of the Society called a 
 “‘ scandalous” manner, because he stated that it was their duty 
 to express regret for their former proceedings. At the subse- 
 quent annual meetings, the feeling of the Society respecting the 
 Apocrypha has most unequivocally been made manifest by the 
 circumstance, that no motions have been put into the hands of 
 Anti-Apocryphists, while the platforms have been crowded with 
 those whe have distinguished themselves by their keenness in 
 support of the Apocrypha, and their unsoundness respecting the 
 
21 
 
 canon. Does all this give the Glasgow Auxiliaries reason con/i- 
 dently to trust that the unhappy error has been for ever abandon- 
 ed? 
 
 To the resolutions which they have at last adopted, inefficacious 
 as they are, the Earl Street Committee were literally driven, 
 after having fought every inch of ground in the several positions 
 on which they took their stand, and from which they were suc- 
 cessively dislodged. Just before adopting the Resolutions of May 
 1826, they had received so many intimations from various quar- 
 ters of the intended suspension of remittances, unless they put a 
 stop to the circulation of the Apocrypha, that a change of mea- 
 sures became absolutely necessary. But not one concession was 
 made that was not wrung from them; and even within a few. 
 hours of the general meeting at which the resolutions were pass- 
 ed, the question with them was not, “ How shall we best secure 
 ‘ the unadulterated circulation of God’s word? but, ‘how much 
 ‘ must we concede in order to appease the ignorant clamour which 
 ‘ has been excited ?” 
 
 Mr Brandram, the leader of the Committee, has, along with 
 other members of it, entered a solemn protest against the reso- 
 lutions, as being, in their deliberate judgment, in direct opposi- 
 tion to the moral bearing and genuine spirit of God’s word. Mr 
 Brandram has affirmed that the Apocrypha is a part of the Bible, 
 and has asserted that it was a thousand pities that the Society 
 had ever yielded an inch of ground in regard to it. He has 
 declared again and again, that he would do what he could to 
 have the resolutions rescinded by which the Society is restricted 
 from circulating the Apocrypha as formerly, and that the vic- 
 tory on the part of the opponents is but a temporary one. At 
 an Apocryphal dinner at Cambridge, he expressed his hope 
 that the Society would return to the good old practice of circu- 
 lating the Apocrypha along with the Bible. Do all these cir- 
 cumstances give the Glasgow Auxiliaries reason confidently to trust 
 that the “ unhappy error” has been for ever abandoned ? 
 
 The attention of the Earl Street Committee was called to the 
 subject of the circulation of the Apocrypha in 1821. In 1822, 
 they passed a resolution against Apocryphal circulation, nearly 
 as strong as the present resolutions. That resolution remained in 
 force for two years, till 1824, when it was contravened by a vote 
 of £500 to Van Ess, to assist him to print the Bible with the 
 Apocrypha interspersed ; although that vote was afterwards _re- 
 seinded, in consequence of a strong remonstrance from a clergy- 
 
22 
 
 man, with a threat of publication, seconded by Lord Teign-. 
 mouth. Gut in the month of March 1825, Mr Brandram rose 
 in the Committee, and requested a member to move instanter,. 
 «« That all the resolutions of the Committee relative to the 
 Apocrypha be rescinded.” This motion, without any previous 
 warning, was immediately carried, and was confirmed at the 
 next meeting of March 21st, and thus all the resolutions that had 
 passed on the subject from the month of August 1822 were at. 
 once annulled. Does this give the Glasgow Auxiliaries reason 
 confidently to trust that the unhappy error is for ever abandoned? 
 By closely interrogating the Deputation which the London: 
 Society sent to Scotland in 1826, it was discovered that Keiffer: 
 and Van Ess had long enjoyed salaries from the Committee, 
 though this fact was carefully concealed from the public, and 
 though Mr Bainbridge, a member of the Committee, and the 
 Rev. Mr Jerram, who attended the Bible Society Meeting at 
 Guildford of August 29. 1826, positively denied it. The Deputa- 
 tion to Scotland declared they knew of no other salaried agent 
 on the Continent but Keiffer and Van Ess. In consequence, 
 however, of the correspondence of a gentleman in Glasgow with 
 one of his friends abroad, a suspicion was excited that another 
 salaried agent was employed. The London Committee were 
 publicly questioned on the subject. They returned no answer ; 
 and no satisfaction could be obtained till a letter was received 
 from the individual himself, Mr Lissignol of Montpellier, ac- 
 knowledging that he received a salary from the London Society. 
 And thus the fact of his being a salaried agent came out; but 
 this fact, as generally happens where underhand and dishonest 
 manceurres are practised, was not the only one brought to 
 light. Another and a most appalling disclosure accompanied 
 it. In August 1822, the London Committee passed a resolution 
 that the circulation of the Apocrypha was contrary to the law of 
 the Society, as that law was interpreted by the great body of the 
 subscribers, and therefore bearing that all such circulation was to 
 be discontinued. And yet from that day down to the end of 
 1824, that is, for more than two years, did they secretly employ 
 Mr Lissignol, and pay him for circulating in France De Sacy’s 
 Bible, which they had printed in 1819, and which not only con- 
 tained the Apocrypha, but contained it interwoven with the in- 
 spired volume!!! The remainder of the stock of De Sacy’s Bible 
 had been sent by the Committee to be distributed in France, in 
 the end of the year 1822, and in January 1825. Professor Keif- 
 
23 
 
 fer was the person employed, as the instrument of the Com- 
 mittee, for contradicting and defeating their own Anti-Apocry- 
 phal resolutions, by distributing De Sacy’s Apocryphal Bible. 
 Mr Lissignol acted in immediate subordination to Mr Keiffer, 
 and Mr Keiffer acted in immediate subordination to the Com- 
 mittee, as a paid circulator of Apocryphal Bibles, down at least 
 to April or May 1826. Here we have instances of Apocryphal 
 circulation in its worst form, practised for years after the Earl 
 Street Committee professed to have abandoned it, and during their 
 continued declaration to the world that all the while they were 
 doing the contrary, and also of their studied concealment of 
 retaining and employing agents expressly for the purpose of con- 
 tinuing that circulation. At the very time, too, that they were 
 passing their Anti-Apocryphal resolutions of August 1822, De- 
 cember 1824, and April 1825, when they pretended to renounce 
 the printing and circulating of interspersed Apocryphas as an ille- 
 gal practice,—at the very time they were passing those resolu- 
 tions, and making those solemn professions, and using those de- 
 ceitful means, of lulling suspicion, they were not only going on - 
 with the circulation of De Sacy’s Roman Catholic Bible, sent. 
 from London to Paris for that purpose, but did actually put. to 
 press, print under their own eye, and issue from their own stores, 
 am edition of De Sacy’s Spanish Bible, with the Apocrypha in-. 
 terspersed! ! ! 
 
 Besides the above-quoted resolutions of August 1822, a Reso- 
 lution was) passed in December 1824, suggested and proposed by 
 Lord Teignmouth, by which the Committee. expressly renounced, 
 the expending of the Society’s money on interspersed Apocry- 
 phas.. But now it is ascertained that the Karl Street Committee 
 put to press and printed in 1823 and 1824, and issued in 1825, 
 an edition of Scio’s Spanish Bible, which is translated from the 
 Vulgate, and has the Apocrypha intermixed. This is of a piece 
 with their conduct in regard to De Sacy’s French Bible, which, 
 as we have seen, they persevered in circulating for about three 
 years after they resolved that Apocryphal circulation was contra- 
 ry to the Society’s law, as interpreted by the Society itself; with 
 this great aggravation, however, that De Sacy’s Bible had been 
 previously printed, whereas Scio’s Bible was printed subsequent- 
 ly in London, and by the Society’s own printer. Does all this 
 give the Glasgow Auxiliaries reason confidently to trust that the 
 unhappy error has been for ever abandoned? — 
 
 The deceptious nature of the accounts of its proceedings which 
 
24 
 
 have issued from Earl Street, is a fact which has been fally ascer- 
 tained. It is difficult for those who are not acquainted with the 
 state of the Continent, to believe to what degree the public have 
 been imposed on by the Annual Reports of the British and Fo- 
 reign Bible Society. A system of deception has been deliberate- 
 ly acted on. At Corfu, Dr Pinkerton being attacked on the 
 ground of the flaming accounts which appeared in his name in 
 the Society's Reports, respecting the progress of religion, &c. said 
 at the officers’ mess.table, that if such representations were not 
 made, the English public would not be sufficiently interested in 
 the cause. Another agent of the Society told a gentleman in 
 Edinburgh, that he might put his pen through many extracts of 
 correspondence from the north of Europe, which appeared in the 
 appendix of the Edinburgh Bible Society Report, taken from the 
 Report of the British and Foreign Bible Society, they being 
 either greatly exaggerated, or altogether unfounded. An eccle- 
 siastical dignitary of one of the Greek islands, being asked about 
 the Bible Society there, which had been represented in Great 
 Britain as in a flourishing state, did not know at first what was 
 meant, but at last recollected that a Doctor “ Something or 
 other,” his name he had forgot, had once conversed with him on 
 the subject, and that a box of books had been sent, and was ly- 
 ing “somewhere,” but that there was no Bible Society there, and 
 no circulation of Bibles. An active and most respectable Chris- 
 tian, now a clergyman, who was formerly a member of the Bible 
 Society at Malta, has declared, since his return home, that while 
 there he was so disgusted with the untruths that were published 
 by the British and Foreign Bible Society, which he knew to be 
 so from personal observation, that he determined never again to 
 look into one of their Reports. 
 
 When all these things are considered, and especially when the 
 deplorable unsoundness of the Committee respecting the canon 
 of Scripture, which lies at the foundation of the “unhappy er- 
 ror,” is kept in view, what reasonable ground have the Glasgow 
 Auxiliaries for confidently trusting that it is for ever abandoned ? 
 So far are they from having any ground for such confidence, that 
 on the contrary they have good reason to apprehend, that if the’ 
 Apocrypha question was once set at rest, and the public attention 
 diverted from it, the same line of conduct which was formerly pur- 
 sued will again be resorted to, and Apocryphal circulation re-es- 
 tablished. For why may not the present resolutions be at once 
 rescinded, like all the other resolutions previous to March 7. 
 
29 
 
 1825, by a Committee which takes advantage of every opening 
 they afford in favour of the Apocrypha, and whose leaders “in 
 their deliberate judgment” believe them to be “in direct opposi- 
 tion to the moral bearing, and genuine spirit of God’s Word?” 
 And do not the Glasgow Auxiliaries know well, that the same 
 thing. may be affirmed of the present Resolutions, which they 
 themselves asserted in regard to the Resolution of November 21. 
 1825,—“ that in various ways which it is needless to describe, it 
 ‘ is capable of being evaded,—of being adhered to in its Jeéter, 
 ‘ while it is grossly violated in its spirit; and that neither the 
 ‘ past conduct of the London Committee, nor the number re- 
 tained in it of staunch supporters of its Apocryphal delinquen- 
 cies, leaves sufficient ground for implicit confidence, that it may 
 not hereafter avail itself of the postern which the terms of the 
 resolution have left at its discretionary command.” P. 28. _ 
 When, therefore, it is remembered that the Committee has not 
 been “purified” by the “ ejection” from it of the “staunch sup- 
 porters of its Apocryphal delinquencies,” but that those members 
 and office-bearers have been retained in it who for so long a pe- 
 riod, so often and in so many ways, deceived the public, what 
 pledge can the Glasgow Auxiliaries give, that these same mem- 
 bers will not again be guilty of practising deceptions similar to 
 those of which they have been convicted? What assurance can 
 the Auxiliaries give, that they are not actually at this moment 
 practising them as formerly, since they have positively refused 
 to profess regret for their past conduct ? 
 
 ‘Having now disposed of the assertion of the Glasgow Auxi- 
 liaries respecting the fudl and perpetual abandonment of the un- 
 happy error, it only remains to be proved that the London So- 
 ciety has not been guilty of one error only, as would appear by 
 the language of the Report, but that it has fallen into many 
 “unhappy errors,” on account of which, even were it true that 
 the Apocrypha question was settled, it is the duty of Christians 
 not to unite themselves with that. Society.. To some of these 
 we shall now attend, and thus take a further “survey” of what 
 the Auxiliaries call the ‘‘ purified operations of this magnificent 
 Tnstitution.” , 
 
 » The British and Foreign Bible Society are not only chargeable 
 with unfaithfulness to their trust in adding the Apocrypha to the 
 Holy Scriptures, contrary to their duty both to God and man,— 
 they are also chargeable with allowing Notes and Commenis to be 
 n 3% { : : DD : - 
 
 € 
 ‘ 
 ‘ 
 < 
 ‘ 
 
26 
 
 inserted in Bibles published chiefly at their expense. If there 
 was one assertion oftener repeated by the Society than all others 
 besides, it was that they were circulating the Scriptures without 
 note or comment. ‘* Without note or comment has been from the 
 beginning rung in our ears, in every report, in every prospec- 
 tus, in every pamphlet. Every subscriber to the Society seems 
 to have a starling taught to cry nothing, but without note or 
 comment.” But notwithstanding this,—notwithstanding the 
 check which the Earl Street Committee received on this subject 
 from the Edinburgh Bible Society in the year 1818, when the 
 latter remonstrated against their publishing the Seriptures with 
 marginal references and introductions to the chapters, and not- 
 withstanding their assurance by a letter, dated May 4. 1818, that 
 they yielded to that remonstrance,—notes and comments, prefaces; 
 marginal references, and introductions to chapters, have been fre- 
 quently introduced into their Bibles published on the Continent, 
 some of which are loaded with heretical notes and comments, 
 besides having marginal references and introductions to the chap- 
 ters. Thus the plighted faith of the Committee has been grossly 
 violated, and the law of the Society disregarded and trampled 
 on in this respect, as well as in the addition of the Apocrypha. 
 Is not this another unhappy error ? 
 
 Within these few days I have seen the Bible of the Hanover 
 Society. To this German Bible, printed at Hanover in 1827 and 
 1828, a Preface is affixed, in which “ a magnanimous contribu- 
 tion” of “the great Bible Society of London” is acknowledged. 
 It contains also marginal references, and introductions to the 
 chapters of both the Old and New Testaments. A list too of the 
 Apocrypha books is given along with those of the Prophets, with 
 the number of the pages continued, the last number of those of 
 the Prophets being 914, and the first of that of the Apocry- 
 phal books 917, and so on to 1079. 
 
 In this Preface the reader is given to understand, that the Bible; 
 unless it be explained to him, is unintelligible. And this blas- 
 phemy against the character of the Divine Word which is able 
 to make men wise unto salvation, is professedly extracted from 
 the Bible itself—Acts viii. 27, 30. being referred to, and thus it 
 is made to pronounce its own condemnation. Assistance, however, 
 to remedy this capital defect in the Bible, is kindly supplied ; for 
 the Preface informs us that there is another Society in connection 
 with the Hanoverian Bible Society, called the “ Union,” which 
 provides ‘ instructive and animating treatises” to go forth 
 
27 
 
 with it, by which means the writers of the Preface “ hope the 
 want in some measure shall be done away’!!! These treatises 
 may, for what the Glasgow Auxiliaries. know, be of the worst 
 description. They may be such as might be expected to proceed 
 from Socinians, whose object it is “to envelope in obscurity and 
 to lower the idea attached to revelation.” They may in all re- 
 spects be such as Haffner’s preface. At any rate, the Bible that 
 has been prepared by means of the “‘ magnanimous contribution” 
 of “the great Bible Society of London,” is thus to be read by 
 the people through the distorted medium provided by German 
 Neologists, who may from year to year send out from the 
 “Union” such “instructive and animating treatises,” as may and 
 probably will be opposed to the doctrine of the Bible, and sub- 
 versive of the gospel. All the “weight” too of the name of the 
 British and Foreign Bible Society, of which the Glasgow Auxi- 
 liaries boast, is thus attached to this Preface, and to those “ trea- 
 tises,” and so contributes to fix the awful delusion in the minds 
 of the people, that the Bible is an unintelligible book, and to 
 give currency to whatever heresies these treatises may contain. 
 Here then another most important “ error” in the administra- 
 tion of the Earl Street Committee is brought to light. It is so 
 flagrant a breach of faith, that it proves they are totally unfit for 
 their office, and unworthy of the confidence of the Bible Societies 
 of Great Britain, whose cause they have in so many ways be- 
 trayed, and from whom they have so long concealed this glaring 
 abuse and breach of faith. That the agents of the British and 
 Foreign Bible Society who so frequently visit Hanover, as well as 
 all those members of the Committee who pay attention to its bu- 
 siness, were acquainted with the above fact, there can be no doubt. 
 Yet the evil has been allowed to exist for many years, as the 
 date of the Preface which is January 1816 proves, and during all 
 the time since that period, have the people of this country been 
 kept in the dark respecting it, while the same delusion has in this 
 instance been practised as in the case of the Apocrypha, by the 
 constant repetition of the words of the original law of the Society, 
 “without note or comment.” How many of the Bibles provid- 
 ed at the expense of the British and Foreign Bible Society, 
 must be read by the people of the Continent, through the 
 medium of such a preface as that affixed to the Hanoverian 
 Bible, the Earl Street Committee alone is able te inform us. 
 What then will the Glasgow Auxiliaries say of notes and com- 
 ments having been so often permitted by their friends in Earl 
 
28 
 
 Street, to be added to the Bibles which they enable. their “ kin- 
 dred institutions’ to provide, expressly contrary to the funda- 
 mental law of the Society, and to their public declarations and 
 private assurances? What will they say to this most decep- 
 tious and mischievous proceeding of the Hanoverian preface ? 
 Will they still speak of the “ one unhappy error” of which the 
 London Society has been convicted? Will they continue to 
 boast of its purified operations, and affirm that the path of re- 
 union with it “has been opened and cleared of obstructions,” 
 while such abuses are permitted, and such deceptions are prac- 
 tised? And let them remember, that this charge respecting 
 the addition of notes and comments not only affects the British 
 and Foreign Bible Society prior to the dates of May 1826 and 
 1827, but lies against it even to the present hour. We-have 
 been able to trace its operations but a little way, yet how 
 many evils have been discovered! | The further we advance, ‘the 
 more of its malversations are constantly coming to light. 
 
 It appears that the Earl Street Committee have a great quan- 
 tity of Welsh Bibles, of which they lately sent a supply to the 
 Liverpool Bible Society. These Bibles were found to contain mar- 
 ginal notes and notices at the beginning of the chapters, referring 
 to the different lessons, festivals, &c. of the Church of England, 
 with a list of the Apocryphal books. As soon’ as these facts 
 were known, a Sub-committee of the Liverpool Society was ap- 
 pointed to investigate the matter ; and in answer to a letter which 
 they wrote, expressive of their ‘displeasure with this version of 
 the Scriptures, the Earl, Street Committee professed their igno- 
 rance that any such list was attached to the Bible. They said 
 that the impression had been taken from some old Oxford plates, 
 and that they were not fully aware of its nature; but as the 
 Apocrypha itself was not in it, they solicited the aid of the 
 Liverpool Society to enable them to get quit of the stock on 
 hand. The Liverpool Committee, however, returned all the 
 copies they had remaining, and transmitted to. London the re- 
 solutions to which they had come in October last, in. reference 
 tothe matter. One of these expressed their “ regret that greater 
 ‘ caution had not been exercised as to the printing of the Welsh 
 ‘ Bibles,”—the other declared, “ that the references in the margin 
 ‘ to the Church of England lessons are inconsistent with the 
 ‘ catholic spirit of the Bible Society, and that they dectine to 
 ‘ assist in its further circulation.” 
 
 Here we have another proof of the manner in which the Earl 
 
29 
 
 Street Committee is carrying on its “ purified operations.” What 
 confidence can be placed in their proceedings in distant countries, 
 when even at home, and in one of the languages spoken in Great 
 Britain, such things are discovered? In their answer to the 
 Liverpool Committee, it will be observed that they say of the 
 impression, they “were not fully aware of its nature.” From 
 this it appears that they were not fully ignorant of it. When 
 the manner in which it is usual with these gentlemen to mislead 
 their correspondents by their quibbling replies and dishonest 
 concealments is considered, it is necessary to be on our guard, 
 and to attend more carefully to the phraseology they employ, 
 than would be requisite if they had established a different cha- 
 racter from that which, being accustomed to fall into so many 
 “unhappy errors,” it is now very generally understood belongs 
 to them. 
 
 Another unhappy error is found in the mode of conducting 
 translations of the Scriptures. The translation of the Scrip- 
 tures is a subject of the most serious consideration; it is not 
 inferior in importance to the question respecting the Apocry- 
 pha. To the manner in which this business has been managed 
 by the Earl Street Committee, I have again and again called 
 the attention of the public. Carelessness in preparing trans- 
 lations, is closely connected with low and unscriptural views 
 of the inspiration and authority of the Word of God. When 
 mien are convinced that the sacred penmen wrote in the words 
 of the Holy Ghost, they are cautious in translating these words 
 into another language. But when they have adopted vague 
 and undefined notions in regard to inspiration, no wonder they 
 should feel very little anxiety as to exact rendering in a new 
 translation. And if to this be added uncertainty respecting 
 the canon, or a determined avowal that there is no infallible 
 standard of the Scriptures, we need not be surprised that accuracy 
 in translating them should be little regarded. With such views on 
 the subjects of the canon and inspiration, the Earl Street Com- 
 mittee were easily induced to enlist in this work of translation, 
 men who were totally unfit for it, without any regard to their 
 sentiments respecting the gospel ; and -had not their proceedings 
 received a check by the agitation of the Apocrypha controversy, 
 there is no saying to.what extent they would have been the 
 means, in this way, of subserving the cause of infidelity. Nor 
 is it possible to ascertain the amount of the mischief which they 
 
30 
 
 have actually done, or which they may still be doing, by blindly 
 entrusting the translation of the Scriptures to those who are in- 
 competent for this work. 
 
 There was not perhaps a single one of the translations of 
 the Scriptures provided by the British and Foreign Bible So- 
 ciety, of which they boasted so much, as of the Lausanne edition, 
 both long before and after it was published. And they continued 
 to boast of it, till its unfaithfulness was fully detected, not only 
 as “‘a wretched paraphrase,” as it is called on the Continent, but 
 also as being conjoined with the Apocrypha, and loaded with 
 heretical notes and comments. But if ever the utter reckless- 
 ness of that Society discovered itself, it was made evident in 
 their manner of conducting this translation. They first entrusted 
 it to unconverted men, and afterwards paid no attention whatever 
 to the manner in which it was proceeding, while they had the 
 best opportunities, and even urgent calls, to attend to this im- 
 portant business. When, after these unhappy errors were brought 
 to light, a discussion on the subject took place in the Committee, 
 and Lord Bexley from the chair observed, “ You can’t suppose 
 ‘ the translators meant to render the text impure,”’—Mr Drum- 
 mond immediately replied, ““My Lord, I for one must entertain 
 ‘ a different opinion; when I consider what are the tenets of 
 ‘ these men, when I consider the manner in which they have 
 ‘ executed their work ; above all when I consider their subse- 
 ‘ quent conduct in the persecution of the Christians of the Pays 
 « de Vaud, and their instigation of the civil magistrate to banish 
 ‘ every faithful minister from the country, I profess I think it 
 ‘ no breach of charity distinctly to state my opinion that they 
 ‘ did designedly adulterate the Word of God.” 
 
 While no satisfactory account has been given of the'gross mis- 
 conduct of the Karl Street Committee in the time that is past; 
 in relation to this important branch of their duty, Professor 
 Lee of Cambridge is séi// employed to superintend and direct 
 translations of the Scriptures into languages in which very few 
 if any of their number can follow him. In proof of Professor 
 Lee’s utter unfitness to be entrusted by them and their Glasgow 
 Auxiliaries with such a charge, I refer to his defence of the 
 Turkish version of the New Testament. I refer to the rules of 
 translation laid down by him in his answer to Dr Henderson, 
 and to the ignorance of the very foundation of the Gospel 
 which that answer manifests. I refer to the Appendix to my 
 
31 
 
 Second Review. And, finally, I appeal to Mr Carson’s Pamph- 
 let recently published, in which “the Incompetency of the 
 ‘ Rev. Professor Lee of Cambridge, for translating or correcting 
 ‘ translations of the Holy Scriptures, is proved and illustrated.” 
 It is out of the power of the Glasgow Reporters to answer that 
 pamphlet, and to refute this charge. After considering Profes- 
 sor Lee's incompetency for this work, need we be surprised at 
 his defending such renderings of the original words of Scripture, 
 as market-day for Lord’s day, or righteousness and piety for righ- 
 teousness; or at the following translation, “ And that faith be 
 ‘ counted instead of righteousness ;’ which two last renderings 
 are subversive of the Gospel ? 
 
 Now, though the Glasgow Auxiliaries knew that the Earl 
 Street Committee betrayed its trust, and abused the confidence 
 of the public in the translation of the Scriptures, entrusting this 
 most important of all works to men totally unqualified for it, 
 and sometimes even to the most outrageous infidels ; and though 
 they are well aware that it continues to this day to employ Pro- 
 fessor Lee in this work, yet they give the readers of their Re- 
 port.to understand, that the British and Foreign Bible Society has 
 fallen into only “ one unhappy error.” 
 
 In proving that the one unhappy error has not been fully aban- 
 doned, I have adverted to the continued. connexion maintained 
 by the Committee in Earl Street with the kindred institutions on 
 the Continent, and to the stedfast adherence of the latter to the 
 Apocrypha. Although the whole of this subject of connection 
 with the Foreign Societies is very conveniently slurred oyer in 
 the Report of the Glasgow Auxiliaries, while they profess to 
 have taken a survey of the “ connexions” the Society has esta- 
 blished, it must however be allowed, that the connexion, establish- 
 ed and continued with the most notorious Neologians and _blas- 
 phemers on the Continent, was and is another “‘ nnhappy error,” 
 —an error, too, not merely in respect to the Apocrypha, but 
 also in respect to other bad consequences. And this error has a 
 double aspect ; for not only were those associates chosen for the 
 distribution of the Bible, but servants of God who offered them- 
 selves for that purpose were rejected. This outrage on Christian 
 principle took place both at Paris and Geneva; and its existence 
 is farther confirmed by the fact, that, when application was made 
 for a grant of Testaments for distribution, to the preachers of the 
 Continental Society who were traversing France, and who had 
 the very best opportunities for circulating them, although the 
 
32 
 
 request was urged on the Committee by a man of rank and_ of 
 influence, and backed by the authority of Lord Teignmonth, it 
 was met by a decided refusal. 
 
 Out of this unhappy error respecting the formation of the 
 Continental Societies, have sprung other unhappy errors. The 
 Glasgow Auxiliaries are perfectly aware of the opposition which 
 men such as those of whom their kindred institutions are chiefly 
 composed, must ever make to the Gospel of the grace of God. 
 They are aware, too, of the influence which these men derive 
 from being associated together; and they are aware that they 
 will use this influence whenever opportunity offers, to oppose the 
 truth as it is in Jesus. In these opinions the Glasgow Auxiliaries 
 are fully borne out by facts. The < distinguished president” of 
 the Bible Society at Lausanne, who has been so long and so 
 closely allied to Earl Street, and so highly applauded by it, and 
 who in his turn did not fail to extol “ the splendour of that glo- 
 rious luminary around which so many satellites revolve”—language 
 which even surpasses the eulogies of the Glasgow Auxiliaries— 
 that distinguished president has avowed himself an instigator of 
 one of the most violent persecutions, of the longest duration of 
 any that has disgraced a Protestant country. I have received a 
 letter from Switzerland, dated April 7. 1829, from which*the 
 following is an extract :—‘ You perhaps know that troubles have 
 ¢ broken out in the Canton de Vaud. One of the local mission- 
 aries has been arrested at Payerne, judged and: condemned to 
 a year of detention in his commune, and to the expence of pro- 
 cess. To-morrow he is to be judged again at Lausanne by the 
 tribunal of appeal, before which he will be defended by our 
 brother Aug. Rochat, minister of the united Church (lEglise 
 Reunie) of the Canton de Vaud. They expect troubles still 
 more serious. For myself I think that the ministers of 
 grace, (ministres de la GRACE,) ought to liftup the voice. We 
 have great enemies among the Arminians. Their proceed- 
 ings toward us who speak according to the Scriptures, are 
 severe and haughty, (durs et hautaines, ) and I doubt not that the 
 opposition will be redoubled on their part.” A subsequent let- 
 ter, dated April 11. states, that, the day before, the person referred 
 to, had been condemned by the tribunal of Lausanne to be  ba- 
 nished for a year. 
 
 The Bible Society of Gottingen has been spoken of mors, nnd 
 likewise the determination of the Earl Street Committee to trans- 
 mit no instructions to Dr Pinkerton that: would in the smallest 
 
 , 
 * n n n n a . ”“ wn @, " 
 
33 
 
 degree interfere with his giving all the encouragement in his 
 power to the violent Apocryphists at that place, or would pre- 
 vent him from discouraging these who might be willing to re- 
 nounce the Apocrypha, if any such should be found there as at 
 Stutgard. One of the lecturers, a doctor in the university at 
 Gottingen, who lately visited this country, having begun, on his 
 return, to hold prayer meetings, and to oppose Neology, has 
 been deprived of his office, and expelled from the university, 
 through the influence of the leaders of the Bible Society of that 
 place—the “Continental brethren” of the London Society, and 
 its Glasgow Auxiliaries. 
 
 Christians may here see with what sort of “ connexions,” es- 
 tablished by the London Society, its Auxiliaries in Glasgow are 
 labouring to unite them. Their conduct in this respect, consi- 
 dering the principles they profess to hold, is beyond measure as- 
 tonishing. How much more in unison with those principles 
 would their Report have been, were its language from beginning 
 to end to this effect—“ Come out from among them, and be ye 
 * separate.” May it not be asked of these gentlemen, as well as 
 of the Edinburgh Auxiliaries, if, “ on asurvey of the connexions” 
 which the Earl Street Committee have “ established,” and of 
 the “ harmonious working of their simple but complicated ma- 
 « chinery,” they do not see that by being joined with them they 
 are partakers of other men’s sins, and that they have fellowship 
 with the unfruitful works of darkness? They unite themselves, and 
 they are labouring with all their might to induce others to unite, 
 with a “ Continental agency,” composed in general of those who 
 are Blasphemers, and Injurious, and Persecutors. But how can 
 ministers of Christ, (for in Scotland, happily, there are few 
 besides who join with them, the body of the Christian people 
 having separated from such abominations,) how can they justi- 
 fy to themselves such proceedings? Is it in this way that the 
 kingdom of ‘God is to be extended in the world? Are they en- 
 titled to solicit contributions to support and encourage Societies 
 conducted by the enemies of the cross of Christ, the opposers of 
 his gospel, and the persecutors of his servants? Is this required 
 ‘at their hands? ‘Will the Lord acknowledge it as having ‘been 
 done‘to him? or are they authorized to actin such a manner in 
 order to promote the circulation of the Bible? ‘Not the circula- 
 tion of the Bible, but the circulation of an adulterated book false- 
 ly called the Bible,—a book justly denominated by the Auxiliaries 
 
 av , f , 
 
34 
 
 themselves “ a spurious Bible,’—by which these Societies are 
 dishonouring God, disobeying his commandments, and laying a 
 deadly snare for the souls of men ! 
 
 _ Respeeting these infidel societies, which the British and Fo- 
 reign Bible Society has created on the Continent, let us hear the 
 opinion of Mr Sibthorpe, whose testimony, as the reader will 
 afterwards see, the Glasgow Auxiliaries have introduced with 
 much self-complacency. ‘“ The fact is, evil, had been done; 
 _worldly patronage had been very improperly sought for; but 
 
 now it is impossible to do otherwise than work with the instru- 
 ments of our own seeking. The Neologists are placed by this 
 means on vantage-ground, from which they cannot be dislodg- 
 ed, and our connexion with them is a matter of necessity now 
 more than of .choice.”., Sach is Mr Sibthorpe’s testimony re- 
 specting the Foreign Societies. It contains a full acknowledgment 
 of the evil that has been done in. erecting them; but this forms 
 no excuse for those who, after that evil has been discovered, con- 
 tinue to abet and support them, and. to act with them. The moral 
 _effect which, on the Continent, must accompany the countenance 
 ‘given by Christians in Great Britain to the leading men of these 
 societies, is a consideration of the highest importance. Those 
 who are chargeable with this dereliction of their duty, and disre- 
 gard to the ruinous consequences that necessarily follow, must 
 answer for it, 
 In the further survey of the purified operations of the Bowden 
 Society, and of the happy adjustment and harmonious working 
 of,.its complicated yet simple machinery, we are brought to en- 
 other unhappy error, of which. the Glasgow Auxiliary, limiting 
 their survey to the one unhappy error, take no notice whatever. 
 _The ‘ error’ here referred to, is the steady opposition which that 
 Society and its agents, as well as its “continental brethren,” 
 have uniformly made to the preaching of the gospel. The com- 
 mencement of this opposition was coeval with the first efforts of 
 Christians in this country to employ preachers.on the Continent. 
 » This spirit of opposition, Dr Pinkerton, who was thoroughly ac- 
 quainted with the sentiments of his employers in Earl Street, 
 fully. manifested in passing through Montauban while I was 
 there. In vain I endeavoured to prove to him,* that in pro- 
 portion as discussions respecting the gospel were excited, in 
 that proportion. would the demand for Bibles exist and increase 
 among the people, In vain I assured him that this had been 
 remarkably exemplified in Montauban and its neighbourhood. 
 
35 
 
 His prejudices on the subject'were too deeply rooted to yield te 
 such arguments. He ‘strongly deprecated these discussions, 
 which he knew would be the effect of employing preachers on 
 the Continent. 
 
 ** From the first moment,” says Mr Assia coreg letter to 
 Mr Strutt, p. 15. “ that the Continental Society. began its opera- 
 ‘ tions, it met with complete success. in every place where its 
 ‘ agents preached. It received no opposition either from Popish 
 ‘ Priests or from the constituted authorities. Its treatment, 
 ‘ however, from those with broad philacteries in, our modern 
 ‘ Sanhedrims in England, was very different. For nine long 
 ‘ years the Continental Society has had to struggle through the 
 © dark backbiting of men who never had sincerity to state their, 
 © objections, or doubts, or accusations, either to the Committee, 
 ‘ or to the Secretaries, or at Public Meetings. Still wherever 
 © deputations from it went about the country, to give informa- 
 ‘ tion respecting the state of the Continent, or to form Auxi- 
 * liaries, they were met by hints, by insinuations, by doubts, and 
 ‘ in short, by every thing but by plain dealing and. honesty : 
 ‘ when the origin of these impediments was traced, they were 
 ‘ invariably found to be derived from certain members. of the 
 * Committee of the Bible Society.” . 
 
 It was by the Committee in Earl Street and its agents, then,, 
 that the exertions of the Continental Society were so long crip- 
 pled and opposed. But was there not a cause, and did not the 
 persecuting spirit of their ‘Continental brethren,” and the dis- 
 astrous Strasburgh business, fully justify their foresight and 
 prudence im steadily opposing the efforts made by Christians in 
 Great Britain to promote the preaching of the gospel on the Con- 
 tinent? Was it not by one of the preachers of that Society that 
 the infidel Haffner was unmasked, that “ distinguished vme-presi- 
 dent” of a kindred institution, who habitually, in his theological 
 lectures, turns the Scriptures into ridicule? And could the 
 Committee have acted otherwise, considering the character of 
 *¢ the connexions it has already established?” It was under the 
 necessity of either renouncing these ‘‘ connexions,” or of oppos- 
 ing the sending out of preachers of the gospel into their neigh- 
 bourhoods. It could not countenance evangelical preachers and 
 Neologian societies at the same time, and in the same field of 
 action; for what concord hath Christ with Belial, or what part 
 hath he that believeth with an infidel? In the above account, 
 however, furnished by Mr Drummond, of the opposition of the 
 
36 
 
 British and Foreign Bible Society 10 the preaching of the gos- 
 pel, we are not only informed of the fact, but also of the charac- 
 teristic manner of low and dishonest artifice, in which that oppo~ 
 sition was maintained by the members and agents of the Karl 
 Street Committee. Can the Directors of the Glasgow Auxiliary 
 deny the truth of these charges? And if this is mot im their 
 
 power, what judgmeiit shall the public form of their condact in 
 the Report they have published, in which they limit the malver- 
 
 sations of the London Society to one unhappy error ? 
 
 Other “ unhappy errors” of that Society consisted in the m- 
 terpolation and mutilation, and suppression and concealment 
 of documents. The existence of these errors have been 
 again and again so fully admitted, even by the friends of Harl 
 Street, that it is untiecéssary to dwell on them. Mr Gorham 
 affirmed that they were forgeries on the books of the Sotiety, 
 and Mr Brandram de¢lared that * they could never be explained 
 to the public.” Why then do the Auxiliaries speak of only one 
 unhappy error of which their friends in Earl Street have been 
 convicted? Are not these unhappy errors? but neither for them, 
 nor for all their other multiplied errors, has the Committee 
 ever expressed its repentatice, although unable to deny or to de- 
 fend a single one of them. The “error” of concealtnent still 
 occasionally makes its appearance in Earl Street. Mr Brandtam 
 himself attempted last year to repeat it by concealing a letter 
 from Mr Levade. Mr Brandram was however detected, and 
 the letter was in consequence read, which stamped the character 
 of an avowed persecutor on a particular friend of Karl Street, 
 and a “ distinguished president” of a “ kindred institution.” 
 
 In opposition to the assertion of the Glasgow Auniliaries, that 
 the “one” —“ unhappy error” has been fully, aid as they trust, 
 for evér abandoned, I have now proved, Isé, That their former 
 term, “ delinquencies,” was far more appropriate and significant 
 than that which they have now substituted in its place. Zrror 
 is not the epithet by which the adulteration of the Word of God, 
 connected with “a culpable deficiency in the virtues of a 
 city and godly sincerity,” ought to be characterized. 2dly, I 
 have proved, in direct opposition to what they have asserted, 
 that the Earl Street Committee's delinquency, on the one subject 
 to which the Auxiliaries restrict their inquiry, is so far from 
 being fully abandoned, that the boasted resolutions under which 
 their “purified Operations” ‘are ¢aitied on, make provision for 
 
 ~ 
 
37 
 
 the furids of the Society being employed to promote the circula- 
 tion of adulterated Bibles, and that they are actually so em- 
 ployed. 3dly, I have proved that the Auxiliaries, instead of 
 having sufficient reason for confidently trusting that the one un- 
 happy error has been for ever abandoned, have the strongest rea- 
 sons to believe the contrary, and have only to open their eyes to 
 perceive it inseparably interwoven with all the Society’s Conti- 
 nental agency at this present moment. 4¢hly, I have proved that 
 the London Society has not been convicted merely of one un- 
 happy error, but of many aggravated delinquencies. 
 
 The Glasgow Auxiliaries observe, that they confine their in- 
 quiries respecting the British and Foreign Bible Society to the 
 period posterior to the passing of the Resolutions of May 1826 
 and May 1827, and they dismiss as irrelevant whatever does not 
 fall within that period. But what title have the Auxiliaries to 
 fix on any period beyond which no inquiry shall be made? and 
 with what consistency can they, who accused that Society of 
 forming “ a joint-stock company for the circulation of corrupted 
 editions of the Word of God,” and of being guilty of “ a cul- 
 pable deficiency in the virtues of simplicity and godly sincerity,” 
 insist that these charges are now to be altogether set aside? 
 No one who duly estimates the importance of strict integrity in 
 the managenient of religious societies, will be deterred by the 
 sentence of the Glasgow Reporters, from examining the conduct 
 of the Earl Street Committee, both before and since the Resolu- 
 tions were passed. Such an examination will prove that no sor- 
 row has ever been expressed by the Committee for their former 
 delinquencies, some of which they continue openly to practise, and 
 none of which they have fully abandoned. It will prove their 
 determined purpose to quash inquiry, and to give as little infor- 
 mation as possible on every subject respecting the adulteration 
 of the Scriptures, while this is connected with their assertion, 
 that the Resolutions on which their ‘“ purified operations” are 
 founded, are in direct opposition to the spirit and moral bearing 
 of the Scriptures. 
 
 . Such is a specimen of the system which the Glasgow Auxiliaries 
 eallon the people of Scotland to support. Conscious that the pre- 
 vious conduct of the Harl Street Committee is utterly indefensible, 
 and recollecting their own declaration, that confidence could only 
 be restored by their removal from office, they fix an after period, 
 beyond which they object to every investigation for the solution 
 of the important question, whether the Directors of the British 
 
38 
 
 and Foreign Bible Society possess qualifications necessary for the ’ 
 management of so momentous a concern as that of the circulation 
 of the Word of God all over the world. It is, however, the 
 duty of Christians, for the regulation of their own conduct, to in- 
 quire, with the most impartial and serious attention, into the 
 whole of the conduct of those to whom such funds are entrusted, 
 for the diffusion of the knowledge of Christ, 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 ALTHOUGH the Glasgow Auxiliaries profess to have taken a sa- 
 tisfactory survey of the “connexions” which the British and Fo- 
 reign Bible Society has “ established,” they seem to feel not alto-' 
 gether easy on the subject of the “ Continental agency,” and of their 
 own co-operation with it. 1t is evident that, were it in their power, 
 they would gladly relieve themselves from the stigma which this 
 “connexion” fixes upon them. It is a subject on which, if they 
 are wise, they will say as little as possible; it is dangerous 
 ground for them to tread on. But while they seem to be fully 
 aware of this, they also appear to have felt that they could 
 not pass it by entirely unnoticed. To this conviction we 
 are probably indebted for the extract already quoted from 
 Mr Blumbardt. 
 
 In that extract there is an expression at which the Auxiliaries 
 eagerly catch,—“ the Evangelical party, which is on the increase.” 
 To this they add the following sentence: “ Your Committee 
 ‘ rejoice to say, that all the accounts which have otherwise 
 ‘ reached them are corroborative of Dr Blumhardt’s statement— 
 ¢ that evangelical religion is on the increase ; and, in opposition 
 ‘ to the charges sometimes brought, with so much loose and in- 
 ¢ discriminate generality, against the Continental agency of the 
 ‘ British and Foreign Bible Society, they have much pleasure 
 
39 
 
 « in subjoining the following testimony of Mr Sibthorpe, which 
 ‘ is im harmony with that of others.” This sentence is remark- 
 able for the most discreditable disingenuity.. It contains an in- 
 direct attempt of the Auxiliaries to vindicate themselves on a 
 subject which they do not venture fairly to bring forward, and 
 also an artful insinuation against what they dare not openly at- 
 tack. By holding out to their constituents that evangelical reli- 
 gion is on the increase on the Continent, and that the charges 
 against the Continental agency of the British and Foreign Bible 
 Society have been sometimes brought with loose and indiscrimi- 
 nate generality, they go as far as lies in their power to justify 
 the London Society in employing such an ageney, and conse- 
 quently to vindicate their own connexion with it. 
 
 When Christians in this country are told that evangelical reli- 
 gion is on the increase on the Continent, they will be ready to 
 associate with the term “ Evangelical,” the idea of a cordial re- 
 ception of the doctrines of grace, and of men entering the king- 
 dom of heaven as little children. In some quarters, indeed, there 
 is on the Continent an increase of evangelical religion, but it is 
 only as the dawning of the morning—and as yet but a small 
 “< portion of the true salt of the earth” is to be found there. 
 The revival of religion in Germany, with very few exceptions, is 
 characterized by the grossest Arminianism, and the heresy of uni- 
 versalism, even of the expected restoration of the devil, is very 
 extensively disseminated. Let the reader.then know, that what 
 Mr Blumhardt calls “the Evangelical party,” is chiefly compos- 
 ed of professed Arminians, among whom he himself ranks as one, 
 and that they are decidedly opposed to fundamental doctrines of the 
 gospel. In the letter of April 7th, formerly quoted, it is said, 
 < We have great enemies among the Arminians. ‘Their proceedings 
 © towards us who speak according to the Scriptures, are severe 
 « and haughty, and I doubt not that the opposition will be re- 
 ‘ doubled on their part.” But even according to Mr Blumhardt’s 
 testimony, while the Socinian party is “ particularly interested” 
 in retaining the Apocrypha, the Evangelical party will not “ suf- 
 fer” it to be given up. Admitting then that the latter party is on 
 the increase, this does not free the Glasgow Auxiliaries from 
 “the guilt and danger,” with which they were formerly so “ deep- 
 ly impressed,” of not entirely ceasing from all connexion with 
 societies who are unanimous in “ bringing into circulation a spu- 
 rious Bible.” 
 
 But in the sentence before us, there is a further attempt made 
 
40 
 
 by the Auxiliaries to exculpate the London Society, and to vin- 
 dicate their own connexion with these Societies. They ‘refer to the 
 “‘ charges sometimes brought with so much loose and indiscrimi- 
 
 ‘ nate generality against the Continental agency of the British 
 ‘ and Foreign Bible Society.” Let the reader observe the art here 
 employed in the introduction of the word “ sometimes.” ‘They 
 durst not broadly assert, that the heavy charges which have been 
 brought. against the Continental agency were loose, indiscrimi- 
 nate, and general. They well knew that such an assertion would 
 have been speedily refuted. They therefore shelter themselves 
 very conyeniently under the word “ sometimes.” And who can 
 affirm that loose and general charges against their worthy Conti- 
 nental associates have not sometimes been brought? This “ some- 
 times” is left as a postern, of which the Auxiliaries may “ here- 
 after avail” themselves, such as that “ postern” through which 
 they once expressed their suspicion that the ee ee 
 might make its escape. 
 
 Having called the attention of their readers to the loose and 
 indiscriminate generality of the charges sometimes brought against 
 the Continental agency of the British and Foreign Bible Society, 
 their next step is to repel, or, I should rather say, to undermine 
 these charges, by introducing the following testimony of Mr Sib- 
 thorpe. 
 
 *¢ T would briefly advert to the Agents of our Society on the Continent ; under 
 which term I include those whose operation is free and yoluntary. I wish to re- 
 peat the testimony already borne in our letters to Professor Keiffer of Paris. ‘His 
 agency is highly valuable, discharged with an industry, fidelity, and accuracy ito 
 which it is but justice that I bear record. At Frankford, Berlin, Dresden, Leip- 
 zig, Nuremberg, Basle, Cologne, &c. &c.; are men who aid in the circulation of 
 the pure volume of truth, for the love which they bear to it, for the truth’s sake, 
 and that they might be ¢ fellow-helpers to the truth,’—-men who would adorn Chris- 
 tianity in any country and in any church ; and the intercourse which the office I 
 was charged with by the Committee led me to hold with many individuals in va- 
 rious stations, and both among clergy and laity, such as Dr Heubner, of Witten- 
 berg; Count Einsiedel, of Dresden; Bishop Fabricius, of Hernhut; Professor 
 Hahn, of Leipzig ; Pastor Heim, of St Gall; the Rev- Mr Blumhardt, of Basle; 
 Professor Schwartz, of Heidelberg ; and others, has afforded me peculiar satisfac- 
 tion. So far.as I could judge from the personal communication I had with them, 
 (and this judgment is confirmed by the testimonies of others,) I cannot but con- 
 clude, that to whatever extent infidelity, superstition, or error of any kind, may 
 exist on the Continent, there is there also a portion of the true salt of the earth— 
 men with whom itis pleasant ‘to have formed an acquaintance, ‘because such. ace 
 quaintance shall not be restricted to the church militant, but be renewed. and. con- 
 sinued for ever)in heaven.” 
 
41 
 
 - Now, let the reader recollect that this extract is introduced to. 
 confront the loose and indiscriminate generality of the charges 
 sometimes brought against the Continental agency; yet a more 
 striking example of loose and indiscriminate generality has sel- 
 dom been exhibited. « At Frankfort, Berlin, Dresden, Leipzig, 
 Nuremberg, Basle, Cologne, &c. &c. are men who aid in the cir- 
 culation of the pure volume of truth, for the love which they 
 bear to it, for the truth’s sake, and that they might be ‘ fellow- 
 helpers to the truth,—men who would adorn Christianity in any 
 country and in any church.” As to who these men are we are 
 not told, and if in addition to the two “ &c. &c.” there had been 
 fifty more, we should just be as wise as we are at present. The 
 names, however, of a few individuals are given, to prove that to 
 whatever extent infidelity, superstition, or error of any kind, may 
 exist on the Continent, there is there also a portion of the true 
 salt of the earth. All this is sufficiently loose and general; it is 
 moreover somewhat indiscriminate. 
 
 The first individual named by Mr Sibthorpe is our old acquain- 
 tance Mr Keiffer, on account of whose “ religious orthodoxy’ be- 
 ing called in question, the Rey. Mr Francis Cunningham was so 
 much offended. Concerning Mr Keiffer, too, the Rev. Mr Bran- 
 dram, the secretary of the Earl Street Committee, declared in 
 his pamphlet, that “ there is no ground for accusing him of Soci- 
 ‘ nian principles.” But Mr Brandram very prudently concealed; 
 in the second and revised form of his pamphlet, what had been 
 rather incautiously inserted in the first—that Mr Keiffer had at- 
 tested the “ strietly orthodox principles” of Messrs. Gvep and Bois- 
 sard, on whose ministry he is a constant attendant. Mr Bran- 
 dram consulted his prudence in this concealment ; for he was fully 
 aware that Mr Keiffer’s attestation to the strictly orthodox princi- 
 ples of Messrs. Goep and Boissard, (whatever Mr Francis Cun- 
 ningham might think to the contrary,) was fatal to any idea that 
 might ever have been entertained of his “religious orthodoxy.” 
 For since Mr Keiffer has attested the strict religious orthodoxy 
 of his Socinian Pastors, it clearly follows, that either he is him- 
 self a Socinian, or that he is so grossly ignorant, as not to know 
 the difference betwixt Socinian doctrine and any other doctrine. 
 This being evident, as the Glasgow Auxiliaries will, I presume, 
 admit, the reader may wonder how it happens, that both Mr F. 
 Cunningham and Mr Brandram have attested Mr Keiffer's “ reli- 
 grous orthodoxy.” His wonder, however, must cease when he re- 
 
 ee ; 
 » 
 
42 
 
 rhembers, that Mr Cunningham declared, that “the gentlemen 
 ‘ engaged in the revision” (of the Lausanne Bible,) “ were some 
 * of them amongst the poees in the highest general estimation 
 * for talents and piety ;” and when he recollects, that Mr Brand- 
 ram refers in his pamphlet to a “strong testimony in —— of 
 * the moral and religious character” of Haffner !!! 
 
 In order, however, to repel the loose and indiscriminate gene- 
 rality of charges brought against the Continental agency, the Glas- 
 gow Reporters introduce Mr Sibthorpe, attesting the high value of 
 Mr Keiffer’s agency, “ discharged with industry, fidelity, and ac- 
 ‘ curacy.” Here we are reminded of the industry, fidelity, and 
 aceuracy of Mr Keiffer’s “highly valuable agency,” in the ease of 
 the Turkish New Testament, with its Socinian renderings. We 
 also call to mind his conduct in reference to the Toulouse and 
 Montauban Bibles—his bold and unqualified assertions respects 
 ing these and other editions of the Scriptures, which have’been 
 contradicted and disproved by the most respectable witnesses. 
 We remember all his efforts to prove that which Mr F. Cunning- 
 ham himself now denies to be true—that the Bible would not be 
 received in France without the Apocrypha. We recollect, that 
 Mr Keiffer was deemed a fit man to be a tool of the Earl Street 
 Committee, when, after passing Anti-Apocryphal resolutions, 
 they made him the organ of circulating De Sacy’s Bible with an 
 intermingled Apocrypha. Here, it may be admitted, we have 
 sufficient proofs of the value of Mr Sibthorpe’s attestation to 
 this gentleman’s “ industry, fidelity, and accuracy.” Without; 
 therefore, recounting all the acts of Mr Keiffer’s “ highly valuable 
 agency,” let me add only one act more, in which he showed him- 
 self to be a most worthy imitator of the Earl Street Committee, 
 quite ready to assist them in their determined opposition to the 
 preaching of the gospel on the Continent, by means of preachers 
 supported by Christians in Britain. Mr Keiffer voluntarily en- 
 listed himself in their service in so good a cause, and in concert 
 with his worthy Pastors and others, signed a letter intended to 
 put an end to the practice, by proving that it was altogether un- 
 lawful for Christians of another country to interfere in such a 
 work in France. So much for Mr Sibthorpe’s attestation to Mr 
 Keiffer’s “highly valuable” agency ; and so much to prove the 
 good feeling of the Glasgow Reporters, who, notwithstanding 
 their opinion of Socinians, have “ much pleasure in subjoining” 
 this testimony to Mr Keiffer. I shall subjoin a further testimony 
 to this gentleman, which the Glasgow Auxiliaries, when they flext 
 
43 
 
 write on the subject, may likewise “have much pleasure in sub- 
 joining.” Be it known, then, to them and to all: their constituents; 
 that Mr Keiffer was once observed, by a person who was well ac- 
 quainted with his habits, to ask a blessing at his table, when an 
 agent of the British and Foreign Bible Society was present ! 
 
 As Mr Keiffer is the first individual referred to. by Mr Sib- 
 thorpe, so Mr Blumhardt and Mr Schwartz are the two last. Mr 
 Blumhardt is introduced by the Auxiliaries to attest the increase 
 of “ the evangelical party,” and by Mr Sibthorpe as one of the 
 “ fellow-helpers to the truth;’ although there are important 
 parts of that truth which Mr Blumhardt. opposes, on account of 
 which the ¢ruly evangelical party in Switzerland have generally 
 withdrawn their contributions to his seminary. They affirm 
 that Mr Blumhardt “ propagates the false gospel of Armi- 
 nianism ;” that they are “surrounded by the foul Christianism of 
 Basle and its missionaries,” (of whom Mr Blumhardt is the su- 
 perintendant,) ‘ who darken the counsel of God by words with- 
 out knowledge.” Mr Blumhardt, moreover, has been, like his 
 friends in Earl Street, a strenuous opposer of the preachers sent 
 out by the Continental Society, whose doctrine is too ‘ evan- 
 gelical’ for this gentleman, and against which, when he has 
 heard it preached, he has expressed his indignation. In addition 
 to this, he is one of the most violent of the Continental Apo- 
 cryphists. In the address of the Committee of the Glasgow 
 Bible Society recently published, Mr Blumhardt is spoken of in 
 the following terms :—“ In particular a Swiss, a eulogised cor- 
 £ respondent of the London Society spoke to him (Mr M‘Far- 
 ‘ Jan) with the greatest asperity of the injurious tendency of the 
 ‘ Regulations of 1826—talked much of the importance of having 
 ‘ a common principle as formerly, which might unite the Luther- 
 « ans and the Calvinists, and declared that he was determined to 
 ‘ renounce the Bible Society cause altogether, rather than differ 
 ‘ with his Lutheran brethren on the subject of the Apocrypha.’ 
 —P. 24. As Mr Blumhardt adheres to his Lutheran. brethren 
 and detests Calvinism, the following anecdote affords some illus- 
 tration of the nature of that doctrine which these Lutheran. bre- 
 thren generally preach :—Some time ago a pious man at Dantzic 
 told a Lutheran minister of that place, that “ if Luther were alive 
 ‘ and heard him preach, he would in his zeal run up to the pulpit 
 « and throw him out. into the midst of the people.” 1a 47 
 
 The Glasgow Auxiliaries have introduced, a striking’: sattesta- 
 tion by Mr Blumhardt to the fact, that the Socinian party seek 
 
4A: 
 
 by midans of the Apoérypha “to envelope in “obscurity, and 
 ‘ 0 lower the idea attached to inspiration.” This, according to 
 Mr Blumhardt’'s deliberate conviction, is the purpose of that 
 “ strong” party in the “ kindred institutions” of the British and 
 Foreign Bible Society. As, therefore, Mr Blumhardt is fully 
 aware of this, how cordially must he detest, and how warmly 
 must he oppose, the introduction of such men to be managers of 
 Bible Societies ! Now, let the reader observe what follows. The 
 Heidelberg Society was formed by Dr Pinkerton and Mr Blum- 
 hardt. Professor Schwartz was chosen its President, and Kreitzer 
 and Pavuwus either Vice-Presidents or members of its Committee: 
 Of Paulus, whose very name is enough to blast the character 
 of any association to which he belongs, it is only needful to re- 
 mark, that he is characterized by Mr Rose as the most atrocious 
 of all the Neologians in Germany. The Glasgow Auxiliaries in- 
 form their readers, that when certain reports respecting the Earl 
 Street Committee are brought to them, they ae « themselves 
 somewhat startled on their first announcement.” Let me ask if 
 they are not “somewhat startled” at this “ announcement” ? 
 
 ’ The name of Mr Schwartz of Heidelberg closes Mr Sibthorpe’s 
 list of “ the fellow helpers to the truth.” But whether or not 
 he be a helper to the truth, he is at least a fellow helper to the 
 “atrocious” Paulus, for Schwartz is the editor of a ‘periodical 
 work, the publishers of which advertise that the theological de- 
 partment is conducted by Dr Paulus and Mr Schwartz!!! To 
 be the friend of Kreitzer, is not very recommendatory of Mr 
 Schwartz. ‘To be capable of undertaking the conduct of a blas- 
 phemous publication with Paulus, is a strange proceeding im one 
 who gives the agents of the London Society “ peculiar satisfac- 
 tion,” and who has actually in his publications sanetioned lying, 
 under certain circumstances and in certain situations. Really the 
 conduct of the Glasgow Auxiiiaries is very unaccountable. In 
 order to prove that the evangelical party is on the increase on 
 the Continent, and that the charges against their “ Continental 
 agency” are loose and indiscriminate, they commence by res 
 echoing Mr Sibthorpe’s testimony to one who warrants the 
 “strictly orthodox” principles of his Socinian pastors, and they 
 terminate by repeating his eulogy on one who is a professed Ar 
 iminian and a staunch Apocryphist, and another who is a fellow 
 ~~ with the most atrocious of the German Neologists. 
 
 ‘The Glasgow Reporters not only adducé Mr Blombardt’s and 
 Mr Sibthorpe’s attestations to the Continental agency, which fur- 
 
45 
 
 nish such remarkable specimens of “loose and indiscriminate ge- 
 nerality,’—they have also corroborated these statements, by a 
 reference to “ other” statements, which in the exhibition of these 
 qualities far outstrip both Mr Blumhardt and Mr Sibthorpe. 
 “ Your Committee rejoice to say, that all the accounts which have 
 ¢ otherwise reached them, are corroborative of Dr Blumhardt’s 
 ‘ statement,” and “they have much pleasure in subjoining the fol- 
 « lowing testimony of Mr Sibthorpe, which is in harmony with that 
 © of others.” How must those persons who have sometimes brought 
 charges against the Continental agency with so much loose and in- 
 discriminate generality, now blush for themselves? The contrast. 
 is so striking,—the testimonies of Mr Blumhardt and Mr Sibthorpe 
 are so much more pointed, discriminating, and particular than 
 their own ; but especially, the testimony of the Reporters them- 
 selves, who refer us to “all the accounts” which have “ otherwise” 
 reached them from “others,” is so precise and satisfactory, that 
 their opponents musé be utterly confounded. 
 
 - If, however, Mr Sibthorpe’s testimony respecting the religious 
 state of the Continent, instead of being loose, indiscriminate, 
 and general, had been directly the reverse, it would not be 
 such as could be at all depended on. For what reliance can be 
 placed on Reports as to the characters of individuals on the Con- 
 tinent, given by such hasty travellers as the agents of the British 
 and Foreign Bible Society? They post from town to town, call 
 the clergy of all opinions together, and transact the business of 
 the Bible Society, which leads them, in the fear of marring it, 
 (as the Society wishes to comprehend among the-distinguished 
 members of its kindred institutions persons of every descrip- 
 tion,) to avoid all discussion about doctrine. What, then, do they 
 know of the real state of religion abroad? What has the pub- 
 lic learned from them ail respecting it ?. So far from acquiring any 
 knowledge on the subject from the Earl Street agents, the Chris- 
 tians of Great Britain have all along been misled and deceived by 
 them, in a manner the most egregious. Let any one, if he wishes 
 to be convinced of the justice of this remark, read the Annual 
 Reports of the British and Foreign Bible Society, and the letters 
 of Drs Steinkopff and Pinkerton. I had ocular demonstration in 
 Dr Pinkerton’s visit to Montauban, of the total ignorance in which 
 these travellers almost necessarily remain, of the character and 
 creed of those whom they visit on the Continent. An English 
 clergyman lately returned from the Continent, received while 
 there authentic information of the manner.in which Mr Francis 
 Cunningham was imposed on abroad. He learned that it is quite 
 
46 
 
 astonishing how much all the leading men belonging to the great 
 Societies of England have been imposed on, and how much the 
 fact of their being known to be leading men has contributed to 
 this result. Mr Sibthorpe’s testimony then on the subject, who 
 moreover, I am informed, did not understand one word of Ger- 
 man when he left England, is of no value for the purpose aa 
 which the Glasgow Auxiliaries have adduced it. 
 
 I have now adverted to the indirect defence of themselves, to’ 
 which the’ Reporters have resorted, respecting the ‘‘ connexions”’ 
 which the British and Foreign Bible Society has * established,” 
 and the “ happy adjustment and harmonious working of 
 its complicated yet simple machinery.” This machinery 
 consists of Arians, Socinians, Neologians, Infidels, Persecu- 
 tors, Evangelicals, who all work in the most harmonious man- 
 ner, not suffering the Apocrypha to be given up, being una- 
 nimous in “bringing into circulation a spurious Bible.” The 
 Glasgow Auxiliaries to the London Society and its “ Conti- 
 nental agency,” wished to defend that agency, by alleging that 
 charges have been sometimes brought against it of loose and 
 indiscriminate generality ; while the defences they have set up. 
 to oppose these charges, in as far as they do not condemn. 
 and overwhelm them with shame, for maintaining connection 
 in Bible distribution, with those who seek to involve in obseu- 
 rity and to lower the idea attached to inspiration, are by their 
 loose and indiscriminate generality absolutely ridiculous. I shall 
 now refer to testimony respecting that agency, which it is out 
 of their power to prove to be either loose, IO or, 
 general. e 
 
 The charges against the Continental agency of the Bric 
 tish and Foreign Bible Society, have heen chiefly, and in the 
 first instance, brought by myself. Instead of being loose, in-, 
 discriminate, and general, they have been most pointed and 
 particular. Without boasting, I may aflirm, that my oppor- 
 tunities of becoming acquainted with the state of religion on) 
 the Continent, were of:a very different kind from those of the 
 Earl Street travellers. It was not in the course of rapid, 
 journeys, with other business to transact, that I obtained my in- 
 formation. I resided during three years on the Continent, in the 
 two most important stations where the French language is. 
 spoken. I had no other avocation to take off my attention from; 
 the important work in which I was engaged. I lived in the most, 
 intimate habits with those who were, without one single exception, 
 
4 
 
 best acquainted with the French and Swiss Protestant churches 
 and their pastors. I saw many of those pastors from all quarters, 
 and instead of shunning discussion like the agents of Earl Street, 
 I entered with them into the closest conversations on the doc- 
 trines of the gospel. 
 
 - [likewise appeal to Mr Drummond’s testimony. He too had 
 advantages far beyond the agents of Earl Street, of ascertaining 
 the real state of religion on the Continent. He did not fly from 
 town to town, nor avoid discussion. He enjoyed opportunities 
 which he improved for conversing closely, and for a length of 
 time, on the gospel with persons to whom it was his desire, and 
 I have no doubt his privilege, to be useful. And what is the uni- 
 form testimony of Mr Drummond respecting religion abroad ? 
 Does it not entirely coincide with the testimony 1 have borne? 
 Has it not been uniform? Has he ever varied? Has it been 
 loose, indiscriminate, and general? Let the reader look into his 
 letter to Mr Strutt, published two years ago. He will there 
 learn his opinion of the religious state of the Continent. 
 
 I also appeal to the Rev. Mr Way’s testimony, who has re- 
 sided so long abroad. I have introduced it in my second Review 
 of the Conduct of the Earl Street Directors. This testimony 
 perfectly coincides with Mr Drummond’s. It will perhaps be 
 objected, that these gentlemen have written in a bad spirit, and 
 the Glasgow Reporters, upon perusing their gloomy disclosures, 
 may ask, as they have most unbecomingly asked in reference to 
 those in Glasgow who, because of the delinquencies of the Lon- 
 don Society, have separated from it, “ shall the sword devour 
 for ever?” And “how many suns must go down upon our 
 wrath?” But it has not been for the indulgence of wrath or for 
 destruction, that Mr Drummond and Mr Way have exposed the 
 true state of things abroad. Their labours to meliorate it, which 
 have been unwearied and abundant, sufficiently attest the con- 
 trary. They have not indeed painted it in false colours, like the 
 lying Reports of the British and Foreign Bible Society, or de- 
 scribed it in terms of “ loose and indiscriminate generality,” like 
 the testimony adduced by the Glasgow Auxiliary, which is so well 
 calculated to lull Christians in this country to sleep in com- 
 plete ignorance on the subject ; but they have sounded an alarm 
 throughout the land, and have faithfully declared what they have 
 themselves witnessed, in order to rouse their countrymen to 
 prayer and exertion, and in order to endeavour, by the blessing of 
 God, to ameliorate that condition which it was the height of un- 
 
43 
 
 faithfulness and of cruelty to conceal. And “ by theii fruits ye 
 shall know them.” Let the Glasgow Reporters point to a single 
 individual in the Earl Street Committee, or to the whole of that 
 Committee put together, and shew that they have personally done 
 one-tenth part as much to promote the spiritual interests of the 
 people of the Continent, as these two gentlemen have been ho- 
 noured to effect. And here it may be asked, Does blame attach 
 to those who have described the religious state of the Continent 
 to be such as it really is? What good end can it serve to say 
 any thing that might tend to convince others that it is not must 
 deplorable ?—where, as Mr Daniel Wilson affirms, “ wast tracts 
 ‘ of barren Protestantism, or untilled and fruitless Popery, stretch 
 ‘ all around us.” Is it lawful to give representations on such 
 a subject not conformable to fact? Do the Scriptures teach 
 a lessen? fda 
 
 The principal sources of information respecting the religious 
 condition of the Continent, are Mr Rose’s book on the state of 
 Germany, my Letter to Cheneviére, and my second Review of 
 the Conduct of the Directors of the British and Foreign Bible 
 Society. _Has the testimony borne in these works been shaken 
 in the slightest degree? Has not the truth they contain been 
 illustratedeand confirmed in proportion as the subject comes to 
 be better understood? Has not the authenticity of Mr Rose’s 
 elaborate work been fully established by those very attempts 
 that have been made te disparage it?* And is the informa- 
 tion which it affords respecting Germany, or are the charges 
 which I have brought against the Continental agency of the Bri- 
 tish and Foreign Bible Society, loose, indiscriminate, and general? 
 But have the Glasgow Reporters read Mr Rose’s book? Is it 
 possible that they have dove so, and yet have no consciousness of 
 the ‘ guilt and danger” they incur by endeavouring to vindicate 
 the conduct of the London Society, in employing such an agency 
 abroad, and by attempting to persuade their fellow-citizens to 
 co-operate with that agency? As the Auxiliaries stand in con- 
 nection, not only with Societies, but also with individuals, who 
 constitute a part of the ‘* Continental agency,” they introduce the 
 following testimony of Mr Sibthorpe in favour of Van Hss. 
 
 ‘¢ Of Leander Van Ess I saw but little personally... From the state of ‘bodily 
 and mental weakness to which it had pleased God to reduce him, my intercourse 
 
 * On this subject, and on the present state of religion in Germany and at Basle, 
 1 refer the reader to my recent publication respecting Mr Daniel Wilson, &¢, &e. 
 
49 
 
 with him was limited to what was sufficient to convince me of that state, and his 
 consequent inability at the time to enter upon the transaction of business. All 
 that I heard, and every where, was to the same purport, to confirm the high opi- 
 nion I had had eyery reason to hold of his piety, zeal, and disinterestedness. Of 
 the latter, indeed, we obtained that full proof, from unquestionable sources, which 
 has been already communicated ‘in our letters:—-a proof in every respect satisfac. 
 tory, as showing that all the emoluments he has derived from the sale of his Tes-- 
 tament have amounted only to L.32, or L.33 annually.” P. 31. ’ 
 . Here once more we have a testimony of sufficiently “loose 
 and indiscriminate generality.’ — But after all that has. been said. 
 of Van Ess, if he was ever to be introduced again to public no- 
 tice, information more distinct and particular might reasonably 
 have been expected. Yet when, in addition to Mr Sibthorpe’s 
 testimony to Van Ess, we consider the corroborative testimony of 
 other Earl Street agents, crowned too by the opinion of the Glas- 
 gow Auxiliaries, why should we complain? | Mr. Sibthorpe: 
 “saw but Hitile’ of him. Mr Francis Cunningham “ had the: 
 happiness of remaining with Van Hss during @ day.” Mr Bick- 
 ersteth “‘ had the privilege of passing with him az hour or two.” 
 Mr Daniel Wilson saw him not, bat he saw his study, and sat in 
 his chair. ‘* I saw, however, the study of this excellent man, I 
 sat in his chair.” Can these four gentlemen be blamed because 
 their testimony to Van Hss is presented with so much “ loose 
 and indiscriminate generality ?” Or rather, considering their op- 
 portunities, is it not wonderfully precise? The “ high opinion” 
 conceived by Mr Sibthorpe—the “ happiness” experienced by 
 Mr Cunningham—the “ privilege” enjoyed by Mr Bickersteth, 
 and the attestation given by Mr Daniel Wilson to this “ excellent 
 man,” are recommendations which the most sceptical as to Van 
 Ess must be compelled to respect! If any thing be yet wanting 
 to complete his character, it is kindly supplied in a note append- 
 ed to Mr Sibthorpe’s testimony by the Glasgow Reporters, who 
 assure us, that the British public will do justice to ** this good 
 man.” Absurd and ludicrous as all this must appear, it should 
 be viewed: by the reader as highly valuable. A whole:volume on 
 the subject could not have furnished “him with’ a more correct 
 jdéa of the means which the Earl’ Street Travellers enjoy of as- 
 ‘certaining the religious character of their friends on the Conti- 
 nent, and of the coal ane lack of information on Continental 
 
 subjects of the Glasgow Auxiliaries. 
 Mr Sibthorpe informs us, that of the piety, sal and disinte- 
 restedness of Van Hss, he obtained “ full proof from unquestion- 
 
 be Y21ayy ¢ ) L “bax 732 
 
50 
 
 able sources.” But to the public these unquestionable sources are 
 as much unknown as the sources of the Nile. The “proof,” how- 
 ever, Mr Sibthorpe says, was “ in every respect satisfactory, as 
 ‘ shewing that all the emoluments he has derived from his Tes- 
 ‘ taments, have only amounted to L.32 or L.33 annually,” Even 
 were it in Mr Sibthorpe’s power to exhibit a proof of this, “in 
 every respect satisfactory,” further proof would still be required 
 of what has so often in vain been demanded—the manner in 
 which Van Ess has accounted for the enormous sums of money 
 received by him from Earl Street. But that from the sale of his 
 Testaments, Van Ess has drawn only L.32 or L.33 annually, 
 the Glasgow Reporters are perfectly satisfied. “ No one,” they 
 say, “ who knows the character of Mr Sibthorpe, will ventnre 
 ‘ to question the authority of these statements.” And in confir- 
 mation of them, they subjoin an account of the business, given in 
 a letter from Dr Pinkerton and Mr Sibthorpe, dated October 22. 
 1827: it concludes as follows :—“ These, then, are briefly the 
 ‘ facts of the case: nor, we confess, do we fear the result of the 
 ‘ communication of them to you or to the British public.” Elat- 
 ed with this account, the Glasgow Reporters break out in the 
 following exulting exclamations :—‘“ There was indeed no cause 
 ‘to fear. The British public will do this good man justice, 
 ‘ when they see the way in which he has been maligned as fea- 
 ‘ thering his nest so comfortably from his publishing engage- 
 ‘ ments! Sixteen pounds a-year, while his brother lived, and 
 ‘ thirty-two since! What a Crosus—What a Rothschild—he 
 ¢ must have become to be sure!” p. 32. And, may I be allowed 
 to add, What well-informed Reporters! or rather, What silly 
 exclamations—to be sure! * fY baok 
 
 Be it known, then, to these gentlemen, that so far from be- 
 ing the fact, that no one will venture to “ question the inte- 
 
 * Van Ess was eulogized by Dr Steinkopff in the following terms :—** Leander 
 Van Ess seeks no earthly emoluments, nor is the applause of a vain world his 
 aim ; he desires no treasures which the moth and rust consume.” At that very 
 time, the Earl Street Committee concealed the fact, that Van Ess was receiving 
 from the Committee a salary which may be reckoned equivalent to L. 700 or 
 L. 800 a-year in England, besides the emoluments arising from printing, and 
 binding, and publishing, and distributing the Scriptures. In April 1828, L. 600 
 or L. 700 was voted to him, “ chiefly for binding,” it was said. But it is need- 
 less to insist further on these things, of which so many statements have already 
 been published. It is well known, that in nine years Van Ess got L. 20,000 out 
 
51 
 
 grity of these statements,” they have, on the contrary, both 
 been questioned, and theit “ deceptious unfairness” proved. And 
 moreover, in reference to them, the very significant question 
 has been put, “ Is this honest, friend?” The Reporters would 
 have acted more wisely, if, before they attempted to instruct their 
 fellow-citizens on this subject, and before they had announced 
 their supposed triumph in such exulting terms, they had taken a 
 little pains to obtain due information. They would then have 
 learned that the late Corresponding Board of Edinburgh had, in 
 their zeal for the credit of Earl Street, also laid “ the account of 
 this matter” before the public. And they would have further 
 learned, that this account has been completely refuted by Mr A. 
 Haldane, in his “« Answer to the Statement of the Correspond- 
 ing Board.” That same Answer would also have taught them 
 certain particulars respecting Van Ess, which, before they come 
 again to the “ British public,” to shew how “ this good man” 
 has been “ maligned,” it will be well for them duly to consider. 
 After various details, which prove the fallaciousness of Dr Pin- 
 kerton and Mr Sibthorpe’s statement, Mr Haldane, referring to 
 Dr Pinkerton as its principal author, proceeds as follows :— 
 
 ** We conclude then, that in three years anda half, Van Ess received the 
 greater part of the sum admitied in Dr Pinkerton’s statement,—that deducting 
 the Testaments he has distributed subsequently to the period marked by Mr Dud- 
 ley, he must have received within three years and a half, according to Dr Finker- 
 ton’s calculation, somewhere about L. 400,—according to the calculation taken 
 from the Reports of the Society, somewhere about L. 540, and according to the 
 medium calculation, somewhere about L.450. Now, when we remember that 
 Van Ess as a parish priest received somewhere about L. 38 to L. 46 per annum, 
 (8th Report, p. 465,) can it be alleged, that in circulating the Scriptures, ‘* Lean- 
 der Van Ess seeks no earthly emoluments?” But above all, what shall we say of 
 Dr Pinkerton’s Statement,—for now I have a right to speak of it as it deserves,— 
 now that I have proved that he has spread over 19 years, a sum nearly 2-3ds of 
 which was received within three years and a half,—now that I have proved, that 
 instead of receiving L. 32 a-year of profit, he was at one time receiving at the rate 
 of from L. 110 to L. 150, more than treble the sum he received as a parish priest. 
 
 ‘¢ In reference to this matter, I am reminded of Dr Pinkerton’s defence of a state- 
 ment, which it was last year proposed to send in answer to a Letter of Remon- 
 
 of the British and Foreign Bible Society’s funds. Besides receiving his salary, 
 Van Ess is authorized to employ part of his time at his discretion, to manufac- 
 ture and vend adulterated Bibles for his own emolument. The whole of their 
 transactions with Van Ess, from first to last, reflect indelible disgrace on the Lon- 
 don Committee. 
 
52 
 
 strance from the Glasgow Presbytery.” The Rev. Presbytery had been »informed 
 that unbound Bibles had been sent to Van'Ess, or some statement to this effect 
 was inserted in their Letter. Now there was a mistake in their information, or 
 rather, as Talleyrand once observed on another occasion, ‘ their watch had gone. a 
 little faster than other people’s.” The event had taken place, or had been at least 
 sanctioned, before the answer to the Presbytery came under discussion, but it had 
 not taken place when the Presbytery wrote their remonstrance. It was proposed, 
 therefore, to tell the Presbytery, not that their information was premature, but 
 that it was incorrect, and this answer was actually written down. Some opposition 
 was made to the unfairness of such an answer, which, although /iterally true, was 
 in effect perfectly the reverse. Dr Pinkerton, however, defended this course, and 
 was proceeding to another clause in the answer, when a much respected member of 
 the Society of Friends, though a staunch Apocryphist, exclaimed with irresistible 
 naiveté, “* But is that honest, friend ?” In reference, therefore, to Dr Pinkerton’s 
 present Statement, 1 cannot say any thing more forcible than by repeating Mr 
 Phillip’s inquiry, “‘ Is this honest, friend 2” 
 
 Mr Haldane closes his exposure of the unfaithfulness of Dr 
 Pinkerton’s statement referred to by the Glasgow Auxiliaries, 
 with the following remarks respecting Van Ess :-— 
 
 ‘¢T have thus fully entered into the investigation of the transaction of the Bible 
 Society with Leander Van Ess. His demerits as an adulterator of the fountains 
 of life, are apparent and notorious. But it is not of Van Ess individually that 1 
 speak. Of himself, if I may venture to'form an opinion of his religious sénti- 
 ments, from the principles, or rather the negation of all principles contained in his 
 writings, and exemplified in his conduct,—I should say he belongs to that class of 
 religionists in Germany, who are not known by any distinctive name, but frequent- 
 ‘ly, if not usually styled German Universalists.° It is’a sect which subsists by the 
 abjuration of all sects, and which consequently renders it very difficult to classify 
 those who profess its slippery tenets. It embraces both Catholics and Protestants, 
 and such is the laxity of principle which it inculcates, that Romish priests of this 
 description assisted in the celebration of the last centenary of the Reformation held 
 ‘in honour of Luther. The leading principle’ of their creed is to hold all’systemis 
 ‘of truth as erroneous, and that it is only possible to-arrive at an approximation 
 to truth. They particularly reprobate the doctrines of Calvin, and believe in the 
 universal restoration of all things, and of all beings.’ They deny that: the Holy 
 Spirit operates in any human creature to the exclusion of others, but maintain that 
 he operates in all,—that every truth that is found in authors, whether’ Christian or 
 Pagan, is inspired of God,—that every good sentiment is ftom God,—and that in 
 ‘proportion as man yields himself to this internal impulse, so will-he be proportion- 
 ally happy or miserable. They profess that love is the beginning and end of their 
 doctrines, and of all true religion ; and they boast that their opinions are secretly 
 gaining ground, not only among the Protestants and Catholics of Germany, but 
 also in England. Something indirect may be learned of their tenets and opitions, 
 py a reference to a book written by two brothers, one of them a Prete at et 
 bridge, most characteristically entitled ‘* Guesses at Truth.” 
 
 “¢ Whether or not Van Ess, like Schiller and others, belongs to this class of r0- 
 mantic religionists, I cannot determine. His writings and conduct ‘strongly ‘savour 
 
33 
 
 both of its romance, and ‘its negation of principle. But this.is not my present ob- 
 ject. It is of the conduct of Earl Street that I speak, as manifested in their trans- 
 actions with this Roman Catholic Priest. In every respect it is conduct which 
 loudly calls for explanation. The concealment of his salary—the concealment of 
 his connection with Von Seidel, entitle us to suspect every thing. His accounts 
 may, for aught we know, be perfectly satisfactory; but it is unquestionable, that, for 
 L. 20,000 and more, no return has been made, except an account of 3000 copies sent 
 here, 1000 there, 10,000 to Wurtemberg, and so many to Halle. This is surelya 
 confidence altogether unreasonable, considering that Van Ess is a foreigner, living 
 ina distant country—considering too that he has an interest in the printing of every 
 copy of his Testament—considering that his engagement to exclude notes, in com- 
 pliance with the law of the Society, has been grossly violated—and, above all, con- 
 sidering that his peculiar situation as a Romish Priest and a Liberal, reduce him 
 to the necessity of living, if not in the habitual violation of an oath, at least in dis. 
 gusting familiarity with disingenuous subtleties, and contaminating sophistry.” 
 
 In a letter dated December 18. 1826, Mr Bost, to whom the 
 Christians of Great Britain are so much indebted for exposing 
 the nefarious business of Haffner, writes as follows: “ As. to 
 ‘ Van Ess, to say conscientiously and before the Lord what I 
 think of him, I cannot hinder myself from joining in an opinion 
 ‘ which is always becoming more general, and which I was one 
 « of the first to entertain, which is, that if that man, seeks with 
 © some sincerity the kingdom of heaven and its righteousness, at 
 « Jeast that sincerity is not entire: he appears still very much 
 to consult his honour, and even in some degree his interests of 
 ‘ fortune. (ses interets de fortune). I have caught him in 
 * little lies’ of detail, (je l’ai attrappé’en de petits mensonges de 
 * detail), and he even boasts of some which he calls finesses, 
 * such as putting into the gazettes supposed attacks upon himself 
 ~ in order to have an opportunity of answering, &c. &c. He 
 knows all the tricks of Jesuitism, and he eyen surpasses them. 
 ‘ There is no doubt but that by that knowledge he may be of 
 ‘ great use, but this is a character that is too dominant in him.” 
 (trop dominant ‘chez lui). 
 
 The attempt of the Glasgow Auxiliaries to prop up the cha- 
 ‘acter of Van Ess “is little to their credit. It is calculated, 
 like other things in their Report, to mislead the public. They 
 will be wise not to urge this matter farther. _Hnough has .al- 
 ready been said of Van Ess to induce them at least to be silent 
 respecting him. But their zeal for the honour of that Committee 
 against which they formerly wrote in terms of the strongest dis- 
 approbation, appears now to hurry them on to the most extra- 
 vagant lengths in the opposite direction. It is necessary to put 
 Christians on their guard against being made the dupes of such 
 
 ‘ 
 
54 
 
 mis-statements, and of the danger of continuing to be deceived by 
 the baseless romances contained in the Reports of the British 
 and Foreign Bible Society, and of the often worse than “ loose 
 and indiscriminate generality” of the garbled oiaivene ae its 
 hasty travellers. 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 Tue Glasgow Auxiliaries have quoted “ the following senti- 
 ments” of their last year’s Report, in which they observe they 
 “‘ have seen increasing reason to acquiesce.” 
 
 « They are enemies to the circulation of the Apocrypha. They deeply regret 
 that so many of the great leading and Protestant Societies on the Continent should 
 decline acceding to the relinquishment of these human additions to the Word of God. 
 It is their earnest wish, that all the societies in Europe were pure Bible Societies. 
 They are not without the hope of the day coming, and of their even living to see it, 
 when that wish may, in no inconsiderable extent, at least, be happily realized. But 
 the habits and prejudices of centuries cannot be expected to give wayin aday. We 
 have no magical wend, by which to dissolve such powerful spells at our pleasure. 
 It must be the work of consideration and of time ; and a vast deal is gained, when 
 attention has been strongly drawn to the subject, and enquiry extensively excited. 
 Meanwhile, your Committee do still consider the testimony borne against the Apo- 
 crypha by the publication of the London Society’s Resolutions, and the practical 
 abandonment, in conformity to those Resolutions, of all concern in its circulation, 
 as being, in the mean time sufficient. And they are unfriendly to severer measures, 
 not from any light impression of the evil of circulating the Apocrypha, but from 
 the sincere conviction, that the plan which has been adopted, while, by the open- 
 ness and explicitness of its disavowal, it clears their consciences of the charge of 
 participating in the wrong, and of ‘doing evil that good may come,” is in its nature 
 best calculated to bring about, gradually and surely, the accomplishment of those 
 desires after an uncontaminated canonical circulation, in which they are one with 
 their separating friends.” P. 27. ; 
 
 In the above extract, the Auxiliaries express a hope, that, 
 even in their time, all the Societies in Europe will become pure 
 
 Bible Societies. The value of this hope may be ascertained by 
 
 considering the appalling account they have themselves given, of 
 
55 
 
 the fixed intention of those who compose the great majority itt 
 the Continental Societies, to involve in obscurity, and to lower 
 the idea attached to inspiration,—in plain language, to prove 
 that the Bible is not the Word of God. Yet, after exhibiting 
 this view of these infidel Societies, they gravely express their 
 hope that they shall become “ pure Bible Societies.” They 
 likewise attempt to shew, that in maintaining their connection 
 with them they are free from guilt. That “plan,” they say, which 
 has been adopted, “ clears their consciences of the charge of par- 
 ‘ ticipating in the wrong, and of doing evil that good may come.” 
 And. how does it clear their consciences? It consists in form- 
 ing Resolutions which make express provision for assisting 
 “ Societies that circulate a spurious Bible’—which, as the 
 Auxiliaries remarked of a former Resolution of the London, 
 may be adhered to in their /etter, while they are grossly violated 
 in their spirit. It is a plan which provides for keeping up con~ 
 nection with those whose horrible object it is, according to the 
 Reporters, to strip the Bible of its divine character. How, then, 
 does this “ plan” clear them of the charge of “ participating in 
 the wrong” ?. But enough has been said in relation to the asto- 
 nishing and almost incredible fact, that one of the reasons of the 
 increasing conviction of the Auxiliaries that the British and Fo- 
 reign Bible Society is the only Society which can effectually do 
 the business for which it was instituted, is derived from a “survey” 
 of the “connections it has established.” Besides the positive 
 “wrong” of the circulation of the Apocrypha with the Bible, 
 and of the purpose of those Societies to degrade the Bible it- 
 self, which the Auxiliaries have so explicitly divulged, there 
 is another view of the magnitude of the evil of connecting 
 the British and Foreign Bible Society with them, namely, 
 the extensive and malignant influence of this connection. On 
 this subject the following extracts from the Rey. Dr Gordon’s 
 speech at the Annual Meeting of the Edinburgh Bible Society 
 in 1827, deserve particular attention. It must be left to the 
 Glasgow Auxiliaries to refute, if they are able, the sentiments 
 they contain ; which, if they wish to clear themselves from the 
 charge of “ participating in the wrong, and of doing evil that 
 ‘ good may come,” it will be necessary for them to attempt. 
 
 sé It has been alleged by members of the British and Foreign Bible Society— 
 and these too very distinguished members, both on account of their personal rank 
 and character, and from the place which they occupy in the Society—that ‘ the 
 apocryphal question hag been for ever decided ;’ that ‘ the controversy has now 
 
56 
 
 become the subject of historical allusion ;’ and, that, * the Society, is nowjreminded» 
 of the tempest only by the last mutterings of jts distant thunders on the yerge of 
 a remote and brightening horizon.’. Now, Sir, if by these statements it were 
 meant merely to announce, that the Society has taken up the ground which it has. 
 
 finally determined to maintain ; that it will take no farther steps towards restoring 
 
 and rendering permanent the purity of its procedure ; and that it will no longer 
 deign to hold a discussion with any one on the subject ; then I could only say of 
 such a determination, that I do most sincerely and deeply regret it. But if it be 
 meant to assert that the cause. of the controversy has been remoyed—that the evil, 
 complained of has been remedied—and that the Society stands acquitted of the, 
 charge of any dereliction or compromise of principle in the mode of procedure 
 which it has finally adopted ; I must beg leave to enter my humble protest against 
 
 such a statement. I maintain, Sir, and upon grounds which appear to me as” 
 plain and palpable as any upon which a question in Christian morals was ever de-- 
 termined, that notwithstanding the resolutions to which the committee of the So-' 
 ciety have come on the subject, there is still a lamentable compromise of principle 
 in their proceedings, and that too of the yery principle which constitutes the strength, 
 
 and grandeur of a Bible Society. In fact, the resolutions themselyes do directly. 
 sanction this compromise, and provide for its being perpetuated. For granting, Sir, 
 
 that they have effectually and for ever put an end to the expenditure of any por- 
 
 tion of the Society’s funds in circulating the Apocrypha, they not only leave the 
 
 committee at liberty to maintain a connexion with foreign Societies which do ‘pro-’ 
 fessedly and upon principle circulate these fables, but are framed on the supposi-! 
 tion that sucha connexion is to be kept up. Whatever, therefore, be the influence; 
 which attaches to the character of the British and Foreign Bible Society in the; 
 estimation of the people on the continent, .a portion of that influence must neces- 
 
 sarily be transferred. to the others, and must ultimately go to sanction their pro-, 
 ceedings as public bodies bearing the title of Bible Societies. It is idle to talk of 
 the resolutions passed by the former being sufficient to prevent its countenance and’ 
 support being given to the latter, in circulating spurious Bibles. Even supposing 
 that these resolutions should accompany every Bible which the Foreign Societies: 
 issue ;_ still, so long as these associations are, in their public capacity, recognized, 
 and corresponded with, and talked of as Bible Societies—and so long, as they, can) 
 refer, in their reports sa9 circulars, to their continued friendly intercourse with, 
 the British Society,—such resolutions are at best but a very equivocal condemnation 
 of the Apocrypha, and must leave the impression on the minds of those who receive 
 adulterated Scriptures, that though the British and Foreign Bible Society is not 
 permitted by its fundamental rule to circulate the Apocrypha, it-is very far indeed: 
 from regretting that it should be circulated. . But this, Sir, is, a much. mote fa~ 
 yourable supposition for the Society, than itis, entitled to.make for itself... For 
 does it seriously contemplate making any effort to send forth; its resolutions with all 
 the Apocryphal Bibles that may be circulated by those Societies with which it is 
 connected ?. Does it really mean to take such steps, as shall effectually give to 
 these resolutions the character and weight of a continued public testimony against 
 such an adulteration of the word of God? Or will it. use any means” “to” asétire 
 those into-whose hands the Scriptures so adulterated may come, that the British 
 Society had nothing to ‘do inisending forth the Bible| in such -aforni ?- Noy Sire 
 The whole tone and*manner of the Society’s procedure. i virtually a declaration 
 
57 
 
 that it means no such thing. It is the publicly expressed and recorded wish of the 
 Committee, that the present controversy may be buried in oblivion—and that the 
 operations of the Society, and of all its agencies and coadjutors, as presently con- 
 stituted, may henceforth proceed in uninterrupted harmony. Supposing then that 
 their object is attained, what will be the consequence? The connexion between 
 the British and Foreign Bible Society, and the Societies on the Continent, must 
 always be a matter of notoriety there. The Committee of the former cannot pub- 
 lish a fair report of their proceedings, nor detail to their constituents’the expendi- 
 ture of the funds committed to their trust, without proclaiming to the world that 
 they are holding a friendly intercourse with the latter—that is, with Bible and 
 Apocrypha Societies ; and these Societies will always have a sufficiently powerful 
 Motive, to give publicity to theit intercourse and correspondence with so distin- 
 guished and influential a body, as the British and Foreign Bible Society. The 
 very principle on which they continue to maintain a connection with that Society, 
 notwithstanding its professed condemnation of what they believe necessary to be 
 circulated with the Scriptures, will prompt them also to make that connexion 
 public; and in confirmation of this remark, I might refer to the whole history of 
 the Bible Society. But can any man believe that they will be equally forward to 
 make known the resolutions of that Society, or willingly proclaim to the world 
 that the Institution, whose countenance and patronage they have hitherto so 
 eagerly courted, has expressed its disapprobation of their practice? And can the 
 London Committee then deny that it is a possible—nay, a certain thing, that 
 multitudes who receive Apocryphal Bibles from these associations will know in 
 general that they are connected with the British and Foreign Bible Society, while 
 they know nothing at all of the steps which the latter has taken to prevent such 
 Bibles being circulated with its funds, or under its sanction? Let the Committee, 
 therefore, be ever so faithful to their trust, and ever so anxious to avoid sanction- 
 ing the principles of Apocryphal Societies, they cannot, as matters now stand, 
 avoid countenancing and abetting these principles, in their practical effects upon 
 those whose spiritual welfare it is the avowed purpose of the society to provide for ; 
 and the more successful that they are in silencing all objections to their present 
 mode of procedure—the more effectually that they still what they have been pleased 
 to call a tempest—the more certainly will they invest the Foreign Societies in the 
 eyes of Europe, with the character of friends and auxiliaries—nay, of ‘ parts’ 
 and ¢ parcels’ of the Bible Societies of Britain. 
 
 *¢ And is this, Sir, a small matter? It may be so'in the estimation-of those 
 who maintain, that ‘* the Bible Society is not a Religious Society.” I trust, how- 
 ever, that it is not necessary to occupy your time in attempting to repel such an 
 outrage on Christian principle and common sense, ‘as this assertion implies. I am 
 persuaded that I express the sentiment of every simple-hearted Christian before 
 me, when I say, that the character of the Bible Society as a Religious Society—as 
 a testimony for the word of God—as the united voice of a nation—which, with all 
 its faults, is assuredly the most Christian nation in the world—uplifted in defence 
 of the truth, and in defiance of error, and making itself be heard to the utmost 
 ends of the earth,—is that which constitutes its true grandeur, and, on account of 
 which, its existence has been the subject of many a thanksgiving to God, and may 
 be expected to bring down the blessing of heaven. The strength of such a combi- 
 
 . ite 5 = | 
 
58 
 
 nation consists, not merely. in the power of multiplying copies of the Bible, as it by 
 the weight of numbers. the Scriptures were to displace and put down error, but, 
 also; and especially in the moral aspect which it bears, in presenting that book to, 
 the world, as no other book ever was, and in bringing a solemn and unequivocal 
 charge against every other system of religion, except that of the Bible, as a system. 
 of lies. Valuable, then, and even necessary to its very existence as its silver and 
 its gold may be,—incalculably more valuable still.is the purity of its religious cha~ 
 racter, ‘and the power of its moral influence—and unspeakably more deplorable, 
 therefore, is the compromise of these, than any wasteful expenditure of its funds, 
 however extravagant. And such, Sir, is the compromise of which I complain, 
 As the British and Foreign Bible Societyjis at present constituted, and as it stands 
 eonnected with other associations, it cannot avoid presenting itself to multitudes—- 
 and those too the very persons to. whom it professedly furnishes the word of life—. 
 as sanctioning the principles, and countenancing the. practices of those who circu- 
 
 late as the truth of God, what is in reality.a cunningly devised fable, As the 
 sound of this controversy: dies away, and as the reports of the Society become what 
 they were wont to be, details of its annual transactions, of the number of asso- 
 ciations with which it corresponds and co-operates, and the amount of the copies 
 of the Bible which it has circulated by itself and its auxiliaries, it will become 
 more and more identified with the Foreign Societies in the minds of those among 
 whom the latter circulate their own, Bibles ; and to this extent, therefore, it must 
 compromise its principles, and tarnish the purity of its character, not only by ceasr 
 ing to testify for the truth, but by giving its countenance and sanction to error. 
 
 “+ Tam aware, Sir, of what may be urged in reply to this line of argument, 
 for I have actually met. with the reply. It, is alleged, that upon the principle which 
 has now. been laid down, I would not accept of the assistance of any individual in 
 -circulating the Bible, until I had sat in judgment,on, his opinions and his, charac- 
 ter, and had found, after.a rigorous inquiry, that according to my, standard he is 
 sound in the faith, I-confess, Sir, that I have been astonished how any one can 
 so far confound the judgment which every Christian is warranted, and may.often 
 be-required to pass, on a man’s publicly avowed opinions, with an uncharitable 
 suspicion of his secret and unexpressed sentiments, as to draw such an, inference. 
 If an individual professes openly, from the press or otherwise, principles directly 
 at variance with the doctrines of the Bible—if he dares to prefix to the Bible itself 
 a document subversive of all that is most valuable to a sinner inthe truths of the 
 gospel;—-if he does so,in the face of a solemn covenant, and with the very Bible 
 
 . too, the publication of which he had undertaken to superintend; am I to be 
 charged with an unwarrantable scrutiny into the character—-am I to be branded 
 with the crime of passing a censorious or uncharitable judgment, on the principles 
 of-such an individual, if I say that.he is not to be intrusted with the sacred office 
 which he has so audaciously abused—that he is not fit to be employed as an agent 
 of the Bible Society—and that Christians cannot, without a compromise of their 
 principles, «‘ bid him God speed ?”?, And how much stronger is. the argument 
 when applied to societies! It is in their public. character alone, as Bible societies 
 
 | as organized bodies for publishing and circulating the Scriptures, that they are 
 known to the world ; and except in this capacity they are not known. to, exist; by 
 many into whose hands their Bibles may come. “And if they ayow it, therefore, 
 as a fundamental principle, that they must and will circulate the Apocrypha—if 
 
59 
 
 there are multitudes who do not know them in any other way than)as holding ‘and 
 acting on that principle; am I to have fastened upon me the extravagant opinion 
 referred to, because I say that the British and Foreign Bible Society ought not 
 to appear before the Continent of Europe i in. alliance with such. associations, nor 
 allow itself to be identified with them, in the minds of those among whom they 
 circulate the Scriptures ? It cannot do so without being partakers in other men’s 
 
 sins.’”? 
 
 _ These important considerations, in addition to the Siicts that 
 have been adduced, should convince the Glasgow Reporters of 
 the mischief they are doing by maintaining their unhallowed 
 connection with the Foreign Apocryphal Societies, and should 
 shew them that the testimony borne against the Apocrypha by 
 the publication of the London Society's Regulations, is not in the 
 “ meanwhile sufficient,” and that “the plan which has been 
 adopted” does not clear them of the charge of “ participating 
 in the wrong.” They observe, “ we have no magical wand by 
 ‘ which to dissolve such powerful spells at our pleasure.” And 
 what is this to the purpose? Because whey have if not in their 
 power to put an end to the “ wrong,” which no one ever sup- 
 posed they had, does this exculpate them in aiding and abetting 
 those who are doing the wrong ? 
 
 But the Glasgow Reporters still affirm, that they are “ ene- 
 mies to the circulation of the Apocrypha,” and that in their 
 “ desires after an uncontaminated canonical circulation, they are 
 ‘ one with their separating friends.” ‘This can by no means be 
 admitted. Their separating friends must disclaim their oneness 
 . in their enmity to the circulation of the Apocrypha, till their 
 professions and their practice be more consistent with each 
 other. Along with themselves, their separating friends did, on 
 the 16th of March 1826, publicly avow that they were “ deep- 
 ‘ ly impressed with the guilt and danger of being in any way acces- 
 ‘sary to such a result,” as that of “ bringing into circulation a spu- 
 ‘rious Bible.’ To this solemn protestation, their separating 
 friends continue to adhere. They are therefore convinced that 
 the bringing into circulation a spurious Bible, is a siz against 
 God. But the deep impression of guilt and danger on this sub- 
 ject, has now worn off from the minds of the auxiliaries, and has 
 been replaced by an increasing “conviction” of the duty of ad- 
 hering to the London Society, which is accessary to the above re- 
 sult. The Reporters may therefore call the being accessary to 
 this result, “an unhappy error,” but in giving it this designation 
 they do not mean to say that it isa sin. If they considered it to be 
 a sin, they could not adhere to the London Society, and affirm 
 
60 
 
 that the testimony borne in its Resolutions is ‘in ‘the mean 
 time sufficient,” which not only permit connection with, but 
 make provision for countenancing and supporting societies which 
 are deliberately committing this sin. Far less could they, i in con- 
 necting themselves with “these Apocryphal institutions,” as they 
 _ themselves have called them, advance contributions for their sup- 
 port, if they considered what they are doing to be a sin, be- 
 cause in that case it could not be denied that they were parta- 
 hers of that sin. Neither could they give contributions to assist 
 in. sending out Apocryphal agents who not only encourage 
 these societies in retaining the Apocrypha, but whom the Lon- 
 don Society refuse to instruct to act otherwise. Nor, above all, 
 could they assist in paying a salary to an Apocryphal agent on 
 the Continent for the employment of the whole of his time, and 
 acquiesce in his being expressly licensed to occupy a part of it 
 in the adulteration of the Scriptures with the Apocrypha. This 
 last circumstance, were there no other, is for ever fatal to the 
 claim the auxiliaries advance, of being equally enemies to the cir- 
 culation of the Apocrypha with their separating friends. 
 
 But there is another ground furnished by the Reporters, 
 on which it is evident that they are not “one” in this mat- 
 ter with their separating friends. They express their “ sin- 
 cere conviction,” that the plan which has been adopted by the 
 British and Foreign Bible Society, “is in its nature best cal- 
 ‘ culated to bring about, gradually and surely, the accomplish- 
 ‘ment of their desires after an uncontaminated canonical 
 ‘ circulation,” Now, if they regarded a contaminated canonical 
 circulation as SINFUL, they could not declare themselves satisfied 
 with ceasing from it gradually. Does the Word of God teach us 
 to cease from sin gradually? Does it countenance any thing of 
 this kind? Do the Reporters teach such a doctrine? Do they 
 tell their hearers to cease from sin “gradually,” that they may 
 do so “surely?” ‘They do not, and they cannot while they take 
 the Word of God for their rule. We are, therefore, entitled to 
 conclude, that the Auxiliaries do not now consider their being ae- 
 cessary to bringing into circulation a spurious Bible, which 
 the plan with which they express their satisfaction allows, to 
 be a sin, and therefore, till they change their course, and give up 
 all connection with those who are engaged in this ungodly traf- 
 fic, they have no right to affirm, that as being enemies to the cir- 
 culation of the Apocrypha, “ they are one with their separating 
 
61 
 
 friends,” and that they have not a “light impression of the evil 
 of circulating the Apocrypha.” 
 
 The Reporters call the attention of their readers, to “the one 
 ‘ overwhelming fact, that the British and Foreign Bible Society 
 ‘ is still engaged in promoting the translation, printing, or dis- 
 ‘ tribution of the Holy Scriptures in upwards of one hundred and 
 ‘ forty languages and dialects :—and that in no one of these does 
 « it bestow the smallest fraction of its funds on aught but the pure 
 ‘ word of the living God” ! P. 35. The manner in which that So- 
 ciety’s translations of the Scriptures have been, and are at present 
 conducted, we have already seen ; and we have likewise noticed, 
 in what ways fractions by no means inconsiderable of its funds are 
 applied, both in aiding societies and in supporting agents, who are 
 avewedly engaged in promoting the adulteration of the pure 
 Word. As to the “ overwhelming fact,” it having been also 
 boasted of by the late Corresponding Board, the following re- 
 marks were made by Dr Thomson in his speech at the annual 
 meeting of the Edinburgh Bible Society 1827. 
 
 “ Far be it from me, Sir, to underrate the services of the Lon- 
 don Committee. I am ready to give them full credit for every 
 thing they have done, in so far as they have done what is right. 
 And I am sure the Edinburgh Bible Society never deserted or 
 slighted them till they deserted the path of duty. But, Sir, in 
 all the statements that are made, whether to censure or to praise 
 the London Committee, I like to see truth as an essential ingre- 
 dient.. And I am afraid the passage I have now quoted from the 
 manifesto of the Corresponding Board is calculated to mislead, 
 by placing the Committee’s achievements too high, and by con- 
 cealing what tends greatly to lessen their value. One would 
 conclude from what the Board says, that the London Committee 
 have executed editions of the whole Bible in 143 different lan- 
 guages. Now, not to mention that a large proportion of these were 
 executed by others, and only helped forward by their giving some 
 pecuniary aid, it is to be noted, that 143 editions of the Holy Scrip- 
 tures, as they are called, include a great number of mere portions 
 of the Bible,—such as the New Testament, the Pentateuch, the 
 Psalms, and other detached books. And then, what is of far more 
 consequence, “ the friends of religion in Edinburgh,” have forgot- 
 ten to tell the public how many of the editions of the Holy Scrip- 
 tures, executed by them, or by their assistance, contain the Apo- 
 erypha appended and intermixed, and have been circulated at 
 their instance, or with their consent, as the word of the living 
 
62 
 
 God, and as the proper standard of faith. 1 can tell you pretty 
 nearly how this matter stands. Mr Stokes, a member Of the 
 London Committee, some time ago published a cast-off pamphlet 
 of Mr Brandram’s in their defence; and one of his statements is, 
 that of the 140 editions of the Seriptures which the Society has’ 
 published there are, as he says, only twenty containing the Apo- 
 crypha. Of the 140, however, there are no fewer than 110 into 
 which it was impossible for the Committee to thrust the Apo-' 
 crypha, however much inclined they had been to do 80. And,” 
 according to their calculation, of the thirty complete editions 
 of the Bible, which the London Committee assisted in printing 
 in as many different languages, there were two-thirds or twenty 
 polluted by the presence of the Apocrypha, in spite of their 
 fundamental law; and of the denunciations ‘" vr Word: of ‘ae 
 itself. 
 
 But even if the Holy Scriptures had been trandlated, piinved’ 
 or distributed in 140 different languages, without any impure 
 mixture, it should always be remembered, that it would tow been 
 effected by means of the large sums of money contributed from 
 various parts of Great Britain for that purpose, with which it was 
 an honour to any Society to be entrusted; and that had those to 
 whom these funds were committed acted faithfully, the nam- 
 ber of translations of the Holy Sériptures would have been gteat- 
 ly inereased. The overwhelming fact, then, when we consider the 
 ample means placed at the disposal of that Society, isnot that 
 so much has been done “ in promoting the translation, printing, 
 or distribution of the Holy Scriptures,” but that so little has been 
 done in comparison of what would have been effected, if these 
 funds had been placed in the hands of men, qualified by their ve- 
 neration for the authority of God, and the integrity of his Holy 
 Word, to take the superintendence and been er 80 eee 
 tant a concern. 
 
 Here, then, we are brought to the consideration of inet is 
 indeed an “ overwhelming fact” in the history of the British and_ 
 Foreign Bible Society,—a fact ever to be deplored,—to which 
 not one equal in importance canbe compared. With sorrow and 
 humiliation may the Christians of Great Britain ever ‘recollect, 
 not only the small measure of good that has been ‘effected by a: 
 Society which they constituted their organ for the cireulation of 
 the Holy Scriptures, compared with the extent of the means 
 which they placed at their disposal, but the positive and irre- 
 parable mischief it has done.’ Never before did such an oppor-' 
 tunity present itself of separating the pure gold of the hea- 
 
63 
 
 venly treasure, committed into their hands, from the base alloy, 
 with which for so long a period it had been dimmed, as when 
 the British and Foreign Bible Society commenced its operations 
 on the Continent, and never, humanly speaking, can such another 
 opportunity be expected to occur again. In the French Revolu- 
 lation multitudes of Bibles had been destroyed, and few compa- 
 ratively remained in the different countries of Europe, either 
 among Protestants or Catholics. The people, too, were so igno- 
 rant of the Holy Scriptures, that if put into their hands, they 
 would not have known whether or not the Apocrypha was join- 
 ed with them. In confirmation of this fact respecting the Pro- 
 testants in France, I formerly adduced the decisive testimony of 
 Mr Chabrand of Toulouse, who was employed by the London 
 Society in publishing an edition of the Scriptures, and who lives 
 in the midst of the Protestant population. The testimony of 
 another French Pastor, who resides in the south of France, is 
 equally strong respecting the Catholics of that country, as will be 
 seen by the following extract of a letter from him. After observ- 
 ing that the addition of the Apocrypha to the sacred code of the 
 inspired Word of God was, he doubted not, suggested by the 
 father of lies to those who first formed that fatal union, and that 
 it is always the same enemy who sows at all times the tares 
 among the good grain; and after declaring that, in respect to 
 the Protestants, it would have been easier than many supposed, 
 to have made the separation of the Apocrypha from the Bible, 
 he adds—“ As to the Catholics, they are, even a great number 
 of their Priests, such strangers to the Holy Scriptures; they 
 know so little what they contain, and of what books the Bible 
 is composed, that although the council of Trent has put several 
 of the Apocrypha books in the canon it would not appear to 
 me more difficult to make them receive the Bible without the 
 Apoerypha than with those books. I have strongly regretted, 
 (vivement regretté,) and I still regret that they have not re- 
 trenched them from the version of Sacy, which is the only one we 
 have to offer them. When even they should not find them in 
 it, the number of those who procure copies would not be less, 
 and the care which the Roman Catholic clergy take to prevent 
 them from being circulated would not be greater. The Priests 
 might indeed allege, that this Bible is not complete, but that reason 
 would not be listened to, more than many other reasons by those 
 who truly desire to read the Bible. I know that to turn the 
 people from reading the word, they endeavour to persuade them 
 
 a 
 
 re a i ie | 
 
64 
 
 that the Bible is either in 36 volumes, or in two volumes in 
 folio, so enormous that it would require an infinite time to pe- 
 ruse it. The retrenching of the Apocrypha would also be ad- 
 vantageous in this view.’ 
 Thus we have the testimony of the best informed French Pastors 
 respecting both Protestants and Catholics in France, and the same 
 was the situation more or less respecting the Bible in all the coun- 
 tries of Europe at the period when the British and Foreign Bible 
 Society commenced its operations. But not being duly impressed 
 with the sacredness of that book which they undertook to circulate, 
 while at the same time they were grossly and culpably ignorant of 
 the religious state of Europe, and credulous in the extreme, as they 
 shewed themselves to be by listening to the reports of their ill- 
 informed and prejudiced agents—that Society began to adulterate 
 the Scriptures at a time when they had it in their power to pre- 
 sent them in any form to the people of the Continent. What an 
 opportunity of doing good was then lost! What a service might 
 the Christians of Great Britain have been honoured to be the in- 
 struments of effecting to the whole church of God, had they not 
 been betrayed by those in whom their confidence was so much 
 misplaced, who dishonestly perverted from their destined end, 
 and misapplied those funds entrusted to them, while they artfully 
 concealed this misapplication! It was then that the Earl Street 
 Committee erected their infidel Societies on the Continent, and 
 since effecting a union betwixt those of whom they were com- 
 posed with the servants of God could not easily be accomplished, 
 they turned their backs, as has been noticed, upon the latter, and 
 in some cases openly excluded them. They listened to Mr 
 Keiffer’s advice, (whose praises as an agent of the Society the 
 Glasgow Auxiliaries have to their shame re-echoed,) and by 
 him, as their instrument, did they, through the overpowering in- 
 fluence of their “ cankered” gold, wrest out of the hands of all 
 the reformed Protestant churches of France, the pure Bible 
 which they had provided for themselves ; nor did they return it 
 to them till they had stamped it with the distinctive characters of 
 Mystery, Basyton THE GREAT, THE MoTHER OF Har.ots, 
 p AboMINaTions oF THE Kartu. Such has been the conduct 
 oF the magnificent Institution,” such are the obligations ‘under 
 Wich: i€ has laid the’ Christiane of “Great Britain and the nations 
 of the Continent, and such is the service which it has rendered 
 to the cause of God. Instead of seizing the unexampled oppor- 
 tunity which so providentially presented itself, of conferring the 
 
 a an “a 
 
65 
 
 preatest benefit on the whole church of Christ, by disseminating 
 the Scriptures in their original purity, the British and Foreign 
 Bible Society acted in such a manner as to rivet the prejudices of 
 Protestants on the Continent in favour of a “ spurious Bible,’”— 
 while they gave their countenance, support, and effectual aid to 
 the most daring act of “ the Man of Sin,” by which at the Re- 
 formation he propped up his tottering throne, dishonestly 
 lavishing a large portion of the funds entrusted to them, for 
 multiplying copies of the Holy Scriptures, on books which are ac- 
 cursed of God. These are truly overwhelming facts. But they are 
 shamefully slurred over by the Glasgow Auxiliaries, and all this 
 mystery of iniquity is huddled up in their Report under the de- 
 signation of “ one unhappy error”! ! ! 
 
 The Reporters declare that the whole of their observation and 
 experience during the past year, confirm their expectation of 
 the accelerated approach of the time when all will cordially unite 
 again with the London Society. ‘ No new obstacles, as they 
 ‘ trust they will be able to show, have been thrown in the way; 
 ‘ but the path, on the contrary, has been opened and cleared of 
 ‘ obstructions.” P.12. And where have they shewn this? It 
 was out of their power to shew it. Obstacles, as I have shewn, 
 of the most formidable description, which they have glossed over, 
 or of which they have not said a word, still obstruct the path— 
 obstacles which render it impossible even for themselves, if they 
 will duly consider them, to continue in that path. But if, after all, 
 they can disregard these obstructions, do they imagine that they 
 are able to persuade others to act in the same inconsistent man- 
 ner? They are labouring, however, to bring over to their new 
 opinions the friends of the Glasgow Bible Society, In attempt 
 ing this, the badness of their cause has driven them, as the Com- 
 mittee of that Society assert in their “ Address,” to resort to 
 ‘* mischievous and erroneous insinuations.” “ They have gross- 
 ‘ ly misrepresented our sentiments, and they have availed them- 
 ‘ selves of expressions in our latest Report, and in the Reso- 
 ‘ lutions prefixed to it, for the purpose of propping up their own 
 ‘ cause, which do not bear the meaning which they have affixed 
 ‘ to them—we charge them with palpable inconsistency in the 
 ¢ course which they now pursue, we challenge them to vindicate 
 ‘ themselves, if they think that they are able, from this heavy 
 ‘ charge, and we warn the public against being misled by the 
 ‘ plausible arguments and the semblance of charity, under which, 
 
 ; ; 
 
66 
 
 ‘in the late Report of the Auxiliary, the real merits of the 
 ‘ question have been so ingeniously concealed.,... We would have 
 ‘ them try the London Society’s Regulations, and their own 
 ‘ conduct by the Resolutions of our Society in March, 1826, and 
 ‘ if they cannot shew the consistency of the one with the other, 
 * let them confess and bewail their error in penning and approv= 
 ‘ ing one of the severest reproofs which has at any time been 
 ‘ pronounced on the conduct of the London Society.” 
 
 To call on the Reporters to vindicate the consistency of their 
 present conduct, is altogether in vain, because the thing is im~ 
 possible. I do not, however, mean consistency with themselves 
 in this matter. Christians are not required always to maintain 
 consistency with themselves, (although when attainable im the 
 way of duty, it is both desirable and agreeable,) because, un- 
 less they were infallible, this would often involve them in sin 
 and error. That which Christians ought ever to aim at, what- 
 ever changes in themselves it may imply, is consistency with the 
 will of God. It is consistency, then, with the unchangeable 
 truth of their former statements that is required of the Auxilia- 
 ries, which is their bounden duty, unless their former sentiments 
 can be proved by them to be contrary to the truth. But this is 
 out of their power. Instead, therefore, of attempting it, they 
 have had recourse, as they are charged by those whom they call 
 their “separating friends,” to ‘‘ injurious misrepresentations” and 
 “insinuations.” Besides the insinuations referred to, they fur- 
 ther insinuate, that a wrathful spirit is the cause of the continued 
 separation of the members of the Glasgow Bible Society from 
 the London Society. Those who are contending for the purity 
 of God’s Word, are thus represented as acting under the in- 
 fluence of that spirit. In exhorting to re-wmion with the latter 
 Society, it is asked by the Auxiliaries, p. 36, «Shall the sword 
 « devour for ever ? How many returning suns must ‘go down up- 
 ‘on our wrath ?’” Here is an insinuation of the worst kind—an 
 aceusation which they had no right to prefer against the Com- 
 mittee of the Glasgow Bible Society. The magnitude 'and mul« 
 tiplicity of the “ overwhelming facts,” on account of which those 
 who are thus maligned refuse to unite with the Londen Society; 
 not only justify but compel them, if they be faithful to their 
 duty, and regard their own consistency with truth, te act as they 
 are doing. Yet strange as it may seem, this “ mischievous in¢ 
 sinuation” is connected in the Report with an exhortation to ex- 
 ercise “ that wisdom which cometh from above.” Is such an in- 
 
67 
 
 sinuation a proof that those from whom it proceeds possess that 
 wisdom? Is it an example of acting according to the purity of 
 that wisdom, to keep out of sight the various “ delinquencies, 
 
 practised both formerly and at present by the London Society, 
 and to represent it as guilty of only “one unhappy error,” which 
 has been fully abandoned, and then to charge those who have se- 
 parated from it on account of many ‘ delinquencies” which have 
 not been abandoned, as actuated in doing so by a spirit of “ wrath”? 
 “ It would be a violation,” say the Auxiliaries, p. 33, m of 
 the claims of justice, to close this Report, without adverting 
 in terms of commendation, to the dignity which, in their official 
 capacity, the London Committee have maintained in the course 
 of this controversy....amidst the profusion of vituperation and 
 abuse with which they have been assailed, they have never 
 « rendered railing for railing.” They have not descended to 
 the bitterness of acrimonious debate.” In whatever quarter 
 the commendation of “ dignity” is due, there is assuredly a most 
 deplorable want of it in this example of fulsome flattery to the 
 London Society. Never was eulogium more misplaced. Never 
 ‘was “ commendation” more unmerited. What title have the 
 writers of the Report to characterize these charges which they 
 themselves and others have so fully substantiated against the 
 London Society, as “ vituperation,” and “abuse,” and “railing ?” 
 When they speak of vituperation, do they refer to their own 
 charge against the Committee, of a culpable deficiency in the vir- 
 tues of simplicity and godly sincerity ; and to their declaration, 
 that no measure could give security to the public, but the purifi- 
 cation of the Committee, and the ejection from it of those who 
 have taken so decided a part with the Apocrypha ? 
 
 Bat, shall the Earl Street Committee be commended for re- 
 maining silent, when charges—not characterized by “loose, in- 
 discriminate generality,” but most aggravated, pointed, and direct, 
 are brought against them? If such accusations as the Glasgow 
 Auxiliaries and others have preferred be well’ founded, ought 
 they not as a public body, to plead guilty, and profess their repen- 
 tance? If they be unfounded, shall that Committee be applaud- 
 ed for remaining silent, and not repelling them; thus allowing 
 their good to be evil spoken of? Is this the line of conduct that 
 should be followed by those who have been honoured with a pub- 
 lic trust, and whose duty it is to justify themselves to their con- 
 stituents, when their proceedings have been impeached ?. Is it to 
 imitate the Apostles,—is it according to the example of the Lord 
 
 a #A an ea aA HB A 
 
68 
 
 himself, to be silent in such circumstances? He did not, indeed, 
 render railing for railing, but did he not vindicate his conduct 
 when he was attacked, and confound his adversaries? © Did 
 not the Apostle Paul justify himself by repelling the calumnies 
 that were circulated against him, or the attacks made on his a 
 sonal character and apostolic authority ? 
 
 But never was a more unfounded encomium pronounced on 
 any set of men, than this on the Earl Street Committee, that they 
 have not returned railing for railing. They have not dared, in- 
 deed, to appear openly and fairly to vindicate themselves—from 
 this they were precluded by the badness of their cause. Any at- 
 tempts which they made towards it were so quickly put down, 
 and all they said or disclosed was so completely turned against 
 them, that they soon desisted from all such abortive measures. 
 But if to vindicate themselves was found impracticable, did they 
 abstain from rendering railing for railing? Has not their con- 
 duct been violent and indecent in the extreme? Their meet- 
 ings “ in their official capacity” have often more resembled a bear- 
 garden, than an assembly of Christians, or even of gentlemen. 
 Has not even personal violence been threatened in them? And 
 have not torrents of the most vulgar abuse been poured out by 
 themselves in the Committee, and by their agents both in public 
 meetings and in private companies, against other Bible commit- 
 tees and individuals ? But notwithstanding all this, the Reporters 
 come forward to compliment them on their meekness in their offi- 
 cial capacity ! 
 
 The London Society, unable to repel the heavy charges that 
 have been brought against them, have never produced one con- 
 sistent defence of their proceedings; but this has not been owing 
 to the want of inclination or effort on their part. They have had 
 many discussions in the Committee on the necessity of preparing 
 refutations of the accusations of their opponents; but after these 
 have again and again been promised,—after individual members 
 have given their friends in all parts of the country assurances 
 that they might expect satisfactory answers to be speedily forth- 
 eoming, all such expectations have uniformly terminated in dis- 
 appointment. They have eagerly availed themselves of every 
 trifling or heretical pamphlet which contained any thing that 
 ‘seemed to favour their sinking cause. And if they have been 
 sufficiently prudent to prevent such publications from appearing 
 as the productions of the Committee, and as sent forth by it in 
 its official capacity, strictly speaking, they have in reality issued 
 
69 
 
 from the Committee, being prepared or adopted by leading mem- 
 bers of it, their contents and merits having been discussed in 
 their meetings, taken under their patronage, and widely circulat- 
 ed by them. 
 
 In order to persuade the Christians of Great Britain that the 
 circulation of the Bible on the Continent, without the Apocry- 
 pha, was impossible, and to produce the testimonies in favour of 
 this position of those worthy salaried agents of the Society, Keif- 
 fer and Van Ess, that most discreditable publication, known by 
 the designation of the Cambridge Remarks, was concocted and 
 brought forward. It contained certain documents, among which 
 were extracts from a letter of Van Ess. Of those extracts, the 
 parts, as has formerly been noticed, were omitted, which con- 
 veyed his dishonest proposals respecting the Apocrypha. Bnt 
 besides these, a passage was cancelled which did not comport 
 with the design of the publication, but had a directly opposite 
 tendency. This passage was therefore struck out of the middle 
 of a sentence, and the erasure was concealed by means the 
 most artful and disingenuous. The letter itself, which was the 
 subject of this abominable artifice, was an official one in- 
 tended for the Earl Street Committee, and addressed to their 
 foreign secretary. It therefore belonged to the Committee. 
 Whether then the fraud which was practised on this document, 
 originated with them or with the editor of the extracts, the Com- 
 mittee are answerable for it. If it was not their own doing, but 
 the work of the editor, it was their duty, the moment that the 
 document, vitiated in this manner, made its appearance in public, 
 to have quashed it. Instead of this, it was proclaimed in the 
 Committee, that the pamphlet which contained it, was a trium- 
 phant defence of their proceedings, and “ unanswerable,” and 
 leading members of the Committee circulated it far and wide 
 through the country. Is it in this transaction that we are to 
 look for any portion of that dignity which the Glasgow Auxilia- 
 ries affirm the London Committee have maintained in this con- 
 troversy? A baser frand, calculated to produce a more perni- 
 eious effect, by misleading the public on a subject of the highest 
 importance, has seldom been practised. Although long ago de- 
 tected, it lies to this hour at the door of the Committee, unde- 
 nied and unexplained. Is the public, then, to consider their si- 
 lence under such a charge as this, as an example of “ dignity” ? 
 Will their Glasgow eulogists answer for them in this matter, and 
 are they able to repel this charge ? 
 
70 
 
 o 
 
 Mr Simeon’s pamphiet in favour of the Earl Street Commit- 
 tee, which contained any thing but dignified language against 
 the Committee of the Edinburgh Bible Society, was soon disposed 
 of, and fell to the ground. Dr Steinkopff’s abortive attempt, in 
 which there was little either good or bad, with the exception of 
 his defence of the circulation of the Apocrypha, shared the same. 
 fate. The heretical number of the Eclectic Review, which so auda- 
 ciously attacked the integrity of the Sacred Canon, was eagerly 
 adopted and circulated by leading members of the Earl Street 
 Committee; and this circumstance, were there no other, even 
 although the Glasgow Auxiliaries had succeeded in their yain 
 endeavours to explain away the Septuagint business, has fixed a 
 stigma on that Committee, which nothing but their “ ejection” 
 will ever be able to remove from the character of the British and 
 Foreign Bible Society. Mr Brandram, their secretary, then 
 stole out under a false signature, in an anonymous pamphlet. 1s 
 it in this manufactured “ joint-stock concern” of their leading 
 secretary, and other members of the Committee, that we are to 
 find “ dignity”? This pamphlet was intended to be an indirect 
 reply to the accusations that had been preferred against them; 
 but being too trifling to attract notice, it dropped still-born from. 
 the press. ‘These productions, if not published by the Com- 
 mittee, were either issued from its leading members, or were 
 adopted by the members generally, and by their agents. In the 
 same artful manner, the greatest efforts were made to prevent the 
 spread of information respecting the conduct of the Committee. 
 The publications on the subject were most unfairly intercepted, 
 and prevented from being circulated. Official men in different 
 Bible Societies, to whom the second Statement of the Edinburgh 
 Committee, and other publications, were sent for distribution, care- 
 fully locked them up, and took credit in their letters to Karl Street, 
 for their management in this respect. Booksellers were deterred 
 from selling the publications in which the malversations of the 
 Committee were unfolded, by the apprehension of haying their 
 business injured, so great and malignant was the influence that 
 flowed from the precincts of Earl Street. Itinerating agents 
 were sent out to traverse the country, to call meetings, to hide 
 from the people any specific charge made against the conduct of 
 the Committee, and to assure them that all was perfectly right. 
 Their object was not to get the people to read what was written, 
 but to prevent them from making any inquiry, and obtaining 
 any knowledge of facts; and in these ways, more than im any 
 other, have the Earl Street Committee been successful in Eng- 
 
71 
 
 land, in preventing their malversations from being generally 
 known. Is it in all this that we are to look for “ dignity” ? 
 
 Of all the disgraceful pamphlets which have made their appear- 
 ance in defence of the Committee, Mr Platt’s is entitled to the 
 pre-eminence. So unfeeling, so unprincipled an attempt to lay 
 the whole blame of their delinquencies on the head of their de- 
 ceased secretary, whom, during his life, the Society had so high- 
 ly applauded for his services, stands unrivalled even in the an- 
 nals of Earl Street. No doubt Mr Owen had a principal hand 
 in that extensive and dreadful misehief of the contamination of 
 the Sacred Scriptures which issued from Earl Street—that “ un- 
 happy error’—but was he the only one to be blamed? Did no 
 part of this most criminal deed lie at the door of any besides in 
 the Committee ? Were the other secretaries, were all the other 
 members of it, ignorant of its perpetration? Or were they mere 
 cyphers—utterly inattentive to that important concern, and care- 
 less as to the manner in which its. business was administered, 
 which they had undertaken, and which they publicly professed 
 to conduct? In either case, Mr Platt’s pamphlet pronounced the 
 condemnation of the whole of them, and if it contains the truth, 
 proved them to be totally unfit for their office, the duties of 
 which they were too ignorant or too indolent to discharge. What 
 do the Glasgow Auxiliaries say to this publication? And how, if 
 they give any credit to Mr Platt’s statements, can they vindicate 
 themselves for having ceased from insisting on the “ ejection” of 
 such unconscionable drones from the Committee? By what un- 
 accountable delusion can they bring themselves to imagine, that 
 if this charge was a just one, such men are fit to conduct the af- 
 fairs of a Society, to which it is their object to imduce all the 
 Bible Societies of Scotland to entrust the management of their 
 funds ? Is it, then, in this unworthy pamphlet, which sets at de- 
 fiance all regard to decency and right feeling, as well as to truth 
 and justice, written by one who calls himself a friend of the de- 
 ceased, that we are to look for any portion of that. “‘ dignity” in 
 their mode of defending themselves which the Glasgow Auxi- 
 liaries ascribe to the Karl Street Committee? If it be urged that 
 it was not issued by them in their official character, was it not, I 
 ask, sent forth by one who stood among them in an official capa- 
 city? Was it not written by him in their defence? Was it not 
 known to them? Why, then, if they are to be freed from its re- 
 sponsibility, did they not disclaim it? Why did they not visit 
 the author of it with merited rebuke, and with merited expulsion 
 from their Society ? 
 
12 
 
 The system ‘of publishing documents, appeared at length to’ 
 the Earl Street Committee to be. a grand maneeuvre, as it ena-’. 
 bled the agents of the Society’to boast)of the triumphant defence 
 contained in the labyrinth of :printed: letters and resolutions, 
 which they at all seasons and opportunities brandished: in their 
 hands as incontestible proofs of their imnocence, till the exposure 
 of the history of the’ Strasburgh preface by the Christian Instruc+ 
 tor, and the melancholy discovery of the mutilated state to which 
 the letter-books of the Society had been reduced, with the un- 
 faithful manner in which these letters and other documents had 
 been garbled and interpolated, brought to an abrupt termination 
 this mode of defence. The Committee at length discovered 
 that silence was wisdom, when inquiry and publication proved 
 only the index to fresh scenes of mismanagement and guilt, | Mr 
 Francis Cunningham’s pamphlet, however, which sounds the 
 praises of Van Ess for adulterating the Scriptures, after being 
 rehearsed to the Committee, and after much hesitation, made its 
 appearance, and iike that of the most luckless of all the defenders 
 of Earl Street, Mr Platt, was suddenly overwhelmed with dis- 
 grace, and consigned to oblivion. 
 
 Such has been the dignified march of the Earl Street Céeicbity 
 tee in their various attempts to defend their conduct, all of which 
 have proved completely abortive. They have, indeed, been 
 reduced at last to absolute silence, an alternative not of choice but 
 of necessity. That which is crooked cannot be made straight, 
 and ‘that which is wanting cannot be numbered.  Assuredly 
 their utter discomfiture has not taken place without painful 
 struggles on their part to avert it, nor has their silence been 
 maintained without a deep consciousness that their circumstances 
 render it indispensibly necessary. The following narrative will 
 discover their earnest endeavours to break that silence, in order 
 to prove an opponent wrong who had often withstood them to 
 the face, and to deal out a blow if possible to the. Edinburgh 
 Bible Society, by whose steady and uncompromising conduct in 
 maintaining the purity of the Word of God, they feel themselves 
 so\deeply humbled. If this most discreditable attempt issued in 
 disappointment, it was not owing to a want of perseverance im 
 those who planned it, to carry it aPisaiots and to render it suc- 
 cessful. 
 
 After the barman of Mr A. Haldane’ s  Jetters to ‘Mr Bom 
 dram, in which some account is given of Schwartz of Heidel- 
 berg, Dr Bialloblotzky, then in London, was naturally a good 
 
73 
 
 deal alarmed at the idea of its being believed in Germany that he 
 had given an evil report of Dr Schwartz, He spoke to Mr Hal- 
 dane on the subject, and his friends in Earl Street seem to have 
 done all in their power to magnify what had been said respecting 
 Schwartz. He was therefore urged to write a pamphlet in 
 defence of himself,—in exculpation of Schwartz,—and if possible 
 in opposition to the Edinburgh Bible Society. Dr Steinkopff 
 furnished him with a copy of the review of Wegscheider’s book, 
 out of the cold criticisms of which, it was hoped Dr Bialloblotzky 
 might draw some plausible matter in defence of Schwartz; for 
 he ingenuously confessed that he was almost entirely ignorant of 
 Dr Schwartz's writings, and therefore very incompetent to speak 
 of his character !! An apocryphist, however, came forward, along 
 with others, who offered to publish the pamphlet at their own 
 expense. 
 
 ‘Dr Bialloblotzky accordingly drew up a letter, which was at one 
 time actually in print, addressed to Alex, Haldane, Esq. and 
 which was written in a very friendly, and even complimentary 
 manner. The Doctor avowed his little acquaintance with Schwartz, 
 but testified to his high character in Germany—a fact which had 
 never been questioned, and on the contrary admitted, as a melan- 
 choly proof of the low state of religion in that country, He also 
 alluded to the sentiment attributed to Schwartz in vindication of 
 falsehood, which was said to have been written many years ago. 
 The existence of Arminianism as a system in Germany, was de- 
 nied,—a denial which of course only relates to a technical desig- 
 nation, and the sentiment quoted by Wegscheider from 
 Schwartz was somewhat palliated, but not defended. A few ge- 
 neral remarks were made on the Apocrypha controversy, in 
 which the early conduct of the Edinburgh Society was eulogized, 
 the benefits likely to result from the abandonment of the Apo- 
 erypha dwelt upon, but strong doubts were expressed as to the 
 wisdom of their carrying their opposition so far. 
 
 The letter was creditable to Dr Bialloblotzky, although the 
 sentiments it contained strongly savoured of the spirit of Ger- 
 man philosophy, from which even truly pious men in, that coune 
 try so generally suffer. But the letter did not suit the people 
 of Earl Street; and on the ground that the style was defec- 
 tive, and that his German idioms required alterations, it was 
 requested that the proof-sheets should be submitted to a clergy- 
 man, who had once been a strong opponent of Earl Street— 
 
 K 
 
74 
 
 who-had aseribed their conduct to “ infatuation*—who had 
 expressed his exultation over some of the first pamphlets which 
 issued from Edinburgh, but who had recently, for causes best 
 known to himself, adopted a different tone. Under the hands 
 of the notorious Apocryphists and the clergyman in -question, 
 aided as it is believed by ‘an ex-secretary and by other Apo- 
 eryphists, a new pamphlet was put in types, not only quite dif- 
 ferent, but almost totally dissimilar from the first. All Dr 
 Bialloblotzky’s statements were strengthened—many of his senti- 
 ‘ments were wholly altered—all that he had said in favour of the 
 principles of the Edinburgh Society, and of his Anti-Apocryphal 
 friends, whether in Edinburgh or London, was changed into simple 
 acknowledgements of their hospitality ! And instead of hearing of 
 the good that was likely to result from the exertions of the Edin- . 
 burgh Society in favour of the purity of God’s Word, nothing was 
 to be found but a mass of disgusting cant about their bad spirit, 
 their wounding the consciences of Christians, hurting the flock 
 of Christ, and other statements against which the mind of every 
 unsophisticated disciple of Jesus must have revolted. 
 
 Dr Bialloblotzky, although he wished to say the best he could 
 for his Earl Street friends, was evidently much hurt at their 
 conduct ; and so thoroughly did he condemn this practical proof 
 of “a good spirit” on the part of those who had so dishonestly 
 perverted his sentiments, that he refused to lend his name to 
 such an Apocryphal production ; and although extremely de- 
 sirous to publish something about Schwartz, chose rather to pub- 
 lish nothing at all, than to countenance a fraud so base and de- 
 grading. wii t ehiawie® 
 
 Those who had conspired together thus to deceive the: public 
 by a publication which was to bear the name of a man who dis- 
 claimed its sentiments, actually refused to publish it with the al- 
 terations which Dr Bialloblotzky found himself bound to pro- 
 pose. Even then the pamphlet would have been of a very dif- 
 ferent character from that which it had been intended originally 
 to bear; but even after certain concessions had been made to 
 the wishes of those who thus desired, “in a good spirit,” 
 to impose on the friends of the Bible Society, they refused to 
 publish the pamphlet, and said that it would, in that form, 
 « do no good.” Although the names of the parties in this dis- 
 graceful business are suppressed at the particular request of Dr 
 Bialloblotzky, it does not seem proper to conceal the fact, or to 
 withhold another proof, in addition to the many which have been 
 
TS 
 
 already produced, of the singularly demoralizing: and infatuating 
 tendency of the practice of tampering with the holy Word of. 
 God. pe ; 
 . If the above meditated attack on the Edinburgh Bible Society 
 terminated in disappointment, the following stratagem to main- 
 tain the cause of the Earl Street Committee, if not more condu- 
 cive to the support of its “ dignity,” at least did not so com- 
 pletely fail to attain the object in view. Being altogether inca- 
 pable, with all the means of information the Committee possessed, 
 and even after Mr Francis Cunningham had followed in my tract 
 on the Continent, to answer a single one of the accusations or 
 statements contained in my second Review, they resorted to the 
 base expedient of making exrracts from that work, disjointed 
 from their connection, and so forced to convey a meaning very 
 different from that which they bore in their original situations. 
 These extracts were then circulated through the country, espe- 
 cially among their most influential friends, in order to excite pre- 
 judice against the whole work. Here it appears, that through all 
 the stages of the various modes of defence to which the Karl 
 Street Committee or its leading members ever resorted, we have 
 arrived at the very summit of that “ dignity” to which the Glas- 
 gow Auxiliaries have called our attention, and which, it is pre- 
 sumed, can never afterwards be surpassed.. From the whole the 
 reader will be enabled to judge of the conduct of the Auxi- 
 liaries, in defending the proceedings of the directors of a So- 
 ciety of whom they once declared, that no measure could give 
 security to the public but their ejection from the Committee. 
 Although that ejection has net taken place, neither have they 
 professed the smallest regret on account of their proceedings, yet 
 these same Auxiliaries now speak of them in terms of the most 
 disgusting adulation. 
 After turning the attention of their constituents “to the dig- 
 ‘ nity which, in their official capacity, the London Committee 
 « have maintained in the course of this controversy,” the Auxilia- 
 ries proceed to shew, that “ They have merited even a higher 
 ‘ commendation than the negative one of ‘not rendering evil 
 * for evil; they have done what was in their power to ‘ over- 
 * come evil with good.’ Scotland has, to a great extent, been 
 ‘ withholding its wonted contributions ; yet Scotland, during the 
 ‘ past year, has been the object of more than wonted beneficence.” 
 After this follows a detail, presented with much parade, of the 
 Bibles that have lately been sent to Scotland, and the whole is 
 
76 
 
 closed with the triumphant question, “Is not this, your Com- 
 ‘ mittee would ask, the spirit of the gospel ?” and with a pompous 
 eulogium on the Committee’s ‘ beneficence.’ Were it possible 
 to ascribe this absurd panegyrie to simplicity in the Repor- 
 ters, it would be needless to look farther. At any rate, the 
 compliment is so ridiculous, and the adulation so gross, that 
 it is unnecessary to dwell on the subject. It may be asked, 
 however, if all the contributions which have been remitted from 
 Scotland to the London Committee, and all the Bibles and do- 
 nations which they have sent back in return, were exhibited, 
 how would the account stand? But when it is recollected that 
 so large proportion of these contributions has been dishonestly 
 perverted from its original purpose,—that in the misapplication 
 of it by the London Society, the people of Scotland have been 
 so grossly deceived,—when it is remembered that this perver- 
 sion from its legitimate application was not only cunningly con- 
 cealed, but fraudulently covered by false statements,—it is suffi- 
 cient to excite not merely our indignation, but even our astonish- 
 ment, that the Glasgow Reporters, with all their strong adula- 
 tory propensities, should have ventured to touch on this topic, 
 and to offer such an insult to their country. When an eminent 
 solicitor was shown the rules of the British and Foreign Bible 
 Society, and asked if they would justify the circulation of the 
 Apocrypha, “Sir,” he replied, “the Directors would be brought 
 ‘ into Chancery if they attempted such a thing.” Where then 
 are the obligations of the people of Scotland for these trifling 
 donations, from whatever motive they are given by those who, 
 both in law and equity, are debtors to them to so large an 
 amount ? Shall their generosity to their lawful creditors be talked 
 of and applauded, while the claims of justice upon them are so 
 far in arrear? 
 
 Here, too, we see the view, which, after all their professions 
 of being equally enemies to the circulation of the Apocrypha 
 “with their separating friends,” the Glasgow Auxiliaries take 
 of the part which Scotland has acted in the Apocrypha question. 
 The French, as we learn from the address of the Committee of 
 the Glasgow Bible Society, characterize the strnggle that Scot- 
 land is maintaining for the purity of the Holy Scriptures, by 
 the term “ roideur,” (stiffness) ; but the Glasgow Avxiliaries 
 characterize it as “ evil” ‘They speak of the London Society in 
 making a grant of Bibles, as “ not rendering evil for evil,” but 
 
17 
 
 as having done what was in their power “ to overcome evil with 
 good”!!! 
 
 The Reporters, when they take a “ survey” of what they call 
 the purified operations of this magnificent institation, and of the 
 harmonious working of its complicated, yet simple machinery, 
 speak of “ the weight which its very name carries with it in all 
 < parts of the world.” P.35. Let them point out a society, the 
 weight of whose character was ever so completely lost,—a society 
 that ever so much degraded itself, and fell so low. How much 
 more fairly is the “ weight” of its name estimated in the “ Sixth 
 Report of the Western District of the Fife Bible Society.” 
 “ We deplore, in truth, the shuffling and chicanery which 
 ‘have been employed in the Resolutions of the Committee 
 in Earl Street, and have been adopted in all the defences 
 of that Committee, from the Cambridge Protest, down to the 
 Dunfermline Circular.” “ And when we hear so much of 
 reformation, what, we ask, is the state of the Society now? We 
 know that its friends speak proudly of its funds, and contemp- 
 tuously of its opponents. But aBroaD it occupies a most un- 
 desirable position, and has been forced into a most awkward 
 attitude. To have made a frank avowal of repentance in re- 
 gard to their errors, might have restored them to the esteem 
 and confidence of the world. But to adopt resolutions which 
 have a character of unprincipled evasion,—to pretend to be 
 Anti-Apocryphal at home, and yet by the agents which they 
 send to the Continent, as well as by their Continental alliances, 
 to maintain the full strength of their Apocryphal principles 
 abroad,—to recommend and adopt the rule of rejection against 
 the Apocrypha, and yet make provision in the rule itself, for 
 affording indirect support to the circulation of the Apocrypha by 
 others ;—to do all this is not calculated to gain confidence through- 
 out the world ;—and aT HOME, it need scarcely be said that dis- 
 trust, alienation and fear, are making rapid progress to destroy 
 the fair fabric which had been so much and so eagerly admired.” 
 P.17. What is here said of the attitude in which the British 
 and Foreign Bible Society now stands, and of the view that 
 must be taken of it by the Foreign Societies, entirely coincides 
 with the following remark in the recent address of the Glasgow 
 Bible Society...“ The members of the Foreign Societies = 
 * are acquainted with the secret history of the regulation of 
 * 1813, must despise them in their heart; whilst the vacillations 
 * of the London Society, and the inconvenience occasioned by 
 
 awn wana nanaannaan wnnrewnann eo & 
 
78 
 
 ‘ them, can have been productive only of exasperation and dis- 
 ‘ content.” P. 23. 
 
 The inflated language with which the Auxiliaries pee ot 
 their Report, is only calculated to dazzle and bewilder the sim- 
 ple, and would be unworthy of notice were it not for the mis- 
 application of the passage of Scripture with which the whole is 
 closed. After asking, “ Shall the sword devour for ever?” “ How 
 ‘ many returning suns must “ go down upon our wrath!” and 
 after talking of the passing away from its brightening disk of the 
 dark spots that dimmed the lustre of the Society,* it is said; “ In 
 * answer to such questions, your Committee would simply quote 
 « the wholesome words of that Book which it is the end of Bible 
 « Societies to circulate :-+-“‘ The wisdom that is from above is first 
 ‘ pure, then peaceable, gentle, easy to be entreated, full of merey. 
 ‘ and of good fruits, without partiality and without hypocrisy. 
 « And the fruit of righteousness is sown in peace, of them that make, 
 ‘ peace.” But in this Report the reader will see little of the 
 “purity” of that wisdom which is from above ; but much to mis- 
 lead those who are uninformed on the important subject to which 
 it refers. The words of Scripture are indeed “ wholesome 
 words,” but they ought never to be misapplied. A misapplica- 
 tion of the passage here quoted it must be, when it is introduced 
 in such a connection as to contradict or neutralize other parts of 
 Scripture, and to deter Christians from doing their duty. _Be- 
 fore the evils complained of are redressed—while most aggrava- 
 ted “delinquencies” are persisted in—while violent Apocryphists 
 continue to direct the affairs of the London Society—while those 
 notorious for Apocryphal predilections are sent out by them to, 
 maintain their connection with Societies which are busied in 
 “ bringing into circulation a spurious Bible,” the object of the ma- 
 jority in them being, to destroy all idea of the Bible being inspired 
 by God; and of the minority, not ¢o suffer the Apocrypha to be 
 given up—while that most important of all works, the transla- 
 tion of the Scriptures, is entrusted to men “ incompetent” for 
 the task—while those members are continued in the Committee 
 
 * A very modest figure, intended to exalt the London Society, by comparing 
 it to the sun in the firmament, and to diminish its <‘ errors,” by comparing 
 them to the spots on the sun’s surface, which are imperceptible to the naked eye. 
 This reminds us of the equally appropriate figure employed by the worthy Lau- 
 sanne associates of the British and Foreign Bible Society, who compared that 
 Society to the sun, and themselves to one of its ‘¢ satellites revolving about that 
 ¢ glorious luminary.” aan ; 
 
79 
 
 who first adulterated the Word of God, and next attempted to 
 everturn the canon of Scripture’—to recommend peace with a 
 Society in which such abuses exist, and acquiescence in such 
 measures, is to contradict the whole strain of the Bible, and toe 
 betray the cause of Him whom Christians call their Master and 
 their Lord. 
 
 To call on Christians to cease to contend for the purity of 
 God’s Word, while it continues to be “‘ presumptuously” violat- 
 ed, and that violation to be publicly countenanced, is no symptom 
 of that wisdom which cometh from above, nor is it sowing the 
 fruit of righteousness. To exhort to a cessation from contro- 
 versy in such circumstances, is to exhort to cease from contend- 
 ing for the truth. It is to cast an imputation on the conduct of 
 the Lord, whose whole ministry was one continued scene of contro- 
 versy with sin, and on the example of his Apostles, who were so 
 constantly engaged in opposing what was evil, as will be the 
 ease with those who follow them, while error continues to maintain 
 its struggle against truth, sin against holiness, and the kingdom 
 of darkness against the kingdom of light. According to the 
 misapplication of the text before us, not one of the Apostolic wri- 
 ters of the epistles to the churches—not even the Apostle James, 
 by whom the passage itself was written, could escape censure. 
 The closing of such a Report with such a*text, although the 
 words indeed are wholesome words, and convey most important 
 and necessary instruction, is, like every other part of it, calcu- 
 lated by good words and pes speeches to deceive the hearts of 
 the simple. 
 ~ But let not the reader suppose that these “‘ wholesome me 
 with which this Report, as far as it appeared before the public, 
 was closed, were left to speak without note or comment. A very 
 significant. note was appended, not indeed intended for the public 
 eye, but well suited to the “dignity” of those whose worthy 
 deeds the Report had been celebrating. The following is the 
 account of the appearance of the Report in Earl Street. 
 
 . A letter accompanied the Report, which was read by Mr 
 Brandram, congratulating the Committee on their wisdom in 
 abandoning the Septuagint, not because it was wrong, but be- 
 cause it would have given occasion of attack to the OMNI-CAP- 
 TIOUS SNARLERS!!! Twenty-five of the Reports were 
 delivered, and the amount of the funds, five times greater than 
 last year, were boasted of; and it was also stated, that there was 
 a talk of the public opinion being accelerated back to its right 
 
80 
 
 current by the said Report. It was then proposed to read the 
 Report, which Mr A. Haldane seconded. It was also proposed 
 to print part of it in the monthly extracts, but a member a little 
 wiser than some of the others opposed this. Both these motions 
 were lost. 
 
 If in the above we have not a very edifying note or comment 
 on the passage of Scripture which closes the Report, we have at 
 least a very instructive comment on the Report itself—a note of — 
 warning sufficiently clear to all by whom it may be perused. So 
 long as the Auxiliaries appear before the public, they are exces- 
 sively smooth, very gentle, exceedingly concerned that no more 
 suns “ go down upon our wrath;” they are extremely desirous 
 that, “in the spirit of the charity that ‘ thinketh no evil,’ all would 
 take the pains to examine into what they hear ;” but no sooner does 
 the Report escape from the public eye—no sooner does it enter 
 the precincts of Earl Street, than the smothered fire bursts out and 
 flames, “ Omni-captious snarlers” ! How must the fine feelings 
 of the dignified Committee have been harrowed up when this 
 low and vulgar epithet struck their ears ? What must they, who 
 “« have never rendered railing for railing,” have felt, when they 
 heard their Glasgow Auxiliaries railing for them? “ Ommni-cap- 
 tious snarlers” ! What a contrast betwixt this and the conclusion 
 of the Report? What a contrariety between the “ wholesome 
 words” with which the Report makes its exit in public, and these 
 abusive words with which it makes its entrance in private into 
 Earl Street, “ Omni-captious snarlers” ! The whole compass of 
 the English language did not furnish the “ gentle” Glasgow 
 Auxiliaries, with an epithet sufficiently strong to express their 
 feelings towards those from whom they now differ as much as 
 they differ from their former selves, for they too, it must always 
 be remembered, were vnce in the same condemnation ; and their 
 friends in Earl Street, if it were possible that they could for a 
 moment have so far stooped from their “ dignity,” as to descend 
 to the low vulgarity of calling names, might, in like manner, 
 have applied to their Glasgow Auxiliaries the opprobrious epi- 
 thet of omni-captious snarlers ! But if the Reporters experienced 
 a mingled feeling of indignation and contempt towards their - 
 “ separating friends,” as the compound epithet they apply to them 
 and others so significantly imports, why did they not openly 
 express it? Why were their words in public softer than oil, 
 and in private drawn swords? Why were they smoother than 
 butter, when war was in their hearts ? ’ 
 
81 
 
 _ There is, however, a holy indignation which on certain occa- 
 sions Christians ought to feel, and which many will no doubt feel 
 in reading the Report of the Glasgow Auxiliary Bible Society. 
 When the vital importance of the question at issue is considered, 
 and the danger of multitudes being misled—when the: mass of 
 evidence is recollected that establishes the truth on which this 
 Report tramples—truth once so powerfully exhibited by the Re- 
 porters themselves, but from which they have now departed—it 
 would argue indifference rather than Christian feeling in any one 
 acquainted with the merits of the subject, not to experience a 
 mixture both of regret and indignation in perusing this Report— 
 a Report which, from beginning to end, is, I must affirm, an 
 apology for sin, and a trap for the uninformed and the unwary. 
 
 On the subject of charity, whose true import is so frequently 
 misunderstood, and of which the defenders of the desperate cause 
 of the Earl Street Committee often speak with the greatest in- 
 consistency, Luther and Calvin express themselves as follows :— 
 
 *¢ Let us suffer them therefore to extol charity and concord as much as they 
 list; but, on the other side, let us magnify the majesty of the Word and faith. 
 Charity may be neglected in time and place without any danger; but so cannot the 
 word and faith be. Charity suffereth all things, giveth place to all men. Contra- 
 Yiwise, faith suffereth nothing, giving place to no man. Charity, in giving place, 
 in believing, in giving and forgiving, is oftentimes deceived, and yet, notwith- 
 standing being so deceived, it suffereth no loss which is to be called true loss in- 
 deed, that is to say, it loseth not Christ ; therefore it is not offended, but conti- 
 nueth still constant in well-doing, yea, even towards the unthankful and unwor- 
 thy. Contrariways, in the matter of faith and salvation, when men teach lies and 
 errors under the colour of the truth, and seduce many, here hath charity no place ; 
 for here we lose not any benefit bestowed upon the unthankful, but we lose the 
 word, faith, Christ, and everlasting life. Let it not move us therefore, that they 
 urge so much the keeping of charity and concord ; for whoso loveth not God and 
 his word, it is no matter what or how much he loveth.” LuTHER. 
 
 “ We be bound to love our enemies, yea though they persecute and vex us: 
 and although they seek nothing but our destruction, yet must we procure their 
 welfare and salvation to the uttermost of our power, and we must have pity and 
 compassion of them to see them so given over unto Satan. Thus you sce wha, 
 charity importeth. But yet for all this, God must be above all, as I have declar. 
 ed already, Therefore charity is between man and man. When any man shall 
 have done me wrong, I must forget it. Though he bear me malice, yet must I pro- 
 cure his welfare. But when it cometh to the maintaining of God’s quarrel, there 
 men must be esteemed less than nothing, as I haye said already. Yet notwith- 
 standing we do clean contrary. . For what else is the common practice, than to 
 stoop and strike sail when God is misdealt with ? And yet in the mean while every 
 man will follow his own right to the uttermost.” CALVIN. 
 
 L 
 
82 
 
 “The object ‘for which ‘the British ‘and Foreign Bible Society 
 ‘was constituted, must ever stand high in the esteem of all who 
 value the words of eternal life, and who know the pressing eall 
 ‘the¥e' is to send the Holy Scriptures to every part of the habi- 
 table'globe. But great as that object is, Christians ought to seek 
 the Attainment of it only by such means as are sanctioned by the 
 authority of God. Other means, however, have been resorted to 
 by that Society, whose general meetings have not reproved the 
 ungodly deeds of its Committee, in several of which it still per- 
 severes. The Society itself, therefore, now stands condemned, 
 and all connection with it ought to be avoided by Christians, un- 
 til it undergo a thorough and complete reform. ‘But though the 
 administration of that Society has become corrupt, the glorious 
 object of the'cireulation of the Holy Scriptures is not:changed, 
 ‘and the people of Great Britain have still a full opportunity of 
 promoting it. The Bible Societies throughout the country may 
 act separately or im union as circumstances require, and hitherto 
 ‘those who ‘have ‘separated from the London Society have proceed- 
 ed; by the blessing of God; ‘ina prosperous manner: ‘The Edin- 
 
 “ burgh’ Bible Society now employs an agency on the Continent, 
 “in the work’ of translating and circulating the Holy Scriptures, 
 “composed of those only who, as far'as man can judge, are truly 
 “evangelical. ‘The Glasgow Bible Society is alsoomaking arrange- 
 ments for extending its operations. These and other Societies 
 “may ‘act either separately or together, as‘ circumstances re- 
 “quire; but in whichsoever of these ‘ways they proceed, all of 
 “*them' having in view the cireulation of the pure Word of God, 
 ‘they Will have ample opportunities of applying all the funds that 
 °'shall be placed at their disposal, in a manner more efficient and 
 more economical than ever has been practised by the London So- 
 ciety... These Societies pay no secretaries hundreds a-year to 
 support their “ dignity.” They lavish not the funds with which 
 they are entrusted on Socinian and Apocryphal agents, who 
 
 _render no account of the enormous sums entrusted to them ; they 
 -oketain..in. their pay no. incompetent translators’ to ‘disfigure and 
 e@isgrace the sacred: record, nor do they unite themselves with 
 
 : Mba: «Sieg whose object it is to degrade bar: Bibles Fn ¢ 
 
 FLD 
 
 . ity The He Reainbiungh Bible Society has at present in Gaelic, Géemani a French, 
 as “stnore'than 30,000°copies of the Bible and New Testament preparing for’ publica- 
 “tions = — the — they: ‘have getter out an impression of Martin’s French 
 
83 
 
  The'subject of »agency and.of connection; with, other societies, 
 is’ one: of, chief importance. It..is owing. .to,,“‘ the Continental 
 agency” of the British and Foreign Bible, Society being at a dis- 
 tance, and out-of their-sight, that .the Christians in Glasgow do 
 not regard; with the abhorrence it deserves the proposal of the 
 Reporters: to, unite them with that agency. In order to make 
 this matter more plain, I request them to consider, what, follows. 
 Suppose that there was a Bible and.Apocryphal,Society in the 
 Trongate, coniposed of Arians, Socinians,; Neologians, and Infi- 
 dels, who were the great majority, with a few ill-informed Armi- 
 nians, strongly: prejudiced againstCalvinistic doctrines, and 
 against those who professed to hold them.,. Suppose these were 
 all unanimous in, adhering. stedfastly tothe adulteration of the 
 Holy Scriptures, while it was the object of the majority of the 
 Society’s Directors to divest.it entirely of its character of a reve- 
 lation from God, ‘and to reduce it to the level of a, mere human 
 composition : Would. you, the Christians of Glasgow, counte- 
 nance them—call their Society, ‘a. kindred, institution” of your 
 Bible Society,; and send money to, the London; Society to be:re- 
 turned to them in Bibles, and,sold.to, pay their debts, and thus 
 ‘enable them. to persevere in bringing into circulation throughout 
 Scotland “spurious Bibles ?” | Would not youshrink with horror 
 from such a:connexion, by which you and.they would be, neither 
 more nor less than .a joint-stock company for the production and 
 cireulation. of corrupted-editions of the Word of God, and by which 
 you would: be partakers; with. them in, seeking to envelope in, ob- 
 scurity,!and/ to lower the idea attached to inspiration? But. what 
 ‘difference, will, it, make .if you should act as the Glasgow Auxi- 
 liaries wish) you ‘to. do; with Societies abroad, precisely of. the 
 same nature, and pursuing the same,objects? _., 
 
 Bay+i | 
 
 ‘Testaments.. ‘The aie of these te already commenced, under the superin- 
 tendance of M. OniviER, ‘their ‘Agent at Paris ; and copies have been received at 
 their Depository i in Edinburgh, where they are for sale. Their Agent at Hamburg, 
 Mr ONCKEN, has also purchased, for immediate use, German Bibles and German 
 New Testaments, and is circulating them with activity in \the adjoining districts, 
 by means’ of’ most respectable individuals,» who, have undertaken, this ‘labour of 
 _love. He has obtained; besides, agreeably to his own request, copies of the French 
 Scriptures, from their Depot at Paris, and of the English Scriptures, from their 
 " Depot at Newcastle, so that he may be ready to meet the demands which are like. 
 ly to be made'upon him for the Word of God in these languages, ‘They have been 
 paying particular att-ntion to Ireland during the last year 5 and have distributed 
 “mnany copies of thé plite Word there, 'both: among:Protestants and Catholics, ...° 
 
84 
 
 Suppose that a Bible and Apocryphal Society was set ap in the 
 Gallowgate, under the sole direction of such characters as have 
 been above described, acting in a similar manner, and having the 
 same object in view, and that they had succeeded in instigating 
 the Government to persecute all who hold evangelical sentiments, 
 to banish them from Scotland, and to pursue some of them even 
 unto death,—would you connect yourselves with that Society, 
 call it a “ kindred institution,” and give it your support? But 
 what difference is there between this and your acting in a same 
 manner with such a society in Switzerland ? 
 
 Suppose that a Bible and Apocryphal Society, composed of 
 characters as above, having erected itself in Argyle Street, was 
 steadily and violently opposing the spread of the gospel,—and 
 by their influence had procured the expulsion of a professor of 
 the college, whose fault in their eyes, was his holding prayer 
 meetings, and his opposition to Socinians, Neologians, and In- 
 fidels,—would you connect yourselves with that Society, and 
 treat it as a “ kindred institution?” But where is the differ- 
 ence, if instead of being situated in Argyle Street, it is situated at 
 Gottingen ? 
 
 ’ Suppose that a Bible and Apocryphal Society was erected at 
 Greenock,—one of the worst in Europe,—conducted by eharac- 
 ters as above,—and who were strenuous supporters of the Apeery- 
 pha for the reasons above assigned ; but that a few among them, 
 having begun to perceive the evil of adding that book to the 
 Bible, had separated from the rest, and determined to circulate 
 the pure Bible,—the London Society sends a keen Apocryphal 
 agent to visit them, who countenances the Apocryphists, and dis- . 
 courages this small party, and by his influence, induces the latter 
 to re-unite with their former associates, and to proceed im adul- 
 terating the Word of God as before,—who, to enable them to 
 do this, gives them a grant of Bibles, partly purchased with 
 your money, to be sold by them, that they may relieve them- 
 selves from their debt, of the burden of which they complained 
 to him,—would you continue for another hour in connection with 
 the London Society, who were acting in this manner, or send to 
 it any more contributions of your money? But what difference 
 would it make if this society were situated m Greenock instead 
 of at Stutgard ? 
 
 Suppose that the London Society was supporting an agent in 
 Port Glasgow, to whom they gave a salary of L.500 or L. 600 a- 
 year, and provided for him a large dwelling-house besides, under 
 
85 
 
 the name of a ware-room—paid his travelling expences, which 
 were not made at small cost—gave him a gratuity, not only on the 
 Bibles he sold, but also on those which he distributed gratis— 
 paid into his hands many thousands of pounds, of the expendi- 
 ture of which neither he nor they gave the public any account ; 
 while, in addition to this, they employed him to bind the Bibles 
 he issued, which proved how little they regarded the risk of these 
 Bibles being adulterated ; and after all this, so far from considering 
 that he was bound to devote all his time to the service of the Society, 
 by which he was so exorbitantly paid, they officially informed him 
 that he was at liberty to employ part of his time at his own discre- 
 tion, to manufacture and issue “ spurious Bibles,” to act as agent 
 to Apocrypha Societies, and to go on corrupting the Seriptures, 
 adding notes and comments to them, and double Apocryphas, and 
 Apocryphas intermingled, which he was doing to an extent that 
 perhaps no other individual in the world ever before did—would 
 you unite yourselves to a Society, which, after pretending to 
 have given up their long-continued practice of adulterating the 
 Scriptures, persisted in acting in this manner? Would you be- 
 lieve the Glasgow Auxiliaries solemnly asserting to you in the 
 face of such proceedings at Port Glasgow, that the “ one un- 
 happy error” of the London Society was fully and for ever aban- 
 doned? Would you subscribe your money to be employed in 
 such a way? Would you acknowledge such an agent to be your 
 agent? But what difference does it make whether this agent re- 
 sides at Port Glasgow or at Darmstadt ? 
 
 Supposing that the London Society was employing a learned 
 man in Paisley in translating the Scriptures, who had proved 
 himself altogether unfit for the work, and who had laboured 
 to vindicate a translation of the Scriptures, which was not only 
 ‘Secinian and heretical, but absurd, and positively ludicrous in 
 many of its renderings ; and suppose one of your friends in Glas- 
 gow had published a pamphlet that was unanswerable, “ proving 
 and illustrating his incompetency for translating or correcting 
 -trauslations of the Holy Scriptures,” would you continue to unite 
 ‘yourselves with the London Society, which persevered in employ- 
 ing ‘that man, who was thus disfiguring and degrading the Bible, 
 ‘and misrepresenting the doctrines of the Word of God,—would 
 “you give your money to assist in paying to him hundreds of pounds 
 ‘annually for carrying on this work? But does it make any diffe- 
 rence whether these things are done in Cambridge, in Switzerland, 
 or in Germany, in Paisley, in Greenock, or in Glasgow ? 
 
86 
 
 In the above suppositions there is nothing overstrained, n0- 
 thing which the Glasgow Auxiliaries are able to shew to be ir- 
 relevant. What do you think then of their conduct in calling on 
 you to unite with that Society which is actually proceeding i in 
 ways above described, not indeed in Glasgow and its vicinity, but 
 some hundred miles off? This only makes the matter worse, as 
 you have it less in your power to discover and to check abuses 
 that may be superadded to the gross evils that have been proved to 
 exist abroad. Yet have they the courage to tell you, that the path 
 to re-union with the London Society has been opened and clear- 
 ed of obstructions. Judge then of this assertion, so astonishing 
 in itself, so inconsistent with truth, as well as with the former 
 assertions of the authors, of whom their Report i is so unworthy, 
 ‘Were these suppositions which have been made, all of which are 
 strictly conformable to what is at this moment enacted on the Con- 
 tinent, and in connection with the London Society and its Auxi- 
 liaries, to be realized in Glasgow,—were such Societies to be 
 erected there, and such transactions to have place, there is not a 
 Christian in it—not a single one of the Reporters themselves, who 
 would dare to hold up his face to justify them, far less to act a 
 part in connection with these Societies. And must not that man 
 labour under the most awful delusion, who would ‘ive hit ee 
 to be a party to such works of darkness, because they are c 
 on at a distance and out of his sight, who durst not, . and car 
 not, if he remained faithful to God, have any fellowship 1 with 
 them at home? Let the Directors, then, of the, Glasgow A axi- 
 liary Society, pause and consider what they are doing i in ub ish- 
 
 ing such a Report as they have now sent forth, in w. ich | they 
 urge their constituents and others to uphold a system, ' wi lich, in- 
 ‘stead of harmonious working, exhibits operations the mos t dis- 
 “cordant, and to unite themselves with a Society, of whose } Pro- 
 ceedings, it haS been observed in the Statement of the Gl: ‘ow 
 Bible Society, that they are “ unequalled, it is probable, in the 
 “history of any religious society.” 
 
 I have shewn from the Report itself of the Glasgow Asin 
 ries, that the desecration of the Scriptures on the Co itinent, by 
 the addition of the Apocrypha, is not the effect of prejudice ; but 
 that it forms part of a deep-laid scheme for lowering the autho- 
 rity of revelation, while the party in the Foreign Societies, who 
 have not entered into the conspiracy, are so weak, that they, dare 
 not oppose the means by which the strong party : ‘are. pursuing 
 this diabolical ‘object. Such, according to the Glasgow Auxilia- 
 
87 
 
 ries, is the object of the Continental agency of the ‘“ magnificent 
 institution.” If any thing can open the eyes of the supporters 
 of the Earl Street system, surely this must have, the effect. 
 They have been deluded by the cant terms of kindred Institu- 
 tions, zealous Friends of the Bible Society, learned Professors, 
 venerable Presidents, &c. &c. The curtain is now withdrawn, and 
 we find the overwhelming majority of the friends of the British 
 and Foreign Bible Society employing the Apocrypha for the 
 purpose of the dissemination of infidelity, while a feeble opposi- 
 tion unites in its circulation, that they may not altogether lose 
 their influence. Was there ever a plainer avowal of want of 
 confidence in God, of a determination to employ the wisdom 
 of this world, which cometh to nought? It has been said that 
 the Apocrypha controversy has come to an end, and that nothing 
 new can be said on the subject. The Glasgow Auxiliaries have 
 refuted the assertion. In the publication of the extract from 
 Mr Blumhardf, they have opened a new view of it,—not that the 
 opposers of the Apocrypha were not fully aware that the circu- 
 lation of the Apocrypha. degraded the Scriptures, but perhaps 
 they did not suspect, or at least could not prove, that it was an 
 established fact that the Apocrypha was circulated for this very 
 purpose, and that consequently the liberal donations of the Bri- 
 tish and Foreign Bible Society, formerly of money, and now 
 of Bibles, were actually and designedly employed by those who 
 receive them, to corrupt, and to degrade to the level of a book of 
 mere human composition, the holy Word of God. 
 In Scotland the publication of this fact will far more than 
 counterbalance volumes of adulatory Reports in defence of the 
 conduct of those who have originated the impious and unhallowed 
 practice of Apocryphal circulation—who have employed the hard 
 earned pittance of many of the followers of Jesus in collecting 
 _and uniting the enemies of his cross into an impenetrable phalanx 
 for the support of infidelity, and who continue as far as public 
 opinion permits them to foster those Infidel Associations falsely 
 called “ Bible Societies.”. Surely it is not too much.to hope that 
 in England too, where the influence of many members of the Bri- 
 -tish and Foreign Bible Society, connected with the too successful 
 _ plan of quashing inquiry by silence, has had the effect of turning 
 the public mind altogether from the subject, the attention of the 
 . friends of Jesus will now be awakened. 
 " “The question of the duty of separation, from Arians and Soci- 
 ¥ nians has, of late been agitated i in England. The pernicious conse- 
 
88 
 
 quence of such a connection is abundantly obvious. How can be~ 
 lievers expect the blessing of God on such a union? Let them be 
 followers of God as dear children, coming out and being separate 
 from the corrupters of the gospel of Christ; let them trust their 
 civil privileges for the support of which they unite with such cha- 
 racters in the hands of Him who has all power in’ heaven and in 
 earth, and let them walk uprightly according to the truth of the 
 gospel, and they shall lack no good thing. But surely they can- 
 not overlook what is now going forward on the Continent, they 
 cannot be indifferent to the conduct of Socinians, who—under 
 the name of “‘ kindred institutions’ of the British and Foreign 
 Bible Society, by whose influence they were associated, and by 
 whose funds they are still supported—are leagued together for the 
 propagation of infidelity. Let those then who have come forward 
 to, separate themselves from the ungodly at home, look to it that 
 their personal influence, and the money which they contribute for 
 the circulation of the Scriptures, be no longer eer ivigh re 
 promoting of ungodliness abroad. 
 
 _ Let those who glory in the name of true cliscastbitate Wie 
 they adhere to the standards of the Churchof England in its doc- 
 trine, consider the responsibility which attaches to them, if they 
 do not use every means in their power to promote the knowledge 
 of that doctrine in defence of which the founders of their church 
 shed their, blood ; and let them listen to the appalling information 
 now conveyed tothem by the Glasgow Auxiliaries, that the great 
 
 majority of the members of kindred institutions of the British — 
 
 and Foreign Bible Society, are employed in seeking to envelope in 
 obseurity, und to lower the idea attached to inspiration. They ave 
 thus deliberately engaged in destroying the authority of Divine 
 Revelation, and are by this means making i for _ _— 
 of the age of reason ! 
 
 P.S.—Since the greater part of the above pages was written, 
 I have received a letter from Lausanne, dated May 1. 1829, from 
 which the following is an extract :—“In my letter of the llth 
 « April last, 1 informed you of the difficult circumstances in which 
 ‘ we are placed, hearing the storm of persecution muttering all 
 ‘ around us. Since then it has not calmed. On the 12th of 
 ‘ April the place ef assembly of the dissenting Church in Lau- 
 ‘.sanne was_assailed by a multitude of people; but they were 
 
RRA EN A SA ean Sw 
 
 n RP Bn ER Se cle fae adia Wn TA 
 
 n 
 
 27a . ”~ “ “ n n n n n n 
 
 On Ea 
 
 nw 
 
 a on 
 
 yn 
 
 89 
 
 soon dispersed by the police. At the same moment the house 
 of Mr Dapples, evangelical pastor of the National Church in a 
 small town about a league from Lausanne, was attacked by a 
 furious multitude. They broke the windows, and filled the 
 entrance to it with stones ; and when the day after Mr Dapples 
 carried his complaint to the magistrate, the latter said gravely, 
 “ This is only the commencement; it must make the tour of 
 the Canton in the same manner.” On the 16th of April I was 
 called before the Judge of Peace of Lausanne, who told me 
 that he had received an order from the government, immediately 
 to put a stop to our religious meetings; and he asked me to con- 
 sent to promise, that these meetings should no longer be held. 
 Having answered that I could not give my promise, he said that 
 he was going to shut up our place of meeting by force, which 
 he immediately executed ; so that now our church is quite dis- 
 persed, and we cannot unite for prayer to God. This order 
 of government to shut the places of religious meetings, has 
 been executed in several parts of the Canton; in some few 
 places they still meet in peace. On Saturday the 25th of April, 
 I was called again before the judge of peace of Lausanne; a 
 second order came in the same day to appear before him, to 
 interrogate me about the meetings of our church. | have given 
 
 shim security, to avoid being imprisoned while this process is 
 
 going forward. It is probable that I shall soon be delivered 
 over to the tribunals, and condemned to a fine, or imprison- 
 ment, or to be confined to my district, or to be banished. The 
 last of these punishments is the most probable....The whole 
 country is in a state of agitation. Some liberal men, indignant 
 at the persecutions, write in favour of liberty in general. Mr 
 Monnard, Professor of French literature at Lausanne, has just 
 been suspended from his functions by the government, as being 
 the editor of a pamphlet upon toleration, published by Mr 
 Venet, Professor at Basle, and both of them are prosecuted by 
 
 the tribunals. We ought to pray to God with fervour, that 
 
 he may incline the hearts of men in power, so that the churches 
 and children of God may not be troubled and persecuted, but 
 that they may walk in peace in the communion of Jesus. 
 
 ‘ If, as it is probable, I shall be banished from my country, I 
 must go to reside in some part of France, as I shall not surely 
 be able to remain in any other canton of Switzerland; and 
 then I shall be compelled to address myself to my brethren in 
 
 M 
 
90 
 
 Edinburgh to be directed and aided in some evangelical work. 
 As to the rest, I give myself up entirely to the Lord, who 
 will do what seems to him good. I feel that it is not good for 
 the child of God to seek to penetrate into futurity, which is 
 concealed from him. The present times are accompanied with 
 extraordinary benedictions to us all. A remarkable spirit of 
 prayer has been poured out on all the disciples of Christ, both 
 at Lausanne and in other parts of the Canton. The Church of 
 God, although in mourning in many respects, may still rejoice 
 in him who has loved it. It may celebrate with a loud voice 
 the praises of the Eternal. Weare also strengthened when 
 we think that in every place where our situation is known, the 
 ‘ children of God, made free by the Son, pray for us.” 
 
 In what light must the Report of the Glasgow Auxiliaries 
 now appear to the Christians in Glasgow ? Here its state- 
 ments are brought to a test, and presented by the above facts in 
 their true colours. The Glasgow Auxiliaries have been told 
 again and again, and they know it, that the British and Foreign 
 Bible Society has erected societies all over Europe, under the 
 management of the worst species of infidels,—men who take the 
 name of Christians,—cf Christian pastors and professors, many of 
 whom ¢eny and violently oppose fundamental doctrines of the gos- 
 pel, and most of whom blaspheme the Saviour, ridicule his mighty 
 works, and persecute his servants. These Societies, as I have 
 formerly affirmed, (and can these Auxiliaries controvert it ?) are 
 so many citadels of Satan erected by him to obstruct the progress 
 of the gospel. Yet these are the men whom the London Society 
 address as their “Christian brethren.” What eulogies have they 
 lavished on the “ distinguished President” of their “ kindred insti- 
 tution” at Lausanne, whom Mr Daniel Wilson ealls “a great friend 
 of the Bible Society”! How much confidence have they reposed 
 in him, who has been one of the instigators of this bitter persecu, 
 tion of the servants of God, which has raged for'so long a period ! 
 Will not such facts as these, and what has taken place at 
 Stutgard, to which I have above referred, at last open the eyes 
 of the Glasgow Auxiliaries of the British and Foreign Bible 
 Society ?- Will they not at least prevent others from being mis- 
 led by their mischievous statements? The Auxiliaries may boast 
 of the “ magnificent: Institution,’-—of “the weight which its very . 
 « name carries with it m all parts of the world,’—of “ the addi- 
 ‘ tion of iifty mew auxiliaries and branch societies in the south,” 
 in contrast “ with the withdrawment of so large a proportion of . 
 
 0 ta di” DRL SR A ON TR Din rn 
 
91 
 
 * Scotland,” and of an increase of their own contributions, “ ap- 
 ‘ proaching to five times the amount of the former year’s income.” 
 But let them remember, that “ what is highly esteemed among 
 men, is abomination in the sight of God.” Instead of being a 
 matter of exultation to them, that their funds, which go to sup- 
 port so horrible a system, have so much increased, it ought to be to 
 them a subject of unfeigned lamentation, and when they recollect 
 their former statements, it should cover them with confusion of 
 face. 
 
 If a single doubt remains in the minds of the Christians in 
 Glasgow, whether they can lawfully re-unite themselves with the 
 British and Foreign Bible Society, let them look to this persecu- 
 tion against their Brethren which is at this moment going for- 
 ward in Switzerland. Let them remember that the friends and 
 associates of the Glasgow Auxiliaries and of their “ magnificent 
 Institution,” are the PERSECUTORS, and that they are 
 the friends and associates of the Edinburgh Bible Society who 
 are the PERSECUTED. The Edinburgh Bible Society is now 
 preparing a new translation of the Scriptures, upon the basis of 
 the best of all the French translations which was published in 
 1712. They are executing this work in concert with a Society 
 composed of individuals of such a character as have rarely been 
 collected, whether their personal Christianity, or their full and 
 decided views of the gospel, be considered. It is the SECRE- 
 TARY of this Society at Lausanne, associated with the Edin- 
 burgh Bible Society, who for the testimony of Jesus expects, 
 according to the above letter, sentence of banishment from his 
 country a second time ; and it is the PRESIDENT of the Bible 
 Society at Lausanne, with which the Glasgow Auxiliaries are as- 
 sociated, and with whom they wish to associate others, who has 
 instigated the government of the Pays de Vaud to that persecu- 
 tion, and has personally participated in it, which has raged for 
 several years in that country against those who hold what he 
 calls the doctrine of the devil. Shall not this fact, even if no 
 similar one could be produced, come home to the consciences of 
 the Christians whom the Glasgow Auxiliaries are urging to join 
 the London Society ? Shall it not come home to the consciences 
 of the Reporters themselves ? 
 
 FINIS. 
 
 EDINBURGH : 
 H. & J. PILLANS, PRINTERS, 7. JAMES’S COURT: 
 
chan 04 
 
 : “f ee hit (a5 We ne al ww tie 
 ont ad! Yo stared & 
 yeh b fsrcieo the 1 bali: el Se ta J 
 
 bad, Yo. brody ope! 1 eh ft ‘i 
 
 a Os ie eilyutll + todd 9 Hat avo ; 
 "7 wes 
 
 dh at ot J jihune dd, fy) 22% atitd toast moe | Saal 
 *obllooas ¥! yous wodw Wig fn he Re iat! 
 
 Tp, tip, ngnitifos Wr seo oS vari! “yt Hue 
 
 Ny Ae 4 wnt veri kneel aks 
 
 oot WAN PE ity) “Cantata RE 
 HY. iy 
 
 af old thi. aot loa? cali Otis elt, eat" ' 
 19 BHE*| dd oF AOOk ‘ata fot Vises 
 cr | sey MigitOus ‘eit 4 $4, eb. dotily sng 
 
 wv 
 
 hag wbcasigt pie ladt apa itt wads 
 
 ras be 
 OOS eat. aU t 40.4 1s, Ot nilinthe 
 “a HY bee BHO TUDE 
 
 " # wea 7% i 
 a ad i 
 
 re iT bh Valo ta! u et"? pate 
 Won | ae thal oi “aft Hs ah pe sien ee 
 
 visio? e aie i 9109 rik so ri oa 
 nad yon | 
 hire Mit ee: 40 
 RAS oe atiagas ad. 
 arr haiGs oat en ‘i balaiopeen, “pinite 
 “alanis Bi 1 £) “(nodes gut “th x 
 "a: most too det te: te ett 
 old Bie io ‘2 VECO {ybah bok : 
 “as aK Pree ater 9 ct wverpaalevlodt dotve daiwa 
 ral rn at pondio diripeakaige stab yorlt Cour ae 
 tay o&:deot ot eye's ode. tkod a ae 
 doi’ oh at botaghitieq-¥ 
 ol omit teaioh> PrsiuT 
 
 jae) 2 pa) r 
 
 ‘On beers ool eit fon tite bred ita'% 
 to" WOASis <u ROD | lt ud, a KOE | Gato mre a 
 ‘ pioffol 3) Agyss i yor sill a WOR! ch oat { ; 
 f ne “dy ae egaeee 
 “ggomgiasttoo aay Oy cmon obey "Yor'st Tee Se 
 Had y i) Ee Th tad tf me hilt dee : ie TY pine, ae 
 + 457 Spar 
 ORC aR ae CM’ Re os SO Aa co yo ae) ee 
 aL Vuk 
 
 Ce ban of 
 Bee Tete t Nee Warn DAP ANP AON Enon cee vaesiad 
 
 > BOR OST Se Sn 
 au0> ROSMAL T Qeee tind QEATIS 4 
 
WORKS BY THE SAME AUTHOR. 
 
 In 8vo. price Two Shillings and Sixpence. 
 
 Review of the Conduct of the Directors of the British and Fo- 
 reign Bible Society relative to the Apocrypha, and to their 
 Administration on the Continent ; with an Answer to the Rev. 
 C. Simeon, and Observations ou the Cambridge Remarks. 
 
 In 8vo. price Three Shillings. 
 
 Second Review of the Conduct of the British and Foreign Bible 
 Society, containing an Account of the Religious State of the 
 Continent ; in Answer to a Letter addressed to the Author by 
 the Rev. Dr Steinkopff. 
 
 In 8vo. price One Shilling and Sixpence. 
 Exposure of the Rev. Henry Grey’s Personal Misrepresentations, 
 Doctrinal Heresies, and Important Mis-statements respecting 
 the Bible Society, as contained in the Letters of Anglicanus. 
 
 In 8v0. price One Shilling and Sixpence. 
 Answer to the Rev. Henry Grey’s Reply to Mr Haldane’s Ex- 
 posure of his Personal Misrepresentations, Doctrinal Heresies, 
 
 and Important Mis-statements respecting the Bible Society, 
 as contained in the Letters of Anglicanus. 
 
 In 8v0. price Two Shillings. 
 Exposure of the Statement recently published by the Edinburgh 
 Corresponding Board, respecting the Claims of the British and 
 Foreign Bible Society on the support of the Christian Public. 
 
 In 12mo. price Three Shillings, Bas. 
 
 The Conduct of the Rev. D. Wilson, Vicar of Islington, on the 
 Continent, and as a Member of the Society for Promoting 
 Christian Knowledge, and of the British and Foreign Bible 
 Society, considered and exposed; with Strictures on the 
 Church of England Missionary Society, respecting their Semi- 
 
 nary at Basle, and their Account of the Religions State of the 
 Continent. 
 
 In 12mo. price Three Shillings and Sixpence, Bds. 
 
 Letter from R. Haldane, Esq. to M. J. J. Cheneviére, Pastor 
 and Professor of Divinity at Geneva, occasioned by his “ Sum- 
 mary of the Theological Controversies which of late years have 
 agitated the City of Geneva.” 
 
 Published in the Monthly Repository of Theology and General Lite- 
 rature. 
 
| 104 > A wri a A 
 
 “oe 
 a 
 
 ~ 
 
 SW baa teiti “af ad? Io saoteaniCh eat Yo 
 
 ‘ bf Te » fay 
 Baous OF DIS 
 
 reas ts 33 24 sth AB’ ly Ty Gatos i 
 
 MOM ALERR ah 
 
 vena | bas APIA, owt | 
 
 ; aaigyoogh oft at avitealot 
 ares oil, Bo Pg ld dda qos ests 
 fa fin 1&4 Sree 4 eta onl uo OQ 
 
 Apa may awe, eal 99) " 
 {itl saa Das daitiael ere i 
 
 Givirs § : 
 a» arrogpe oat oe 
 
 yi sendin Ae mC) 6! Besestbbs 10dte 
 
 eh 
 lh 
 
 i PS eR rw. 
 noe yA ok Ai yt psc 
 atin ainee orqotai M Lane are? = 
 ea (s9qaet eruptatersh $0 
 insifga A, Yo eroded ods st bouts 109 
 a6 Oe ms we Ste hd Gate of 
 23 ¢oneblakl aM os ylqoh «@ ‘gor y 
 xoiagi0ll Ignistv6 aOR 
 oi i108; oldvL ddlt paitiivequen elie 
 ried! micah » snascilanh, 0. a8 
 
 Af 
 
 "hy fbi edt ye bedeiidug ~yfinas9} 
 Whee tau gala arr bt 3 
 Tv hsalderd taitet My, oat avons 8 
 
 agence an at 
 
 eid 0 . cial; TART aoe 
 Pn aise st se — al Bit) Yor vs 
 
 efdiil myioi't ber dap aft to bite] 
 Reds oo evedolnne dba. gagsaycs bam, 
 ets, vod nity e9E ef) mine. yanoraaine 
 
 wate ADP nei 1% a OR 
 
 ies ‘pHd.208 egya Nek oat 50s 
 
 ak, Set 
 
 oles f 715i oi Lyd dy iat pA pe>™ ¢ aes 
 =P? gual yd bowoiaprgn aronew JAM Liege if 
 yecveal ere, meh dort saula naoienovontap 
 
 Steal 
 
 -o)hk [eras bas ygoleedt te 1 mtiaoned, yun odd 
 
A 
 
 LETTER OF REPROOF 
 
 TO THE 
 
 BBV. ANDRAW DEOUSON, DoDo 
 
 Minister of St. George’s, Edinburgh ; 
 IN REPLY TO HIS STRICTURES 
 
 (In the Edinburgh Christian Instructor for October last), 
 ON THE 
 
 ANNUAL MEETING OF 
 
 THE ABERDEEN AUXILIARY BIBLE SOCIETY. 
 
 By JAMES SPENCE, A.M. 
 
 MINISTER OF BLACKFRIARS STREET CHAPEL, ABERDEEN. 
 
 ‘jf a man strive for masteries, yet is he not crowned, except he strive lawfully.” 
 Paout, 2 Tim. ii. 5. 
 
 ** Hard lot of man—to toil for the reward 
 Of virtue, and yet lose it! Wherefore hard ?— 
 He that would run the race must guide his horse 
 Obediert to the customs of the course ; 
 Else, though unequalled to the goal he flies, , 
 A meaner than himself shall gain the prize.”—CowPeEnr, vol. i. p. 52. 
 
 ~ 
 
 ——~<= 0809908 ———- 
 
 *_* If any Profits arise from the Sule of this Letter, they will be given to the 
 Sick Man’s Friend Society, Aberdeen. 
 
 ABERDEEN : 
 
 SOLD BY JOHN KILOH, 74, UNION STREET ; 
 , BY W. CLIPHANT, EDINBURGH; G. GALLIE, GLASGOW ; 
 AND G. MAITLAND, ELGIN. 
 a ‘ sem 
 , ae 
 M.D.CCC.XXIX. 
 
 Price One Shilling and Sixpence. 
 
| Rts Ay tn 8. eh “ i 
 F ia 
 4 Pant. 
 00 A q che ‘0 
 ; a nese “— 
 
 i myiderba. tate ed: 4 
 
 * aaeero1se4 amon 
 i RANI)! «44s 9 et eatin an mine 
 a ee aie Ne 
 a } » < ' 
 na ri , ‘0h Al io ATR aS 
 NPAOOS LIK SAL. UK 
 elaxho, GU pxoumeon'T’ was miak: he 
 nor at deel padotoO TOF tahntien 
 Sf: * i ry owe gm 2) 
 pravcvvetsity allt tA GR nee 
 dita es ¥ mas Stet Ps, ssatiioren r 
 7 cee mil: py. chin ek toa Dekie 
 Divas +4 
 we ied is A\ to vohdi eam: — 
 ie ee aad © ee 
 ang xtgott ‘hse yer wis 
 
 ; ‘rover Hibis ahaa bis Peers sonet of? Bi , M 
 
 leit My ey Cath aes & 
 
 a. ae Pos 2 i stele deg 
 
 i to ah on hoo eclS- guest 4 
 silk ie. raids i bonmokwannuberedt a 
 ai pla > page same AE 
 ‘oui — eplin dh oeeriitows inti 
 . 5, Letina ila ail apne 
 Lh, aan waaamasA 
 wand tars pees sconces riya, ad Sheen 
 
 i a ED BI xD. CHL 
 ur of Aeon oid ea mat gy ang somnotat yi at 
 eee at ha sh mA te pas birna fees 8 D 
 
 ¥ 
 
 Sed 
 
 ww tt? t Sek PE ee. 7 ot ease 
 
TO 
 
 “THE GOOD PEOPLE OF ABERDEEN.” 
 
 MY DEAR AND RESPECTED FRIENDS, 
 
 Tur Reverend ANDREW Tuomson, D. D. chal- 
 lenged me, in his Christian Instructor for October last, to refute 
 “his argument and fact,” by which he proved “ the dishonesty and 
 hypocrisy” of the London Committee in reference to Scio’s Bible. 
 After stating his argument, and fact, he adds,—* This is what 
 Dr. Thomson advanced respecting Scio’s Bible, of which the copy 
 that he showed was purchased from the Society’s officers Jess 
 than three years ago. And what has the mild, candid, honest 
 Mr. Spence got to say in reply to such an argument? Let him 
 meet it fairly, in order that the good people of Aberdeen may 
 either ascertain that we have been deceiving them, or determine 
 the incompetency of Mr. Spence to go straight forward in his 
 defence of Earl Street, and his forfeiture of all title to be listened 
 to with the slightest defererice.” 
 
 In the following Letter will be seen ‘“‘ what I have got to say 
 in reply,” not only to the above challenge, but to all the strictures 
 in the article of which it forms a part, so far as they refer to me. 
 And I earnestly request “ the good people of Aberdeen” to ob- 
 
oda gholigno cw: 210i'h + haevagaaiity, 
 
 : Boe Migs) ov vitics 
 i AR eg res| 
 
 : 
 
 heii oii pimagts adi emt oiagiind } 
 a> 
 
 ai Yo Wad) sds uonhwo ban ovtleoage vf i 
 
 a ey OO Seip Tee o fete i. 2" 
 Pa die de, pueobh. ADEE, a 
 Yo gna tain gai dershia cee'd. see 
 crn lean Latin obit! even ie 
 ve rR 8) mr ag ssid Me ee 
 so i fi ai Pongtt tit CS asa stl 7 
 “iw aloe wofiia.t ds} You ‘te " iO opt ss 
 Fs ee Ht A ch 2 teenage 
 voitefusds tivdt iett (howg btiv eeltiti bergen 
 nt saith oat bee ote tain trsettogg nT hate 
 avobjealy 104 anh, Silt ae. te ‘nacontiyg ot ‘Bidet 
 sei S82 OF Yenont Tu0 patiuned “sk leaqpoty ee 
 givin, bik tor bas octal Maxey nlandaoth ms 
 wank eg v Tae enw of Beg 
 salty» a ropsett och “Bite: ae 3 
 epamhs # e2.asc: a Aight ae ae 
 
 aml ici son he a aan 
 od Mriork Yo ereeT! sy msec ee 
 
 ae aus 
 
 sa r couuhiadl anitwiwd pildior pie ino 
 Soll A a tnteideltie tee 
 pie>. ema lort) tia scgiltyertt 
 
 aw noe NIAID Be Pea 
 
 ae 0 ate wa tlt sitive pate teablaenaalical 
 oat a eve Cieyid af otunccventt tt ronaman/E 3 
 a, _Pabeageres ton YD & "wh otf dil) doebyrteth 
 -OrteOD ail Heiioncige ing io wiug ‘weet git mwaghs 
 
 p> mR on tisiq? eid gribsapan on 
 “ne: A paca ms ‘hea seapraua-y 
 
 r 
 
 See flew ‘ < ‘ r watt 
 
‘LETTER, 
 §ec. 
 
 REVEREND SIR, 
 
 Iw your account of the Aberdeen Auxiliary Bible Society, in the 
 Edinburgh Christian Instructor for October last, you are aware that you have 
 represented me “as a :hick-and-thin supporter of the worthies in Earl Street” 
 —as one “ who will believe nothing bad of them”—who “ esteems them all 
 perfect”—and who, to be as perfect as they are, “will pervert the plainest 
 facts, say the most extravagant things, and blunder on in the most reckless 
 manner.” Youalso assert, that at the above meeting “ I was pleased to give 
 an account of the Spanish Bible which you exhibited in the Assembly Rooms, 
 Edinburgh, last July, totally inconsistent with truth ;” that in holding such 
 language as [ did on that occasion, “‘ 1 was not honest ;” and youstate the sub- 
 stance of what you did say, and call on me “ to refute the argument or dis- 
 prove the fact, if I can,” by which you establish ‘‘ the dishonesty and hypo- 
 erisy” of the London Committee, “ and if I cannot, let me be ashamed of my 
 gross and wilful misrepresentation.” ‘ 
 
 Now, as I am conscious that what you have said of me, as above stated, “ is 
 totally inconsistent with truth,” and as I believe “ that your fact and your ar= 
 gument” do not prove the dishonesty and hypocrisy of the London Committee, 
 but may be easily refuted, and rolled back on yourself, I accept your challenge, 
 and shall endeavour, according to your desire, “ to meet you fairly, in order 
 that the good people of Aberdeen may either ascertain that you have been deceiv= 
 izg them, or determine my incompetency to go straight forward in my defence 
 of Earl Street, and my forfeiture of all title to be listened to with the slightest 
 deference.” 
 
 Ehave much pleasure in answering for myself before “ the good people of 
 Aberdeen,” because I know them to be a shrewd, discerning, judicious, gener- 
 ous, justice-loving people ; and by their decision I shall willingly abide. But 
 you go too far when you call on me to reply, “‘ that they may ascertain’ that 
 you have been deceiving them.” Deceiving them !! No; this you are not able to 
 do, for the vast majority of them are too far north for you. * What they will as- 
 
 * I have heard that one of the London Jews came to Aberdeen, thinking to make 
 a prey of ‘‘the good people here.” Like yourself, he was foiled, and forced to retreat 
 southward. One of his London bretbren, who was aware of his voyage to the north, 
 and its design, was soon after greatly surprised to meet himin ’Change Alley, in ap- 
 pearance nothing mended. He instantly inquired ‘* why his countenance was so rue~- 
 ful and dejected; and wherefore he had returned so speedily from Aberdeen without 
 realizing, as it seemed, his golden hopes?” ‘* Ah! brother,’ responded he, with a 
 heavy and significant shake of his head, ‘ my abilities availed me nothing in that north- 
 ern city, for ‘ the good people of Aberdeen are all Jews!!?”? Thatis, they were all 
 too shrewd and clever to let ‘‘ the Jew” deceive them; nor will they deceive any one. 
 Hence the worthless Jew could not obtain any footing among them, nor meet with any 
 one to keep him in countenance. 
 
 B 
 
‘ 
 
 a 
 
 6 
 
 certain by my reply is, that you have been attempting to deceive them, and that 
 I am fully competent “ to go straight forward in my defence of Earl Street.”— 
 No doubt you think me very incompetent, and are confident that I am not able 
 to go to war with you. It is unquestionably true, that if tortuous and “ dis- 
 creditable manceuvring” were necessary to my success, I am not able to contend 
 with you ; but as “ the defence of Earl Street” only requires “ a straight for- 
 ward,” an open, honest, upright course of tactics, very moderate talents indeed 
 are sufficient for carrying it triumphantly through, before a tribunal so intelli- 
 gent and so impartial as ‘‘ the good people of Aberdeen.” But remember, that 
 they must decide which of us has the better in the contest for truth,—not you. 
 It were the greatest folly to suppose, however fairly vanquished, that you would 
 not proclaim yourself conqueror. ‘This you have invariably done hitherto, and 
 there is every reason to believe that you will-continue to do so in all time com- 
 ing. Yes, yes; you will distend me once more ON YOUR TREMENDOUS CRITI- 
 cAt rack—break and mangle my moral character without either justice or 
 mercy—shout victory, and again exult delightedly over me, as ‘‘ a wilful per- 
 verter of zhe plainest facts!” This modern rack which you have erected in 
 Edinburgh, for destroying the character and torturing the minds of good men, 
 is an engine which rivals the ancient racks which were in use in the days of 
 our forefathers in the same city for breaking and torturing their bodies.— 
 ‘Fearfully numerous are the victims whose moral characters you have wantonly, 
 recklessly,'and iniquitously broken on z¢, and over whose mangled remains you 
 
 have rejoiced with a heartless and unfeeling scorn, akin to that which heaped 
 
 insults and indignities on the venerated lifeless bodies of the Covenanters!) I 
 have received no better treatment from you than other men—I expect no better. 
 But this moves me not. Yow are the object of my pity, not. of my dread. 1 
 consider you as one who, as the amiable Dr. Wardlaw has said, “ Hops THE 
 FEELINGS AND CHARACTER OF OTHERS SCANDALOUSLY CHEAP!” But your 
 character in this respect is now so well known, that you cannot do any one ma+ 
 terial injury ;—your highest praise is become of no value—your severest.cen= 
 
 sure is reckoned no disgrace. yu 
 
 In‘conducting this controversy in your Christian Instructor, you have un- 
 scrupulously used every kind of weapon which you judged necessary to the suc- 
 cess of your cause. You have stated many things as faets—some of them true 
 and’some of them untrue. You have reasoned on these facts, and deduced con- 
 clusions from them, some of them legitimate, and others of them illegitimate: 
 Sometimes you have had recourse to the language of irony and ridicule ;—at 
 other times, to that of grave, dignified, indignant severity. Sometimes you 
 have given us a page of almost matchless. beauty ;—at other times, you have 
 poured forth a torrent of abusive scurrility—the very quintessence of the slang 
 of Billingsgate! Sometimes you have treated your adversaries with a consider-= 
 able share of good nature and kindly feeling ;—at other times, the genius of ma~ 
 lignity and bitterness seems to have guided your pen. Sometimes you have 
 struggled,. by sophistry and misrepresentation, to overthrow arguments which 
 you could not fairly meet; or you have seized on some trifle to dilate upon, 
 while you passed over in studied silence (as in the.case of Mr. M‘Gavin) the 
 pith and marrow of your opponent’s reasoning ;—at other times, you have met 
 your foes more honestly, grappled with their main arguments and facts, and 
 forcibly and triumphantly refuted some of them. Sometimes you have shown 
 yourself extremely facetious, having jests and low wit at will ;—at other times, 
 you have appeared as the pious and learned and Reverend Andrew Thomson, 
 D.D., feeling, as you should do, an utter and uncompromising abhorrence at the 
 corruption of the Sacred Oracles, and maintaining, witha jealous and watchful; 
 but just and laudable care, the integrity of the true canon of Scripture. 
 
 Look at the above portrait which I have drawn of you, as you shine in this 
 controversy in the pages of the Christian Instructor, over again, and declare 
 whether your own heart does not say amen to its truth. If I have failed-to 
 exhibit your true likeness, your express image, your every form and feature, 
 whether good or bad, all your “ lights and shades” as a controversialist, believe 
 me, the failure arises not from the want of disposition to do you justice, but 
 
. a 
 
 from & misconception of the character I have so long and so often gazed on, in 
 4he immaculate mirror in which you are monthly exhibited—But after having 
 drawn this portrait, the question as to what is the prominent feature of your 
 character as a controversialist, remains unanswered. This question I would 
 solve by saying, that you are not so much distinguished as 2 matter-of-fact dis- 
 putant—as a reasoning—as an ironical and sarcastic—as a grave—as a facetious 
 —as 2. wrathful—as a good-natured—or even as 2 sophistical and unfair, as you 
 are AS a RAILING pispuTANT!!—The public speeches also delivered in your 
 itinerating tours to promote the pure Bible cause, are an exact counterpart of 
 your writings in the Instructor. Often have you declared, that a Bible Society 
 * is the most religious of all societies,” and that the controversy in which you 
 are engaged“ is of the gravest moment ;” but yet, in the face of these aver- 
 ments, you and the new (and self-styled) pure Bible Societies, have acted as 
 if you deemed your public meetings the most irreligious of all meetings ; as if 
 the controversy in which you are engaged were fitted only to excite excessive 
 levity, laughter, and theatrical applause ; and as if the numerous and heinous 
 sins which you Jay to the charge ef the London Committee ought to fill you 
 and your supporters with aeempremniale delight, instead of constraining you 
 with sorrow of heart toexclaim, “ O that our heads were waters, and our eyes 
 fountains of tears,” that we might weep day and night for the evils which these 
 men have committed! Granting, for the sake of argument, that that Commit- 
 tee were as bad as you represent, are their delinquencies a proper theme for 
 merriment? Are we to be thrown into ecstasies of joy. when it is proved that 
 they adulterated "God's Word—that they long and studiously concealed this ini- 
 quity—and that, when it and other crimes were detected, they attempted to 
 sereen them and deceive the public, by mutilating and making away with thei 
 
 records? Is there joy in heaven among the holy angels, and among the spirits 
 of justmen made perfect, over such things? Is “ the most religious of all so- 
 eieties” on earth to be convulsed with laughter and deafened with ruffing when 
 it hears of them? - Is this what is meant by “‘ NoT REJOICING IN INIQUTIPY, 
 BUT REJOICING IN THE TRUTH?” Js this a just exemplification of that-hea~ 
 ven-born charity which your church thus describes in one of her paraphrases -— 
 
 *¢ Love harbours no suspicious thought, 
 Is patient to the bad ; “ 
 Griev’d when she-hears of sins and crimes, 
 And ia the truth is glad ?” 
 
 It would be a libel to say so. Yet such has been the conduct of all the pure 
 Bible Societies where your presence has been enjoyed, so far as I have heard 
 or witnessed. I visited the theatre three or four times some twenty years since, 
 and I can testify that the scene there was gravity itself when contrasted with 
 that uproarious and tumultuous spectacle of merriment which I beheld in the 
 first public meeting of the Aberdeen pure Bible Society! Truly, if a foreigner 
 (Haffner, the infidel, for instance) had been present, and been told that it was 
 a meeting of the ‘ most religious of all our societies,” he must, if he believed 
 his informant, have carried away a strange idea of Scottish religion, and perhaps 
 thought that his own infidelity was infinitely preferable to your orthodoxy.— 
 But I would not be understood as testifying that the whole auditory joined you 
 on that occasion in rejoicing at iniquity. Indeed, it seemed to me and to others, 
 that the more respectable portion (I refer not to the gentlemen on the platform) 
 yea, the great majority of the hearers of your far-famed speech gave no token of 
 applause, but listened as persons capable-of exercising their own judgment, and 
 of distinguishing between assertion and evidence—between “ ranting and rav= 
 ing and clamorous” declamation, and correct and powerful reasoning. 
 
 It was, Sir, an indelible disgrace to see you contending for the purity of the 
 Divine Word, at the very moment that you were setting an example of an utter 
 disregard of its spirit and precepts, and acting like one “ casting firebrands, 
 arrows, and death,” around him, and saying, “Am not I in sport?” But, 
 while defaming the character of good meu, and enjoying an imaginary triumph 
 
 B2 
 
q 
 
 8 
 
 over them, you were only “‘ foaming out your own shame.” Fou were the real 
 object of pity—not your victims. If you would convince the public in Aber= — 
 deen that your cause is good, and that your opponents are’all imerror, you must 
 treat the subject in another manner. You may, by your present mode, please a 
 few zealous partizans in this quarter, but unless you become serious, grave, — 
 and solemn in-your statements and arguments, you will never gain over the 
 more thinking, discerning, and unprejudiced portion of the community. Ne= 
 ver forget, in dealing with ‘ the good people of Aberdeen,” that they are 
 farther north than Edinburgh. Threats will not terrify—dassertions will 
 not convince—sophistry will not blind—ridicule will not move them—nor will 
 high pretensions to knowledge, and gasconading vanity and self-conceit, gain 
 their esteem or excite their admiration. Nothing but sound, sober, dispas« 
 sionate, plain common-sense arguments, and correct reasoning, will suit the 
 meridian of Aberdeen. If you bring these into the field of controversy, and 
 show “ the good people here,” in a becoming temper, that you have the better 
 cause, you will gain them all over ; yea, you will gain over all the members of 
 our Auxiliary: for we have no tie binding us to support the Earl Street Com= 
 mittee but that of honour and Christian principle, which will not suffer us to 
 abandon men mercilessly and unjustly held up to scormand indignation, as mon=_ 
 sters of dishonesty, hypocrisy, and duplicity, utterly unworthy of any Christian 
 confidence. If you put yourself forth as the leading champion in the most se= 
 rious and sacred of all controversies, your spirit and language should have some 
 correspondence with the requirements of that Holy Book whose purity you advo= 
 cate. Slander, untruth, and bitterness, are not needed in defence “‘ of the true 
 canon of Scripture.” Therefore, put these away from you, ‘and speak and write 
 the truth “in love.” Or, if you hate this advice (though Scriptural) as indi< 
 cative of cant, yet at least endeavour to speak and write, so as not to disgust by 
 low ribaldry and coarse vulgarity. To ungovernable wrath youhave too often 
 given way ; and you know, that the bitter scurrility and indescribable filth of 
 your language have been such, as no man, not even yourself, can justify.. These 
 things have hurt both yourselfand your cause, as many are either unwilling or 
 unable to distinguish between the intrinsic merits of a cause, and the demerits 
 
 where else, and we have all lost our reason! Indeed, if you are worthy of credit, 
 we never had much of this excellent gift, of which you possess so superlative a 
 share! You “ are not aware of any, even the most gifted of their advocates, 
 who has failed, in the course of pleading their cause, to pour forth absurdities 
 by the dozen—to indulge in reckless distortions of fact—to substitute charity, 
 falsely so called, for the uncompromising love of truth—and to give us, instead 
 of sound reasoning, either unsupported assertion or pitiful sophistry!!” Itis 
 
 ® No one will blame you for being of the moderate party in the church. 
 + These and such like terms are quite common in the Edinburgh Christian Instructor. 
 
¥ 9 
 
 a deep mortification to you, that the support of Earl Street has always fallen 
 into feeble hands! “The blunderers,” Stokes and Platt ;—the “ ill-natured, 
 opinionative, pragmatical, sycophantish caluminator, and lick-spittle disposi- 
 tioned,” Josiah Conder ;—*‘ the disgraced, untruthful, three-headed monster, 
 Anglicanus ;” * —Dr. Pinkerton, who “ deals in jesuitical explanations ;’—Mr. 
 Orme, who “ deals out his jesuitical counsels,” is “a serpentine friend, a thief 
 of the public money, and a corrupter of the Word of God ;’—the “ anonymous 
 defamers,” Young and Esdaile ;—* the prejudiced, interested, time-servi 
 trimmers,” who conduct the Evangelical Magazine ;—that “* feeble thing,” the 
 Herald, (which you took special care never to answer ) ;— the ambitious, 
 blustering, arrogant, blundering Protestant, who violates truth in the most 
 shameful manner, uses the most unprincipled and ruffian-like language, gnashes 
 his teeth, and pours out all manner of abuse on those who dare to lift a little fins 
 ger against him, and rants and 7aves, and is scarcely in his right mind,” (and 
 who put you into a terrible fright, and had well nigh devoured you!) ;—and 
 Ralph Wardlaw, D.D., “ who is guilty of disingenuous dealing, and is a great 
 
 too dogmatical, and deals in pitiful perversions of plain intelligible reason- 
 ing, and propounds doctrines and statements which no Christian mind,” (I sup- 
 pose the Socinians agree with you), ‘can hear without agitation and alarm, 
 and speaks nonsense ;”—all these, together with a train of writers too numerous 
 to mention, were but so many puny Lilliputians, whom the great and mighty 
 - ANDREW THOMSON, D.D., would have us believe that He, like another gi- 
 gantic Brosprnenac, could scarcely discern as they crossed his path, and almost 
 scorned to notice, because, in crushing them under his majestic foot, his suc- 
 cessive victories could only be ascribed to the feebleness of his foes !! !—This is 
 a misfortune which you have good cause to bewail, because victory over such 
 antagonists brings no honour with it ; they afford you no opportunity of putting 
 forth your resistless energies; the mightiness of your strength therefore re- 
 mains hidden; your splendid talents lie concealed as in a napkin ; t and the 
 exhaustless stores of your exuberantly rich and amazingly powerful mind con- 
 tinue useless and unemployed, being buried within your own breast, like a mine 
 of unexplored and incalculable wealth in the bowels of the earth! No wonder, 
 then, that you long for some one to come into the field of controversy in some 
 measure worthy of yoursetr, that, by crushing him, you might end the con- 
 flict. No wonder, that in your letter in the Elgin Courier for October last, you 
 say, “‘ J do not despise (this is great condescension !) Mr. M‘Niel, but I think 
 him very incompetent for the task he has undertaken ; and just because I deem 
 the cause of Earl Street superlatively bad, I should like to see it in abler hands, 
 that by attacking it there, We might have an opportunity of giving it its death 
 blow >t instead of its friends having it always in their power to ascribe every 
 successive victory that we gain to THE FEEBLENESS OF THE INDIVIDUALS WHO 
 HAVE COME FORTH TO SUPPORT IT”!!! 
 
 But while this, in your opinion, is the state of the case in regard to the 
 writers who support “ the Earl Street worthies ;’ what an host of able, learned, 
 and powerful controversialists, have come forth, according to you, to crush 
 them! And what a lavishment of sound argument and conclusive reasoning, 
 of clear statement and impassioned eloquence, of sharp reproof and merited 
 chastisement, has been meted out to them! And still they are nothing the 
 better, but rather the worse, notwithstanding all the pains which have been 
 taken to correct and enlighten them! Where can you point out, among all the 
 numerous pamphlets which have been written on your side, and come under 
 
 _ * To transcribe the epithets bestowed on this writer in the Edinburgh Christian 
 Instructor would fill many pages. ; 
 + Napkin! What napkin would holdthem? They would require a whole web! 
 
 ___ $ So, by your own confession, the cause of Earl Street has not yet received its death 
 blow. What a marvel! seeing you have been for years unremittingly aiming despe- 
 rate and deadly thrusts at it, which have been parried off, it seems, only by the feeblest 
 
 defenders ! Bi 
 
10 
 your review, one that is sickly or feeble! You have had the happiness’ of 
 being able to say of each one, as it stood before your critical trib orers 
 P : 2 2 Te yo fees 
 « Tt has no fault, or I no fault can spy: . i wcndee 
 Its all perfection, or /ove-blind am I.” os abe ade 
 
 But, though you are supported by an host who are all able controversialists, 
 imagine not that I insinuate that Andrew Thomson, D.D., in his statements, 
 reports, letters, speeches, and above all, in the pure and immaculate , 
 
 ' his Christian Instructor, does not tower immeasurably higher than oe — 
 far,—yea, by an inconceivable distance,;—outpeer them all. It is true, some 
 may think that the high opinion you entertain of yourself, and co-workers in 
 the good cause, with the low one which you hold respecting your opponents, 
 are convincing proofs that you are blinded by a veil of prejudice on this sub- 
 ject, whose folds are more numerous and thick than those of Ajax’s shield. *— 
 It is true, some may think that your language savours not a little of lofty and 
 arrogant pride, and that you have put away from you the lovely grace of humi- 
 lity, as far as the east is distant from the west. It is true, some may think 
 
 that ) an 
 *¢ The ardent Conductor , ed 
 
 . Of the Edinturgh Instructor,” . ali 
 
 4 ah, 
 
 carried away by the impulse of his feelings, has run to such extravagant leng’ 
 in his statements and pretensions in this controversy, as toinjure a cause good 
 at bottom, and expose both it and himself to contempt. And it is true, some 
 may think that the paroxysms of impetuous rage into which you have occasion- 
 ally fallen, and the foul language you have.sometimes used, are indications of 
 any thing rather than of a consciousness of the feebleness of your adversaries, 
 and the superlative excellence of your cause. But it is of no consequence, in 
 your estimation, that such foolish notions are entertained by some. You seem 
 persuaded that there is nota man on earth more enlightened, or more free from 
 prejudice, on the Apocrypha controversy, than yourself ;—that, in/as far as you 
 have been concerned in it, you have been a perfect model of meekness, gentle- 
 ness, and candour ;—that the delinquencies: of ‘‘ the Earl Street adulterators” 
 have been so numerous and so heinous, that it was impossible for you to over= 
 rate them, or even to describe them in such terms as they deserved ;—that, in. 
 as far as you have been able to do so, it has been done, upon the whole, in 
 the words of truth, soberness, mildness, and decision ;—and that, though you 
 may (when receiving treatment which could not be borne) have given way a 
 little to an improper spirit, and penned a few sentences neither very pure nor 
 very lovely, yet that for these trifling errors you have made ample acknowledge-= 
 ments, in the very ingenuous, spontaneous, and contrite confessions,’ which 
 stand recorded in the pages of your invaluable Christian Instructor!!.. . 
 Leaving “ the good people of Aberdeen’’ who have read your articles on the 
 Apocrypha question, in the Edinburgh Christian Instructor, to judge whether 
 the opinion you entertain of your own character as a controversialist, or the pors 
 trait which I have given of it, is according to truth ; I shall now proceed to no- 
 tice the article in your October number, “‘ On the Meeting of the Aberdeen 
 Auxiliary Bible Society,” in as far as it concerns me. And I shall not do you 
 injustice, by mutilating what you have written: a mode of argument. despi- 
 cably mean, and to which one has no temptation who writes for the sake of truth, 
 and who is anxious that the truth, the whole truth, should be known.—Though 
 the passages of my speech to which you allude are in the reverse order in your 
 Instructor, of that in which they were delivered, yet I shall follow the order of 
 your article. It commences thus: ‘ We have done with Mr. Murray for the 
 present. Indeed, we should have done with the whole affair, for it is oceupy- 
 ing too much room. But we cannot conclude without a few observations on 
 certain things which dropped from the Reverend Mr. Spence. This gentle- ~ 
 
 * Made of seven tough bulls’ hides. a 
 
11 
 
 man, like nine-tenths of the Independent. Ministers, is a thick-and-thin sup- 
 porter of the worthies in Earl Street. He will believe nothing bad of them, _ 
 however well established by evidence. They are all perfect in his estimation. 
 And that he may be as perfect at least as they are, he will pervert the plainest 
 facts, and say the most extravagant things, and blunder on in the most reckless 
 manner.” 
 Now, Sir, thereis not a minister nor a gentleman connected with our Society, 
 in whose company I would prefer to be posted in your Instructor as a supporter 
 of <« the Earl Street worthies,” in preference to the Reverend Mr. Murray.— 
 His manly decision of character, straight-forward policy, zeal in every good 
 work, and his invariable liberality and kindly feeling towards all Evangelical 
 Dissenters, (who would never know in acting with him in public matters that 
 he was a Churchman), have endeared him to them ; and proved thata man may 
 be stedfastly and warmly attached to the Church of Scotland, and one of her 
 brightest ornaments, and at the same time highly beloved and esteemed by those 
 who are conscientiously attached to other Communions. From Mr. Murray I 
 have ever experienced the utmost kindness both in public and in private, when- 
 ever I had occasion to associate with him ; and in the affairs of the Bible Society, 
 he and I have always acted most cordially. —The motion which he seconded and 
 I moved, naturally led us to defend the London Committee, and point out the 
 worthlessness of the accusations against them ; and this, I suppose, is the cause 
 which has excited your ire against us, and made you single us out for castiga- 
 tion in your Instructor ; and if so, it is highly probable, (if you and we are 
 spared), that we-shall have a place there on many future occasions. But per- 
 haps not; for you say, “ Indeed we should have done with the whole affair, 
 for it is occupying too much room.” This is a candid confession. One would 
 think, from the strain of many of your articles, that it could not occupy ‘‘ too 
 much room,” and that the public were not sufficiently alive to its immense im~< 
 portance. Yet I am afraid, from past experience, that whatever you confess 
 with your lips or your pen of this nature, you will give little evidence of the 
 sincerity of such confessions by amending your conduct. Until your right hand 
 forget %#s cunning, and your tongue cleave to the roof of your mouth, (events 
 which, from past and present appearances, are not likely soon to happen), I do 
 anticipate “ that the whole affair will still occupy too much room.” Again 
 and again have you expressed your determination to fight to the last, and crush 
 every foe! But if despair of success, or the hopelessness of destroying or even 
 materially injuring the British and Foreign Bible Society, has at last forced it- 
 self upon your mind, as it well may, I sincerely rejoice. If you now put your 
 sword for ever into its scabbard on this subject, it will be a blessed thing for 
 » yourself, for the characters of good men, and for the peace of society. Yet still, 
 if you had closed the warfare more fairly than by stating a number of untruths 
 respecting me; it would have been more honourable to yourself. But, perhaps, 
 you deemed it more consistent to end the war as you had begun and carried it 
 on. This position I shall not dispute. * Your assertion, “ that I and nine- 
 tenths of the Independent Ministers are thick-and-thin supporters of the Earl 
 Street worthies,” is utterly untrue. We support them in their good, but not 
 in their bad measures. We condemn their violation of the fundamental law as 
 much as you can do; and had they not ceased from Apocrypha circulation, we 
 would have withdrawn from all connexion with them. Butas we have your 
 authority for believing that they were not “ immediately conscious of commit- 
 ting an act of moral transgression,” when they were guilty of the great evil of 
 
 " * The warfare isnot ended. In the Christian Instructor for December last, there 
 is a lengthy article on the Auxiliary Society in Edinburgh, which comes nothing be- 
 hind any of its predecessors in sophistry and bitterness. In the very commencement 
 of it, those persons who speak “ of the affair as occupying too much room,” receive the 
 following chastisement :—‘“ Some persons complain that the controversy respecting 
 the Bible Society is still carried on, and cry out for a cessation of hostilities. This 
 complaint arises either from unacquaintance with the facts of the case, or from indif- 
 ference to the subjects of dispute.” 
 
, 
 12 
 
 lishing Bibles with the Apocrypha annexed or interspersed, we cannot, in 
 ae of such belief, join you in charging them “ with dishonesty and hypo- 
 crisy,” without becoming as singularly and glaringly inconsistent as yourself.— 
 When you say that “I will believe nothing bad of them, however well esta- 
 blished by evidence ;’—I reply, that I believe they circulated the Apocrypha 
 ‘with the Bible—and that this was “‘ bad.” When you say, “ they are all per~ 
 fect in my estimation ;”—I reply, that in my estimation they are all imperfect. 
 And when you affirm, “ that I may be as perfect at least as they are, I will 
 pervert the plainest facts, and say the most extravagant things, and blunder on 
 in the most reckless manner ;”—I reply, that this, according to your usual 
 mode, is defamation without proof. If you would have “ the good people of 
 Aberdeen” believe these bad things of me, establish them by evidence. Men- 
 tion one, or as many as you can, of “ these plainest facts 1 have wilfully per- 
 verted ;” state, that the public may see them, “ the most extravagant things” 
 I have uttered ; and point_out the instances in which “ I have blundered on in 
 the most reckless manner.” ‘ The good people of Aberdeen” will believe noth= . 
 ing bad of me on your word, until you establish your assertions by proof. I lay no 
 claim to infallibility. I may have unintentionally fallen into errors, which I 
 will thank you to point out, as I am ignorant of them. But when you go be- 
 yond the province of man’s judgment, and declare that ‘ I will pervert the 
 plainest facts,’ and that I have been guilty “ of gross and wilful misrepresen- 
 tation,” I appeal from your judgment, and from that of men whether good or 
 bad, to that of Him who will judge righteously between you and me; and, as 
 in His sight, I sclemnly declare that I have not knowingly or wilfully perverted 
 one single fact connected with this controversy. ¥ 
 
 That “ the good people of Aberdeen” may have an opportunity of judging of 
 my knowledge “ of the real state of facts” connected with this controversy, I 
 shall confront your testimony with that of men to whom they will give implicit 
 credit, as they know them to be deserving of it.—In the Sixteenth Report of 
 the Aberdeen Auxiliary Bible Society, in the Appendix, under Note E, the 
 following passage occurs :—‘ The Aberdeen Auxiliary Bible Society have come 
 to the resolution to adhere to the Parent Society, not in consequence of their 
 being not so well informed as those who have separated from them, but in con- 
 sequence of their being better informed. They have waited till they have 
 heard and become acquainted with both sides of the question; and though they 
 all along felt determined to oppose what appeared to them wrong, they were not. 
 so led away as to be incapable of judging candidly when that error was cor- 
 rected ; and as to late objections, the defence and explanations have to 
 them satisfactory. Those especially who have taken the lead, have been at 
 pains to become well acquainted with the real state of facts.”—I feel warranted in 
 applying the last sentence of this quotation, at least in part, to myself, as I 
 extemporaneously made and moved the motions in our Committee, which 
 were carried against separation from the Parent Society, and was certainly a~ 
 mongst those who took the lead. Now, the testimony which I have quoted, 
 (sanctioned by the Committee) respecting my knowledge, and that of those ~ 
 who took the lead along with me, ‘ of the real state of facts” inthis contros 
 versy, is that of the Reverend John Brown, of St. Paul’s; the Reverend 
 James Foote, of the East Church; and the Reverend Henry Angus, of the 
 Secession ;—and having their testimony in my favour, 1 am contented to be 
 known by your testimony as ‘a reckless blunderer.” Indeed, the members of 
 our Committee in general, who were for adhering to the Parent Society, and 
 the three’Secretaries in particular, had made themselves’ well “ acquainted with 
 both sides of the question” previous to the day of deciding. But the Secre- 
 taries, from an over-delicacy, as viewing themselves the servants of the Society; 
 took little or no share in the discussions in the Committee, except in giving 
 their votes. ‘They seemed to wish that all the members should come toa de- 
 cision, as they had done themselves, after. due and dispassionate examination, 
 and that truth and the real facts of the case should secure a majority, and not 
 the weight of personal character and influence. But when once theSociety had 
 decided, they stepped manfully forward to oppose those who sought, without 
 
13 
 
 the slightest previous warning, to overturn, in a moment, the decision which, 
 ‘after so much time for investigation, had been solemnly come to, and which 
 the gentlemen who separated would have forced on the Society at a much ear- 
 lier period, had not their many attempts to effect this been checked in the Com- 
 mittee, by those who were anxious that every member should have full time to 
 come to an enlightened decision. 
 
 I now proceed to notice your accusation respecting Scio’s Bible. 
 
 “ At the meeting on Thursday, having a willing audience, and nobody that could 
 contradict him, he was pleased to give an account of the Spanish Bible which Dr. 
 Thomson exhibited in the Assembly Rooms, Edinburgh, last July, totally inconsistent 
 with truth. Speaking on this subject, he said, ‘ He that leads and guides you did 
 not tell you that it was printed five years ago.’ Now, Mr. Spence, in holding such | 
 language, was not honest. He means to insinuate that Dr. Thomson concealed the 
 real fact from those whom he addressed. His insinuation is nottrue. Dr. Thomson 
 did not introduce the subject of Scio’s Bible to prove or to convey the impression that 
 the London Committee had, by printing it, violated their resolutions of 1826. The 
 substance of what he said was this: and let the Rev. Mr. Spence, Independent Minis- 
 ter in Aberdeen, refute the argument, or disprove the fact, if he can ; and, if he cannot, 
 let him be ashamed of his gross and wilful misrepresentation.”’ 
 
 Now, Sir, these strictures are partly true, but, in the main points, they are 
 utterly untrue. It is true, that I had ‘‘a willing,” and, I will add, as respectable 
 an audience as ever was assembled on a similar occasion in Aberdeen. It is 
 true also, that nobody could contradict me: for although several gentlemen of 
 the Committee of the opposition Society were present, they heard me speak 
 nothing but truth. Of the Bible to which you refer, I spake nothing. I knew 
 not that you had exhibited Scio’s Bible in the Assembly Rooms, Edinburgh. 
 The whole, therefore, of what you charge me with concerning it falls to the 
 ground. If your reporter sent you an account of my whole speech, why have 
 you torn a few'words from their connexion in different parts, and not given 
 one complete sentence? And ifhe sent you only such broken scraps as you have 
 given, why did youinsert them? Was this candid, manly, or honest? If you 
 wish to exercise your gifts in criticising my speech, and overthrowing the state- 
 ments it contains, it is at your service. You have only to say that you will in- 
 sert-the whole of it without alteration or mutilation, (to which you are exces- 
 sively addicted), and in such a size of type as you print your own lucubrations, 
 that people may be able to read it, and 1 shall furnish you with a copy, word for 
 word, as I read it: which I did, because it was chiefly written on the day of the 
 ‘meeting, the ink not being dry when I left my own house to deliver it. This, 
 however, is a fortunate circumstance, as it puts it out of your power to pervert 
 it, and to maintain concerning me,.(as you have done of others, while you, cow- 
 ard-like, refused to give the names of your reporters), that I said what I did not 
 say. I mentioned not Scio’s Spanish Bible, but the Gaelic Bible, two copies of 
 which, having the Spanish Apocrypha inserted by mistake, were sent down by 
 the London Committee to Inverness or its neighbourhood. And in reference 
 to this Bible I said, “‘ An impression has been made that the resolutions of 
 1826 and 27 have been violated. We have been personally asked, ‘ How.can 
 you depend on the London Committee now? They promised to destroy their 
 Apocrypha plates, and to tear out all the Apocryphas which were in the Bibles in 
 their stores, hoth at home and abroad, and yet you see they are issuing Apocrypha 
 Bibles still” Tine best answer to this is,—The person who leads and guides 
 you, when he informed you of this fact, forgot to tell you, that the said Bible 
 was printed five years ago, and issued previous to the period to which you refer.” 
 
 Now, what has “ the mild, candid, honest Dr. Thomson,” got to say to this 
 statement? Can he deny that such an impression was made? If he does so, 
 his own friends here will bear witness against him. They most diligently and 
 with their usual zeal did all they could to produce and spread the impression, 
 and firmly believed when doing so, that they were bearing no false witness 
 against the London Committee. It was one of the best informed of the Com- 
 
 i c 
 
7 
 
 mittee of the opposition Bible Society here who addressed me, in substance, ag 
 I have stated. And I have it on the authority of two members of the Com= 
 mittee of the Buchan Bible Society, that James Ferguson, Esq. (the Viee-Pre+ 
 sident of the opposition Society here), affirmed in their Committee that the 
 London Committee had violated the resolutions of 1826, by issuing “ the 
 Gaelic Bible” referred to! Now, Sir, when the leaders had this éssion, was 
 it any wonder that their followers had it? 1 stated that such an impression had 
 been made. This was true. I stated, that the person who led them had for- 
 gotten, (and this was the most charitable supposition the case admitted), to tell 
 them when the said Bible was printed and issued. This was also true ; for if 
 they had been informed on these points, they never could have fallen imto so 
 gross an error. Let these gentlemen state who misled them. 1 do not say, 1 
 did not say, it was you; but I now say, that you have, at various public meet- 
 ings, given an account of “ the Gaelic Bible” which was defiled “ by a great 
 blaud of the Spanish Apocrypha,” without mentioning “ the real facts,’—that 
 it was printed and issued previous to the resolutions of 1826. 
 
 The following is Mr. M‘Neil’s statement in reference to this part of your con= 
 duct, in the public meeting in Elgin :— 
 
 14 
 
 “¢ Tt will be recollected, that the story about ‘ the Gaelic Bible with the Spanish 
 Apocryphas,’ was related to the meeting on the 10th instant asa recent thing. ‘The 
 greater part of the meeting, I dare say, imagined that it had occurred only a few 
 months ago, and that the two copics so found had been among thie last packages of 
 Bibles sent to the Highlands. I should like to know, Sir, if the omission of the date 
 was by accident or design ?” 
 
 Now, that you have misled your adherents in this and in many other in= 
 stances is too notorious to be denied ; and the only alternatives left you to choose 
 are, either that your statements, from “ accident or design,” are fitted to mis- 
 lead, or that your admirers are excessively dull of comprehension, and misun= 
 derstand your meaning. : 
 
 I have done with the Gaelic Bible ; and doubt not but you will say, as in 
 other ‘cases, that your account “ was in the main correct and true.”"—Now, then, 
 what has the mild, candid, honest Mr. Spence got to say in “ reply to such an 
 argument” as you have brought forward in reference to De Sacy’s and Scio’s 
 Bible? My mildness, candour, and honesty, will not permit me, aftera dispas- 
 sionate examination of the subject, to join issue with you, in holding the conduct 
 of the London Committee on these points an unanswerable proof of their ‘‘‘dis- 
 honesty and hypocrisy.” For what are your facts and your arguments by which 
 you attempt to substantiate this charge? I shall state them in their order.— 
 And, first, let us examine your “‘ fact and argument’ respecting DeSacy’s Bible. 
 That “ the good people of Aberdeen” may see the unenviable position in which 
 you stand in reference to this matter, 1 shall place you in a 
 
 PILLORY OF DOUBLE COLUMNS. 
 
 Dr. Thomson's Statement in 1826, respect- Dr. Thomson’s ‘* Fact and Argument” 
 
 ing the London Committee’s view of the 
 Original Law; and his own view and 
 that of the Edinburgh Committee respect- 
 ing the Resolution of August, 1822-— 
 Extracted from Second Edinburgh State- 
 ment, pp. 79, 80, 81, and 100. 
 
 *¢ Now, let it be recollected, that the Com- 
 mittee’s attention had been called to this 
 topic in the year 1821, and that it had 
 been considered by them frequently, and 
 argued at great length, and then let any 
 man say, if it be possible that the conclu- 
 sion to which they came at length, does 
 not evince an utter repugnancy to the idea 
 
 respecting De Sacy’s Bible ; or his State- 
 ment in 1828 respecting the London 
 Commiltee’s view of the Original Law, 
 and of the Resolution of August, 1822.— 
 Extracted from the Edinburgh Christia 
 Instructor for October, p. 723. : 
 
 «« We are called upon ‘to trust in tlie 
 resolutions of 1826. I say, we cannot do 
 so, unless there be a Committee of new 
 and honest men to execute them. For, in 
 the first place, the original law was in the 
 conviction and by the acknowledgment of 
 the Committee altogether exclusive of Apo- 
 cryphal adulteration, and yet in contempt 
 
15 
 
 of abstaining from the circulation of the of it they proceeded to circulate the Apo- 
 Apocrypha, After all their deliberations, crypha! In the second place, they passed 
 ” they have no settled conviction themselves a resolution in August, 1822, declaring it 
 that the fundamental. rule of the Society to be the ascertained meaning of the So- 
 limits the application of its funds to the ciety’s law, as interpreted by the great 
 circulation of the Bible: for if such had body of the members, that from the very 
 been their conviction, they would surely beginning it prohibited the circulation of 
 have stated it to be so. They only admit, the Apocrypha; and yet they immediately 
 or at least “it appears” they say, “ that sent over to France a great number of De 
 this view of the said rule has been taken Sacy’s Bible with an interspersed Apocry- 
 from the beginning by the great body of pha, and employed M. Lessignol for more 
 the members.” That fhe majority of their than two years in circulating it, and paid 
 own number thought otherwise is evident. him for his services in that unlawful 
 Ifthey were persuaded, which they certain- work !!”’ 
 
 ly were not, that the fundamental rule of 
 
 the Society limits the application of its 
 
 funds to the circulation of the Holy Scrip- 
 
 tures, then they contradicted their own 
 
 views. Individual members of the Com- 
 
 Mittee were dissatisfied with it, (the reso- 
 
 lution), not deeming it sufficiently expli- 
 
 cit, but conceiving that it left the evil é 
 pretty much where it was before. They 
 
 were in the right. It is a curious fact, 
 
 that in the resolution of August, 1822, 
 
 they did refer to the fundamental law of 
 
 the Society. ‘They referred to it, however, 
 
 not for the purpose of confessing their own 
 
 conviction that it excluded the Apocrypha. 
 
 This they most carefully avoided. They 
 
 referred to it in the way of stating merely 
 
 that this view was taken from the begin- 
 
 ning by the great body of the members. 
 
 ‘They would not on that ground give up 
 
 their hold of the uncanonical books. And 
 
 even the avowal they made in behalf of the 
 
 members was withdrawn on the 7th March, 
 
 1825, when the resolution of August, 1822, 
 
 along with others, was formally rescinded.”’ 
 
 Now, Sir, look at these double columns, the work of your own pen, and sce 
 how grossly and shamefully you have given yourself the lie!!_ In striving to 
 vilify the London Committee, and to prove them guilty of dishonesty and hy- 
 pocrisy,”’ you have failed ; but you have involved yourself in the charge, and 
 made it recoil on your own head ; nor can all your dexterity and sophistry ex- 
 tricate you from the deeply-degraded situation in which you are placed, by being 
 exhibited in my Pillory of Double Columns ! ! 
 
 The Edinburgh Committee, and the Edinburgh Society, and yourself, are all 
 arrayed against you; and tell you, that your charge “ of dishonesty and hypo- 
 crisy, in reference to the original law, and the resolution of August, 1822, as 
 made in the Instructor, is false. They tell you, that the original law was not, 
 in the conviction and by the acknowledgment of the London Committee, alto- 
 gether exclusive of Apocryphal adulteration ; and that “ they certainly were not 
 persuaded that it limits the application of the funds to the circulation of the Holy 
 Scriptures.” They tell you, that the resolution of August, 1822, so far from 
 renouncing the course which had been so obnoxious, “ evinced an utter repug= 
 nancy to the idea of abstaining from the circulation of the Apocrypha, and left the 
 evil pretty much where it wus before.” 1 call upon you, Sir, to repel, if it be 
 possible, the charge of “ dishonesty and hypocrisy” which is thus brought home 
 to yourself. Is it to be endured, that you should attempt to deceive “ the good 
 people of Aberdeen” into the belief, that the London Committee circulated the 
 
 ‘ c 2 
 
16 
 
 Apocrypha in contempt of their conviction and acknowledgment that the original 
 law altogether excluded it, while you are conscious, and have reiteratedly stated, 
 that the reverse is the truth? If you will not believe your own testimony, even 
 when extracted from that document, “ a line of which, when dying, you wot 
 
 not wish to blot,” I know not whose testimony you will admit; a it is cer- 
 tain you cannot admit your own on this point, if there be the slightest remain- 
 ing honour in your mind, without feeling burning shame. ’ 
 
 The resolution of August 19, 1822, was as follows :— 
 
 “« Resolved, that when grants shall be made to any of the Bible Societies in con- 
 nexion with this Institution, which are accustomed to circulate the Apocrypha, it be 
 stated to such Societies, that the attention of the Committee having been called to the 
 fundamental rule of the Society, as limiting the application of its funds to the circula- 
 tion of the Holy Scriptures; and it appearing that this view of the said rule has been 
 taken from the beginning by the great body of its members ; the Committee, anxious on 
 the one hand to keep entire good faith with all the members of the Society, and on the 
 other, to maintain unimpaired the friendly intercourse it has had the happiness so long 
 to hold with Bible Societies which circulate books esteemed Apoeryphal in this coun- 
 try, request of those Societies, that they will appropriate all future grants which they 
 may receive from the British and Foreign Bible Society, exclusively to the printing of 
 the books of the Old and New Testament, as generally received in this country ; such 
 Societies remaining at full liberty to apply their own funds in whatever way, as to the 
 printing and circulation of the Apocrypha, it may seem good to them.” 
 
 I beg “ the good people of Aberdeen’’ to notice 
 
 1. That this resolution says nothing respecting De Saey’s Bible, which was 
 then printed, and in the depository of the Society ready for cireulation. 
 
 2. That by this resolution the Committee neither resolved nor intended to 
 retract grants already made to Foreign Societies who circulated Apoeryphal 
 Bibles, but merely to regulate their future money-gtants to such Societies, 
 which seems its only object. 
 
 3. That the Committee do not admit by this resolution, “ that it was the 
 ascertained meaning of the Society’s law, as interpreted by the great body of 
 the members, that from the very beginning it prohibited the circulation of the 
 Apocrypha,” but only that “it appeared so ;” doubtless from the representa- 
 tions made to them by Robert Haldane, Esq. and others, into the truth of which 
 they had not then examined. : 
 
 4. That if it had been fully ascertained that the great body of the mentbers 
 did view the original law as excluding Apocryphal circulation, yet it is evident 
 that the Committee thought otherwise, as did also a very considerable number 
 of the members of the Society, many of whom were persons of great influence. 
 
 5. That this resolution was one of mere expediency, and not entered into 
 from a conviction that their laws required it; and, therefore, if their views of 
 the expediency of the measure had altered, they would have been at liberty to 
 rescind this resolution, and bestow grants of money as formerly, without ex- 
 posing themselves to the charge of ‘‘ dishonesty or hypocrisy.” 
 
 I freely admit, that the Committee were in error respecting the meaning of 
 the original law; and that the resolution of August, 1822, was quite unsatis- 
 factory. But, though these were good reasons why we should refuse our sup- 
 port until a reformation was effected, they afford us no ground for charging 
 them with “ dishonesty and hypocrisy.” Had they declared their conviction of 
 the original law to be as you have stated in the Instructor; had their resolution 
 of August, 1822, ‘* evinced an utter repugnancy to Apocryphal circulation ;” 
 had they engaged to circulate no copies of De Sacy’s Bible which were then in 
 their stores, and to print and circulate no such Bibles in future, and yet done 
 so in violation of all these things, then your ‘‘ fact and your argument” would 
 tell against the London Committee; but as they did none of these things, your 
 “* fact and argument” fell only against yourself. 
 
 You, Sir,’ were fully aware both of the violation of the original law, and the — 
 circulation of De Sacy’s Bible, after the resolution of August, 1822, previous 
 
1% 
 
 4o writing the Third Edinburgh Statement—for both these facts are noticed in 
 that publication. And yet, what is your testimony in that Statement of those 
 ‘of the London Committee “ who have all along ‘ abominated’ the Apocrypha, 
 and have yet been active in circulating it ;” and concerning whose case you add, 
 “¢ This may perhaps be considered as the very worst of all the cases with which 
 ‘we have to do:” for you allow, “ If a man believes the Apocrypha to be either 
 oe good or negatively harmless, we can easily see how he has been mis- 
 ed without any compromise of sound principle.” 
 
 - If I ask you, then, (concerning those who were in “ the worst of all the 
 cases” in the London Committee), Did they hold the Apocrypha canonical or 
 inspired? In the Third Statement you reply, “‘ We have access to know that 
 many * of them dohold the Apocrypha in utter detestation—they account tt pro- 
 fane and blasphemous—they wish it were given ‘TO THE MOLES AND TO THE 
 BATS,’ and consigned to outer darkness for ever.’ If I ask you, What could be 
 their design for circulating so base a production? You reply, “ We grant that 
 their design was lauduble—it was to get a more extensive spread for the Divine 
 Oracles.’ If I ask you, Did they sin ignorantly or knowingly? Youreply, 
 * We grant that they were not immediately conscious of committing an act o 
 moral transgression. If {ask you, Did they deem it lawful to do evil that 
 good may come?” You reply, “ We grant, that so far from formally admitting 
 the maxim of ‘ DOING EVIL THAT GOOD MAY COME,’ they regard it with as 
 much aversion as they regard the Apocrypha ttself.” 
 
 Now, it is true, that in the same section in which you make these admissions, 
 (and no one will blame you with making admissions in favour of the London 
 Committee for which there is not good ground), you declare, that you cannot 
 account for the conduct of the man who abominates the Apocrypha, and yet 
 agrees to circulate it, ‘ even by itself, and much more in company with the 
 Word of God, by any hypothesis that leaves him untouched as a trust-worthy 
 agent in the circulation of the Bible.’ But your own hypothesis, above given 
 satisfies me and thousands more. We believe, with you, that these men “ were 
 not conscious of committing an act of moral transgression,” and that they did 
 not intentionally do evil that good might come ; therefore, we cannot agree with 
 you in condemning them as guilty of “ hypocrisy and dishonesty.” Your ad- 
 missions and arguments, as in most other cases, are totally at variance, and de- 
 stroy each other. If you would shake our confidence in the trust-worthiness of 
 the London Committee, and bring them in guilty of “ hypocrisy and of dis- 
 honesty,” you must prove that they were conscious of committing an act of moral 
 transgression, and that they were sensible of doing evil that good might come; 
 and not that they erred and committed a most fearful sin (which we admit) 
 through false and mistaken views of expediency, in order ‘‘ to get a more ex- 
 tensive spread for the Divine Oracles. 
 
 I proceed to examine your remaining facts and argument, in proof of the 
 < hypoerisy and dishonesty” of the London Committee, in reference to Scio’s 
 Bible. And that your position in this matter also may be seen at once, I shall 
 again place you in a 
 
 PILLORY OF DOUBLE COLUMNS. 
 
 Dr. Thomson’s Statement in 1826, respect- 
 ing the Resolutions of December, 1824, 
 and April, 1825, as given in the Second 
 Edinburgh Statement, pp. 83, 84, 90, 
 and 91. 
 
 « Now, it must not be forgotten, that 
 the resolution just quoted (of Dec. 1824) 
 was not passed till after discussions, deli- 
 berations, and debates, carried on for more 
 than three years; that it was formed by 
 one of the most crowded meetings of the 
 
 Dr. Thomson’s Statement in the Edinburgh 
 Christian Instructor for October, 1828, 
 respecting the Resolutions of Dec. 1824, 
 and April, 1825, p. 723. 
 
 ‘¢ And, in the third place, the Commit- 
 tee, in Dec. 1824, passed another resolu- 
 tion, declaring that they were to expend 
 no money in printing or publishing inter- 
 Spersed or mixed Apocryphas; and, in 
 April, 1825, passed a third resolution, still 
 
 * The word many includes all the gentlemen of the London Committee who “ were in 
 the worst of all the cases.”” 
 
18 ss 
 
 Committee ; that it was suggested by the 
 Noble President himself; and that it was 
 adopted without an opposing or dissenting 
 oice, And after all, to what did it 
 amount? Why, in the first place, its whole 
 subject seems to have been to regulate the 
 money grants of the Society ; it says noth- 
 ing at all about the Bibles printed and 
 circulated by themselves ; and if this was 
 to be the only rule of their proceeding, 
 they left themselves at liberty to disseminate 
 as many as they pleased of the Spanisu, 
 Italian, Portuguese, and French Bibles, 
 
 though they were transmitting them to the 
 Edinburgh Committee to satisfy na 
 they had abandoned the course which 
 been so obnoxious, they put to press, in 
 1823, continued printing during 1824, 
 and issued in the currency of the year 
 1825, an edition of Scio’s Spanish Bible, 
 having the Apocrypha intermixed after the 
 Terentine fashion!!! And, after suchan 
 exhibition of the inefficiency of mere reso- 
 lutions, and of the hypocrisy and disho- 
 
 nesty of the London Committee, can you © 
 put confidence in their fidelity to the re- 
 solutions of 1826, or to any resolutions — 
 whatever which may be framed, when you — 
 have such men to administer and execute — 
 them? Impossible; unless you mean to — 
 act here as you would act in no other — 
 case, and place the more reliance upon — 
 men the more manifestations that they give — 
 you of their want of integrity.” 
 
 containing the Apocrypha interspersed, 
 which they printed in 1819. And then, in 
 the second place, it evidently denied its 
 money grants for such Bibles on/y as have 
 the Apocrypha mized and interspersed with 
 the Canonical Books. 
 
 Surely the one (the resolution of April, 
 1825) now quoted, has nothing to recom- 
 mend it as preferable to any that had gone 
 before it. It is pervaded by two capital 
 faults, which seem to combine all that was 
 bad in all the previous resolutions with 
 which from time to time we had been fa- 
 youred In the first place, it gives grants 
 of canonical Books only, but then it gives 
 the Foreign Societies permission, in the 
 plainest manner, to bind up the Apocry- 
 phal Books in the same volume, and thus 
 to circulate a corrupted Bible in the name 
 of the British and Foreign Bible Society. 
 And, in the second place, it lays no restric- 
 tions at all on grants of money.” 
 
 You inform us, referring to what is stated in this and the foregoing column 
 of the right hand side, commencing page 14, “‘ This is what Dr. Thomson ad- — 
 vanced respecting Scio’s Bible, in the Assembly Rooms, Edinburgh, last July.” 
 Wasit? Then I say, it was a great shame to you to make such a statement— 
 for it was “ totally inconsistent with truth,” and undeservedly giving yourself — 
 and the Edinburgh Committee the lie, as is manifest from the opposite columns 
 on the left hand side! When you add, “ The copy which he, (Dr. Thomson), 
 showed, was purchased from the Society’s Officers LESS THAN THREE YEARS 
 aco; Ireply, The exact time when the copy which you showed was pur- 
 chased is of no consequence whatever, seeing it was purchased previous to the 
 resolutions of 1826. vo 
 
 Here again, then, Sir, your attempt to cover the London Committee with the 
 infamy of “ hypocrisy and dishonesty” fails, and this infamy falls on yourself. 
 The pit which you digged for others into it you have fallen, nor by any nimble-— 
 ness can you escape. Fixep in my Pillory of Double Columns you must remain, 
 and bear your disgrace as you best may! Both statements cannot be true— 
 they are directly at variance. One of them must be blotted out as a foul ca~ 
 lumny, and that one is the Christian Instructor column, which is condemned 
 by yourself, and by the Edinburgh Committee and Society. It will not avail 
 you to say that you have changed your mind, for you have trumpeted forth the 
 praises of the Second Statement until the present moment, and never once hint- 
 ed that there was any error in its facts or reasonings. I must again in 
 you of your declaration, “ that one line of it, when dying, you would not wish 10 
 blot.” Nor can 1 help remarking, that if you had no design to mislead the 
 readers of your Instructor, your order in stating your facts in this ease should 
 
 . 
 
19 
 
 | have been reversed. The just and natural way would have been, “ that Scio’s 
 | Bible was put to press in 1823, printed in the course of 1823 and 1824, and is- 
 sued in 1825 ; and that the Committee, 20th December, 1824, and 9th April, 
 1825, after said Bible was printed, resolved to expend no more money in print- 
 ing or publishing interspersed or mixed Apocryphas.” But, from whatever 
 motive, in all your numerous statements on this subject which I have seen, 
 (with one exception *), you have placed the resolutions of December, 1824, 
 and of April, 1825, in the front, asif they had preceded, and not been ‘posterior 
 to the printing of Scio’s Bible, and as if that transaction had been a plain and 
 palpable violation of them. 
 I shall now quote these resolutions, and adduce ‘some more facts and argu- 
 ments from your Second Statement, to show, that though the London Committee 
 erred, they were neither guilty of « hypocrisy nor dishonesty.” 
 
 20th Dec. 1824.—‘* Resolved, That no pecuniary grants be made by the Commit- 
 tee of this Society, for the purpose of aiding the printing or publishing of any edition 
 of the Bible in which the Apocrypha shall be mixed and interspersed with the Canoni- 
 cal Books of the Holy Scriptures: and that grants of money to Foreign Societies 
 which are accustomed to publish Bibles containing the Apocrypha, but separate and 
 distinct from the Canonical Books, be made under an express stipulation, and the as- 
 surance of the parties receiving the same, that such grants shall be exclusively applied 
 to printing and publishing the Canonical Books only.”’ 
 
 9th April, 1825.—‘ Resolved, That it be recommended to the General Committee 
 not to print or circulate the Apocryphal Books ; and at the same time to use their best 
 endeavours to aid the circulation of the Inspired Volume in all foreign countries, by 
 grants of the Canonical Books, in whole or in part, without interfering with the future 
 distribution of the same, whether with or without the Apocryphal Books.” 
 
 “« At a Meeting of the General Committee, specially summoned to receive the 
 Report of the Special Committee, the above Resolution was considered and adopted.” 
 (Second Statement, pp. 83 and 90.) 
 
 Let “ the good people of Aberdeen” notice— 
 
 1. That I agree with Dr. Thomson and the Edinburgh Committee in their 
 views of the first of these resolutions; that its whole subject was to regulate 
 money grants; that it says nothing at all about the Bibles printed and circu- 
 lated by themselves; and that it left them at liberty to disseminate as many of 
 Scio’s Spanish Bible, and other Bibles of a similar kind, as they pleased. 
 
 2. That the resolution of August, 1822, says nothing of the Bibles printed 
 and published by themselves, any more than this resolution, and, therefore, left 
 them at equal liberty on this point: for, if the one resolution left them at liberty 
 to print and circulate Scio’s Bible, so did the other. 
 
 3. That I agree with Dr. Thomson and the Edinburgh Committee in think- 
 
 * The exception I refer to is Dr. Thomson’s Letter to “‘ Audi Alteram Partem,” in 
 the Greenock Advertiser for 10th October last. This Letter corresponds with the 
 Christian Instructor, and is at utter variance with the Second Statement. It proves, 
 that the fundamental law, ‘‘ as understood and explained by themselves, (the London 
 Committee), excluded the circulation of the Apocrypha.” But, gentle Reader, how ? 
 In the same way as Dr. Thomson proved in Aberdeen that the English Congregation- 
 alists “‘ were almost to a man friendly to Apocrypha circulation,” because he was pleased 
 ‘to assert that four individuals connected with that body were so. The Doctor had, 
 however, stated the contrary to be the fact in his Christian Instructor; and, therefore, 
 when his challenge was accepted, and his memory refreshed by a sight of his own words 
 tm the Aberdeen Journal, he was compelled to silence—he could not fight with himself— 
 he could give “ no answer.”’ Just so does he prove his point in this case. He men- 
 tions six individuals, most of whom, he says, assisted in framing the original law, and 
 understood it so. Therefore, all the London Committee did'so; and understood the 
 phrase, ‘* Holy Scriptures,” to be always exclusive of Apocrypha circulation, and never 
 applied to Bibles containing the Apocrypha!!! This reasoning may do with the Doc- 
 tor’s admirers, but it will not pass current among ‘‘ the good people of Aberdeen. ”»— 
 There is much reasoning in the Letter equally sound and logical. 
 
 4 
 
20 7 
 
 ing, that “ ifthey (the London Committee) were really convinced (which they 
 ' certainly were) that the circulation of the Apocrypha was innocent in itself, and 
 essential to the success of the Bible Society abroad, they could not be concei 
 capable of relinquishing that practice for the purpose of satisfying any bo. 
 complainers, or of answering any inferior end whatever.’’—(Second Statement, 
 page 98. iW ere, 
 4 That the second of these resolutions gives no intimation of a design to tear 
 the Apocrypha from the Bibles which were already printed, (which was the 
 case with Scio’s) or of preventing their circulation, but must in all fairness be 
 considered as applying only to Bibles that might be printed in all time coming.* 
 From the above statements it therefore follows, that the printing and cinemas 
 tion of Scio’s Bible violated neither the resolutions of August, 1822, of December, 
 1824, nor of April, 1825. I am aware, that persons unacquainted with the his- 
 tory of this controversy, may think that you and the Edinburgh Committee in- 
 terpreted these resolutions unfairly ; but, in my view, it was impossible for 
 you; consistently with candour or justice, to interpret them in any other way 
 than you did; namely, as leaving an opening for Apocryphal circulation.— 
 You had expressly requested the London Committee “ to transmit to you a di- 
 rect answer to the question, Whether they considered themselves warranted, by 
 the original and fundamental rule, to aAiD IN ANY WAY WHATEVER the circu- 
 lation of the Apocrypha?” The London Committee never would admit that the 
 original law prevented them from circulating the Apocrypha; and the whole of 
 their resolutions on this subject were only a modification of their “‘ obnoxious 
 course,” with a view to please, but which always left them an opening for Apo- 
 cryphal circulation. Instead of attempting in this matter to deceive the Edin-~ 
 burgh Committee, they no sooner retracted any advances they had made to- 
 wards a purer practice, than they gave them information. Any one may sa= 
 tisfy himself of the truth of this remark, by reading the Second Edinburgh 
 Statement. Had the London Committee wished to deceive, they could, had 
 they been dishonest hypocrites, have confessed their deep sorrow for having 
 knowingly violated the original law, and promised to abide by it in future.— 
 This would have put an end to the controversy at once. But, being men of 
 principle, they never made such a confession, because it would have been con- 
 trary to truth ; nor did they ever give a promise that they would abstain “ from 
 aiding in any way whatever Apocrypha circulation,” until 1826. : 
 The Edinburgh Committee, in their Second Statement, bear me fully out in 
 what I have advanced respecting the fundamental law, and the resolutions of 
 August, 1822, Dec. 1824, and April, 1825.—Concerning the fundamental law 
 of the Society, they tell us, that the London Committee “ had no settled con- 
 viction that 17 Limits the application of its funds to the circulation of the Bible 5” 
 and “that they certainly were not persuaded that zt limits the igen of the 
 funds to the circulation of the Holy Scriptures.”—Concerning the resolution of 
 August, 1822, they tell us, that “ zt evinces an utter repugnancy to the idea of 
 abstaining from the circulation of the Apocrypha.” —Concerning the resolution of 
 December, 1824, they tell us, that “ they /eft themselves at liberty to disseminate as 
 many as they pleased of the Spanisu, Italian, Portuguese, and French Bibles, 
 containing the Apocrypha interspersed ; and that “ we discover in it the same 
 
 * The printing of Scio’s Bible was finished, according to Dr. Thomson's testimony, 
 in. the year 1824; and the first of these resolutions was of date 20th Dec. of the same 
 year. Butif the printing of it had not been finished even in April, 1825, this would 
 not at all affect the argument, or involve the London Committee in the guilt of “ dis- 
 honesty and hypocrisy.” Had they aided in printing, or printed themselves, any new 
 edition of Scio’s Bible, or any similar Bible, after passing these resolutions, their guilt 
 would have been manifest ; but the resolution to print Scio’s Bible was of a much 
 earlier date, as that Bible was put to press in 1823; and the resolutions of Dec. 1824, 
 and of April, 1825, plainly refer to the Committee's intentions respecting their deter- 
 mination to print no such Bibles in future. This is so obvious, that I cannot persuade 
 myself Dr, Thomson is so dull as not to have perceived it from the very first. The more 
 awful, therefore, is his guilt, in attempting to fasten “ dishonesty and hypocrisy” on 
 
 the London Committee on account of this transaction. 7 
 
21 
 
 leaning towards it, (the Apocrypha), and the same inclination to muke use of it 
 as an auziliary for spreading the Scriptures, which, during the space of eleven 
 years, had led them to mix it, or to conjoin it, with Bibles, in spite of a fundamen- 
 tal law of the Society.” And concerning the Resolution.of April, 1825, they tell 
 us, that it “‘ has nothing to recommend it as preferable to any that had gone 
 before tt ;” and that “ there was oNE THING in which they (the London Com- 
 mittee) never vacillated—they adhered with unwavering stedfastness to the cir- 
 culation of the Apocrypha. Disagreeing, as they did, we may almost say 
 avowedly, with the great body of the Society upon this momentous subject, and 
 tnterpreting its fundamental law in such a way as flatly to contradict the inter- 
 pretation put upon it by those whose law it was, they would yet persevere in ad- 
 ministering it according to their own notions, and set at defiance every attempt 
 that was made to reclaim them.” 
 
 What need have we of any farther proof than the above extracts (from the 
 Second Edinburgh Statement). written by you, that your account in the Instruc- 
 tor, for October last, in reference to Sciod’s Bible, is destitute even of the shadow 
 of truth. I shall, however, adduce one passage more, respecting the opinion 
 you and the Edinburgh Committee entertain of ‘« the Special Committee of the 
 London Society, who recommended the Resolution which was passed by the 
 Committee, 2ist Nov. 1825, with a view to settle the controversy. 
 
 “* We suppose these to be men who will remain firm to their conscientious opinions ; 
 and it is very much on that account that we hold them most wnfit for the office which was 
 assigned them.”’—(Second Statement, pp. 97, 98.) ; 
 
 Let “ the good people of Aberdeen” mark this testimony which is given in 
 favour of sixteen gentlemen whose names are mentioned ; and among whom 
 were Lord Bexley, Rev. J. W. Cunningham, Rev. William Orme, Rev. Josiah 
 Pratt, Rev. Charles Simeon, Zachary Macauley, Esq., Robert Steven, Esq., the 
 Rev. Andrew Brandram, and the Rev. C. F. A. Steinkopff ; and then let them 
 compare with this what is said of many of the same gentlemen by you in your 
 ‘Instructor, and they must perceive, that no person can be at greater variance 
 with you in this controversy than the Edinburgh Committee, except it be your- 
 self. Here are your worthless men!! Worthless! Why? Because they 
 will remain firm to their conscientious opinions! Here are the men on whom 
 we must place no dependance, and who cannot be trusted! Why? Because 
 you deem them persons of sterling integrity and principle, who will not be 
 moved from what they conceive the path of duty!!! I wish for no better, no 
 truer testimony. I believe a more correct judgment-could not be formed of 
 these gentlemen ; and I cordially agree in your conclusion respecting those of 
 them who were favourable to Apocrypha circulation—that because they were 
 men firmly conscientious, therefore they were most unfit for the office which 
 was assigned them. And why? Because they held an erroneous view of the 
 fundamental law of the Society, and persisted in administering it according to 
 their mistaken notions of its meaning. They thought it wrong to withhold 
 Apocrypha Bibles from those who would not accept of pure Bibles. They 
 thought that the British and Foreign Bible Society would be circumscribed in 
 its usefulness, and its power of exertion crippled, by renouncing Apocryphal 
 circulation ; and, having these views, they persevered in their mistaken career, 
 ‘until the great body of the ministers and people of England connected with the 
 “Society opened their eyes to their error, and compelled them to desist... 
 
 But how opened they their eyes to their error? Do I mean, that they con- 
 vinced them of the sinfulness of circulating the Apocrypha in cases where the 
 Bible would not be received without it? By no means. Some of them, I have 
 no doubt, are so convinced, but others of them, it is highly probable, are not. 
 What then? They convinced them that, by persisting in their obnoxious 
 “course, they would next to annihilate the British and Foreign Bible Society, by 
 making the great body of its members abandon it. They convinced them, that 
 the only end which they had in view in circulating the Apocrypha, namely, to 
 procure-2 wider spread for the Sacred Oracles, could not be gained, but must be 
 
 : D 
 
a 
 
 22 
 
 spirit and moral bearing of God’s Word,” that the Society should withho’ 
 Apocrypha where the Canonical Scriptures ‘ will not be received without it 
 but they never deemed the Society wrong, or acting “ contrary to the 
 spirit and moral bearing of God’s Word,” in giving the pure Bible to all \ 
 would receive it. This is the work they now do exclusively for the Society, an 
 they do it with a good conscience. This was their chief work formerly. We 
 require of them no new work, but abstinence from a work in which we could 
 not conscientiously join. They had no right to reign as lords over our 
 sciences — we have as little, to usurp authority over theirs. .We do 
 they were all, not only almost, but altogether such as we are, in their views of © 
 Apocrypha circulation ; but even of those of the London Committee whose 
 opinion on this point is most opposite to ours, we have just as much and as as- — 
 sured confidence that they will most scrupulously and faithfully abide by the 
 rules, as we have of those of them whose opinion entirely coincides with ours. — 
 In order to union in circulating the pure Bible, there is no need that either 
 they or we should change our views. We meet, we unite, in one grand com- 
 mon principle, which offers offence neither to their nor our consciences. This 
 common principle is, a conviction that it is our duty, as far as our means per- 
 mit, to give the Bible without note or comment, addition or intermixture, to 
 all who will receive it. In subscribing to this object we act according to our 
 consciences ; and in faithfully and exclusively applying our subscriptions to — 
 promote it, the London Committee act according to their consciences, as it in- 
 volves no principle on which they differ either from us or among themselves. 
 That the corrupted Bibles which they formerly cireulated on the Continent 
 Were productive only of unmixed mischief, is.a position which I ean by no — 
 means admit. ‘That they were defiled “ with the train of the Beast’ * I al- 
 low; but did this prevent the Holy Spirit from using the Word ef God for the — 
 purposes of converting sinners or comforting saints? Are falsehood and truth, 
 darkness and light, purity and impurity, the wisdom of man and the wisdom of — 
 God, “< the train of the Beast” and the train of the Spirit, so mingled in the 
 ‘Bibles of the apostate Greek and Roman Churches, that they are only capable 
 of teaching men error, or confirming them in it? This I do not belieye—_ 
 Were even these impure Bibles put into the hands of all the adherents of these 
 ‘corrupt churches, these churches must fall. Dagon could not stand before the 
 "truth of the living God. Those of greatest influence in these churelies are 
 aware of this, and therefore are hostile to the cireulation even of such Bibles. 
 Though there is error, much error, ruinous error, in these Bibles, there is in 
 them, too, the truth, the whole truth, of God. : sitive Seon! 
 Let “ the good people of Aberdeen” remember, then, that there are tens of 
 thousands on the Continent of Europe, and in the immense empire of Russia, 
 who are prevented, by their civil and ecclesiastical rulers, from receiving any 
 other than corrupted Bibles; and let them think of certain members of the 
 Londoti Committee reasoning thus: ‘* These thousands are perishing for lack 
 of knowledge. They have no Bible. They are permitted to accept of no other 
 than a corrupted Bible. If we leave them thus alone, they must perish. If 
 we give them the Bible as their rulers permit them fo receive it, we have rea- 
 son to believe that it will be accompanied with a divine blessing to many, and 
 **save much people alive.” It cannot fill the minds of these people with new 
 error; all the error it contains, and much more, has been already taught them. 
 It cannot destroy their souls, for they are destroyed already, being dead in tres- 
 
 * So the Rev. John Brown, of St. Paul’s, in his Speech, elegantly and justly desig- 
 nated the Apocrypha. (2 oe 
 
] 
 
 23 
 
 passes and sins. We might, indeed, confine our grants to the New Testament ; 
 
 ’ butif we do so, their priests will tell them, that the’ doctrines of their churches 
 which we oppose are all:taught in the Old Testament... We will. therefore give 
 them the whole Bible with the Apocrypha, that they may judge for themselves, 
 as we are persuaded that the Bible, even in its worst form, is able to deliver 
 them from error, (yea, and will deliver many of them), and bring them to the 
 acknowledgment of the truth as it is in Jesus.”—I do not bring forward the 
 gentlemen of the London Committee .as reasoning thus, to justify their reason- 
 ing, or to maintain that itis sound, (for Iam persuaded it is not sound), but 
 merely to show that it would be no great stretch of charity in us to allow that 
 they, and that many other good men might.reason and act thus,.and still ‘ not 
 be conscious of committing an act of moral transgression.” 
 
 I grant, that the London Committee did evil that good might come—but 
 they did it in ignorance. They were not aware of it. They did not. violate 
 conscience—they obeyed it, for their conscience was not enlightened They 
 were not guilty of «dishonesty and hypocrisy,” but acted honestly and up- 
 rightly under mistaken views. ‘Nor is it fair or candid to represent them as 
 committing a new’evil in the earth. They did not adulterate the Bibles of the 
 Greek and Roman Churches, or of the Protestant Churches on the Continent— 
 they were previously adulterated. They circulated these Bibles as they found 
 them. Theirs was not the guilt of originating this evil, but of complying with 
 it, when they should have reformed it. They were not in love with “ Susanna,” 
 nor deyout believers in the story of ‘‘ Bel and the Dragon ;” but they thought 
 it better to circulate such trash along with the Word of God rather than not 
 circulate that Word at all. Their aim was not to circulate such fables, but to 
 spread the Word of God among those who would not receive it without such ac- 
 companiments. 
 
 But some may say, How can we trust the London Committee again, seeing 
 they violated the fundamental law of. the Society, than which no law can more 
 expressly exclude the Apocrypha? That.it does excludethe Apocrypha by im- 
 plication, I admit; but that it excludes it so clearly or expressly as the additional 
 laws, I deny. *Though an inference fairly deduced is as conclusive proof as. the 
 Most positive declaration, yet it is not so readily nor so easily come by. A pro- 
 cess of reasoning either short or long is necessary to reach it. If there should 
 be but one step in that process,—if that one step is incorrect, the inference must 
 beincorrect also. And how often is this the case ?. What is more common than to 
 see men of unquestionable piety and integrity coming to the most opposite con- 
 clusions from the same premises, and ‘acting according to their different views of 
 truth? Should not this teach us charity? Is it beyond credibility that honest 
 men should differ about the meaning of the fundamental law, which declared, 
 
 ~ that “ the sole object (of the Society) shall be, to encourage a wider circulation 
 
 of the Holy Scriptures without note or comment—the only copies in the lan- 
 guages of the United Kingdom to be circulated by the Society, shall be the au- 
 thorised version” Surely not. Fact proves it is not so—for honest men did 
 differ about its meaning. From the part of this law printed in Italics, some 
 of the London Committee and the Cambridge Protesters inferred, ‘ that copies 
 in the languages of foreiyn kingdoms shall be (or at least might be) circulated 
 according to their authorised versions ;” overlooking the previous clause, that 
 the sole object of the Society “ shall be, to encourage. @ wider circulation of 
 the Holy Scripiures,”—and, by consequence, of the Holy Scriptures only in 
 every language. Such a mistake cannot again occur. The meaning of the law 
 is now distinctly recognised, and, should it be violated, nothing can screen its 
 violators from the charge of ‘ dishonesty and hypocrisy.” 
 But it may be said, though the London Committee were not “ guilty of dis- 
 honesty and hypocrisy” in circulating the Apocrypha along with the Word of 
 God, yet they were guilty of tergiversation, or of vaeillating from one side 
 to another, while the matter was in discussion. They misunderstood and 
 violated the original law, and when remonstrated with, they’made slow, re- 
 luctant, and wavering reforms; and all their resolutions’ for modifying and 
 restraining the evil were rescinded, and the door again set wide open for unfet~ 
 D2 
 
24 
 
 tered apocrypha circulation, on their receiving the Cambridge protest: This 
 witness is true.* But let it be remembered, that, with their view of the ori- 
 ginal law, they must have felt themselves at liberty to begin, leave off, and re- - 
 commence apocrypha circulation, just as they deemed it expedient. Their will, 
 on this point, they held to be law. It is not so now. They are bound down 
 to an utter and entire abandonment of apocrypha circulation. Had their reso-— 
 lutions been not only variable, but completely contradictory, had they alternated 
 from month to month, resolving now, to abstain altogether from impure circu- 
 lation, and anon resolving to engage in it, this would have been no proof “of 
 hypocrisy and dishonesty.” This might have taken place without either an apo= 
 cryphist or an anti-apocryphist among them changing his yote. ‘To account for | 
 it, it is not necessary to advert to the hundreds of gentlemen who are entitled 
 by their subscriptions to attend and vote at all the meetings of the Committee, 
 and who sometimes far outnumbered the official members; for the same thing 
 might have happened had none but official members voted. Let us suppose 
 that one-third of the official members only were anti-apoeryphists, and two- 
 thirds of them apocryphists. In a committee meeting, when eighteen were 
 present, if ten of these were anti-apocryphists, they would have out-voted their 
 brethren for that time; but next month an overwhelming majority of the other 
 
 * A Reverend Gentleman stated, at the late Public Meeting of the opposition 
 Bible Seciety, that I had once accused the London Committee of tergiversation ; at the 
 same time he pronounced the word incorrectly, (and mentioned that this was after my 
 peculiar way of pronouncing it), that he might hold me up to ridicule! He adde 
 that, like others, I had changed my mind respecting this charge, having received new 
 light from London and Glasgow. He reminded the Meeting farther, that the charges 
 which he brought against the London Committee, as given, in substance, by me, in the 
 Aberdeen Chronicle, stood to this day all arrayed against them, and all unanswered. 
 The Reverend Gentleman did not mention my name, but plainly alluded to me as pre- 
 sent, and the above is the substance of what he stated. I shall not mention his name, 
 but, with equal plainness, I shall allude to him, in what I have got tosay in reply. 
 
 1, The Reverend Gentleman, though a native of the Highlands, is manifestly des- 
 titute of the second sight / I still accuse the London Committee of tergiversation, and 
 have not changed my mind on this point ; but they have changed their conduct, and va- 
 cillate no more between pure and impure circulation, and therefore I abide by them. 
 
 2. That, considering how much-the Reverend Gentleman heard me speak in our 
 Committee discussions, I would have taken it as a very high compliment, as to the ex- 
 cellency, and correctness of my pronunciation, that he could remember but one word 
 which I pronounced in my peculiar way, had he himself been a competent judge of pro- 
 nunciation. But, unfortunately for me, this is not the case. The great difficulty any — 
 competent judge would have in criticising the Reverend Gentleman’s pronunciation, 
 would be, not to find him pronouncing words in his peculiar way, but to detect him pro- 
 nouncing them out of it, and in the right way //!° ve it 
 
 8. That whatever light I get from London or Glasgow, I give it as London and 
 Glasgow light, and not as my own. I do not correspond with the Rev. Dr, Thomsom 
 and retail his witticisms in my public speeches, as if they were mine/// Was it the 
 Reverend Gentleman who reported my speech to the Christian Instructor? — 
 
 4. Had the columns of the Aberdeen Chronicle been left open to me, I would most 
 assuredly have answered all the Reverend Gentleman’s charges. But the Editor hay= 
 ing declined to insert more, (1 owe him my best thanks for having inserted so much), 
 I did not feel it necessary to incur either trouble or expense in publishing a separate 
 pamphlet to refute them, especially as several powerful ones, (and among others that of 
 Anglicanus), appeared about that time, which sufficiently refuted them, though not exe 
 actly in the way I would have done it—a specimen of which I gave, and, in substance, 
 follow up inthis Letter. I made the authors of the charges refute them themselves! But 
 the Reverend Gentleman stated what was not true, when he said his charges all remained 
 unanswered in the Chronicle. Some of them are answered, and that in such a way as 
 the Rev. Dr. Thomson ¢ould give ‘“ no answer’’ in return: for, notwithstanding his 
 numerous allusions to my articles in his speech, all that he attempted to do in the way 
 of reply was, to place the London Committee in the same predicament in which I had 
 placed him and the Edinburgh Committee!!! These articles were solely written by 
 
25 
 
 side, might have overturned their vote. The number of privileged members 
 certainly greatly increased the liability to such changes. That the Resolutions 
 of the London Committee do bear marks of vacillation, I frankly confess, nor is 
 this to be wondered at, considering how long, and how keenly the controversy 
 was agitated within the walls of Earl Street, and with what eagerness the con- 
 flicting parties were supported by their respective adherents from without. The 
 marvel is, that they.are so consistent and so uniform when the circumstances in 
 which they were framed are taken into account. 
 
 If the Resolutions of the Committee of the Aberdeen Auxiliary Society, and of 
 the Society itself, remain consistent on the subject of this controversy, it is not 
 to be attributed to the gentlemen who have gone out from us, and who now be- 
 long to the opposition and lifting-up testimony Society. Without giving us 
 any previous warning, ‘the lifters” endeavoured more than once, in the inno= 
 cency and simplicity of their zeal, to take us by suRPRIsE, and UPSET Resolutions, 
 which had been come to after long and painful discussions, and in one instance 
 they almost succeeded. Had they succeeded, it would have been no dishonour 
 to us; though their success must have exhibited our Committee (as a Committee) 
 as changeable and _vacillating in their resolves. 
 
 me, and written hurriedly too; but before they were put to press they were sanctioned 
 by several Gentlemen, on whose approval I set a high value. This was the reason 
 why I used the plural ‘* we,’” and subscribed ‘“‘ The Defenders.” I am not ashamed 
 to own any thing I ever wrote on the subject ; and when I write anonymously, I do not 
 use such severity in reproving ‘ dishonesty and hypocrisy,’ as when I append my name. 
 If the Reverend Gentleman, or his friend, Dr. Thomson, will answer these articles, I 
 shall resume the subject. But not a single mistake have they as yet pointed out. 
 
 5. When the Reverend Gentleman next alludes to me in a Public Meeting, let it be 
 when I have an opportunity of replying, and instead of being offended with him, I 
 shall tender him my best thanks.- He and his associates well know, that before their 
 separation from us, I offered, i in open Committee, to meet them any day they chose, to 
 discuss publicly the matters in dispute between us. The Rev. Mr. Stirling must.re= 
 member this. I have not yet lost heart! Whenever I cannot defend Earl Streét, I 
 shall abandon it. _ But at present my invitation to them is— 
 
 *< Come one, come all!—the rock shall fly 
 From its firm base as soon as I!” 
 
 T have no wish to live in error; and if they will enlighten me, and dispel my igno- 
 France on the subject of the Apocrypha controversy, they shall have my warmest grati- 
 tude. _ But before they come, as the fancy would say, to the scratch, I would advise 
 them to submit to a course of training, and at Jeast read one half of what I have read on 
 the subject, and study it as closely in all its bearings, lest, like many more, they should 
 come expecting a triumph, and sustain a defeat. Their ‘‘ unanswerable Statement,” 
 as Dr. Henderson, its author, calls it ;—‘‘ the best procuction on the subject which has 
 yetseen the light,’ as the Rev. Dr. Kidd terms it ;—that precious document, which 
 William Brown, Esq. says, ““ Mr. Gorham wishes preserved”!!! shall be my tezt 
 book when we meet; and I undertake to show that it deserves to lie on the same shelf 
 with the Apocrypha; and that itis a production any thing but creditable tothe know- 
 ledge of its authors, who make such high pretensions to wisdom and piety. Their 
 speeches at the late meeting I shall take up in the second place, and show, that in as far 
 as the facts of the case are concerned, they merita place on the same shelf with their 
 Statement. Their Chairman, at their late meeting, stated, at its opening, ‘ that the 
 business of the meeting would be over in good time, and that any Gentleman would be 
 allowed to speak that pleased.’’ But I waited until half-past ten o’clock, and was 
 then obliged to retire:—having a renewed proof of the pitiful shifts by which they 
 strive to make the public believe that they wish persons would fairly grapple with 
 them, but that none dare come forward to meet them// ‘The time of the Meeting 
 was long and needlessly occupied by William Brown, Esq. reading Mr. Drummond’s 
 printed Letter, (a copy of which every person received on retiring), and making a tedi- 
 ous prosing comment on it: which showed he had not a high opinion of the intellects 
 of his audience, seeing he thought it necessary to append to it his notes and comments, 
 lest they should misunderstand and pervert its meaning. 
 
26 
 
 All.these things show the necessity of having the meaning of the original law’ 
 fixed and recognised. You and the Edinburgh Committee justly observe on 
 this very point, 2d statement, pages 103 and 4; “ By their:own will, they te- 
 solved to circulate the apocrypha—by their own will, they resolve not ‘to cireu- 
 late the apocrypha—and, by their own will, they may alternate these i 
 as long.as they please. Most. desirable, therefore, it is, and most in , 
 thatthey should be taught the lesson that the laws of the Society are paramount 
 to the will of every Committee on every one point on which the Society has 
 passed an enactment. If we allow the Committee, in the present instance, to 
 decree for themselves, without any reference to that rule of the Society which’ 
 they have'so long disobeyed and disregarded, we encourage them in the exercise 
 of'a privilege which they neither have nor ought to have, and we have less than 
 no security for their faithful adherence to the first principle of the Institution. ~ 
 But, if we insist upon their plain and most express recognition of the fundamen- 
 tal law of the Society, so interpreted as to exclude the circulation of every thing . 
 but theinspired volume, then, while it would be at their peril that they contra- _ 
 dicted their own declaratory judgment, and trampled on the statute as acknow= 
 ledged by themselves, WE SHOULD HAVE SOME ASSURANCE ON WHICH WE COULD — 
 DEPEND, THAT THE FUNDS OF THE SOCIETY WOULD NOT BE APPLIED AGAIN 
 TO PURPOSES EQUALLY ILLEGAL AND PERNICIOUS. wail 
 
 ‘Now, Sir, we have “ this most express recognition,” which was so much desi- 
 derated respecting the law ; and, therefore, according to your testimony and — 
 that of the Edinburgh Committee, we have “some assurance on which we can 
 depend,” that our money will be faithfully applied. Our laws are now all that — 
 you can desire, and we need only “ honest men to execute them.” Honest men — 
 we do need, new men we need not ; for I have shown by your .testimony and 
 that of the Edinburgh Committee, that the old are honest!!! O but you have 
 found them out with “ dishonesty and hypocrisy,” sinee, in reference to Scio’s 
 bible. Their guilt in this matter has been your great hobby ever since you 
 made this alleged discovery. You brought it forward at the lastannual meeting 
 of the Edinburgh Society ; in the Christian Instructor for July, for October, an 
 for December last ; m your letter to “* Audi Alteram Partem,” in the 10ck 
 Advertiser of 10th October last ; and in how many letters and speeches besides, — 
 I know not. And yet, at the very moment when you were accusing the London 
 Committee, in the Assembly Rooms, Edinburgh, July last, of hypocrisy and 
 dishonesty, and the utter want of integrity in reference to Scio’s bible, you had 
 not ascertained that that Committee KNEW OF THE TRANSACTION!! And it is 
 highly probable you are in the same ignorance still! ! When giving out “ this 
 affair,” as a new discovery in the Christian Instructor for July last, you say, 
 
 * The Committee as a hody may say they are ignorant of this, if so, the greater 
 is the shame and the pity that they do not know what is transacted in their own 
 premises, and the greater is the necessity for their going back to their once 
 avowed but afterwards abandoned purpose, of investigating thoroughly the con- 
 cealments and other-evil things that had taken place. Mr. Platt may perl 
 furnish them with a theory of this curious affair implicating the dead, that | 
 may exonerate the living. But though the Honorary Librarian’s ingenuity in 
 this way may not be exhausted, we can assure him. that the patience of our Chris- 
 tian public, as to all such flimsy pretexts, is wholly exhausted, and that some- 
 thing more substantial, and honourable, and satisfactory, must be forthcoming 
 on this occasion. Our readers will form their own judgment on this cireum- 
 stance. But they cannot surely fail to recognise in it what destroys confidence, 
 instead of deserving it. The Edinburgh Corresponding Board, indeed, and their 
 friends, with Mr. M‘Neil of Elgin, and Mr. Balfour Graham of North Berwick, 
 -may possibly find in ita very pureand benevolent regard to the bible cause ; and 
 that whine may be echoed from the old auxiliaries of Aberdeen and Glasgow. It 
 must strike every man of sterling principle, however,—aye, of common honour,* 
 as “ evincing,” according to Dr. Wardlaw’s strong and appropriate remarks, when 
 
 * So we are all destitute of sterling principle and common honour /~ How charitable! 
 
27 
 
 speaking, in better times, of the London Committee, ‘a culpable deficiency in 
 the virtues of simplicity and godly sincerity.” , 
 
 Now, Sir, before you accused the London Committee as a body (which you 
 have done) “of dishonesty and hypocrisy” and ‘‘a culpable deficiency in the 
 virtues of simplicity and godly sincerity,” in reference to the printing and circula- 
 tion of Scio’s bible, you ought at least to have been certain that they knew of 
 the transaction ! If they did not know of it, how could their conduct be dishonest, 
 or tend to destroy confidence in their integrity? Or how could we “find in tt 
 avery pure and benevolent regard to the Bible cause” 2 What rashness, injus- 
 tice, and want of candour, to accuse the Committee, as a body, of these crimes, 
 and to maintain that they were guilty of them in a specific transaction, and 
 yet you uncertain all the while if they were privy to it? How would you 
 like to be dealt thus with yourself? How would you reprobate the man 
 who would dare to bring a similar accusation, in similar ignorance, against 
 the Edinburgh Committee? I have, in the preceding part of this Letter, met 
 your accusation as if the London Committee had been aware of the whole affair, 
 and, on this supposition, I have proved, by the Edinburgh Statements, that the 
 transaction does not involve them in the guilt of ‘‘ dishonesty and hypocrisy ;” 
 but if they were utterly ignorant of it, as a body, even if it had been a palpable 
 violation of their Resolutions, it could not have exposed them to this severe 
 charge. I have no wish to screen them as a body, or as individuals, where they, 
 are blameable, but it will “‘ require more logical acumen than falls to your lot” 
 
 ~ to show, that men can evince “ dishonesty and hypocrisy, or a deficiency in the 
 virtues of simplicity and godly sincerity,” in actions of which they have no know= 
 ledge ; of that it is agreeable either to sound reasoning, impartial justice, or ma-= 
 thematical accuracy, to reckon @ purt equal to the whole, and to load <* the Com= 
 Mittee, as a body,” with the alleged guilt of a transaction in which, for aught you 
 know, only a few had a share. 
 
 I might have stated your ignorance on this point as a sufficient answer to 
 your “ fact and your argument,” without entering into any details; but I have 
 done otherwise, that you may have no ground to say that I evaded the accusa- 
 tion, and refused to meet it fairly and fully ; and I now leave “ the good people 
 of Aberdeen” to decide on the subject of Scio’s bible, “ whether you have not 
 been deceiving them,’ (or rather attempting to deceive them) ; “‘ or whether I am 
 competent to go straight forward in my detence of Earl Street.” 
 
 It appears by the above extract from your Instructor for July last, that you 
 think it possible Mr. Platt may be able to furnish an explanatory theory of 
 “ this curious affair.” But you inform him, the public will. not have patience 
 with it, unless it be “‘ more substantial, and honourable, and satisfactory” than 
 his former one, respecting the concealment of apocrypha circulation. Now, 
 however dissatisfied the public might be with Mr. Platt’s “theory,” as being 
 made up of ‘flimsy pretects,” yet it ought to have been esteemed ‘ substantial, 
 honourable, and satisfactory” by you. Why? Because it is in exact accordance 
 with your own and that of the Edinburgh Committee!!! How can that be? 
 Did you not declare that Mr. Plait had rolled the whole blame on the deceased 
 Mr. Owen, and on him alone? And have you not proved with the clearness 
 and force of a mathematical demonstration, that this was not,—that this-could not 
 betrue ? And have you not held up the luckless Librarian to incessant ridicule, 
 ever since you fathered this theory upon him? All these things yon have done ; 
 
 ut you very well know, that the honour of this theory belongs as much to me 
 as to Mr. Platt, and that it is solely your own offspring ;—you must therefore 
 father it, for I shall prove, that to you its paternity wholly belongs. That ‘ the 
 good people of Aberdeen” may see how this matter stands, I shall show them, 
 by double columns; the agreement of Mr. Platt’s theory with your own; then I 
 shall give your false account of that gentleman’s theory ;—I shall then bring 
 - before them Mr. Stokes’s theory and your equally false account, of it; then, 
 with your assistance, 1 shall reconcile the apparent. contradiction between the 
 theories of Messrs. Stokes and Platt ;—after which, 1 shall fix you for the third 
 _time ina Pillory of Double Columns; or give your full theory of apocrypha conceal- 
 ment ; and, finally, I shall give the true theory of that concealment. 
 
28 
 
 AGREEMENT OF MR. PLATT AND DR. THOMSON. 
 
 Mr. Platt’s Theory of the Concealment of 
 Apocrypha circulation, extracted from 
 his first letter to Wardlaw, pp. 9, 10, and 
 11, 
 
 *¢ There was once, Sir, as you well know, 
 aman in—I would rather say, over the 
 Bible Society, whose name was Owen. 
 Conductor of the Society’s affairs from its 
 very commencement, he had guided it 
 through many a season of peril and trial ; 
 again and again had he foiled its as- 
 sailants; and wise measures, sometimes 
 planned, always cartied into execution, by 
 him, had raised it to the highest summit of 
 success and of christian fame. It is not 
 then surprising that he acquired influence 
 in the Committee, and that confidence, the 
 
 fullest confidence was placed in him. The 
 other Secretaries felt him to be as their 
 ‘‘right hand.”’ I quote the expression of 
 one of them; and all the business. of the 
 Society seemed as it’were to rest on his 
 counsels and support, and on his alone. 
 More especially, it devolved upon him to 
 select what materials in the Society’s cor- 
 respondence should be publicly read or 
 printed; and it must be obvious, that, in 
 so large a mass, selection to some extent 
 at least was necessary. We have now to 
 see how all this bears upon the circulation 
 of the Apocrypha, and the concealment 
 of that circulation. Mr. Owen was per- 
 suaded in his conscience, (whether rightly 
 or not), that the circulation was not un- 
 lawful, and that, if we would obtain the 
 circulation of the canonical scriptures 
 themselves, it was even necessary. Yet, 
 while thus persuaded himself, his deep 
 knowledge of human nature, and pene- 
 trating insight into character, soon taught 
 him that many among tbe supporters of 
 the Bible Society would disagree with him 
 on this point; that scruples would arise ; 
 and in fact, that ‘‘an intermingled Apo- 
 crypha, especially, would never be borne.” 
 I speak not this from conjecture, I affirm 
 it from certain and positive authority; and 
 I am partly supported in the statement by 
 my own recollections. But he still, bow- 
 ever, retained his own persuasion on the 
 subject. When the plan, then, had been 
 carried into execution, seeing what I have 
 said he saw, as to its effects upon public 
 feeling, he directed all the efforts of his 
 mighty mind to keep it in the back ground, 
 and to ward off the public discussion of 
 what he perceived to be so difficult and 
 dangerous a matter. ) Hence it is, I can- 
 not for a moment doubt, that measures of 
 
 wee td 
 5A 
 os 
 
 Dr. Thomson’s Theory of the Concealment 
 of Apocrypha circulation, extracted 
 the Christian Instructor, and the 2d ag 
 3d Edinburgh Statements. 
 
 “ It is far from our intention to question 
 the talent, and dezlerity of Mr. Owen, | 
 or to maintain that he was free from blame 
 in the case alluded to. ‘We shall allow, 
 because we really believe, that so far as the 
 management of the Bible Society was con- _ 
 cerned, he was at once the ablest and the 
 guiltiest man inthe Committee. We grantto 
 Mr. Owen a very large share of the quali- 
 ties with which Mr. Platt has, to serve his 
 purpose, so lavishly invested him.” (Christ- 
 ian Instructor for February, 1827.) “* We 
 are told by Mr. Gorham (p. 31, note +), 
 that ‘¢the practice was introduced even 
 without the observation of some of the re- 
 gular members of the Committee; and so 
 little was it known, that, at the clan of 
 1824, not a few among themselves discre- 
 dited it, as far as regards having made 
 grants for printing intermingled Apocry- 
 phas.”” We know that several of the 
 Committee were ignorant of what was go- 
 ing on in the year 1821, though, at that — 
 period, the Committee had not only granted 
 money to foreign societies for printing in- 
 termingled Apocryphas down from the 
 year 1818, and had also under their own 
 inspection, printed at home, large editions 
 of the Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, and 
 French Bibles, in the very worst form of 
 intermixture. And now it appears, that 
 not a few of their nwmber were unaware of 
 the fact, at so late a period of the Apocry- 
 phal distribution as 1824, that is to say, 
 eleven years after such distribution began, 
 and three years after the subject had been 
 actually discussed at the meetings of Com- 
 mittee. There is here either an instance 
 of most infatuated blindness, or, what is 
 far more probable, an example ofr reticence 
 the most dexterous and successful that ever 
 we recollect to have witnessed or heard of.” 
 (2d Stat. p. 74.) ‘* We, for our part, ac- 
 cused the Committee of circulating the 
 Apocrypha, and. of dishonest conceal- 
 ment, but we never accused thirly-six 
 men of these things. These things 
 were done by the Committee, gua Com- 
 mittee. That was all; and we express- 
 ly stated, that it was not done by ail 
 the members, because those who employed 
 the sanction of the Committee, had con- 
 trived to hide their -Apocryphal transac- 
 tions even from some of the regular and 
 active members, so late as the end of the 
 
Such importance as the printing of the 
 Spanish, Italian, Portuguese, and French 
 Catholic bibles, were carried in a small 
 Sub-committee, while the members of the 
 Committee, generally, seem hardly to have 
 tecollected that the subject had ever been 
 taken into consideration. At all events, 
 I have heard the venerable President him- 
 self say, that he never knew of it; and I 
 need not tell you; that he was not at any 
 time anominal President, but wasalwaysas 
 regular.as circumstances permitted. With 
 what restrictions* Lord Teignmouth might 
 intend to be understood, I know not ; but 
 I have certainly myself heard him say, in 
 the Committee-room in Earl Street, “Tam 
 sure I never knew that we circulated the 
 Apocrypha,’*—or words to that effect. 
 
 Then I would go on much more confi- 
 dently to affirm, that it is to this same 
 cause that we are to trace the total silence 
 that is observed upon this subject in all the 
 Society’s printed documents. I have be- 
 fore said, that the preparation of these pub- 
 lications was left, with entire confidence, 
 to Mr. Owen alone, and that he was aceus- 
 tomed to keep back such portions of the 
 Society’s correspondence as he judged it 
 not prudent to bring before the public. I 
 have also described what appear to have 
 been his own feelings and views respecting 
 the circulation of the Apocrypha, and the 
 opinion that the public would ferm upon 
 
 29 
 
 year 1824. When speaking of these tran- 
 sactions, we could do nothing else than 
 speak of them as the transactions of the 
 Committee. We did not know the indivi- 
 duals upon whom they were strictly and 
 morally chargeable.”’ (Christian Instruc- 
 tor for February, 1827). ‘‘ We are per- 
 fectly willing to allow that the Committee 
 gave no instructions to conceal the tran- 
 sactions respecting the Apocrypha, and 
 that the majority of that body were quite 
 innocent of this artifice. But it is enough 
 for us to know, that there were individuals 
 in the management who dexterously imposed 
 on the public, and on their own colleagues, 
 by making them believe that nothing was 
 circulated but the pure bible.” (3d Stat, 
 pp- 41, 42.) 
 
 the subject, I need add no more.” 
 
 Dr. Thomson's false account of Mr. Platt’s theory, extracted from the Christian 
 “Instructor jor February 1827, pp. 133. 135, 136. and 148. 
 
 _“ The nextthing we have to advert to is, the theory by which Mr. Platt explains 
 the concealment that he has so amply acknowledged. Our readers, we dare say, are 
 not at all prepared for it; and after it is propounded to them, great and unspeakable 
 must be their astonishment. They have often heard and read of the Reverend Mr. 
 Owen of Fulham, one of the Secretaries of the British and Foreign Bible Society. 
 Well, it was he that practised the concealment. The concealment was not practised 
 by him chiefly, or by him along with others ; but it was practised by Mr. Owen, and Mr. 
 Owen alone. It was not the Committee ; it was not any select number of that body ; it 
 Was not even the fhree Secretaries to whom the blame attached. It was Mr. Owen him- 
 self who perpetrated the whole mischief. All the doing of it and all the guilt of it 
 were exclusively his It was he who managed the circulation of the Apocrypha, and it 
 was he who concealed. that circulation from the public view. Such is the explanation 
 which is given of this matter by Mr. Platt, and sent through the press by Dr. Ward- 
 law, for the purpose of confounding the Christian Instructor, and giving ‘satisfaction 
 to every one who entertained doubts of the sterling honesty and perfect trust-worthi- 
 ness of the London Committee.” i 
 
 “Tf there was sin in transgressing the enactments of the Society,—if there was sin in 
 mixing up impudent forgeries with the records of divine revelation,—if there was sin in 
 putting a most fearful fraud upon the world, and laying a deadly snare for the souls 
 of men,”’—if there was sin in succumbing to the Trentine decrees, and propping up 
 
 * Mr. Platt here probably alludes to interspersed Apocryphas, and means to say, that he does not know 
 Yih edt Teignmouth was ignorant of Apocryphal circulation of any kind, or only of the worst 
 inds of it. 
 
 E 
 
30, ; 
 the “mystery of iniquity,”’—if there was sin in teaching protestants to exchange a 
 pure for an impure standard of faith,—if there was sin in exposing christianity to the 
 derision of infidels and jews ;—it is a sin of which the Londom Committee were not pat= 
 takers, but is all accumulated on the head of the late Rev. Mr: Owen. This, indeed, 
 is ‘rather an over-load of demerit which is so:coolly laid upon the departed Secretary. 
 But there is no help for it: Jt is Mr. Platt’s theory. And though) Mr. Owen was 
 Mr. Platt’s “familiar acquaintance,” and ‘‘ admitted into his.family,”’ still it is true; 
 and as Dr. Wardlaw very wisely remarks, “‘ Amica veritas.” + cla Learns, cotethad 
 ~ © The guilt of Mr. Owen, however, does not stop here. Mr. Platt, while he lays 
 upon him exclusively the burden of having circulated the Apocrypha, also lays upon him 
 exclusively the additional, and, if possible, still heavier burden, of having concealed 
 that circulation from the public. And he tells us, that he imputes the latter delin- 
 quency to Mr. Owen with much more confidence than he imputed the former. Mr, 
 Owen had to hide the facts which he knew to be both illegal and unpopular, not only 
 from the community at large, but, according-to Mr. Platt, from his brethren in the 
 Committee, from his colleagues in the Secretaryship, from his most confidential coadjutors — 
 in Earl Street” / / /* ‘ 
 ‘Mr. Platt affirms, that ‘“ the preparation of the Society’s printed document [docu- 
 ments] was left with entire confidence to Mr Owen alone ; and that he was accustomed 
 to keep back such portions of the Society’s correspondence as he judged it not prudent 
 to bring before the public.”” This is the mere gratuitous assertion’ of the Librarian, 
 He supports it neither by circumstances nor by testimony. It is just a part of his 
 theory. And we take the liberty of meeting it with a broad and unqualified contradic- 
 tion. That Mr. Owen was active we admit; and that he might be occasionally pros 
 voked into more than ordinary activity, by the stupidity or remissness of some of his 
 coadjutors, we will also admit. But that the whole did ever devolve upon’ him, we 
 know to be altogether inconsistent with truth. Mr. Owen wrote very few, if indeed 
 he wrote any of the reports. And as to the appendix, Dr. Steinkopff, Mr. Hughes, 
 and all the chief office-bearers were employed in selecting and arranging it as well as 
 he. Let the gentlemen be questioned on this topic, and let us have their explicit de- 
 claration, instead of the idle and unsustained speculations of the Honorary Librarian,’* 
 
 tw ‘ | 
 No wonder, though Mr. Platt, in his.Second Letter to Dr. Wardlaw, says, 
 “It is said, that according to my theory,” ‘it. was Mr. Owen alone that cits 
 culated the Apocrypha.” No quotation is brought from my letter to show 
 where L have said so, and I am certainly at a loss to conceive how any thing 
 that I ave said can be so understood.” And well might Mr. Platt, or any 
 honest mind, be at a loss to conceive this, for, with the exception of the last 
 paragraph, extracted from page 148 of your Instructor for February 1827, there 
 is not the slightest ground for ascribing to Mr. Platt such a theory. The para- 
 graph in question I shall now examine. a 
 " Mr. Platt states, ‘‘1 have before said, that the preparation of these publica- 
 tions. was left with entire confidence to Mr..Owen alone, and that he was accus- 
 fomed to keep back such portions of the Society’s correspondence as he judged it 
 not prudent to bring before the public.” You meet this statement “* with 
 broad and unqualified contradiction,” as supported neither by circumstances nor 
 by testimony.” You declare that ‘‘ Mr. Owen wrote very few, if indeed any of 
 the reports.” And you request, that ‘“ Dr. Steinkopff, Mr. Hughes, and all the 
 chief office-bearers be questioned on this topic, that we may have theit explicit 
 declarations.” We have here a striking specimen of your usual mode in argu- — 
 ing. You meet.a plain statement with a plain denial,—but your denial is sup; 
 ported < neither by circumstances nor by testimony.” You know not how the 
 matter really stands, but you call for an examination of witnesses. If you 
 knew the fact, this was unnecessary—if you did not, why do you pretend to give 
 us information about it?) Whether Mr. Owen wrote afew, or whether he wrote 
 any of the reports, you know not. But, Sir, had he not written one of them, Mr. 
 Platt’s statement might be perfectly true. Mr. Platt refers not to the writing 
 of the reports ; but to the preparation or selection of materials for writing them, 
 He refers to something he had said before. And what was that? ‘ More espe- 
 cially (says he) it devolved upon him to select what materials in the Society’s 
 
 * The points of admiration are mine. 
 
al 
 
 correspondence should be publicly read or printed.” | ‘Thus it was a preparation 
 by selection that Mr. Platt referred to, and not the labour of writing, which 
 might be wholly devolyed-on others. Nor is it at all necessary to suppose, that 
 Mr--Platt means that nothing was read or printed but what Mr. Owen selected ; 
 but only that in:cases of difficulty, in matters in which it required great dex- 
 _ tevity, that the Secretaries had recourse to Mr. Owen, and to him alone as 
 their right hand.” His language evidently bears this meaning,—“ more espe= 
 cially (says he), it devolved upon him to select what materials should be pubs 
 licly read» or printed.” ‘This plainly implies, that it devolved on others also, 
 though not in so-great a degree ; andas Mr. Platt pointedly refers:to this very 
 sentence, it isneither fair nor honest to separate it from’ the other; for you 
 well know, if we were to deal thus with the Bible, and not compare scripture 
 with scripture, as it enjoins us, we might affirm, that it taught us an hundred 
 Opposite and contradictory theories. | 
 
 But admitting, Sir, that Mr. Platt had affirmed, that the materials of all the 
 documents had been selected, arranged, and written by Mr. Owen exclusively, 
 yet this would not have justified you in ascribing to him so false a theory as you 
 have done. 
 
 For who devolved this business on Mr. Owen? Mr. Platt distinctly states, 
 «that the preparation of these documents was left, with entire confidence, to Mr. 
 Owen.” Does this imply “that his colleagues,’— his most confidential 
 coadjutors in Har] Street’ were in entire ignorance respecting the circulation of 
 the Apocrypha and the concealment of it? I need not state, that every man 
 of common sense and common honesty must say, that it implies the very op- 
 posite, and that Mr. Platt brings in all these persons as sharing and conniving 
 with Mr. Owen in these matters. How then can you justify yourself before 
 the good people of Aberdeen,” or before the good people of any place, in at- 
 tempting to palm on the public as truth, so manifest a.deception? Your own 
 theory, in the Second and Third Statements, and in the Instructor, and Mr. 
 Platt’s real theory are so manifestly alike, that one would almost think the 
 Librarian had copied from you, and merely mentioned Mr. Owen by name, as 
 the master spirit and prime mover in the transactions referred to, which you 
 allow was the case. ‘I'his will appear from the following comparative sammary 
 between his and your statements. ‘ 
 
 Mr. Platt describes Mr. Owen “as over the Sociéty,” or the. “ chief conduc- 
 tor of its affairs.” You declare, “that so far as the management of the Bible 
 Society was concerned, he was the “ ablestman in the Committee.” He declares, 
 ‘that all the business of the Society seemed as it were to rest on his counsels, 
 and that the other Secretaries felt him to be as their “ right hand.’ Yow de- 
 clare, ‘‘ Mr. Owen was active we admit ; and that he might be occasionally pro- 
 voked into more than ordinary activity by the stupidity or remissness of his co- 
 adjutors, we will also admit.” He declares, that Mr. Owen ‘“‘directed all the 
 efforts of his mighty mind ‘to keep it (the circulation of the Apocrypha) in the 
 back ground.” You declare, “ We grant to Mr. Owen a very. large share of 
 the qualities with which Mr. Platt has, to serve his purpose, so lavishly bestowed 
 on him,” and “we really believe, that so fat as the management of the Bible 
 Society was concerned, he was at once the ablest and the gui/tiest man in the 
 Committee.” He declares, ‘that the printing of the bibles, with interspersed 
 Apocryphas, was carried in a small Sub-committee, and that the members of 
 the Committee, generally, seem hardly to have recollected that the subject had 
 ever been taken into consideration.” You declare, “‘ We are perfectly willing 
 to-allow that the Committee gave no instructions to conceal the transactions re~ 
 specting the Apocrypha, and that the majority of that body were quite innocent 
 of this artifice. But it.is enough for us to know, that there were zndividuals in 
 the management who dexterously imposed on the public, and on their own col- 
 leagues.” He declares, that he heard Lord Teignmouth, who was no nominal 
 president, say, “‘ 1 never knew that we circulated the Apocrypha.” . You declare, 
 *¢ that not a few of their number were unaware of the fact’at so late a. period as 
 1824, and we expressly stated, that it was not done by all the members, because 
 those who employed the.sanction of the Committee, had contrived to hide their. 
 
 : 1 E2 
 
32 
 
 Apocryphal transactions even from some of the regular and active members, so 
 late as the end of the year 1824.” Lip 6 cn 
 
 Who that reads this comparison ean fail to perceive that Mr. Platt’s real 
 theory corresponds so closely in every material point with your own, that»had — 
 he been on the same side with you in this controversy, one would have been ~ 
 tempted to believe there was a collusion between you ? And yet, when the Libra-— 
 rian propounds this theory, you hold it up,—I should rather say, you hold up 
 another, a most foolish and absurd one, in its stead, to the scorn and ridicule of 
 all men of sense, and then father it on Mr. Platt. Really, Sir, I know not how 
 to express my opinion of your guilt on this pomt. You cannot palliate your 
 crime by pleading a treacherous memory ;—the document*was before you. 
 
 - That document stated, that the measures respecting the printing of the inter- 
 spersed Apocryphas were carried through a small Sub-committee, and that their — 
 resolutions had to pass through the General Committee, and yet you insist—and - 
 insist most expressly and reiteratedly,— that, according to Mr. Platt, Mr. 
 Owen had to hide the facts which he knew to be both illegal and unpopular, 
 not only from the community at large, but from his brethren in the Committee, 
 from his colleagues in the Secretaryship, from his most confidential coadjutors in 
 Earl Street.” 
 
 Where is the man, possessing the lowest measure of intellect or of honesty, 
 who does not perceive that this theory, which you ascribe'to Mr. Platt, is your 
 own, and your own alone? It has no other father,—no other mother. It is in- 
 deed a spurious bantling,—begotten in no very honourable or legitimate way, 
 and therefore you wish to devolve the credit of its paternity on another. And 
 no sooner do you bring it into existence by the violation of truth and the stroke 
 of your pen, than you attack it with all your accustomed force and fury, and 
 become its relentless murderer. Though the offspring of your own mind, you 
 neither pity nor spare it. Like too many illegitimate children, it falls a sacrifice 
 by ts parent’s hand. ’ 
 
 I now proceed to notice,— : 
 
 Mr. Stokes’s Theory of the Concealment of Apoerypha Circulation. : 
 
 “ As to the studied concealment with regard to the Apocryphal writings, which has 
 been so much spoken of, it should be remarked, that in the Committee, open at all 
 times, none such did occur, nor could possibly be practised ; the subject was frequently 
 mentioned—letters were read—resolutions were passed, in which the Apocrypha was 
 mentioned by name—and it is a matter of general notoriety that, in all the churches 
 on the continent, the Apocryphal are united with the Canonical books.” f 1% 
 
 Dr. Thomson’s False Account of Mr. Stokes's Theory. 
 
 “ We formerly alluded to this passage, as containing something very like a quibble. 
 It was never alleged that the concealment was practised in the Committee, but by the 
 Committee. But if the writer means any thing in reference to “ what hasbeen much 
 spoken of,” he must mean that there was no concealment at all. Now, Mr. Platt avers 
 that there was concealment; and in this he falsifies the statement of Mr. Stokes and 
 his coadjutors, in that production from which we have quoted. We know not, indeed, 
 how Mr. Platt, after publishing such a declaration, can venture to look Mr. George 
 Stokes in the face.”—(Christian Instructor for February, 1827, p. 132.) 
 " « Mr. Stokes has the courage to deny that concealment was practised by the Commit- 
 tee! Mr. Platt acknowledges that there was. Which of these worthy Gentlemen 
 shall we believe? The latter, undoubtedly. Why? Because his testimony is corro- 
 borated by that of the Deputation for Scotland—because it has been proved by facts 
 and circumstances which, independently of all testimony, leave no doubt on any rational 
 mind—and because, in making his denial, Mr. Stokes is guilty of a quibbling equivo- 
 cation, unworthy of an honourable witness, by denying that there was concealment in 
 the Committee, when he plainly wishes to be understood as denying that there was con- 
 cealment by the Committee.” —(Christian Instructor, March, 1827, pp. 254, 255-) 
 
33 
 
 Here you plainly bear false witness against Messrs. Stokes and Platt. 
 
 1. Youdeclare, if Mr. Stokes means any thing by ‘‘ what has been so much 
 spoken of, he must mean that there was no concealment at all.” Now, I say, 
 he must mean, and he does mean, “‘ by what has been so much spoken of,” the 
 alleged concealment in the Committee, which you substantiate in your Second 
 and Third Statements, as I have fully shown, and which has been spoken of 
 over the whole kingdom. 
 
 2. You declare, “ Mr. Stokes is guilty of a quibbling equivocation, unworthy 
 of an honourable witness, by denying that there was concealment zn the Com- 
 mittee, when he plainly wishes to be understood as denying that there was con- 
 cealment by the Ccmmittee. Now, I say, that Mr. Stokes is not in the slightest 
 degree guilty of equivocating—that he plainly and pointedly denies concealment 
 in the Committee, and means exactly what he has written; and, in proof of 
 this, I call on any man of common sense to read his theory. 
 
 - 8. You here declare, “‘ Mr. Stokes has the courage to deny that concealment 
 was practised by the Committee! Mr. Platt acknowledges that there was.”— 
 Neither of these things is true. Mr. Stokes denies no such thing. It is con- 
 cealment zz the Committee he denies; and, according to your testimony fully 
 given before, you maintain that Mr. Platt denied concealment on the part of 
 any living soul but Mr. Owen, on whom alone he devolved the whole guilt. But 
 now you have a purpose to serve, and you bring in Mr. Platt to confound Mr. 
 Stokes, and insist that he acknowledged what he never acknowledged. He laid 
 the burden of the concealment, not on the members of the Committee gene- 
 rally, but on Mr. Owen and others in the Committee, whose names he does not 
 specify. 
 
 pants though I have proved you guilty of concealing what Mr. Platt did say; 
 and of attributing to him what he did not say; and also of insisting that Mr. 
 Stokes must mean what it is plain to every one who “ has the twentieth part. of 
 an eye,” he does not mean, and cannot. mean, as it is contrary. to his clear and 
 express language; yet it may be some consolation to you to think that these 
 Gentlemen are opposed to each other—that both their statements cannot be true 
 —and that one of them, at least, must stand in the criminal’s box, as your com= 
 panion. Of this consolation, however, even-handed justice demands that I should 
 deprive you. This may seem a hard measure. I cannot help it. I can assure 
 you I feel no delight in bringing you in guilty, if 1 could do otherwise consist- 
 ently with the safety of the innocent. . If 1 could acquit Messrs. Stokes and 
 Platt, and Dr. Thomson too, it would give me real pleasure. But I cannot. 
 Your acquittal would involve them in guilt; and it is some consolation to me, 
 when I must eondemn, that justice only requires one victim. 1 do indeed from 
 my heart pity you; but I shall be compelled, having once set Messrs. Stokes 
 and Platt free, (which, with your help, I shall do immediately), to clap you, 
 for the third time, into a Pillory of Double Columns, framed by your own 
 hands—the different parts of which 1] shall bring together, and fix you so within 
 it, as that no power can release you. No doubt you never expected to be so un- 
 _ comfortably lodged ; but many a man has laid a snare for another, and fallen 
 therein himself.—Let us, then, proceed to RECONCILE: the apparent conTRA-= 
 DICTION between the statements of Messrs. Sroxes and Pratt. 
 
 In the first place, be it remembered, that the transactions referred to by Mr. 
 Stokes were scattered over a period of at least eight years. ‘ The subject,” says 
 he, speaking of Apocryphal circulation, “ the subject was frequently mention-= 
 ed” —i.e. in the Committee; “ letters were read, resolutions were passed, in 
 which the Apocrypha was mentioned by name.” “ Mr. Stokes must here be un- 
 derstood as referring to the period during which the concealment is alleged to 
 have taken place ; not to these last few years, in which discussions on the sub- 
 ject have resounced from one end of the island to the other, * but from the year 
 1812 to the year 1820, when not a word was heard of the practice beyond the 
 purlieus of Earl Street.”— (Christian Instructor for February, 1827, p. 146.) 
 
 * This is what Mr. Stokes meant, “ by what has been so much spoken of ;”—the 
 . truth comes out in spite of you. 
 
34 
 
 In the second place, be it remembered, that Mr. Platt,does'not say»thatiliese 
 transactions had: not been considered in the Committee; or that the Committee 
 were ignorant of them.— But it is in.vain to confine our attention to the Subs 
 Committee, whether it was small or great, when we learn from Mr, Platt that 
 the Committee were not ignorant of what was going on. ‘ The members of 
 the. Committee, generally,’ says he, ‘ seem hardly to have recollected: that the 
 subject had ever been taken into consideration.’ Be it so. . These words, ‘ seem 
 hardly,’ are intended to be very evasive, but they are really yery significant. 
 It is clear, ;that the Committee, generally, did take the subject into considera- 
 tion, and that they recollected that they had done so. , As to the distinctness or 
 vivacity of the reminiscence, that is of no consequence in the present case.”— 
 (Christian Instructor for February, 1827, p..144. ehiy , 
 
 In the third place, be it remembered, that “‘ the distinctness or vivacity of 
 the reminiscence has every thing to do ‘in the present case’ of reconciling the 
 statements of Messrs. Stokes and Platt: for the-former Gentleman does. notaf= 
 firm any thing respecting ‘the distinctness’ or indistinetness of the recollection 
 of the Committee on the subject ; and the latter Gentleman declares, ‘ that 
 the Committee did take the subject into consideration.’ ”’—Hence, there is not 
 the. slightest contradiction between their statements. 1 By sisd. cavkmy 
 
 ‘In the fourth place, be it remembered, that the Committee was undergoing a 
 partial change every year—nine members going out, and.as many coming in ; 
 and that the transactions referred to occupied at least the: space of eight years, 
 and. were mingled with.a-vast multiplicity. of other: transactions ;.and then it 
 will appear no difficult matter to: believe what Mr. Stokes.asserts, that. “* zm the 
 Committee, open at all times, no concealment did occur ;’—that “ the subject 
 was frequently mentioned,” (how frequently he does not say, perhaps not once 
 every year, but if it was thus frequently it would only be eight times) that 
 “ letters were read, and resolutions passed in which the Apocrypha. was mens 
 tioned by name.” This would be true, though only two such letters had been 
 read, and two such Resolutions passed in the course of eight years—but double, 
 treble, and quadruple them, if you please, and still there will be nothing mar- - 
 vellous in believing, at the same time, what Mr, Platt asserts of the Committee, 
 which, was in existence when the matter became public, namely, that ‘* themem- 
 bers of the Committee, generally, seem hardly to have recollected that the sub- 
 ject had been: taken into consideration.” L wie 
 
 I now return you my best thanks for assisting me so essentially im»recon- 
 ciling the statements of Messrs. Stokes and Platt ; and, if I could, I would aid 
 you, in turn, in reconciling your:own statements on. the same subject, but I 
 must frankly confess that this is beyond my ability. \1 must, therefore, now, 
 from: necessity, and torsave myself, as wellas Messrs. Stokes and) Platt, from your 
 vengeance, perform. towards you a very painful and disagreeable duty,—I must 
 place you, for the third time, in a Pillory of Double Columns, where your credit 
 and your honour as a witness-bearer must be destroyed for ever. 
 
 ew 
 
 : H { 904 “eel ’ 
 DR. THOMSON placed, for the Third Time, ina PILLORY of DOUBLE 
 COLUMNS, or his full Theory of Apocryphal Concealment. 
 
 There was concealment in the Com- There was no concealment in the Com- 
 mittee, ‘‘ for there were certain individu- mittee: for “ it was never alleged that 
 als in the management who dexterously the concealment was practised in the Com- 
 imposed on the public, and on their own mittee, but by the Committee.’’—(Chris- 
 colleagues, by making them believe that tian Instructor for Feb, 1827, p. 132.) 
 nothing was circulated but the pure Bible.” ’ 
 
 (Third Statement, p. 42.) : 4 
 ‘There was no concealment by the Com- «« Mr. Stokes has the courage to deny 
 mittee: for ‘* we are perfectly willing to that concealment was practised by the 
 allow that the Committee gave noinstruc- Committee! Mr. Platt acknowledges that 
 tions to conceal the transactions respecting there was. Which of those worthy “Gen- 
 the Apocrypha, and that the. majority of tlemen shall we believe? The latter, un- 
 
35 
 
 that body were quite innocent of this-arti- 
 fice.”’—(Third Statement, pp. 41, 42.) 
 
 _ According to Mr. Platt, “ the conceal- 
 ment was not practised by him (Mr. Owen) 
 chiefly, or by him along ‘with others ; but 
 it was practised by Mr. Owen, and Mr. 
 Owen alone. It was not the Committee; 
 it was not any select number of that body 5 
 it was not even the three Secretaries, to 
 whom the blame attached. It was Mr. 
 Owen himself who perpetrated the whole 
 mischief.’’—(Christian Instructor for Feb. 
 1827, p. 133.) 
 
 Mr. Stokes has declared, —** As to the 
 studied concealment, with regard to the 
 Apocryphal Writings, which has been so 
 much spoken of, it should be remarked, 
 that, in the Committee, open at all times, 
 none such did occur, nor could possibly be 
 practised.” —( Christian Instructor for Feb. 
 1827, p. 132.) 
 
 doubtedly.”’ ‘‘ To lay iton the'whole Com: 
 mittee is too absurd,” says Mr. Platt. Nos 
 body has done so, say:we. On the con- 
 trary, some members of the Committee 
 were, in the very nature of the: case, ex- 
 empted from the charge; they were injur- 
 ed, and.they complained. _ But the rest, 
 or, if you will, the Apocryphal party, are 
 accused of playing the trick; and the 
 Committee, as a Committee, the majority 
 of which is Apocryphal, sanction or con- 
 nive at what is done. Honest LONDON 
 Committee !’—(Christian Instructor for 
 Feb. 1827, p. 164; and for March, 1827, 
 p. 234.) 
 
 “Mr. Stokes has the courage to deny 
 that the concealment was practised’ by the 
 Committee! Mr. Platt acknowledges that 
 there was.” ‘* We know not, indeed, how 
 Mr. Platt, after publishing such a decla- 
 ration, can look Mr. George Stokes in the 
 face.” ‘* If Mr. Platt speaks truth, Mr. 
 George Stokes and his other Compilers do 
 not speak truth on this subject. Mr. Platt 
 says what, in the common construeticn of 
 language, amounts to giving these Gentle- 
 men the dic, (namely, Messrs. Brandram, 
 Trueman, and Pinkerton)... Whether they 
 will seek redress for this ‘‘ intolerable lan- 
 guage,”’ by ‘‘ appealing to the law or to 
 arms,” we cannot venture to. divine; but 
 this much we know, that unless they come 
 forward, and either build up their aver- 
 ment, or give some satisfactory exposition 
 of it, every man is entitled to accuse them 
 as having published, asa fact, what is noth- 
 ing better than a gross and deliberate mis- 
 representation.”’=—(Christian Instructor, 
 for Feb. 1827, pp. 122, 123; and for 
 March, 1827, p. 234.) 
 
 “It was never alleged that the conceal- 
 ment was practised in the Committee, but 
 by the Committee. But if the writer 
 means any thing in reference to “ what has 
 been so much spoken of,” he must mean 
 that there was no concealment at all. Now, 
 Mr. Platt avers that there was conceal- 
 ment; and in this he falsifies the state- 
 ment of Mr. Stokes and his Coadjutors.”’ 
 «¢ Mr. Stokes is guilty of a quibbling equi- 
 vocation, unworthy of an honourable wit- 
 ness, by denying that there was conceal- 
 ment iz the Committee, when he plainly 
 wishes to be understood as denying that 
 there was concealment by the Commit- 
 tee !’"—(Christian Instructor for February 
 and March, 1827, pp. 132. 235.) 
 
 Escape, Sir, from this Pillory of Double Columns, and you will perform a more 
 
 singular and dexterous feat, than you have ever yet achieved. 
 
 Its component 
 
 parts are framed by your own hands. I have merely collected and put them to+ 
 gether, and shut you in. And thereyou must remain and bear your punishment; 
 
36 
 
 exposed to the gaxe and detestation of every honest man.. 1 need make no ¢om= 
 ment on your character as a witness-bearer, after having exhibited you in this 
 Pillory of Double Columns. Words would be ineffective and powerless. How 
 the matter stands is plain and palpable to every eye. You yourself have done 
 the deed which destroys your credit and your honour as a witness-bearer for 
 ever. I have not cross-examined you. I have not sought to entrap you. I 
 have taken the voluntary declarations, which you yourself have freely and spon- 
 taneously emitted, with a view to destroy the credit and character of other men. 
 And I now ask you—I ask “ the good people of Aberdeen,” if any one can be- 
 lieve, after the testimony you have given unsolicited from the witness-box in 
 which I have placed you, that you are free from iil will against the London 
 Committee and their defenders, seeing you make no scruple to assert the most 
 opposite and contradictory things, in order to bring them in guilty? I ask what 
 judge or jury possessing a regard either for the laws of God or man, or for com- 
 mon justice, would condemn accused persons on the testimony of one who so 
 flatly and frequently contradicts himself? I ask what judge, if you had emitted i 
 such palpable contradictions on your oath before him, would not either have 
 dismissed you in pity from the bar as insane, or ordered you into confinement 
 for abominable perjury? These questions .are cutting,—they are severe. I — 
 allow it,—but what can I do? You yourself have ‘ cut the rod” with which I 
 am correcting you. Your chastisement is severe, but nothing in comparison of — 
 what you deserve. You may call my statements malignant, insolent, &e. as you 
 have done those of others ; yet I can assure you, that I have applied the to | 
 you with as much reluctance and pain as I apply it to my own children. But 
 necessity, self-defence, the defence of the noblest and best of institutions, re< 
 quired this much asa trial. If, however, the present chastisement does not teach 
 you some little moderation and temperance in your criminations, more must, more — 
 shall be administered, if I deem it necessary. You have long wished for one — 
 worthy of yourself to come forth into the field of controversy, that, by crushing 
 his statements, the cause of Earl Street might receive its death-blow. That in- © 
 dividual now appears in the field against you, with his armour girded on. His 
 respectability is equal—his learning is equal—his talents are equal—his veracity 
 is equal—and his knowledge of the subject is equal to your own. That indi- 
 vidual zs yourself. ‘Transfer all my double columns into the pages of your In- 
 structor, and fairly answer them, or be altogether silent. Take my word for it, 
 abuse and scurrility willdo you no good, nor help you out-of your difficulties. 
 I do not care if you should load me with abuse an hundred-fold weightier than 
 you laid on Anglicanus, it will sit light on me as a feather. But “the good — 
 people of Aberdeen” and the public will see, that I have not blinked the mat- 
 ter, that I have fairly and fully met your challenge; and be assured they will, 
 observe, whether you meet me as fairly and fully in return. This, I forewarn 
 them, without the gift of prophecy, thut you will not do. You will either abuse 
 me, and set up a different theory than the one I have advanced, and aseribe it to 
 me, as in the case of Messrs. Platt, Stokes, and, I may add, every writer who has: 
 opposed you ; or you will do as you did some eight or ten years ago with the 
 London Christian Instructor ; as you did lately with ‘ that feeble thing the 
 Herald ;” as you did with the articles written by “ The Defenders” in the Aber- 
 deen Chronicle, and as you did with the reply which was made in the Aberdeen 
 Journal to your challenge at the public meeting ;—that is, you will give ‘‘no an- 
 swer.” ‘This latter will be the wiser course. I do not advise you to it through 
 dread of your wrath ; but because I believe it will be most tor your own com- 
 fort. If you drop the controversy, I shall wish you every success in spreading 
 the pure word of God, which indeed I do,—but I cannot wish you success in 
 your career of reckless defamation, and must’ oppose you in it to the utmost of 
 my power. It is necessity that ever made me enter into this controversy, and 
 when this necessity is at an end, “my voice shall no more be heard in the 
 streets.” But I do entreat and beseech you, if you are determined to prolong 
 the controversy, to abide strictly by the truth. Let a stop be put to misrepresen- 
 tation so gross and so incessant as fills the pages of your Instructor. Be as 
 severe as you please, but show cause why, and be just and honest, that your readers 
 
37 
 
 may know the truth ; “ the real state of facts,” concerning which you have con- 
 trived hitherto to keep them in profound ignorance. ain 9 
 
 ~ Whatever opinion the public may entertain of the theories of Messrs. Platt 
 and Stokes, on the subject of Apocrypha concealment, I am sure that there can- 
 not be two opinions respecting your full theory, which is one tissue of gross and 
 palpable contradictions. What then is the true theory of Apocrypha conceal- 
 ment? The whole matter is concisely and clearly stated in the report of the 
 Aberdeen Auxiliary Bible Society for 1827, as follows: 
 
 ** As to the alleged concealment of the circulation of the Apocrypha, the great 
 majority of the members, and even of the Committee of the British and Foreign Bible 
 Society, were not aware of the thing for some fime, chiefly because they never thought 
 of inquiring ; and some of the leading members of the Committee seem to have thought 
 that it was right to say little on the subject, though it would have been far better had 
 * it been publicly agitated from the very first ; but when it is considered, that it is known 
 to every man of liberal education, that the continental versions have the Apocrypha ; 
 that copies of some of these very versions were sent to several of the Auxiliary Socie- 
 ties in Scotland; and that the Bibliotheca in London, containing all these versions, 
 was open to general inspection, it is obvious, that there could be no concealment from 
 those who gave themselves the trouble to reflect and inquire. and therefore it follows, 
 that the blame, (for blame there certainly was), instead of falling exclusively on the 
 London Committee, ought to he shared by all those Committees, who either kuew, or 
 at least ought to have known, what was doing.”’ (page 33.) if 
 
 "In the statement put forth by the Aberdeen Opposition Bible Society, to re- 
 fute the representations contained in the Report of the Auxiliary Society for 
 1827, we have the following animadversions on this article : 
 
 “‘ Why is it that the Auxiliary’s Committee confound two things so very distinct, as 
 “the studied concealment’ of the London Committee, and the fond confidence and 
 unwise security of their constituents? “ The blame,” say they, “instead of falling ex- 
 clusively on the London Committee, ought to be shared by all those Committees, who 
 either knew, or at least ought to have known, what was doing.”’ The blame of what, 
 may we ask? Is it the blame of practising a ‘‘ studied concealment” of Apocryphal 
 circulation, which must be shared by all our Committees? Sure we are, that the 
 Aberdeen Auxiliary Bible Society’s Committee deserve no share of that blame ; we are 
 equally sure, chat the Edinburgh Committee are free of it; and, weighty as it is, 
 it must all be burne by the London Committee. But still it may be said, where is the 
 proof of the studied concealment? Ist, It is admitted in the document under our re- 
 view. ‘* Some of the leading members seem to have thought that it was rizht to say 
 little on the subject." 2d, It is admitted by Mr.. Platt, who lays all the blame on the 
 late secretary Mr. Owen,—a defence which has been rejected by those for whom it was 
 set up, as an extravagant theory, and an unmerited reproach upon the memory of the 
 dead. 3d, We infer studied concealment from the total silence on the subject of the 
 Apocrypha in the Society’s annual reports. 4th, The Deputation for Scotland dis- 
 tinctly acknowledged it.’’* : 
 
 Now, to this Lreply, that “ the Auxiliary’s Committee” have not confounded 
 two things so distinct as “ the studied concealment,” and “ the unwise security 
 of the constituents” of the British and Foreign Bible Society ; and I feel truly 
 sorry, that this false insinuation should be made by our Reviewers, who make 
 no ordinary pretensions to meekness, candour, and piety ; and who do not even 
 call what they endeavour to exhibit as misrepresentations, by- any other than the 
 mild title of ‘‘ various representations contained in the last report of the Aber- 
 deen Auxiliary.” I do acquit the far greater number of these Gentlemen from 
 any intention to deceive or mislead the public, as I am aware that statements 
 and reports are often read and approved of by Committees, into the truth of the 
 particulars of which many members of Committee have never examined. But 
 i confess, that the ignorance displayed by the compilers of the Statement of the 
 
 * Some of these extracts are shortened, but the sense is fairly given. 
 = . 
 
38 
 
 opposition Committee on some points of the controversy, andthe misrepresen- 
 tations of which they are guilty on others, are such as to excite | a 
 and sorrow. On the topic before us; we have a fair specimen of the, misre- 
 presentations of our Reviewers. They themselves show that we admit the studied 
 concealment. And on whom do we lay the blame of it? Not on the London 
 Committee, as a body, but on “‘ some of the leading members.” Nowyif Leould 
 prove that —-———* sells Apocrypha Bibles, notwithstanding his declaration 
 “that the circulation of the Apocrypha, in conjunction with the word of God, 
 UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, IS ESSENTIALLY SINFUL AND FRAUGHT WITH 
 pisHonourR to Gop,” would I, therefore, be justified in denouncing the whole 
 Committee of the opposition Society as chargeable with inconsistency; dishonesty; 
 and hypocrisy, in violating their recorded resolution, when only oneindividual was 
 involved in this guilt? And surely, ifit was “ essentially sinful” in the London 
 Committee “to circulate the Apocrypha in conjunction with the word of God,” 
 to gain a wider circulation for that word, “ it must be essentially sinful” for one 
 of their most ignorant but violent accusers, ‘to circulate the oes in con= 
 junction with the word of God,” for “the greed of filthy lucre.” And if there 
 is an individual in the Committee of the Aberdeen Opposition Society who 
 sells Apocrypha Bibles, where are “ the indispensable qualifications” which that 
 Society deems necessary to be possessed by all the members of the Committee 
 - of a Bible Society, namely, that they be persons ‘ who are deeply impressed 
 with the sinfulness, the impiety, and the danger of mixing up these books with 
 the word of God.’ + ; ' a 
 
 Surely honest men, whatever were their views of the Apocrypha, who would 
 strictly adhere to the law of circulating only the pure Bible, would be more 
 honourable and trust-worthy members of a Bible Society Committee, than men, 
 whatever pretences they made to piety, who contradicted their professions by 
 their practice. But the opposition Society may say, we know not of any mem- 
 ber of our Committee who sells Apocrypha Bibles. Be it so. Then, if there 
 is one who has done so, since the formation of your Society, he has concealed the 
 deed from you. but. you have placed in him “an over-fond confidence, an un- 
 wise security.” rig +5 
 
 Now, how stands the matter of Apocrypha circulation in the London Com- 
 mittee? The Committee, as a whole-body are not guilty. Certain individuals 
 did the deed,—-and certain individuals concealed it, by suppressing those docu- 
 ments which referred to it. . What is the testimony of our Reviewers on’ this 
 point?..I am happy to say, that for once in their Statement, they declare the 
 truth, the whole truth... “ We feel it to be our duty (say they) to state, that 
 the guilt of the transactions’ (mutilating documents to conceal the circulation 
 of the Apocrypha) «“to which we now allude, must lie upon “ the leading: mem= 
 bers of the London Committee alone.” If so, why do our Reviewers assert, 
 that the blame “of the studied concealment must all be borne by the London 
 Committee’ ?° Let them reconcile these statements if they can, otherwise, we 
 are entitled to ask them, “ why they confound two things so very distinct as 
 “some of the leading members” of the London Committee, with that Com- 
 mittee itself? Their Statement proyes, that there was studied concealment, and 
 our report admits it, but their Statement fails in proving that the blame of it 
 «¢ must. all be borne by the London Committee,” nay, it disproves it; there- 
 fore I cannot see, how they can exculpate themselves from the charge 
 of a plain violation of the ninth commandment, in testifying that that 
 
 * I suppress the name of the individual I refer to, from motives of delicacy, as I 
 wish to hurt his feelings as little as possible,-but I must state the truth. 
 
 + The opposition Bible Society here ought to remonstrate firmly with the Edinburgh’ 
 Committee for their scandalous conduct in retaining Dr. Thomson among them, who, 
 instead of being ‘‘ deeply impressed with the feelings’? here stated, declared to his’ 
 Aberdeen friends “to their very teeth,”’ that he ‘ saw no harm in the Apocrypha being’ 
 mixed up with the word of God in his pulpit bible.” What unfaithfulness on the part 
 of the opposition Committee here, in that they have not separated from, and lifted up 
 a solemn and faithful testimony against him, for “ cherishing so ruinous error” ! ! ! : 
 
39 
 
 Committee must bear the whole blame of the studied concealment. 
 Nay, these Gentlemen in their eagerness to load the London Committee 
 with this guilt, flatly and unceremoniously contradict ‘the excellent servants 
 of Christ” (as they call them) ‘ who compose the Edinburgh Committee,” 
 for these excellent servants of Christ declare, in their ‘Third Statement, 
 (pages 41 and 42,) “we are perfectly willing to allow that the Committee 
 gave no instructions to conceal’ the transactions respecting the Apocrypha, awp 
 THAT THE MAJORITY OF THAT BODY WERE QUITE INNOCENT OF THIS ARTI- 
 Fics.” * Now,’ as Dr. Thomson says, (changing the persons) ‘if the Edin- 
 burgh Committee“ speak truth,” the compilers of the Aberdeen Statement, 
 “do not speak truth on this subject.” The compilers “‘ say what, in the com- 
 mon construction of language, amounts to giving these Gentlemen the lie. 
 Whether they will seek redress’ for this intolerable language, by appealing to 
 the law or to arms, we cannot venture to ‘divine’! !!* © No, ‘we cannot, and 
 therefore I shall leave the two Committees to settle this matter as they best 
 ean; at the same time I earnestly beseech them to endeavour to effect an ar- 
 rangement of this affair, if possible, in a more christian way than either of those 
 the Reverend Dr. suggests. “He takes in good part this flat contradiction from 
 his friends in Aberdeen, and no wonder, for rather than not* load the London 
 Committee with blame, ‘jhe contradicts himself ; but it remains to be seen, whe- 
 ther his Reverend brethren of the Edinburgh Committee will bear this gross 
 insult with similar patience: 
 
 But farther: How plain is it, that the report of our Auxiliary refers to “ the 
 blame” of not finding out—of not detecting Apocrypha concealment sooner, as 
 that which <‘ ought to be shared by all those Committees, who either knew, or 
 at least ought to have known, what was doing?”~ And yet, though this is stated 
 as plainly as language can do it, our Reviewers perceive not the distinction which 
 exists between committing a certain crime, and being negligent or blameably 
 remiss in not discovering it; or, if they do perceive it, they are chargeable with 
 something far more dishonourable than a surprising deficiency of perception, for 
 they endeavour to mislead their readers, and make them believe that we take 
 blame to our own and other Auxiliary Committees, as if guilty of “‘ the studied 
 concealment”!!! Again they excuse us, and such of themselves as were once 
 among us, for not finding out ‘‘the studied concealment.” They ask, “« Why 
 should they” (the constituents of the British and Foreign Bible Society) “have 
 thought of inquiring ? What was there to awaken suspicion? What cause had 
 they to distrust the Committee?” No cause, Gentlemen,—none, so long as they 
 never looked into the Bibliotheca of the Society ; so long as the Scottish Com- 
 mittees never examined the Apocrypha Bibles sent them ; so long as ‘they did 
 not carefully read the Appendix to the 14th Report, where the publishing of 
 10,000 Apocryphas is expressly mentioned,t and so long as they were not aware 
 that all the continental versions of the Scriptures include the Apocrypha. But 
 it is obvious, from these facts, namely ;—the open Bibliotheca ; the sending of 
 Apocrypha Bibles to the Committees of Auxiliary Societies both in England and 
 Scotland ; the mentioning of the publication of so many Apocryphas in the 
 Appendix to the Fourteenth Report; the nature of the continental versions ; 
 and the indisputable fact, that thousands of Apocrypha Bibles were freely and 
 openly circulated on the Continent, with the stamp of the British and Foreign 
 Bible Society ; it is obvious, I say, from these facts, “that there could be no 
 concealment from those who gave themselves the trouble to reflect and inquire.” 
 
 But our Reviewers seem to think, that there was no blame in not reflecting 
 and inquiring ; no blame in what they designate “fond confidence,” and “ un- 
 wise security” !! It would be well, Sir, both for you and them, if this were true, 
 for you have “a fond confidence and uNwisE sEcuRITY” in their statements, 
 as they have in yours. They have adopted your calumny respecting’ Mr. Platt, 
 and joined in testifying with you, that “he lays all the blame on Mr. Owen ;” 
 
 * See Christian Instructor for February 1827, page 133. 
 + See Third Edinburgh Statement, page 62. 
 FQ 
 
 ~ 
 
40 
 
 and they declare that his ‘‘ defence is rejected by those for whom it was set up 
 as an extravagant theory, and an unmerited reproach upon the memory of the 
 dead.” Let them prove these assertions. There is not a particle of trath in 
 eitherofthem. he London Committee, as all intelligent and candid men must, 
 reject the theory which you and our Reviewers have ascribed to Mr. Platt; but 
 that Gentleman’s real theory they have not rejected ; and I ask our Reviewers, 
 what principle of their religion authorises them to propagate statements for 
 which they cannot adduce a tittle of credible evidence? emp rosie 
 Had you and they stated that the late wars of the French in Spain, in Italy, 
 in Germany, and in Russia “‘ seemed as it were to rest on Buonaparte’s counsels 
 and support, and on his alone,” then, according to your and their method of 
 criticising, we might have said, ‘“‘ Our readers, we dare say, are not prepared 
 for the theory of Dr. Thomson and his Aberdeen friends respecting the late — 
 French wars ; and after it is propounded to them, great and unspeakable must 
 be their astonishment. They have often heard and read of General Buona~ 
 parte the Corsican, the late Emperor of the French. Well, it was he who car=_ 
 ried on these wars. The wars were not carried on by him chiefly, or by him 
 along with others ; but they were carried on by Buonaparte, and by Buonaparte 
 alone. It was not the members of the French government; it was not any 
 select number of that body ; it was not even two or three of his chief ministers 
 along with him, that carried on these wars; it was Buonaparte himself who 
 perpetrated the whole mischief. These wars, we repeat it, according to Dr. 
 ‘Thomson and his Aberdeen friends, were carried on, not by Buonaparte and his 
 immense armies, not by him and his countless officers, not by him and his re- 
 tinue of marshalls; not even by him and one or two of his greatest captains, 
 but by Buonaparte unaided,—by Buonaparte alone!!! This statement may 
 excite amazement, but still Dr. Thomson and his Aberdeen friends felt them- 
 selves bound, from their truth-loving propensities, to deliver themselves of the 
 true theory of the late French wars, which is, that every trigger that was drawn, 
 every gun that was fired, every city that was taken, every battle that was gained, 
 and every man that was slain, was the work of Buonaparte, and of Buonaparte 
 alone!!!” And, having given the above as your theory, and that of your 
 Aberdeen friends, we might then have held it up to derision, and levelled it in 
 the dust as improbable, impossible, and, in the highest degree, irrational and 
 absurd !—But, say our Reviewers,— retiiets ; 
 ; , ; ny eke seek 
 *¢ The committee (i. e. at London) however, have refused to institute an inquiry into 
 the extent of the mutilations; and, so far from censuring those individuals who must 
 haye been privy to them, and for aught we know, were themselves chargeable with 
 these offences, they continue to give them their confidence, and to this hour maintain 
 them at the helm of affairs, in defiance of many a remonstrance.” _ “umdeat 
 
 This paragraph is one among many instances of the spirit of charity which 
 dwells in the bosom of our Reviewers towards the London Committee. This 
 spirit I praise not. Is it a spirit which “ thinketh no evil” of others, until full 
 proof makes manifest their guilt? By no means. They know not whether 
 certain individuals “ were themselves chargeable with these offences (namely, 
 mutilating letters) or not,” but they could not let slip so favourable an oppor- 
 tunity of slyly attempting, by dark insinuation, to stab the character of persons 
 who, “ for aught they know,” are quite innocent of the eyil of which they com- 
 plain. Mild, candid, generous Reviewers! how would you relish a similar insi- 
 nuation respecting yourselves, made by those who were entirely ignorant whe- 
 ther you were guilty or not guilty of the crime, in reference to which they had 
 raised so unkind a suspicion concerning you. Some, atleast, of our Reviewers 
 should have felt the gross impropriety ou: their-part of referring to the mutilation. 
 of documents. If the minuted records of the Aberdeen Auxiliary are not muti- 
 lated, nay, completely falsified, no thanks are due to them. They supported 
 one of their number when he tediously, earnestly, and clamorously insisted on 
 the complete falsification of the minutes of one of our meetings, to hide his and 
 their inconsistencies ; and the love of peace in some, the good nature of others, 
 
 7 
 
Al 
 
 the pity of a third class, and the anxiety not to be detained beyond all reasona- 
 ble bounds, of a fourth, would have led many, I believe, to suffer this measure, 
 though greatly averse to it, had not our acting secretary for the time, the Rev. 
 Mr. Angus, thrown down his pen with indignation, started from his seat, read 
 the records of our proceedings, asked every Gentleman present, if it was not 
 a faithful and correct statement of what had taken place, (which no one could 
 deny), and declared that his hand should not alter it, and that if it was altered, 
 another must take his place, and do the deed. Still the Gentleman insisted for 
 the falsification of the minute, on the ground that if it was suffered to remain 
 in its present state, it would exhibit him as inconsistent, until I rose and:declared 
 that 1 would never agree to the falsification of the-minute, and that if it were 
 _ done, I would protest against the deed, and lay the whole truth before the 
 public. This declaration put an immediate’stop to this shameful attempt to 
 destroy the real minute of our meeting, and to forge a false one in its stead. It 
 was the:same Gentleman, I believe, who gave so false an account.of our general 
 meetings in the Aberdeen Chronicle and Edinburgh Christian Instructor, and 
 just as he left the last meeting of our Society at which he was present, he 
 flourished his hand in‘the faces of the Gentleman around him, and said, ‘‘ Pre- 
 pare yourselves for: an exposure !—prepare yourselves for an exposure! !’”— 
 The public will be able to judge what credit is due to statements which pro- 
 ceeded from one who was labouring under such violent irritation of mind ; 
 and, I may safely ask them, whether so daring an attempt at fabrication, as 
 that above described, has any parallel in the London Committee. The Secretaries 
 of that Committee, who ‘suppressed what they ought to have published, did 
 the deed quietly, secretly, and without opposition; but those who load them 
 with obloquy, had the hardihood to attempt the above deed openly, and in the 
 face of a strenuous opposition.* . 
 » The striking out, from letters which were to be published, passages respecting 
 the Apocrypha, in order to conceal its circulation; is frankly admitted. You, 
 Sir, have declared, ‘‘that Mr. Owen was the guiltiest man in the Committee ;” 
 and your friends, our Reviewers, declare, on the authority of Mr. Haldane, 
 that Mr. Brandram “ did not for one moment deny the fact,” that letters were 
 mutilated. Nor did he justify or excuse such mutilation. “« On the contrary, 
 (says Mr. Haldane), he upbraided Messrs. Gorham and White for bringing 
 forward things which would implicate Dr. Steini:opff; who, he said, must he re= 
 sponsible for many of them.’ These are the only two men against whom you 
 and our Reviewers prove guilt: for, <‘ if Mr. Ronneberg was sorely addicted to 
 this practice,” he was only an Assistant-Secretary, and acted under authority. 
 Now, these Gentlemen, Messrs. Owen and Steinkopff, saw no evil in circulat- 
 ‘ing the Apocrypha, nay, they deemed it useful and necessary, in order to get a 
 wider spread for the Sacred Oracles ; but at the same time they were aware, that 
 if the fact were generally known, it would excite among many a feeling of 
 
 * I cannot help remarking here, that a great clamour was raised against our Society 
 for not hearing a certain Gentleman at as great length as he chose to detain us. Now, 
 it should be known, that he had no right to be heard at all. If he was invited to our 
 general meetings, those who did so, acted without the authority of the Committee ; for 
 he had no right to be there. Whether eligible to be a member of Committee or nof, 
 he was elected one, and the great majority of our Committee were disposed to acquiesce 
 in his being present at all our Committee meetings. But he was no member of our 
 Society ; and, by the public advertisement, inserted in the Aberdeen newspapers, it will 
 be seen, that our general meetings were restricted to members only ; and that all others 
 were excluded. It requires a subscription of one guinea annually to constitute a mem- 
 ber of the Aberdeen Auxiliary Society. Now, the Gentleman referred to, though not 
 one of the poorest among us, nor burdened with a large family, was yet, like his bre- 
 thren in Edinburgh, “ who are wallowing in wealth,” only “*a ten shillings and six- 
 pence, ora silyer-man ;”’ whereas we, ‘* in the depth of our poverty,” (as Dr. Thomson: 
 says), are “ golden-guinea men ;” and are extremely sorry that our conduct bas not; 
 provoked those who oppose us, to loose and open their pursesin the good cause, as wide- 
 Jy and freely as ithas their mouths and tongues ! ! ! 
 
4,2 
 
 strong opposition. Hence their attempts to conceal:it... Do I justify them in 
 this? Far be it. Perish the cause of Earl Street for ever, yea, let mre 
 ~ perish, rather than that I should seek to upholdiit, by defending’a line of 
 duct which I thoroughly disapprove, and most decidedly condemn! Do the 
 London Committee justify this conduct? Far from it.» But they do not think 
 it mecessary, (and 1 agree with them), to search their records, and produce an 
 -exactilist of the letters from which passages were improperly struck out. To 
 what good end could this:serve? Mr. Owen sleeps in the dust, and Dr. Stein- 
 kopff is no longer Foreign Secretary. But:if both these Gentlemen were still at 
 the helm of affairs in Earl Street, it would not be a very generous procedure on 
 the part of the London Committee to resolve to search their records, for the 
 purpose of knowing the exact: “‘ extent” of the mutilations of the Secretaries to 
 eonceal the circulation of the Apocrypha. ‘* The extent” is of no consequence— 
 itis the practice which we condemn, and which ought not to be tolerated in a 
 single instance. | But I can easily conceive how the London Committee declined 
 so ungracious a task as that. of searching out the errors of men who, for eighteen — 
 long years, performed the: arduous duties of the Seeretaryship gratuitously.—= 
 The Committee felt that, for their long and unwearied ‘labours and great per= 
 sonal sacrifices, it would not be the most suitable requital to drag’ to light and 
 expose without mercy all the errors which they had committed inthe manage- 
 ment of theaffairs of the Institution ; errors of judgment, too, which they had 
 committed from mistaken views of expediency,’in order to extend the useful- 
 ness of the Society. 
 
 I would not be understood as condemning the present Secretaries for not read- 
 ing all the voluminous correspondence of the Society in the Committee. This 
 would be an entire waste of time ; and no accusation that has been made against 
 them has been more silly than that one of them intended not to’ read Levade’s 
 ~ Letter; in which he attempted to defend himself against the charges of Robert 
 Haldane, Esq. With this defence, whether good or bad, they had nothing to 
 do; and if the Committee were to employ their time in attending to such de- 
 fences, all the Committees on the Continent, and all who are branded ‘as Neo- 
 logists, Infidels, and Heretics, might deluge their meeting-room with their de- 
 fences against the attacks of Robert Haldane, Esq. and his now loving friend, 
 the Reverend Andrew Thomson, D.D. Nor do 1 condemn the Secretaries’ for 
 mutilating the letters which they publish, and suppressing what ds useless and 
 unnecessary to be known. It is only the: publishing of any thing, or the sup-= 
 pressing of any thing, whereby a false impression may be produced, and the 
 public misled, that I disapprove: for the suppression of the far greater ‘part of 
 their correspondence is absolutely requisite, as its publication would only be a 
 wasteful expense. matt 
 
 The Secretaries now receive a salary, and that itis no more than \a meet 
 recompence for their labours, you yourself allow: for you state, (Christian In- 
 structor for June, 1826, p. 450,) “‘ Wedo not say that their salaries are too 
 large, considering the nature of their functions and the responsibility of their 
 situation, though we are far from thinking them too small.” ‘This is surely as 
 high-an encomium on the wisdom and prudence of the London Committee, re- 
 specting the fitting remuneration they have bestowed on the Secretaries, as can 
 well be conceived. In this matter at least, in your judgment, they have /zt the 
 happy medium: for, with all your disposition to find fault and blacken the Lon- 
 don Committee, you dare not say ‘‘ that the salaries of the Secretaries are too 
 large ; nor, in your heart, can you think that they are too small” /!! 1 agree 
 with you; and, should any of the Secretaries now betray their trust, or deceive 
 their constituents, no feeling of delicacy need exist in dealing with them: for, 
 being remunerated for their labours, whenever these are such as we disapprove, 
 we can instantly dismiss them, and place others in their situation. ; 
 . But you stated at the meeting of the Aberdeen Opposition Society, “ thatifia 
 salary of £300 % annum was good for Andrew Brandram, and the other Secre= 
 taries, for their services, it would also be good for his namesake, Andrew ‘Thom= 
 son, and. other Secretaries of Auxiliary or Independent Societies, for their ser- 
 vices ; and that, in this case, £5 each must be assigned them as a proportionate — 
 
43 
 
 remuneration, which, according to your statement, would amount, if my me- 
 mory fails not, to £12,000 ® annum, which would be an immense, waste of 
 Bible fands.”—On. this statement, a writer in the ‘ Aberdeen Journal’ re- 
 marked,— : 
 
 « The Doctor grumbled much that his namesake, the Rev» Andrew Brandram, had. 
 a salary; and thought, if a salary was good fer one Andrew, it was so for another. 
 The London Committee are sorry politicians. Let them pension the Scottish Secre- 
 taries, and their clamour will he hushed into the silence of death!, Remember the pre-. 
 verb, ‘ Give the barking cur a bone, and he will snarl no more.’ ”’ 
 
 On this you observed, in your Review of Anglicanus, (Christian Instructor, 
 for January, 1828, pp- 51, 52,)— 
 
 “The most impudent and violent things on the subject of dispute, (the Apocrypha 
 controversy), so far as we have seen, have appeared on the Apocryphal side. For ex- 
 ample: In the‘ Aberdeen Journal,’ among other scurrilities, it is gravely asserted, that 
 the sole object of Dr. Thomson’s outery against the extravagance of the London Com- 
 mittee, is to secure for himself a handsome salary : for, give the cur his bone; they say, 
 and he will cease barking! Where will Anglicanus find a match for this combination 
 of impudence and violence, not to say nonsense, on the opposite side of the question, 
 in any newspaper in the kingdom? ”” 
 
 Again: In your Instructor for December last, page 875, you say,— 
 
 _- “ Need we adduce the newspapers which were taken into pay at Earl Street, and 
 inserted articles, containing malignant personal abuse of Dr. Thomson: alleging, for 
 instance, that he attacked the resolution to give salaries to the London Society’s Secre- 
 taries, merely because he despaired of being able to get a salaried office for himself? A 
 
 | malicious hypothesis, which was afterwards borrowed, and couched in still more vul= 
 gar terms, by a wretched scribbler in Aberdeen.” 
 
 Now, to this I reply,— 
 1. That “ the wretched scribbler” of the paragraph in question never “ grave- 
 ly asserted that your sole object was to secure for yourself a handsome salary ;” 
 _ that he never thought, never believed, such a thing; and you are amazingly 
 | stupid; or excessively prone to misrepresent the meaning of those who contend 
 with you, when you so insinuate: for nothing can be more plain than that the 
 | writer was answering your nonsensical argument ironically, the only answer 
 | which it deserved. The sum of £5 could not have made you much richer ; 
 and, according to your own showing, this small sum should have laid your 
 _ growling, (and that of other complaining Secretaries who were included with 
 | you), respecting Andrew Brandram. You did only one-sixtieth part of his work, 
 _and deserved, by your own confession, only one-sixtieth part of his wages !— 
 | And I think it would have been ridiculous for any writer to set himself gravely 
 _ to argue, that a man may give one-sirtieth part of his time gratuitously to serve 
 a good cause, when another who gives his whole time ought to be suitably re- 
 | Munerated. And if this be self-evident to persons of common understanding, 
 _ your absurd argument falls to the ground. 
 | 2 That “the wretched scribbler” neither read nor heard of such an insinu- 
 ation in any newspaper or elsewhere, until he saw it in your Instructor, and 
 | that what he wrote on the subject was original, and not borrowed. 
 |__3..That Anglicanus can have no difficulty ‘in finding a match for the com- 
 | bination of impudence and violence, not to say nonsense,” of the paragraph 
 quoted ; and if you are at a loss on this point, I beg to refer you to the ‘ Aber- 
 | deen Journal’ of the preceding week, where you will find a portion of your 
 : own four hours’ speech, which exceeds the sentence referred toan hundred-fold 
 | < in impudence and violence, not to say nonsense.” 
 
 4. That if newspapers have inserted articles “« containing malignant personal 
 ‘abuse of Dr. Thomson,” (I have seen none such), they have also inserted ar- 
 ‘ticles from him, “ containing malignant personal abuse of individuals” far wor=: 
 thier and better than himself. With what grace can He complain of personal! 
 
AA 
 
 abuse, ‘‘ WHO HOLDS THE FEELINGS AND coaaaeren oF ones mew 50, 
 SCANDALOUSLY CHEAP”! !. (be *etide are oahu mat 
 
 - 6. That the highly respectable Editor of the A: Abtandadts Journal’ is eal 
 in Earl Street pay nor in Edinburgh pay ; and though he is a member of the 
 Auxiliary Bible Society of Aberdeen, yet he has inserted in his Journal far 
 more than double the quantity of matter against the reeves perrrannaseh than 
 he -has in their defence. xa 
 
 6. That ihe article in question was not all written by: one inst vical though 
 mainly so; neither was it only approved of by those who wrote it, ou also by 
 others. ey 
 I have access to know these things, and I rejoice that you have described the 
 
 article in question as ‘‘ the most impudent and violent that you have seen,” for 
 this is a complete proof to me that it was an overpoweringly forcible reply to’ 
 your boastful challenge, which you might. inisrepresent, but to which you could 
 give no fair answer. 1 have heard, (1 know not if it be true), that the paragraph 
 
 which precedes the one you have so grossly misrepresented, and whic — exposed 
 your /sophistry respecting Van Ess, galled you more than any other portion of 
 the’ review of your speech. I have heard it complained of by some of your 
 friends, as if it represented you “‘ as greedy of filthy lucre,” and as if this were 
 the sole spring of all your labours. _Now, 1 beg leave to say, that your aim was’ 
 to represent Van Ess “ as greedy of filthy lucre ;” and that the aim of the 
 writer was to show, by your own case, the groundlessness of your insinuation. 
 That ‘ the good people of Aberdeen” may see that the passage was merely in- 
 tended to refute your sophistry, and not to impeach you asa mere hireling, I 
 shall submit it for their and your perusal. ; 7 
 
 «‘ The Doctor told the Meeting that Dr. Steinkop# wrote to the London Commit- 
 tee, that Leander Van Ess, in all | his labours, sought not earthly emoluments, and de- 
 sired no treasure which the moth or rust consumed, and yet he was receiving £300 ae 
 -year, which is equal to £700 in Germany. Oh! the pure, the heavealy- minded, san 
 
 gold-and-silver-hating Van Ess! exclaimed the Doctor.” 4 
 
 oor wy 
 
 . This comment follows :— wii le 
 
 « Well, suppose Dr. Kidd should write to the General rere concerning Dr. 
 Thomson, that in all his ministerial labours, and in all his editorial writings, he was not: 
 greedyof filthy lucre, and that he only sought the good of souls; yet the Doctor is re- 
 ceiving from £500 to £700 a-year for his ministerial labours, ‘and very. handeneney 
 sum for his editorial labours; but if we ask the amount, we shall get ‘ no answer.’— 
 Oh! the pure, the heavenly-minded, the gold and-silyer-hating Dr, Andrew Thomson.’ 
 
 Now, who does not perceive, if you were galled by this exposure of your gos 
 samer sophistry, that it could only be, because an innocent victim was rescued 
 from your merciless clutches, by showing to the most simple of those you at- 
 tempted to delude and deceive, that the same argument by which you sought to. 
 fix on Van Ess a mercenary character, would with equal justice fix a similar. 
 character on yourself. 
 
 But it is time to notice the remaining portion of your article on the meats 
 ing of the Aberdeen Auxiliary. Yet before doing so, I shall state what I did 
 did say in my late speech at that meeting, respecting the topics to which you al- 
 lude. What I stated on the topics to which you make allusion was as follows: . 
 3 bets ll 
 
 «¢ With what faithfulness, * prudence, activity, and increasing success, the’ 
 London Committee and their agents have followed up the Apocryphal resolu-, 
 tions of the Society for 1826 and 7, their proceedings, as recorded in the Report. 
 for this and the former year, abundantly testify. True, Sir, their voice has not. 
 been heard in our streets 5 true, they have held on, ‘ in the noiseless tenour of 
 
 ~* This was not the commencement of my Speech. I only give wire’ that part o. 
 
 it which includes the passages from which'a few words were obi and wei 2 in sp 
 Instructor. ; j +h bene : vd biacrnd 
 
‘them, not only in our Highland glens and on our Highland but in 
 every quarter of the world: for have been eariedly and zealousl 
 
 ‘tempt ofall but children. We disdain nibbling warfare, and ieave it to others. 
 
 rain. 
 | © We shall leave « the pop-gun hits then, to do what execution they may, 
 ‘and briefly advert to those broadsides against the Committee proceed from 
 
 uns of a large caliber. it has been said that there are some persons, or at 
 east that there és one individual in the Committee, who is very zealous and faith- 
 ful and anxious to promote pure circulation—who is well acquainted with all 
 their Apocryphal leanings—all their dark deede—all their reckless matilation 
 
 Sele feta re ce ay any renee 
 Tegards—his 
 
 to be such “a den of thieves,"—such an Augean ae es an Apocryphal 
 pit of darkness.—such a haunt of 1 So re ey 
 that the i 
 
 hath righteousness with 
 with darkness? and what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part 
 hath he who believeth m the Bible with the infidel London Committec, whe, 
 We are assured by the document t which I hold in my hand, « have, in feet, no 
 
 Teer 
 | We sey, Sir, these men of purity, zeal, and faithfulness must, if they would 
 Se Earl Strect.  Mndeod, they > BO more visit the no-Bible Institution 
 
 Gators of the Divine Word? suetoomaucumaameriepeer ny on of 
 yaa Sa eee ere a tale-bearer 5 or cater- 
 ing for others who re-medel their communications, and issue them forth in a 
 mew dress, with such curtailments and additions as may suit the market. Such 
 
 _ * Heisas unsuccessful in reforming the abominations of Earl Street, or in annihi- 
 
 published by the Committee of the Aberdeen Opposition Bible Soriety 
 c 
 
46 
 
 a suspicion would destroy all our confidence én their veracity andhonour s and, 
 besides, it would be an indelible disgrace to our country, to suppose that there 
 was a manufactory in our land, over the doors of which might be written, 
 “DOCUMENTS AND THE CHARACTER OF GOOD MEN MANGLED HERE, AND SOLD 
 WHOLESALE AND RETAIL, AS WELL AS LIBERALLY DISTRIBUTED GRATUI+ 
 TOUSLY. ‘4 ef 
 We will not, therefore, say, why these men of purity have continued so long 
 in the Earl Street Committee ; we leave themselves to explainit, They cannot, 
 however, remain a moment longer in that Committee, if they join in opinion 
 with this document.* ‘ ays 
 It declares, page 8th,—‘ Surely the fortunes of the London Committee have now 
 reached a fatal crisis. What more thorough and distinct rejection of all true and safe 
 principle can they possibly achieve, to alienate them from every heart to which God’s 
 pure and perfect word is precious? The time is come, when so broad and reyolting is 
 their avowal, both in word and deed, of every thing in principle that is most directly 
 and vitally hostile to the purity, integrity, and divine anthority of the Bible, that the 
 dullest understanding must conclude them, of all men that ever bore the name ef Chris- 
 tians, the most unworthy of the sacred trust committed to them; and the dullest heart 
 that ever had a true affection for the Bible, must be repelled from Earl Street, as a mys- 
 tery of iniquity in the bosom of the Church ;—under strong infatuation, recklessly 
 robbing her of the very pillar and ground of the truth, and inconsciously betraying 
 her into the arms of infidelity.’ ta 
 
 “ If it isasked us, Sir, if we join issue in this opinion, we unhesitatingly re- 
 ply that wedo not. But one thing is certain, the persons who issued this docu 
 ment can never again tell us that a single faithful man remains in the Earl 
 Street Committee: for, every man hereafter who associates with them, proves, 
 by this act, that he never had ‘ a true affection for the Bible’! ‘Thereis an end, 
 henceforward, therefore, to all information that may be depended on from that 
 Committee,—and hence, we can no more hear of their misdeeds from faithful 
 and trust-worthy men.—[This, ft at least, Sir, affords us some consolation. 
 The controversy must now terminate. The assailants of Earl Street can no 
 more procure information respecting the London Committee,—from any ‘ faith- 
 ful man,—from any man that has ‘ a true affection for the Bible.” ]—Mr. Alex- 
 ander Haldane must, at least, retire; for this document informs us (page 3d) 
 that he was ‘ present, and loudly protested against a measure which clearly im- 
 plied that the Committee believed it still open to diseussion what was and what 
 was not the Word of God, and that, after all the resolutions which they had 
 passed, it was still a matter of doubt with them where the Word of God was 
 iP. be found; and which was a flagrant violation of the fundamental rules of 
 the Society.’ " 
 
 s It ~ ingame somewhat mysterious and unaccountable, that this same in- 
 fatuated Committee, who will listen to no wholesome advice, to’no protest, how- 
 ever loud or faithful, but recklessly pursue their own course, are yet represent- 
 ed in this very document, as yielding through timidity to Mr. Gorham!! Its 
 words are (see middle of 3d page)— 
 
 “Mr. Gorham’s amendment was at last agreed to, manifestly through fear, and the 
 motion, thus qualified, passed into a resolution.’ 
 
 The motion was, to print an edition of the Septuagint, The amendment was, 
 (at least they say so), ‘ without any Apocryphal matter.’ ‘The motion, as a- 
 mended, stood thus: ‘ Resolved to print an edition of the Septuagint without any 
 Apocryphal matter.’ Now, is it not a marvellous thing that that Committee 
 should have yielded through fear to Mr. Gorham, who have been so obstinate 
 and headstrong in their measures, when attacked by those who are deemed by 
 
 * The Heretical Avowal, f 
 $ This passage enclosed within the crotchet was not in my manuscript; but I spake 
 these words, or words of the same import, extempore, 
 
47 
 
 Many more powerful and gigantic assailants ?—But there is something stil] more 
 marvellous. The Statement of the Aberdeen Bible Society informs us, (p. 64), 
 * that Mr. Gorham has actually himself seceded from the Committee, and we 
 BELIEVE; (we believe, is emphatic ; but the Committee do not tell us on what 
 and this was, perhaps, prudent), * withdrawn his subscription from the 
 Society ; but he has been influenced in doing so, partly by the want of support 
 from Auxiliary Societies, and partly by the continual insults he was obliged 
 to encounter. On one occasion, the abuse heaped on him by one individual of 
 the' Documentary Sub-Committee was such, that it was found necessary that a 
 written apology, to be approved of by Mr. Gorham himself, should be offered as 
 —e forthe violence and’ coarseness of the attack.” * 
 ~ Surely, Sir, we ought to pity poor infatuated Mr. Gorham! What can 
 account for his lingering fondness for the Earl Street conclave? Why has he 
 such a desire to: be insulted, mauled, ard pounded, that he rushed back < in 
 breathless haste’ to the scene where he received continual insults, and was per- 
 petually loaded with abuse? And how comes it to pass that this ill-used, con- 
 témned man, should fight, and fight so successfully, the whole refractory Com- 
 mittee, compelling them to adopt his amendment manifestly through sheer 
 terror? This we caw neither understand nor reconcile. 
 _ _ We express no opinion on the propriety or impropriety of printing an edi- 
 tion of the Septuagint ; but this we say, that had we been in the London Com= 
 mittee, and had this measure been resolved on, we would have decidedly op- 
 posed Mr. Gorham’s amendment ; not because we were opposed to the principle 
 of it—not because we would net have carefully seen the Septuagint purged from 
 all interpolations and Apocryphal matter ; but simply because the amendment , 
 was wee unealled for—the present regulations: of the Society securing its 
 object. 
 [<*Inthis document,+Mr.Gorham is made to utter something very like nonsense. 
 « Mr. Gorham, we are told, (page 3,) announced at last, that if the words, ‘ with= 
 out, any Apoeryphal matter’ were not introduced, he should vote against the 
 Measure in foto; if they were added, he should be altogether neutral. In’ 
 answer to: Mr. Brandram,{ he said, that it was ridiculous to say that we should: 
 exclude the Apocrypha by express resolutions, in our grants of Protestant and 
 Catholic Bibles, and that we should refuse to insert these exclusive words in 
 a resolution respecting that book, which was, in fact, the parent of all the Apo~ 
 is. Now, Sir, as the Apocrypha is excluded from all the Bibles of the 
 British and Foreign Bible Society, by express laws, therefore such an amend- 
 ment was useless, yea, mischievous. What! do these express laws only con- 
 demn the Apocryphal children to death, and leave their Apocryphal parent 
 alive!! Do these laws cut down the branches, but leave the stump of the roots 
 of the tree of Apocryphal error firmly planted in Earl Street, and bound ‘ with 
 a band of iron and brass,’ for ever ready to sprout and flourish? Have we no 
 security against such’ an evil, but the hope that some faithful individual will be 
 found (like Mr. Gorham) always at hand to apply the axe of destruction in the 
 
 * Mr. Gorham has annexed the following postscript to his Letter to Dr. Henderson, 
 which came as a reply to the vote of thanks tendered to him by the opposition Society : 
 “« Itake this opportunity of correcting mistake in the Aberdeen Statement, page 64. 
 There-never was a time when I contemplated withdrawing my subscription’ from the’ 
 Bible Society. I miglit advert to other mis-statements in the same page.”* 
 inked + The Heretical Avowal. . 
 
 $ Mr. Gorham, in his letter to Dr. Wardlaw, remarks on this statement,—‘ The In- 
 structor’s account may-lead its readers to think, that Mr. Brandram and. others opposed” 
 the clause which excludes ‘all apocryphal matter’ from the Society’s Septuagint, with 
 the’ secret. desire to introduce such matter. But such an imputation would be most 
 unjust. Mr. Brandram expressly stated, that his reason for opposing the clause was, 
 that it had been omitted in all other grants, and that its insertion was unnecessary. I 
 feel it the more incumbent upon me to state my Honest conviction upon this point, be- 
 cause the Committee has been grossly calumniated, as still having a desire to circulate 
 the Apocrypha.” : ; 
 
 G2 
 
48 
 
 shape of an amendment to the Apocryphal resolutions of the Le 
 1f so, the laws of 1826 and 7 leave the root of the evil. untouched, and we are 
 labouring under a gross delusion. But this we do not believe. If there be 
 meaning in language, or honesty in man, these laws have hewn down the tree 
 of Apoeryplial error which grew in Earl Street, root and branch Mr. Gorham’s 
 amendment, we, therefore, consider highly improper. ]*. .ud ew 
 ‘*We conceive it would be just as proper to tact a like amendment to any 
 proposal for printing an edition of any of the continental versions. Now, the 
 very proposal of such a thing seems to imply, that the Committee are still left 
 at liberty to decide what versions may or may not be printed with Apocryphal 
 matter. We deny this. The Society have settled that every version; no mat-= 
 ter what be its name, shall be printed, bound, and circulated, without any Apo-= 
 cryphal matter, and, therefore, such an amendment as Mr. Gorham’s, was en= 
 tirely superfluous, and a work of supererogation. If the fact be as it is repre~ 
 sented in this document,t we have no doubt the Committee have yielded to 
 Mr. Gorham, not through fear, but for the sake of peace ;—still we think that 
 they ought to have resisted his amendment, for the reasons we have assigned. 
 Though we think Mr. Gorham has acted rather precipitately and mistakingly in 
 avery few instances, yet we hold him to be a man of the best intentions, of 
 high honour, and of real zeal for the purity of the Divine Word. Were he to 
 give us a relation of what happened at the Committee meetings referred to, we 
 would deem it entitled to confidence, but to the present article we can give no 
 heed. It is some consolation to find that this Gentleman, whose praise is in the 
 mouths and in the writings of the foes of the London Committee, still remains 
 in that body, for the agreeing to his amendment (we are told), purchased his 
 neutrality ; we wiil therefore believe while he continues among them, that they 
 are not altogether unworthy of trust, nor dare we think, that his heart never 
 ‘had a conus affection for the Bible, because he has not yet been repelled from Earl 
 Street.’ ore 
 ff Independently, Sir, of the numerous inconsistencies with which this docu= 
 ment abounds ; we must state, for it states itself, that it is a mangled, garbled, 
 mutilated narrative of what took place, and therefore no wise man can safely 
 give heed to it, until all the alarming particulars of the case are fully disclosed. 
 I will .read from the document itself, that the meeting may judge for 
 selves. tak 
 
 - © This narrative (page 4th) although it contains not one half of the alarming parti- 
 culars that might have justly been introduced, affords evidence the most complete of the 
 correctness of our estimate of the character and principles of the London Committee.” 
 
 « Now, Sir, we are told, that ‘the Committee of the Aberdeen Bible Society 
 
 received the information direct from London, from a member of the Committee, 
 
 who took an active and honourable share in the debates, and they pledge them- 
 selves for the accuracy of the details.’ Well, why did’ they not give us ‘this 
 information just as they received it, with the member’s name, and without note 
 or comment? Why concoct a new article? Why not let the information, as it 
 
 came pure and entire from head-quarters, see the light? There is something - 
 
 exceedingly suspicious in this procedure. Were they afraid to trust us with the 
 precious original, lest we should misapprehend its meaning? Do they mean 
 to deal with us, as the Pope and the Romish clergy deal with their adherents, 
 whom they will not intrust but with such scraps of the Bible as they please, 
 and with notes and comments that the faithful may understand it just as their 
 teachers understand it? If so, we frankly and decidedly reply —We Are 
 PROTESTANTS, AND WE WILL BE TREATED AS PROTESTANTS. We haye as 
 * The passage enclosed in the crotchet was notin the MS. I read from, but the 
 substance of it was spoken. 5 ath 
 + The Heretical Avowal. . 1s 
 Mr. Gorham, in his letter to Dr. Henderson, says ‘Since the public. decision of 
 May, 1826, I know not of a single instance of a disposition on the part of the Commit- 
 tee to violate the resolutions then framed.” 
 
 . 
 
49 
 yet acknowledged no Society asour guide—no man nor body of men as our Pope, 
 
 or the defender of our faith. We will not see with your eyes — we will not 
 
 hear with your ears. We will neither adhere to nor separate from the London 
 Committee, except on petsonal conviction ; and, therefore, if you wish to en- 
 lighten us on their misdeeds, let us into all your secrets, produce your original 
 information, whole and entire, and we will judge of it for ourselves. There is 
 one particular especially, on which we would thank the Committee of the Aber- 
 deen Bible Society to give us information, through the medium of the press, in 
 their next publication. Did the member of the London Committee, when he 
 sent them this information, state, that he had resigned his membership, and 
 that his heart was repelled from Earl Street for ever? If not, what dependence 
 can they place on his information? or how can they believe that he ever had a 
 true affection for the Bible? The London Committee (this document* assures 
 us) have, in fact, no Bible. Their labours are consequently at an end, until 
 they get a new Bible, which they have appointed a few individuals to manufac- 
 ture. Well, we shall just say, when this New Bible is manufactured, by what- 
 ever standard this is done,—standard! they have no standard ! !—well, when 
 it is manufactured by no standard !!! if zt zs not the same as our old Bible, we 
 will reject it, and abandon the Earl Street worthies for ever.” 
 
 This was what I stated at the annual meeting of our Auxiliary, October 
 last, respecting your article on the proceedings of the London Committee, in 
 reference to the Septuagint. Before noticing your remarks on what I said, I 
 shall here add a few observations more, which I intended to make at the meeting, 
 but suppressed, that I might not trespass too far on the patience of a willing 
 audience. iio, 
 
 Ist, The remarks made by Mr. Ballance and others respecting ‘a perfect 
 standard,” admitting that their language is correctly reported, by no means, in 
 my view, implied on their part the least doubt respecting the true.canon of Serip- 
 ture ; but their doubt whether that canon could be made more perfect than it 
 already was. They admitted, with their opponents, that there were many thou- 
 sand various readings, but they believed that most of these were trifling, im- 
 material, and unimportant, and in nowise affected the true canon of Scripture— 
 the proper standard of truth. If we were to reject ancient and authorized versions 
 because of various readings, where, they demanded, were we to find an infallibly 
 perfect standard to which to appeal, by which we might purge every existing 
 version and original manuscript from these various readings? They denied that 
 any such standard existed,—if it did exist, they requested it might be produced. 
 Thus, instead of undermining the true canon of Scripture, I conceive that their 
 whole argument went io uphold the canon of Scripture as already settled. And, 
 although most of the many. thousand various readings ‘‘ may be corrected by 
 manuscripts, ancient versions, early quotations, and sound chastised criticism,” + 
 which none of them denied, yet this revisal of the Scriptures must evidently 
 be left to the decision of human and uninspired judgment,—and after it has 
 done its best, availing itself of all helps, can it produce a copy of God’s word, 
 free of the slightest interpolation or mistake, and in which there is not a single 
 word but what is inspired, nor the slightest defect or redundancy however trifling 
 or unimportant? If Dr. Thomson and Messrs. R..and A. Haldane, Esqrs. can 
 produce such a Bible, let them do it.. By so doing, they will perform a greater 
 service for the Church of Christ, than all the critics and commentators which 
 Britain has yet produced ; they will free the word of God from all interpolations 
 however trifling ; from all the unintentional blunders of transcribers and 
 printers ; they will settle at once and in every instance which of the various 
 readings should be adopted or rejected ; and they will clear up, and for ever put 
 an end to all disputed points in Chronology, and will immensely abridge the 
 study and labour of every critical student of the Sacred Oracles. If they deem 
 themselves capable of performing such a service, let them instantly set about it. 
 
 * The Heretical Avowal. 
 t Hill’s Institutes. 
 
50 
 
 By. aceomplishing it, they will confer no ordinary fayour on»the’ church of 
 Christ, swhile. their names vill be held, by every ion of the Bible, in gratefab 
 and, everlasting remembrance. eiay Mi. 
 2d, What is called Mr. Gorham’s triumphant refutation of Mr. Daniel Wil 
 son’s.discreditable arguments, isa plain and full admission of marumamert cy 
 passage stands thus:-— ‘ 
 
 «« Mr,. Daniel Wilson. took a, leading part in. the lincunta oe ones of ‘a 
 cellence, and antiquity of the.Septuagint translation—denied that the interpolations: 
 which it contained could be properly called Apocryphal,—contended that it was difli-- 
 cult to. determine. this point,—and observed, that the Hebrew MSS.. had also been 
 corrupted, and contained many, various. readings.” 
 
 “ Mr. Gorham triumphantly repelled these disereditable arguments. As to the 
 antiquity of the Septuagint, he asked, how that could be maintained as to the Present, 
 Septuagint, some of which did not exist for centuries after our Lord’s ascension into 
 glory? And as to the various readings, he replied, that after all Dr, Kennicott had. 
 done in the way of collation, it had. been ignorantly objected to him, that he had done 
 no goad, because after all the many variations that he had discovered, ce text was in’ 
 no case materially affected. He admitted, that there were various readin. but it 
 was as in the case of Homer and Herodotus, and formed no argument sata thé ‘thé 
 authenticity of the text,—the Septuagint, however, contained whole passages inter- 
 larded' with tlie word: of God, which were manifestly Apocryphal. Mr. Leeves main- 
 tained, that tlese were Hardly to be called’ Apocryphal, and were’ not usually called! 
 so.” sit 
 
 Now, I would remark on this quotation,— ' 
 
 Ist, That neither Mr. W ilson, nor any other member of the Londom emu 
 mittee, in speaking of the Septuagint, referred to’ the Apocryphal additions 
 which had been made'to it since Christ’s'ascension into’ glory; or wished to —— 
 these’ with the canonical Seriptures. 
 
 2d; That: Mr. Gorham adimits the various readings, whereby the Hebrew tex 
 is corrupted, and that neither Mr. Wilson nor any other Gentleman: stated that’ 
 these variations materially affected the Hebrew text, or destroyed its authenticity. 
 
 3d;That Mr. Leeves distinctly admitted what Mr. Gorham asserted, that 
 * the Septuagint cotained whole passages: interlarded with the word of God;”" 
 but stated, that these interpolations were not usually called ret Sig haiti this 
 was'a manifest truth, which Mr. Gorham did not deny. 
 
 4th, That the whole of the discussion: on this point, if this doeutient is’ to 
 be: believed, was a mere strife of words—Mr. Gorham calling the additions’ 
 6 Apoeryphal matter,” and) Messrs. Wilson, Leeves, &e. &c: calling them * In- 
 terpolated matter.” Now, it was a matter of no consequence under what name 
 the additions went;—the great matter was, that they were all’ agreed’ that these’ 
 formed no part of the word of God-—of the true canon of Scripture. 
 
 The:only other portions of this absurd, garbled, and false narrative’ of pro 
 ceedings: respecting. the Septuagint, to whieh I shall — nape _— 4 
 following : 
 
 ha bh Ww . 
 << We have:still to inform our readers of the extraordinary: measure i ail by the’ 
 Committee, for: purging’ their edition of the’ Septuagint from. alll Apocryplial matter’ 
 We; honestly desiring: to give effect to Mr. Gorham’s'amendment,. now an -authorita-' 
 tive pertion’ of the resolution on the subject; should have thought it practicable imonly: 
 one. way—by appointing a competent Committee to collate the Septuagint with the 
 Hebrew text, and exclude every passage for which they found:no; correspondent. there ;) 
 and, on.that; way we should. have instantly resolved.. But) what will it. be: believed; 
 was. done by the London. Committee? Why, they, commit the matter to Dri Mi! Bride,; 
 and. to. Mr. Leeves, who they know, for he has told them, does not consider the!i inser-; 
 tion of 20 verses in.a.chapter of Exodus, orof the.151st'Psalm. ‘‘ properly Apocrypha,*” 
 and they are appointed to. report to a Sub-committee those parts of the Septuagint, 
 which, ‘‘in their own judgment, are to be considered Apocryphal ! !’’ 
 
 ‘¢ The Septuagint proceedings haye supplied irresistible evidence that unsound and 
 
 dangerous principles on those very subjects which most nearly and vitally affect the 
 
5l 
 
 cliaracter of a Bible Society, prevail in the London’ Committee. ‘Why did they ‘he- 
 sitate to admit an amendment which simply provided that all Apocryphal matter 
 should be excluded in their Greek Bible? Why have they referred the determination 
 of what parts of the Septuagint are to be considered Apocryphal to the judgment of 
 Dr. M‘Bride and Mr. Leeves? Why have they appointed a Sub-committee to discuss 
 the question? What shall constitute their Greek Bible? There is but one answer to 
 these questions ;—the London Committee believe that the canon of Scripture is not 
 settled ; the London Committee believe that it is still a question of private judgment 
 —a question fairly open. to dehate,— What is and what is not the Bible? The London 
 Committee, who have undertaken to circulate the Bible throughout the world, know 
 not yet what the book is which they have undertaken to disseminate! The London 
 Committee believe that there is no fixed standard of the Word of God to which they 
 can appeal! The London Committee have, in fact, no Bible! !”’ 
 
 | Of all your (Dr. Thomson's) attempts to mislead the public, and to deceive 
 them into a bad opinion of the London Committee, none ican exceed, im daring 
 and malignant wickedness, your endeavours of this sort, in the above extracts. 
 
 i. You know well that Dr. M‘Bride and Mr. Leeves reject the 20 verses to 
 which. you refer, and the 151st Psalm as uncanonical, although the latter Gen- 
 tleman has stated, that he does not consider that it is proper to class them under, 
 the name of ‘‘ Apocryphal matter,” as they are not ‘ properly Apocrypha,” 
 not being usually called so. Now, Sir, it does not signify a straw by what name 
 they are called, if they are not acknowledged as inspired or canonical. This; 
 therefore, is.a pitiful trick of yours to deceive and mislead the ignorant bya 
 play upon words. : 
 
 2. You know well that the laws of the British and Foreign Bible Society 
 prohibit the Committee from publishing any part or parcel ot the Apocrypha, 
 and therefere such an amendment .as Mr. Gorham’s was uncalled for, and seemed 
 to imply, that the laws on the subject of the Apoerypha were not sufliciently 
 express. Mr, Gorham’s amendment should have been “ without any wncanoni- 
 eal matter.” In this case, we would have supported it, as intending a revision 
 of the Septuagint, with a view to make it as pure and perfect as possible. 
 
 3. You know well that no man nor body of men can purify.the Septuagint 
 or any other version of the Scriptures, but by the exercise of human judgment. 
 
 4. You know well that Dr. M‘Bride and Mr. Leeves were not debarred from 
 comparing the Septuagint with the Hebrew text, or any other text, but, on the 
 contrary, were left free to avail themselves of all helps within their reach, which 
 they will and must do, if they fulfil, (as I have no doubt they will) to the 
 best of their abilities, the very difficult duty assigned them. 
 
 5. You know well that Dr. M‘Bride.and Mr. Leeves were not appointed to 
 sit in judgment on the true canon of Scripture, and settle it; but were ap- 
 pointed to sit in judgment on real or suspected interpolations, and on yarious 
 readings which are not yet settled, but disputed by the most eminent critics, 
 and concerning which we have no fixed standard to appeal to, which would de- 
 termine in every case what should be rejected as the talse, and what should be: 
 adopted as the true reading. 
 
 6. You must be a very shallow and stupid critic if you would admit every 
 reading found in any Hebrew MSS., for the Hebrew MSS. are contrary to 
 each other, and cannot all be right. Human judgment must be exercised on 
 this subject, and human judgment is liable to err, nor zs it possible in every case 
 certainly to determine which of the various readings are the words of the Spirit, 
 and which not. But this does not affect the true canon of Scripture, or the 
 authenticity of the Hebrew text, any more than the various readings found in 
 the different editions of Homer and Herodotus affect the authenticity of their 
 works. 
 
 7 You know well, or you ought-to know, that the London Committee, in 
 their resolutions respecting the Septuagint, distinctly refer to the true canon of 
 Seripture, and recognise it as settled; and your declaring that they believe it 
 unsettled, and that they have no Bible, is one of the most groundless calumnies, | 
 
52 
 
 and one of the most gross. and enormous violations of the Ninth Command- 
 ment respecting them, which one human being can be» guilty of towards. 
 another. Their words on this point are,— : 1 t palatles anode 
 
 “ Résolved,—That the above minutes of the Sub-Committee be confirmed ; it being 
 
 understdod to extend’ only to the canonical bovks of the Old Testament, with the omis- 
 sion of all Apocryphal matter,” 
 
 You complain, Sir, of the mutilation of letters and documents by the secreta- 
 ries of the London Committee ; but I conceive that you yourself are the greatest 
 mutilator of letters and documents in existence. From a careful and diligent 
 perusal of your Instructor for years, I am fully persuaded, that your real object 
 js to conceal the truth, and to deceive the public. The truth will almost inva- 
 riably be found to be the very opposite of that which you, on the Apocrypha 
 controversy, wish to make the public believe. You have taken such gross and 
 shameful liberties (sufficient specimens of which I have given) with the pub- 
 lished documents you have reviewed, and which are within our reach to exa= 
 mine, that I doubt not were your private correspondence and intelligence laid 
 open, a scene would burst upon public view of such gross garbling, mutilation; 
 and misrepresentation, on your part, as has never been exceeded. If, in order to 
 misrepresent the London Committee, you have done such fearful injustice by 
 those documents which we have seen, what reckless and inconceivable havoc 
 must you have made of the secret communications you have received, when 
 you knew your guilty deeds could not be detected? J believe that you have 
 mangled and misrepresented private communications sent you,.and I call upon 
 you to publish the communications of your secret correspondents, with their 
 names annexed, to prove that I am in error. . You will not—you dare not-do 
 this ; it would cover you with everlasting infamy. This challenge, however, 
 you ought to esteem perfectly fair; it is similar to one you have made in the 
 Elgin Courier in reference to Mr. Dudley. In your own words, therefore, I 
 say, “I pledge myself to afford the public a full and incontrovertible demon- 
 stration of all that I have alleged,” it you will give me access to all the secret 
 letters and documenés on which your public intelligence is founded. 
 
 - Why, Sir, do you not give us your information as you receive it, only sup- 
 pressing the names of your correspondents, if they are ashamed of what they 
 write? Have we no right to judge of its meaning, until you re-mould and 
 manufacture it anew ?. Must you be Pope in this controversy, and must we receive 
 all your sayings and views, as if you were endowed with infallibility > By your 
 concocting and shaping the private intelligence you receive after your own mind, 
 does it become more favourable for the London Committee ? Do you give it no 
 unfair colouring? Are you exceedingly unwilling to find these men in, the 
 wrong? Have you no ill-will against them? -Do you suppress no “alarming 
 particulars” which, if they saw the light, would upset all that you say? Is it 
 from tenderness to the London Committee, that you have concealed what was 
 said respecting “the various readings ;” or is it to hide the agnoranee of. Messrs. 
 Drummond and Haldane, “ the great Protestors,” who, I have no doubt, were 
 completely beaten and foiled in the discussion? O Sir! your conscience will 
 awake some day, and testify to your face, that you have striven with all the 
 power you possess to misrepresent and blacken the London Committee, in refer=-__ 
 ence to their proceedings regarding the Septuagint,.as well as in numberless 
 other instances. Unfortunate London Committee! you have fallen into the 
 hands of a most unrighteous and unjust judge, who is resolved to condemn you 
 whatever you do! Yes, Sir, you condemn them because they hesitated to adopt 
 Mr. Gorham’s amendment; and then, when they adopt it, and endeavour to 
 carry it into execution in the only way it could possibly be done, you condemn 
 them as guilty of rejecting the canon of Scripture, and as declaring that they 
 have no Bible!!! But if so, the guilt was Mr. Gorham’s, not theirs,—they 
 only followed up his amendment ; nor did that Gentleman, nor do I, nor do 
 thousands more, see in their conduct on this point, the slightest intention to in-. 
 
53 
 
 terfere with the true canon of Scripture, or the least ground for asserting that 
 they have no Bible—but just the reverse of these things) 
 
 ' Your conduct reminds me of the manner in which it is‘said those who were 
 tried for witchcraft were treated ‘by their judges in ancient times. They were. 
 condemned to be tied’neck and heels together, and thrown’ into a pond of water. 
 If they sank and were drowned, they were acquitted ; if they swam, they were 
 taken out and burned!! Just so,—whatever the London Committee do, you 
 still denounce them as blameworthy and deserving of punishment. You do not 
 watch over them with a godly jealousy, and mourn when you detect them doing 
 wrong, but, like a fiend, you rejoice and triumph over them on account of their 
 misdeeds, while you magnify and multiply these an hundred-fold. | Dr. Owen’s 
 Observations on ‘the difference between godly jealousy and causeless suspicion, 
 are as applicable to the suspicious spirit which is in you and in many others, in re= 
 ference to the London Committee, as if he'had witnessed and intended to de- 
 scribe it. His words are— ; 
 * “ There is indeed a causeless suspicion that some are apt to indulge in, instead of 
 this watchful jealousy. But this is the bane of churches and of leve, as that is the 
 preservation of them both. The Apostle placeth ‘ evil surmiéses,” or suspicions, among 
 the works of men of corrupt minds, and that deservedly. But this godly watchful 
 jealousy is that which be commends unto others, in the example of himself. And 
 whatever appearance they may have one of the other they may be easily distinguished. 
 Jealousy is a solicitous care, proceeding from love; suspicion, a vain) conjecturing, 
 proceeding from curiosity, vanity, or envy. He that hath the former, hath his heart 
 ruled by love towards them concerning whom he hath it. From thence he is afraid 
 lest they should miscarry, lest any evil should: befall them; ‘for Jove is the willing of 
 all good unto others, that they may prosper universally. . Suspicion is. an effect of 
 curiosity and vanity of mind, whence commonly there is somewhat of envy and secret 
 self-pleasing, in the miscarriages ‘of others, mixed with it—a fault too often found 
 amongst professors. And this vice puts itself forth in vain babbling and unheedful 
 defamations; whereas the other works by love, tenderness, prayer, and mutual exhor- 
 tation,” 
 
 I shall now examine your remaining remarks on my speech. ‘‘ Mr. Spence 
 has become a complete sceptic in his burning zeal for the Bible adulterators in 
 Lendon.” Mr. Spence has become no such thing. ‘ He will not believe that 
 the printing of the Septuagint was ever broached by these great and good men.” 
 He neyer doubted it. ‘* His language at the meeting on this topic was, 
 «There was a proposal to print the Septuagint, (at least so they suy.)” His 
 language at the meeting you have falsely given, for he uttered no such words. 
 
 “His words were ‘‘ The motion was to print an edition of the Septuagint.. The 
 amendment was (at least they say so) without any Apocryphal matter.” Now, 
 whoever found fault with me for expressing such a doubt respecting the 
 amendment, you ought to have approved of it, for you know, or you ought 
 to know, that in your number for September, page 636, where we have an 
 account of this affair, itis stated, “* But suffice it to say, that, if my inform- 
 ant be correct, after a hard battle, it was agreed to insert the wards, ‘ without 
 any Apocryphal matter,” in the resolution authorising the printing of the Sep- 
 tuagint. Now, this is stated by one who says, ‘‘No one can attest more fully 
 than myself the many dark, daring, and strange proceedings of which Earl Street 
 has been the theatre.”* - And, if he was not sure that his informant was correct, 
 how could I ? icon : 
 
 You go on thus :—‘* When men pretending to have any intellect, and pro- 
 fessing Christianity, have recourse to such manceuvring in debate on a question 
 of the gravest moment, they are unworthy of being reasoned with; they only. 
 deserve to be rebuked sharply, if indeed they merit any notice at all.” 
 ~ I have as much intellect as to be able to point out your mutilations, con- 
 
 * Who was the writer of the letter? Was it Dr. Thomson to Dr. Thomson ?—a 
 fetch to prop your sinking credit?- 
 H 
 
, 
 
 54 
 
 tradictions, fabrications, and manceuvrings, and indeed this requires but awery: 
 small portion of intellect, as these are ee and palpable, that one having 
 “the twentieth part of an eye” may see them. I profess Christianity. I do 
 more—I study to live according to the precepts of Christianity, that men m 
 not say, ‘ thou that teachest another, ¢eachest thou not thyself.’ On. 
 “ question of the gravest moment,” I have had recourse tono “ ceuvring.” 
 I leave this to you,—my cause needs it not; if it did, I should instantly aban=< 
 don it. If plain and unvarnished truth cannot uphold it, the sooner it falls 
 the better. If I am undeserving of “ being reasoned with,” most assuredly, 
 you have not been guilty of so doing. You rai/ abundantly at your rT 
 but “of reasoning with them,” you are very shy and sparing. If I deserve “to 
 be rebuked sharply,” you have attempted to do your duty, but your rebukes 
 are all causeless. If the Cretians, who were much addicted to the mean and 
 abominable vice of lying, deserved to be rebuked sharply, so do all who are like 
 them, and who are their brethren in this iniquity ; and J leave it to “ the good 
 people of Aberdeen” to decide, from the figure which you make in my double- 
 column exhibition, whether yon may not claim some little affinity and fellow- 
 ship with the Cretians in this vice,—and, by consequence, whether my sharp 
 rebukes are not according to canonical and apostolical injunction and authority. 
 Having that on my side, I seek no other.. If by that 1 am acquitted, I care 
 not who condemn me. If I did not ‘f merit any notice at all,” you should 
 not have bestowed any upon me. Why you have done. so.is best known to 
 yourself. I can only tell you, that you are quite welcome to notice me or not 
 to notice me. When you do the former, I shall, when I deem it necessar 
 notice you in return; when the latter, I shall leave you alone. But I wou 
 have you know, that I fear you as little as the sucking child fears to play 
 on the hole of the asp; or as the weaned child fears to put his hand on the 
 cockatrice’ den. mi byen st “ 
 You proceed :—* Ay, Mr. Spence, the proposal to print the Septuagint was 
 made.” JI never doubted it; and am glad that you are right for once, as you 
 blunder so grievously, that my review- of your review gets slowly on, being 
 constantly obliged to point out your mistakes. ‘* But the proposal itself was 
 nothing in comparison of the heresies uttered in support of it.’ I must have 
 
 better authority than yours before I believe that any “heresies were uttered - 
 
 in support of it.” As to Mr. Drummond’s cutting sareasm—* In) short, our 
 whole Society is founded on mistake, and we have no Bible,”"—it may be very 
 possible that he did utter this sarcasm, for I hold him and the whole “ knot” 
 of the students of prophecy in London to be utterly incapable of judging what 
 are and what are not heresies. They are the greatest venders of heresy them- 
 selves. Men who so completely misinterpret the Word of God; and give out 
 their opinions with oracular infallibility, may well misunderstand the words of 
 their fellow-men, and affix to them a meaning the very opposite of the true one. 
 “¢ Let Mr. Spence write to Mr. Gorham, who was present at the first discussion, 
 and learn from him, whether our account of the matter is not, in the main, correct 
 and true” Mr. Spence will write to Mr. Gorham just when he pleases, and not at 
 your bidding. If you wish me toknow Mr. Gorham’s opinion, you can write him 
 yourself, and publish his reply, without mutilating it, in your Instructor. 1 have 
 a very high opinion of Mr. Gorham’s honesty, but I do not blindly follow him. 
 ‘In several instances I would have differed from him in opinion. If he were to 
 publish what was actually stated by the members of Committee, J would believe 
 him, but I would judge of the meaning of their words for. myself. If I were 
 in doubt as to their meaning, I would apply to themselves for explanation, 
 and by their explanation I would abide: It is most absurd and iniquitous to 
 eondemn men unheard, and to maintain that they denied the true canon of 
 scripture, in a discussion which terminated, not only in a resolution which dis- 
 tinctly recognises “ the canonical books,” but which had also for its objeet the 
 purging from these bouks, “ all Apocryphal: matter”!!! The story in my opi- 
 nion bears a lie on its forehead. It contradicts itself. The testimony of Mr. 
 Drummond, and the facts of the case agree not together. Even you yourself 
 seem suspicious that Mr. Gorham would not corroborate your statement in all- 
 
55 
 
 its extent. You wish me only to ask, whether your “account of the matter 
 is not, in'the main, correct and true’ !» Now, 1 know that, according to you, a 
 thing is, “in the muin, correct and true,” when it has not one particle of truth 
 ¢o support it. Your account of Mr. Platt’s theory (according to you) is, “in 
 the main, correct and'true” ! Your account of Mr. Stokes’s theory (by the same 
 authority) is, ‘‘in the main, correct and true”! And your own theory of Apo- 
 crypha concealment, (if you are to be believed), is, ‘in the main, correct and 
 true,” though teeming with the grossest contradictions !!\! 
 
 But what do you say more? “‘ We ourselves have seen Mr. Drummond the 
 banker, who'was present at the second day’s discussion, and he corroborated 
 distinctly the statement which we had previously given on the best authority, 
 and/spoke' with the strongest indignation of the infidel tone which pervaded the 
 remarks made as to’the'standard’ of Scripture,—remarks that were propounded 
 by some of the leading members of the Committee, and that were heard with 
 ‘GENERAL atid’ MARKED approbation.” 
 
 » You'are exceedingly welcome to Mr. Drummond’s testimony,for the reasons 
 Thave already assigned. I dare say, you would: receive the testimony of any 
 one, if given against the Earl Street’ Committee. That! Mr Drummond 
 spake <* with the* strongest indignation” 1 doubt not, for the language of 
 absurdity and passion, if your article is’ to be believed, seems as natural to him 
 as'to yourself. But why so’ modified and softened on account of the spirit in 
 which Mr. Ballance's heresies were heard by the Committee?’ In your former 
 article it is'said; <* Let the fact be published, the walls of the committee-room 
 vung with the loudest cheers of approbation! !!°* One would imagine from this, 
 that Mr. Ballance received as much applause as you did at the public-meeting 
 of your Society in Edinburgh, in*1827, when you were deified as the god of the 
 DUltra-anti-Apocryphists, for they declared, that’ <‘ all human acknowledgments 
 are indeed wholly unable to discharge” to you “ their incalculable debt of gra- 
 titude.” What, then, can they give you but divine honours? (See page 46, of 
 wecount of Eighteenth Annual Meeting of Edinburgh Bible Society.) $ 
 
 Now, you merely state, that “ the heresies” were heard by the Committee 
 with general and’ markedapprobation.” Nor does a single note of admiration 
 follow’ this statement, though three’ are appended to the former. Perhaps, 
 though Mr. Drummond “ distinctly corroborated your statement,” you had 
 begun ‘to doubt it yourself, and perhaps you more than suspected) Mr. Drum- 
 mond’s capacity to discern what heresy is: If you are a disciple of the “knot” 
 of the students of prophecy in London; pray tell the public so, and they will be 
 able to judge whether they should give heed to you. There is one thing, at 
 least, in which you equal them, that is in self-conceit. You give out’ your opi- 
 nions as infallible, and hold in utter contempt all who question their soundness: 
 To deny the orthedoxy of your views, respecting the Earl Street worthies, is 
 to deny the faith, and to be guilty of uttering heresy and nonsense! ! In short, 
 Sir, we who oppose you aré all infidels’; we all utter dangerous heresies, and 
 hold unsound views of the true canon of Scripture!!! This you state on 
 “ the best authority,” that is, on your own! for you declare that you have all 
 along ‘been defending from violence the canon of Scripture truth,” 
 
 But I request you to state what that “best authority” was on which you 
 made your statement ‘respecting Mr. Ballance? If it is so good, why should 
 you be ashamed of it? Why should you conceal it? J do not believe it was 
 good authority. Give it to the public, and I shall engage to sft it. Your tes- 
 timony, that it was “ the best authority,” is-not worth a rush. Was it Mr. 
 
 _ ® Mr. Ballance, in his letter to Dr. Wardlaw, says,— , 
 . “The language attributed to’me in his number, for September, page 647, I did 
 not use; nor did any of the sentiments which I did utter, receive any marked appro- 
 bation of the Committee. In both respects, the account in the Christian Instructor 
 is entirely false.” ‘ 
 
 “It is the settled conviction of my mind, that the Hebrew Bible we possess is the sour 
 AND EXCLUSIVE STANDARD OF REVEALED TRUTH.” 
 
 H2 
 
56 
 
 ‘Gorham’s testimony? No. Was it Mr. Drummond's? ‘No—elsé 
 corroborates his own testimony,—a thing, indeed, which would not be 
 it would be only doing for himself what you so often do: for yourself, as no 
 other person seems so inclined to do it for you. » Was it Mr: Alexander Hal- 
 dane’s?) If so, I] have a few questions to ask. Does: Mr.| Av Haldane pay £5 
 annum that he may have the privilege of attending the meetings of the 
 Earl Street Committee? Does he view the proceedings of’ that Committee as 
 aiding and abetting in the corruption of the Divine Word? Has he been for 
 years testifying against their unfaithfulness?» Is it his mind that we should 
 withdraw our support from them, and give them no countenance? Is he com- 
 pletely hostile to the spirit and tenour of their measures in general? ‘Then 
 why does he remain among them? Why does he do evil that good)may come? 
 Why does he wish others to withdraw from the Committee as corrupt, while 
 he cleaves to Earl Street himself? Is this honest? Is this reputable ?) Can any 
 proper defence be made for such conduct? Can we receive his testimony, if 
 these are the facts of the case, without the strongest suspicion? Would any 
 court of justice in such circumstances accept his testimony as ‘*the best autho- 
 rity”? In what light, if these things are true, must every man of common 
 ‘sense view Mr. Alexander Haldane? Must wesnot consider him as a spy lurk 
 ing in Earl Street to convey tidings to the camp of the enemy? Must we not 
 conceive of him as-giving his money to advance objects which his conscience 
 disapproves, that he may have an opportunity, by talebearing and ‘misrepresen= 
 tation, of inflicting, in a covert and cowardly manner, a mortal stab’ om the 
 character of the men with whom he is professedly associating for the most ex- 
 cellent of all objects ? sh rab! REP eAreetly 
 - ‘I do not by any means say or insinuate that Mr. Haldane is so mean, des- 
 picable, and worthless a character as such conduct would show him to be. But 
 if your testimony, and that of some other of his friends respecting him be 
 true, I do not see how he can answer these questions so as to clear his repu- 
 tation, whichis, at present, as low in public estimation, to say the least, as that 
 of any man’s in the Earl Street conclave. It is by no Apoeryphal authority 
 that we are informed ‘ The words of a talebearer areas wounds, and they go 
 down into the innermost parts of the belly. Where no wood is, there the fire 
 goeth out ;.so where there is no ¢alebearer the strife ceaseth.”” Let those who 
 correspond with you give their names, and let their own and not your articles 
 be published. Your articles seem to me, to rest on the “very worst authority,” 
 —on the authority of talebearers who skulk in the dark, and whose names 
 dare not give. I never knew a falebearer yet who spake “truth, the whole 
 truth, and nothing but the fruth ;”* and most certainly your talebearers, whoever 
 they may be, have not improved in the art of truth-telling, for whether they 
 send you information of what is passing in Earl Street or in Aberdeen,if you 
 do them'justice, their information is utterly worthless and untrues © 
 But, Sir, how can you think that we could credit your account of the pro- 
 ceedings of the London Committee relative to the Septuagint, seeing you de- 
 clare, that their avowed heresies on that occasion were such as must repel from 
 Earl Street’ “ the dullest heart that ever had a true affection for the Bible.” We 
 have not heard that Mr. Gorham, or that Mr. Drummond, or that Mr. Haldane 
 has seceded from Eari Street since these proceedings, or indeed that a single 
 individual has done so. The letter* written in your September No. by‘ one 
 of the old school,” (that is, as I suppose, yourself) says he has his information 
 “from several. members of the Committee;” then-he refers to one, whom ‘he 
 styles “my informant,” and then he Geclares, *‘ I speak on the authority ofa 
 gentleman who was present, that there were on no occasion more than two in- 
 dividuals who offered any opposition to the new-fangled notions and absurd 
 measures of the Committee.” ‘* The several members,” I suppose, must be re- 
 duced to the “two worthies” referred to; for it is not likely the other members 
 would write condemning themselves. Were these two gentlemen, Messrs. 
 Drummond and Haldane? Even so I suspect. Are they infidelsP It seems 
 
 * Former!y alluded to. 
 
oF 
 
 we mnust-account them so, or something worse, if we are to credit you!! Why > 
 Because we have not yet heard, that they have been repelled from: Earl Street. 
 Whilst:they continue there, what are they according to you? Two gross hypo- 
 crites, professing with loud and clamorous voice their attachment to the Bible, 
 
 ~though their «dull hearts”. never cherished a spark ‘‘ of ‘true affection for the 
 Bible”!!! This is not the best of characters you give your friends; but after 
 what you have written, every man who continues in Earl Street, and professes a 
 true attachment to the Scriptures, must accept of it at your hands, for no other 
 character, if your judgment is correct, can he deserve. You may believe the 
 testimony of ‘such worthies,” and hold it up as ‘“ the best authority,” but I 
 must decline giving heed to it, or to yours, until you choose correspondents, 
 who, by your own showing, are ‘“ more honourable men.” 
 
 You proceed:—‘* But what does Mr. Spence care whether the Septuagint 
 
 go forth or not. If it goes forth from Earl Street, it must be a good thing.” 
 » Lcare a great deal. I paid £1 3s. for my Apocryphal Septuagint, and I hope 
 that poor students will be able to furnish themselves with a copy of this most 
 ancient, version of the Old Testament in a pure state, and at little more, perhaps, 
 than halfthat price. I think the Apocryphal Septuagint, with all its faults, 
 very useful, and a book which every minister of the gospel may consult with 
 advantage—side by:side with the Hebrew Bible. If it goes forth from Earl 
 Street, I believe “it will be a good thing ;” in that thou sayest truth, for I am 
 persuaded nothing but the unadulterated Word of God goes forth from that 
 quarter. : 
 
 Since writing the above, I have seen a number of documents relative to the 
 proceedings of the London Committee, regarding the Septuagint. These will 
 set the affair in a true light, and show how grossly that Committee has been 
 misrepresented. I shall, however, allow what I have written on the subject. to 
 go to press, as it may tend to guard the public against future attempts of a 
 similar kind to deceive them. 
 
 You go on:—‘ And really there is such a work made now about keeping the 
 Scriptures unadulterated, so it is said, that one is quite sick of it.” If you 
 were sick of it, you would loathe it; if you loathed it, you would have done with 
 it ; but instead of this, “ you eat, drink, and sleep upon it,” as old Will Boni- 
 face did on his ale.-—*< At the Aberdeen meeting, Mr. Spence complained ‘ of 
 the opponents of the Apocryphal spirit and conduct.of the London Committee, 
 aS RANTING, RAVING, AND CLAMOURING ABouT PuRITY!!!’” I never com- 
 plained << of the opponents of the Apocryphal spirit,”-else I would have com- 
 plained of myself, for I am as adverse to the circulation of the Apocrypha as you 
 can be; but I contrasted the conduct of the London Committee, who ‘ have 
 been unweariedly and zealously endeavouring to fill the whole earth with the 
 pure and unadulterated Word of God,’ with yours, ‘“‘ who have been spending 
 your time, your energy and zeal, in ranting, raving, and clamouring, about pu- 
 rity.” ’ 
 
 «* Just hear the Independent Minister! The vuLcartity oF HIS STYLE is what 
 might have been expected.” Isit so?. Then I suppose this is owing to my having 
 been educated like yourself in the Colleges and Halls of the Church of Scotland. 
 Or, perhaps, owing to my being afterwards polished by one year’s study under 
 the Rev. Messrs. Ewing and Wardlaw. Or, what is more likely than either, to 
 my having been a pretty close student of your immaculate pages, into which these, 
 and far more vulgar terms have, by some unaccountable fatuity, found a pretty 
 free admission. My style will speak for itself. I never was ambitious of writ- 
 ing fine. I write not, like some, for the imaginative classes, and those who are 
 
 -possessed of high intellectual endowments, but for the common people who have 
 common sense ; and if they understand me, my end is gained. Yet I know a 
 poor Independent. Minister who wrote an anonymous trifle on a political subject 
 not ten years ago, which was ushered into the world by the editor of a certain 
 newspaper in a great city of the south, as, in his belief, the production ‘“ of one 
 of the most practical philanthropists, one of the most eloquent preachers, and 
 one of the most excellent men, of whom Scotland, and Glasgow in particular, 
 has to boast”!!! But mark what I say,—the article was on the same side of 
 
i 58 
 
 ~ polities with ‘the editor ; and, therefore, though the style of it wasasivulgar; 
 simple, and unadorned as my own, yet this did not prevent him» istaking: 
 it, and attributing the authorship to the beloved, respected, venerated Dr. Che 
 mers, to:whose splendid, poetic, embellished, eloquent, and» gorgeous style of 
 writing, it had not the slightest resemblance.. Now, hadmy speech atthe Aber 
 deen meeting been against, and not for the London Gommittee, Ido flatter my= 
 self thatyits style, though not free from a few of your slang phrases, might yet 
 have» passed off, without being marked by you with threemotes of admiration; 
 _ on/account of its vulgarity. tee & aute Ubpeetaaredds > 
 But I. have mentioned. Dr. Chalmers:—what is he? ‘“.A burning and a 
 shining: light,”—one of the brightest stars in the firmament, of :your church, 
 yea, and what is more ennobling, of the Church of Christ. Had»you conducted 
 yourself as you ought to have done, you might have shared very largely in that 
 respect'in which the good of all persuasions hold that distinguished man.» But 
 how: differently are you regarded? Dr. Chalmers is, like the: moon, lovely, 
 peaceful, igraceful, majestic, diffusing mild and kindly influences. Yow are like 
 a fiery-blazing. meteor, portending war and ruin, and filling the world: with 
 groundless but dreadful terrors. He is like the meek,) playful, ‘harmless; useful 
 lamb. Yow are like the ferocious tiger, that roams:through the desert; tears.and 
 mangles\his prey, and delightedly gluts himself with the blood. of: his vietims: 
 He is like the mild and splendidly-plumed. dove,: the favourite of: alli: You 
 are like the cruel vulture, who fastens his talons on the: innocentiand ‘helpless 
 bird, and neither pities nor spares it, but continues to gore it with his murders 
 ous beak; andisuck its blood, while it flaps its. wings in agony, and: expires in 
 torture...He is: like the deep, broad, pure, and noble river, which flows. on in 
 ealm and. dignified glory, fertilizing, beautifying, and gladdening the:whole 
 range-of/ country through which it runs. Yow are like the mountain» stream; 
 which, in peaceful: dry summer weather, is clear, rapid; noisy, and»shallow; 
 but which, when the sky lowers, and the lightnings flash, andthe thunders roar; 
 and the clouds: break, and all the elements rage in stormy conflict, suddenly 
 swells, breaks over: its banks, and rolls forward a muddy, impetuous, resistless 
 torrent, destroying and carrying every thing. before it, and covering: with ‘its 
 slimy: filth the whole of its desolating course. #93 o: bien & gai 
 . \But-let:us: see what you say of my sentiments: But- how do his senti+ 
 ments tally with what he and his brethren, Mr. Munro of: Knockando; Mr: 
 M‘Neil of Elgin, Mr: Kennedy of Inverness, and all those northern champi= 
 ons for Earl Street, have been ‘ clamouring’ about, ever since they were capable 
 of speaking tolerable grammar? What have they been hitherto clamouring 
 about but—rurtty? What are they continually clamouring about still but— 
 purity? And whatrwill they persevere in clamouring about, so long as they 
 are obliged ‘to beat up for recruits, but—rurity ?” . 
 ~“'Phis witness is true. We have done what we could to fulfil our ministry. 
 We have cried aloud and not spared, and testified to all who came under our 
 ministrations, that without purity their profession of religion is vain. This, I 
 trust; we will continue to do, that we may prove faithful unto death. In 
 66 beating up for recruits,” by which, I suppose, you mean gathering sinners in- 
 to the churches with which we are connected, we do seek for some credible evi- 
 dence of'a mind renewed and purified by the Divine Spirit.. Many have offered 
 themselves as ‘ recruits” to join the Independent Churches, whom they felt 
 compelled with sorrow to reject, because they were destitute, so far‘as could be 
 seem; “of any religious principle.” And I exceedingly regret that; there :are 
 any professed ministers: of Christ. who: give ‘‘ such recruits” a ready and:-wel- 
 come reception. Yet if you are to be believed, this conductiis prevalent im some 
 quarters of our land among your ministerial brethren of the Church of Scotland, 
 as’I' shall immediately show. Ido consider a:christian church:to: be a: religi= 
 _ Ous Society, and, therefore, cannot see it my duty to administer the’ peculiar 
 ordinances of Christ’s house to persons “‘ of no religious principle,” or’ “ of any 
 religious principle, however loose.” Perfection of purity is not attainable here, 
 neither is it commanded. Put weare enjoined to judge of men by their fruits ; 
 and there is a manifest difference: between conscientious endeavours after purity 
 
59 
 
 of conmnunion, and complete and open laxity, where the pious and the profane 
 are indiscriminately mingled together. I am far from thinking that all the In- 
 dependent Churches are alike:pure. There is too much laxity, I fear, in many 
 eases, among us, as well as among other bodies of professing Christians. But; 
 wherever impurity is to be found, or whoever ‘‘ beats up for recruits ‘of no re« 
 ligious principle,” or “of any religious principle, however loose,” this is a mats 
 ter not for triumph, but for sorrow to good men of every sect, who have any 
 Scriptural understanding of the distinction which should exist between the 
 church and the world. ; 
 » You add, <‘ There is no purity in the Established Church,—there is no pus 
 rity with the Episcopalians,—there is no purity in the Secession,—there is no 
 purity anywhere except among themselves.” 
 With respect to the Established Church, I admit that you ought to know, 
 and have good means of knowing its real state; yet I hope and believe that 
 your testimony given against it, is like your testimony against the London Com- 
 mittee—fearfully overcharged. Iam persuaded that there are hundreds of gos- 
 pel and godly ministers in your church, and thousands of excellent devoted 
 Christians. That there are many and great evils in it, the best of its own mem= 
 bers allow ; but I will neither twit you with these evils, nor sneer at them, 
 as you “ twit and sneer” at my brethren and myself about our “ purity.”— 
 I lament that these evils exist—I do not rejoice over them.- I rejoice in all the 
 signs of improvement in your church, and would be delighted to see a faithful 
 and successful ministration of the gospel in every parish: But, with the prin= 
 ciples which you hold in reference to the British and Foreign Bible Society, I 
 do maintain that you are a most inconsistent minister and member of the Church 
 of Scotland. Without referring to past articles of yours on the conduct of the 
 general assemblies, synods, presbyteries, individual ministers and members of 
 your church, I shall make this assertion very evident, by the following passage 
 extracted from the review department of your Instructor for December lasts 
 (See page 845.) ; 
 
 . $* There are careless men in the sacred office, who go through the form of examine 
 ing those who propose to be communicants for the first time, putting to them a ques= 
 tion or two on the general principles of Christianity, or requiring them to answer the 
 question in the Shorter Catechism relative to thesupper, and then, undef the pretence 
 of Christian candour, charity, liberality, &c. &c. take for granted that all is asit should 
 be ; that, as the moral character is correct, it is, improper to be rigid in investigating 
 the applicants’ attainments in knowledge and experimental religion. Thus the young 
 are cruelly deceived by those who are bound by the most sacred of all sacred obligations, in- 
 to fysise confidence respecting their spiritual condition. They are lulled into a security 
 which may be most prejudicial to their after-improvement, by the very individuals whose 
 first duty itis, in conversing with them, to rouse their minds to serious self-inquiry.— 
 Such ministers may perhaps smile, nay, we believe, it is not unfrequently their practice to 
 sneer, at what they call the narrow-mindedness and puritanical strictness of those of 
 their brethren who make it a matter of conscience to require what, in the Shorter Cate- 
 chism, is required of those who would worthily partake of the Lord’s Supper ; to wit, 
 © That they examine themselves of their knowledge to discern the Lord’s body, of their 
 faith to feed upon him, of their repentance, love, and new obedience, lest coming un- 
 worthily, they eat and drink judgment to themselves.” Toa pastor whose mind pos- 
 sesses a particle of sound Christian principle, this will appear an abandonment of mini- 
 sterial faithfulness of the most criminal character, from which he will ever pray to the 
 great Head of the Church to be preserved. Such an abandonment of ministerial faith- 
 fulness, however, is, WE LAMENT TO KNOW, (AND WE DO KNOW IT), PREVALENT: IN 
 SOME QUARTERS OF THE LAND. Persons of no religious principle, ofany religious prin= 
 ciple, however loose, are, without being subjected to any examination by the ministers to 
 whom they apply, AS FREELY ADMITTED as the most pious and devout of their flocks. 
 Thisisnot asit shouldbe. Itisnotasthe Directory for the Public Worship of Godin 
 the Church of Scotland requires, And it is what must issue in the most mischievous 
 consequences to our professing Christian population.”’ 
 
 . Can we suppose, Sir, any thing worse of the London Committee, of Levade; 
 
60 
 or of Haffner, than of these yowr ministerial brethren: * They cfuelly deceive 
 the young into a false confidence respecting their spiritual condition,” and thus 
 lay a fearful and.a deadly snare for their souls. “They lull them into a secu- 
 rity,” which may prove everlastingly fatal to their salvation. “They smile, the 
 sneer at their faithful brethren’ as puritanically strict. They possess not “ 
 particle of sound christian principle.” They are guilty “‘of an abandonment of — 
 ministerial faithfulness of the most criminal character.” They as freely admit 
 the foes as the friends of the Redeemer to his table. _ This is‘not as-it should 
 be. This is contrary to the standards and laws of your church. This viola- 
 tion of your laws you know to be prevalent in some quarters of our land, and 
 are persuaded, it must end in the most mischievous consequences. lal yi | 
 Remember, Sir, this is your testimony, not mine, concerning your ministerial — 
 brethren. But if this testimony is true, and you assert that you know the men 
 who are thus guilty, why do you not denounce them to their respective pres- 
 byteries and synods, and if they screen them, then bring them before the 
 General Assembly, where, if these wicked, unfaithful, infidel pastors are sup=_ 
 ported, you have no other alternative (having done your duty as a faithful 
 honest minister) than to retire from the bosom of a church so corrupt as to hug 
 and cherish such characters in her bosom. And, Sir, unless you act in this 
 manner, who can view you otherwise, than as a clamorous pharisaical hypocrite, 
 destitute of all honesty, and “ of every particle of sound christian principle.” 
 You charge the Reverend Henry Grey with libelling the church whose bread 
 he eats! Was.ever such monstrous inconsistency, such shameless effrontery 
 heard of? You are, and I will maintain it, the greatest libeller of the church 
 of Scotland in existence, and yet you fatten on one of her richest benefices! !! 
 You cowardly skulk behind a covert, and defame your brethren whom you dare 
 not name. Is this the manly, courageous Dr. Thomson? You fix an indelible 
 stain on all your ministerial brethren, for, by not pointing out and dragging the 
 delinquents (though you know them) to the light, suspicion may fall on the 
 innocent, and involve them in disgrace with the guilty. Js this the honest, can-= 
 did Dr. Thomson? You remain in the church of Scotland, live in splendour 
 on her bounty, profess yourself her champion and defender, and yet you mor- 
 tally stab the character of her ministers, exhibit them as false to the solemn 
 vows they have taken to observe her laws, traitors to the truth, and deceivers 
 and murderers of souls. Js this the faithful Dr. Thomson? Your DEFENCES 
 of the church of Scotland are nothing but defamations of other bodies of pro- 
 fezsing Christians, and when you are wearied bespattering them with your filth, 
 you turn round and pour it in torrents on those whom you profess to have 
 taken under the shield of your protection. Js this the consistent Dr. Thomson ? 
 I hope that no minister,—that no member of the church of Scotland whose 
 favour I regard, will take any offence at these remarks. JI mean them to apply 
 to no person but yourself. I have met with much kindness from many of the 
 ministers and members of your church, and I should be sorry to be even the 
 innocent or the unwitting instrument of provoking the slightest hostile or un- 
 friendly feeling between any class or persuasion of professing Christians. No- 
 thing, [ am sure, is farther from my intention. I fear not the frown nor the 
 hostility of any man nor body of men on earth, but J would not wantonly 
 offend the feelings of any creature, and more especially would 1 deprecate giving 
 any dust cause of offence to those whom I highly respect. : 
 ou say, ‘‘ There is no purity with the Episcopalians.”—I reply, that the 
 Episcopalians are able to defend themselves; and, therefore, 1 leave them to 
 settle this matter with you as they may see meet. One of them settled with you 
 in a way, which was rather humbling to your pride,—but stoop to an Episcopa= 
 lian (and, if my information be correct) in no very honourable way you did. A 
 gentleman connected with the opposition Bible Society here, who looks upon 
 you as asecond Knox, and your present stand (as he calls it) for the purity of 
 God’s Word, the most glorious that has been made since the reformation ; who 
 declares the London Committee to be “all villains ;’ and who deems you as 
 honest a man as breathes, has told me strange things, more than once, with a 
 view to defend your character in this matter.” He says he is intimately acquainted 
 
61 
 
 with the whole affair, and corresponded with somebody in Edinburgh on the 
 subject. . But truly his defence is tar worse than the accusation. ‘That a good 
 man might be betrayed by erroneous information, or by violent passion, into im= 
 proper expressions I readily grant; but that a good or an honest man, could 
 append his name to that which he knew to be untrue, to save his purse, and con- 
 tinue it appended, is conduct which I cannot reconcile with the possession of 
 christian principle, nor can I give any heed to the accusations of such a man 
 against the London Committee, or any Committee, until he clear himself from 
 this imputation. J do not bring it against you, your friend does, to save your 
 Yreputation, but, in my apprehension, it utterly destroys it. Your friend sees not 
 this ; yet he would have given five pounds that you had not done it. If you wish 
 all the particulars of this case, write to me, and [ shall give you full and ea- 
 plicit information, that if this be a slander, you may rebut it—which I would 
 really be glad that you could do,—as I have no desire that any imputation should 
 rest on your character with which you are not strictly chargeable. 
 
 When you say, ‘‘ There is no purity in the Secession ;’—I reply, that the Se- 
 cession also are able to defend themselves ; but I would add, that if Dr. Peddie 
 would act as the Episcopalian did, and not threaten, he would come much nearer 
 his purpose. 
 
 When you assert, “‘ There is no purity anywhere except among themselves!” 
 (that is, among the Independents) I shall not contradict you, but leave you to 
 enjoy your own opinion! O, but this was a mere slip of memory, for you add: 
 “ O yes, we forgot ; there is purity with Josiah Conder, Editor of the Eclectic 
 Review, who coolly gave up the inspiration of one hundred and forty chapters of. 
 the Bible!” Admitting, for the sake of argument, that Josiah Conder did so,’ 
 I may ask, as you do in your letter in the Elgin Courier for 24th October, “ Is 
 a corporation to be braided as a thief, because one of its freemen has been 
 detected stealing? Is a church to be stigmatised for intemperance, because one 
 of its members, when visiting ata hundred miles distance, had got intoxicated ?” 
 Is, then, the London Committee to be condemned because Josiah Conder holds 
 erroneous views on the subject of inspiration? Or are the Independents, as a 
 body, involved in his crime? Make it as black as words can represent it, it falls 
 no more on the Independents as a body, than on the church of Scotland—than 
 on yourself. Were I to mete out to you the same measure, where would you be? 
 I have not seen Josiah’s lucubrations on this subject, though I. made several 
 unsuccessful attempts to procure a sight of them ; but a Gentleman who holds a 
 high office in your church inforraed me that he had read them, and “that the’ 
 Eclectic Reviewer held no other views on the subject of inspiration than were 
 held by all our most eminent critics ; and that it was easy for you to rail at and 
 decry them, but by no means so easy a task to refute them.” I know only 
 one Independent in Scotland who holds what I consider loose notions on the 
 subject of inspiration, and yet you declare, that he is quite sound on the 
 canon. I highly respect the Gentleman to whom I refer, but I quite disagree. 
 with him on this point, notwithstanding your testimony to his well-known 
 soundness. From these circumstances, I might, with as much justice, accuse 
 the whole church of Scotland of holding loose views on the subject of inspi- 
 ration, as you can accuse the Independents of' this crime. 
 
 As to myself, I would rather that the Bible Society, and every Society for 
 religious purposes in existence were broken up and utterly annihilated, than 
 that the canon of Scripture, by their instrumentality, should be brought into 
 peril; and if I believed that any Society had this for its object, or, by its 
 measures, gave countenance to this object, I would not support it—‘* no, 
 not for an hour.” But I view the clarmour that has been lately raised 
 against the Earl Street Committee on this score, as nothing but the ravings 
 of a few crazed individuals, arising from the malignity of more knowing 
 ones who have set them on, and aided in their delusion. I know not in what sense 
 Josiah Conder has denied the inspiration of one hundred and forty chapters of 
 _ the Bible, but I believe that there are many chapters and verses in the Bible, 
 (how many I never attempted to enumerate), which are not the words of the 
 Holy Ghost, in any other sense, than that he enjoined them to be recorded, 
 and enabled the writers to record them correctly. 
 
 I 
 
62 
 
 “ You must learn (says Dr. Hickes) to distinguish Seripture, and what is barely 
 related in Scripture ; for though the Scriptures are the Word of God, yet every thing 
 contained in them is not so. Many things are the sayings of profane and wicked 
 men, nakedly related therein. There is the railing and blasphemies of Rabshakeh, 
 the lies of Ananias and Sapphira, the vaunting language of Nebuchadnezzar; nay 
 the malicious suggestions and false accusations, and sly temptations of the very Devil 
 himself; which are in no sense the Word of God, though they are related in the 
 Scripture.” Lat 
 
 This statement of Dr. Hickes’s is scarcely in accordance with the following 
 resolution passed by the Aberdeen Opposition Bible Society, in Machray’s hotel; 
 at its formation :— 
 
 “‘ That, as a meeting of Christians,* they think the present a fit opportunity for 
 protesting against the loose and dangerous notions on the subject of inspiration, 
 which, in the course of the Apocryphal controversy, have got abroad; and particu- 
 larly against the defence set up+ for the London Committee by the Eclectic Review, in 
 which doubts are thrown upon the inspiration of a large portion of the Word of God ; 
 and they declare, that that is the Bible, and that alone, which is contained in the 
 Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments; and that the whole of it is the words of 
 the Holy Ghost.” p 
 
 Did Jobs three friends speak by the Holy Ghost? Was the Divine Spirit the 
 author of their statements? What saith the Scripture? ‘ And it was so, that 
 after the Lord had spoken these words unto Job, the Lord said to Eliphaz the 
 Temanite, My wrath is kindled against thee, and against thy two friends; for 
 ye have not spoken of me right as my servant Job hath.” Job xiii. 7. 
 
 ¢ There is purity (you say) with Dr. Pye Smith, who defended and eulogised 
 Haffner’s Neological preface to the Word of God,” as ‘a valuable and interesting 
 performance.’ ” 
 ~~ Your friends here published that Dr. Pye Smith denied the inspiration of one 
 hundred and forty, or one hundred and forty-nine chapters of the Bible, and 
 that you said so at the public meeting. If Dr. Smith or any man has denied 
 that any part of the Bible was written otherwise than by the direction of the 
 Holy. Spirit, that man is to be condemned ; but let not the London Committee, 
 nor any body of Christians, be condemned with him, as if guilty of his error, 
 until they join with him in it. I can, however, testify, that your friends 
 have borne false witness against you in this matter, for I am certain that you 
 said no such thing respecting Dr. Smith at the public meeting in Aberdeen, 
 whatever you may have done in other places. But it is no wonder that they 
 have reported your speech incorrectly on this point, considering the many 
 and grievous errors they committed in giving an account of what passed 
 at the meetings of our Auxiliary. If you mean to insinuate that Dr. Smith’ 
 defended and eulogised Haffner’s preface as a sound and excellent theological 
 production, you do that Gentleman the grossest injustice. His defence of it pro- 
 ceeded on the principle that, however bad Haffner’s sentiments might be, he’ 
 should receive justice, and not be loaded with more guilt or error than fairly’ 
 lay at his door. Dr. Smith distinctly admitted Haffner’s erroneous views, 
 though he characterised his production as, in some respects, a “‘ valuable and 
 interesting performance.” Now, though I consider your reviews in the In- 
 structor, on the Apocrypha controversy, as full of errors, mutilations, mis- 
 statements, fabrications, and filth, yet I regard them as “valuable and in-. 
 teresting performances,” in as much as they exhibit the real spirit, views, and 
 reasonings of a violent opponent of the London Committee, and show to what 
 unfair means you must have recourse before you can make out any thing like 
 a valid plea against that Committee. And I regard Haffner’s preface as a “ ya- 
 
 * Did they examine each other, or take this deeply serious matter for granted ? 
 Alas! many call themselves Christians, who are so merely in name! 
 
 + Did any one of you read this defence before you passed ihis resolution? Or how 
 many of you did so? * Doth our law judge any man before it hear him?” - 
 
63 
 
 luable and interesting performance,” as it shows us the gross errors which he 
 and other Continental Néologists have imbibed, by which means those who 
 have opportunity and ability will be better able to expose and refute them. 
 
 » “ Thete is purity, (you add), with the Evangelical Magazine, which admit- 
 ted into its pages, and gave the utmost possible currency to the pure lucubra- 
 tions of the Homerton Professor!” I wish the editor of the Edinburgh Chris- 
 tian Instructor would refuse to “‘ give the utmost possible currency” to the im= — 
 pure and scandalous lucubrations of a certain Edinburgh Doctor; or that the 
 conductor of that Magazine would exercise ‘one-tenth of the vigilance of the 
 editor of the Evangelical, in excluding nasty articles from his pages. 
 
 “ There is purity with another Independent Oracle whom we shall not now 
 name, but who scrupled not to say that the canon of Scripture is not yet settled !” 
 
 Had you possessed the feeling of a Gentleman, you would not have alluded at 
 ‘all to the Rev. Mr. Ewing, under his present distressing providential affliction. 
 This is the reason, 1 suppose, why you say, ‘“‘ whom we shall not now name ;” 
 but if this was a reason for not naming him at present, it was equally so for 
 not alluding to him. Your conduct to that Gentleman, in this matter, has been 
 marked by the basest meanness and the grossest unfairness throughout. That 
 Gentleman believes that the canon of Scripture is settled as firmly as any man, 
 and he declared that your statement was “ an anonymous slander.” You bid 
 him beware of calling it so ; but he did call it so, and he does call it so; and I 
 hesitate not to say to you, that, in repeating it, you have not scrupled to repeat 
 and assert a gross-and a wicked slander ! and that you dare not (you know you 
 darenot) give your authority ! 
 
 «* And, finally, there is purity in the London Committee, who corrupted hun 
 dreds of thousands of copies of God’s Holy Word.”—There is; for they now is- 
 sue nothing but ¢he pure Word of God, and millions of pure copies they have 
 
 *© They held delighted alliance with heretics and infidels of any description, 
 as friends of Bible circulation.”—They hold no other kind of alliance with he- 
 retics and infidels than our Lord Jesus Christ held with publicans and sinners— 
 an allianee to do them good, but riot to unite with them in evil; and in this al- 
 liance they undoubtedly rejoice. 
 
 They “were guilty of practising the grossest dissimulation, in order to hide 
 their delinquencies from the public eye—mutilated, withheld, and fabricated 
 official documents, as it best suited their purpose."—The London Committee 
 were guilty of nosuch deeds. Even the Statement of the Aberdeen Opposition 
 Bible Society, which you approve, acquits them on these points. Its language 
 is; “‘ We feel it to be our duty to state; that the guilt of the transactions to 
 which we now allude must lie upon ‘ the leading members’ of the London Com- 
 mittee alone.” (Page 17.)—'That certain of the Secretaries struck out passages 
 from some of the letters which were published, to conceal their Apocrypha 
 transactions, I freely admit and decidedly condemn ; but I believe there is a 
 Secretary of the Edinburgh Bible Society who has “ mutilated, withheld, and 
 fabricated” more documents, by an hundred-fold, within these few years, and 
 published his mangled works in your Instructor, than all the Secretaries toge- 
 ther of the London Committee during their many years’ labour. 
 
 . They “made resolutions, and proceeded straightway and systematically to 
 violate them.”—This is one of your gross and palpable fabrications. 
 
 They “‘ pay Van Ess for circulating unadulterated Bibles, and, under that 
 pretext, assist him in circulating Trentine Bibles.”— There is as much truth in 
 this statement as if I were to assert ‘‘ that either the State, or the Magistrates 
 of Edinburgh, pay Dr. Thomson a very handsome salary for preaching the un- 
 adulterated gospel in St. George’s Church, Edinburgh, and, under that pretext, 
 assist him in circulating his filthy and impure lucubrations in the Christian In- 
 structor.” 
 
 ** And to add but one instance more of their purity, insist upon printing the - 
 Septuagint, because they are not to print the Apocrypha with it, though it 
 abounds with interpolations, omissions, and transpositions ; ahd justify their 
 entering into this hideous project, by maintaining the doctriné that there is xo 
 
 12 
 
64, 
 
 standard of the Word of God !!!”—Here are more of your fabrications. 
 
 insisted and resolved, if the Septuagint were printed, that it should be printed 
 without any Apocryphal matter. They do not, they never did maintain 
 doctrine, that there is no standard of the Word of God; but some of them di 
 ask an individual, who was for expunging, as Apocryphal, certain quotations 
 made by our Saviour himself: “ Canst thou lay on this table a perfect Aa 
 of the Gospels which the Evangelists wrote, and of the Epistles which ‘ 
 Apostles wrote ?” weg 
 
 ** O what blessed spectacles of purity are Mr. Spence and his Independent 
 brethren in the north privileged to gaze upon! By such admiring contempla= 
 tion they must themselves become, ere long, immaculate.” ‘wee 
 
 T and my Independent brethren in this quarter are indeed highly privileged. 
 We have not a few “spectacles of purity to gaze upon,’—at least of such purity — 
 as this world affords. We think you must be destitute of “ such spectacles of 
 purity to gaze upon” as we are favoured with, or you must have made an exces- 
 sively ill use of your advantages. We would invite you to come north, and — 
 spend a year with us, and if you do not return to Edinburgh a changed and an 
 improved man, you will be chargeable with a gross abuse of privileges.—In the 
 Jirst place, you will have Principal Brown to gaze upon, who will point out to 
 you all your slang and Billingsgate terms, and teach you to write with infi- © 
 nitely greater purity, for he is an admirable verbal critic—In the second place, 
 you will have Dr. Glennie to gaze upon, who will point out to you the unseem-= 
 liness of your passion and rage, and the necessity of coolness if you would rea= 
 son, and not rant and rave ; and if you should laugh or misbehave in the Doc- ~ 
 tor’s presence, he will give you such a long and grave and severe stare, that: if 
 you have any shamefacedness remaining, you must feel exceedingly put out of 
 countenance.—In the third place, you will have your namesake, Dr. Thomson, 
 to gaze upon ; and if you will imitate him, he will teach you that charity which 
 thinketh no evil, and which is disposed to view even real faults with a very tender 
 and compassionate eye.—In the fourth place, you will have the Rev. John Bryce 
 to gaze upon; and he will teach you “ to be no striker nor brawler,” and never ~ 
 to let your voice be heard in the streets.—In the fifth place, you will have 
 the Rev. James Foote to gaze upon ; and he will teach you to preach from the 
 heart to the heart, and not to figure away before the people like an actor, or like 
 a metaphysician discussing some dry barren speculation.—In the. sath place, 
 you will have the Rev. John Murray to gaze upon; and he will teach you © 
 manly decision, free from sectarian pride, bigotry, and hypocrisy ; and under 
 his roof I would recommend that you should take up your abode.—I will not — 
 speak of the Rev. Messrs. Leith and Gordon, as they are but entering on their 
 labours; but, in as far as I have had an opportunity of judging, they bid fair 
 not to come behind their brethren.—My Independent brethren and I have alk 
 these ‘f spectacles of purity” to gaze upon; yet we do not expect “ ere long,” 
 or even in this world, ** to become immaculate :” for we do not hold the doc- 
 trine of sinless perfection in the present life. 
 
 «And no wonder they declaim against us for ranting, raving, and clamouring 
 about purity.’—It is no wonder; for your conduct is so different from “ the ~ 
 spectacles of purity which we are privileged to gaze upon,” that if we admire 
 them, we must of necessity feel nothing but disgust, mingled with pity, in 
 gazing upon you. ‘ 
 
 «¢ Are their people, (that is, the Independents), edified and delighted by 
 such things ?”—Aye, that they are ;—they are delighted with the complete re=' 
 formation of the London Committee, and rejoice that they cireulate pure Bibles 
 only ;—they are delighted that that Committee aid no heretic, no infidel, no So-' 
 ciety, in circulating the Apocrypha, or any other book, with the Inspired Writ- 
 ings ;—they are delighted that they have observed, with the most scrupulous 
 integrity and exactness, the letter and spirit of the additional regulations of 
 1826 and 7 ;—they are delighted that Van Hss is instrumental in circulating so — 
 many pure Bibles and Testaments ; and they believe him to bea faithful and 
 honest man, and the cheapest Bible-agent in the world, if men are to be paid 
 by the extent of their services, or the number of the copies of Scripture which - 
 
65 
 
 they put in circulation ;—and, finally, they are delighted by the full and cer- 
 tain knowledge that the London Committee hold most firmly and tenaciously 
 ‘the true canon of Scripture,’ the only ‘ standard of Fatth,’ and that they 
 are doing all in their power to give that standard pure to the whole world ; 
 while Andrew Thomson, D.D., is unweariedly labouring to defame them, and © 
 spending his time, strength, and talents, ‘ in ranting, raving, and clamouring’ 
 about ‘ a pure standard.’ 
 
 « If so,” (i.e. if Independents are edified and delighted by such things), 
 «© we must change our opinion of them ; for hitherto they have had no tolera- 
 tion for the purity of Earl Street, and it will be a sore declension if they now 
 fall in love with it.” 
 
 You very frequently change your opinion, or at least your words. You do 
 this just as often as it suits your purposes. . You stated, in reviewing the Evan- 
 gelical Editors, ‘‘ They find themselves so situated with regard to their read- 
 ers,” (among whom the Independents are a very numerous class), “ that they 
 dare not speak well of any thing that savours of adulteration of God’s Word ;” 
 and yet, at the public meeting of the Opposition Bible Society here, you de- 
 clared, “ that the Independents, or Congregationalists, were favourable to Apo- 
 eryphal circulation almost toa man”! Now, you again assert, ‘ that hitherto 
 our people have had no toleration for the purity of Earl Street.” Why, this 
 is a most marvellous admission. According to you, I and nine-tenths of the In- 
 dependent Ministers are thick-and-thin supporters of the worthies in Earl 
 Street,” and yet all our people have been hitherto opposed to us!!!— How 
 finely do these statements ¢ally with what you say in the same Number, (the 
 Instructor, for October last, page 716), concerning ‘the Secession Church :”— 
 «| We hope for purer views in a body of men,” (Ministers,) “ for whom 
 we entertain sincere respect. And our hope is very much founded on the 
 spirit and principle which prevail among their people, (certainly creditable to 
 the labours of their Ministers), and which, we rejoice to say, are out and out * 
 not only Anti-Apocryphal, but hostile to all the abuses and corruptions to which 
 the -London Committee have been addicted.”—Here, Sir, you attribute the 
 sound views of the members of the Secession Church /o the labours of their Mi- 
 nisters ; but you reason differently in the case of Independents. What high 
 credit, then, belongs to the enlightened members of our churches, seeing their 
 views are so thoroughly sound hitherto, notwithstanding all the labours of the 
 Independent Ministers to corrupt them both by precept and example ! !!— 
 Really, Doctor, you should study a little consistency! If you do not, neither 
 our people nor any rational people will value your opinion or your reasoning : 
 as the former seems perfectly unsettled, and variable as the wind ; and as the 
 latter draws inferences the very opposite to each other from the very same pre- 
 mises! We and our people, Sir, have ever tolerated and been in love with the 
 purity of Earl Street ; it is its impurity that we did not and would not tolerate ; 
 nor will we tolerate impurity in it in any time coming. If to tolerate, love, and 
 delight in the purity of Earl Street “ be a sore declension,” we and our people 
 are irreclaimable apystates, and have not “< to fall in love with it,” but are al- 
 ready ‘‘ over head and ears” ina deep and fervent passion for purity! 
 
 I have now replied to every sentence of your article, and given it without 
 mutilation or curtailment. And if you will do me equal justice, and publish 
 the whole of what 1 have written in your Instructor, and review it as I have 
 done yours, I will tender you my best thanks; and engage to give you, at no 
 very distant period, (if spared), a little more additional matter, for the purpose 
 of keeping alive this all-important controversy. Yet I must confess my opinion 
 is, that this controversy has occupied too much room in your pages, and that I 
 haye no wish to return to it again unless compelled by necessity. Permit me 
 then, to make a few observations before concluding, and that with no unfriendly 
 feeling: for, however hard or severe things I have said of you, or may yet say 
 they do not proceed from ill-will, passion, or a spirit of revenge, but simply 
 from a conviction that you need and richly merit them. 
 
 " How elegant! 
 
66 
 1. In this reply, your glory I have not extenuated wherein you are worthy, 
 nor your faults ae I concealed for which you deserve Satee giitenaanitanes 
 correspondents have advised. me “ to knock you down with any weapon that 
 came to hand, as one would a.wild beast ;’—others of them have counselled me 
 “ to slay or disable you with smooth stones out of the brook ;’’—others of them 
 have given it as their opinion, “‘ that you were such.a man that no‘one could 
 go to war with you, however just his cause, without being bespattered with 
 your filth, and that it would be much better for me to leave you alone, and 
 despise you ;”—and one of the members of the Committee of the Opposition. 
 Bible Society here earnestly entreated me not to reply, ** because it would oc= 
 cupy too much of my time, deprive me of spirituality of mind, defraud my con= 
 gregation of that attention which I ought to devote to them, and prevent me 
 from bestowing that care on my preparations for the pulpit which was neces= 
 sary.”* Now, I could not please all these people, but 1 have done the best I 
 could; and I have pleased many whose approval I highly value. + Ihave re= 
 plied as I deemed the circumstances of the case required. I have answered you 
 according to your desert. Reasoning would have been lost on the fanatical pro= 
 phets of Baal, therefore Elijah mocked them, and, in exposing them, used the 
 most cutting irony. Mildness and gentleness would have been entirely mis- 
 placed in dealing with such a knave as Elymas the sorcerer, and therefore Paul 
 addressed him in language of the utmost severity. In dealing with you, if I have 
 given you any hard and knock-down blows, they have been fair, open, and — 
 manly, (for I am not conscious of having given you asingle foul or unfair 
 thrust) ; if I have slain or disabled you with any stone, whether smooth or rough, 
 it has been dug out of the quarry of your own works ; andif you aresuch a man 
 as will bespatter me with filth, you may pour it upon me in torrents, and I will 
 feel as easy as a sand-bank. Nor is it merely on a personal account that I come 
 forth to meet you, but especially for the sake of a public cause which I, deem 
 of infinite importance, and, in defending which, I glory and will glory in 
 suffering reproaches. If your friend was afraid that I would suffer this reply to 
 octupy time which should be devoted to.other purposes, I have to say, that,this 
 letteras been chiefly composed at snatches of leisure time on Mondays, and 
 ‘that I have attempted to guard against its injuring my spirituality of mind, 
 although I freely confess, that labour, so unpleasant, so disagreeable, and so 
 painful to my feelings, I never performed, because I could not vindicate the 
 London Committee from the foul and grossly untrue charges which you brought © 
 against them, without severely, pointedly, and frequently condemning you. 
 2. On you, and on those who act with you, devolves the guilt of protracting — 
 this controversy ; of perpetuating strife between existing Bible Societies who 
 are ranged on opposite sides ; and of engendering and fostering unkindly feel~ 
 ings between those who have the same object in view—the cireulation of the — 
 pure Word of God—however they may differ on the demerits of the London 
 Committee. I see no cause why you or your coadjutors should lift up a tes~ 
 timony against us and the Society which we support, now that you have sepa= 
 rated from it, any more than that you should do so, against the idolaters of 
 China or British India. If at public meetings, you were to call the atten- 
 tion of the people to the millions that are perishing for lack of Bibles, and did 
 you endeavour to excite societies and individuals to greater liberality and activity, 
 and a more prayerful spirit in regard to the Bible cause; mentioning, at’ the 
 same time, the good which had resulted from pure circulation ; we would rejoice 
 in your labours, and heartily wish you success. But when you and your friends, 
 
 * He is not afraid that you neglect your congregation ! 
 
 + A considerable portion of this Letter, while it was composing, was read privately 
 to individual members of our Society; and, when finished, a number of Gentlemen 
 met, heard it read, and gave it their decided approbation. I will not mention any of 
 the names of these Gentlemen, as I am quite able and willing to bear the whole of the © 
 immense load of reproaches, which I fully expect will be cast upon me. Yet, persons — 
 who cry out about the want of faithfulness in reproving sin, and about thenecessity for a” 
 zealous and uncompromising love of truth, and plain dealing, should, instead of dis- 
 approving of, highly commend this letter. 
 
67 
 
 imyour public exhibitions, spend your strength in railing at and defaming many 
 whose christian character far outshines your own, we cannot but view your con- 
 duet with feelings of mingled detestation, pity, and regret ;—detestation, at your 
 ealumnies—pity, because you are left so far_to forget the legitimate ends of a 
 Bible meeting—and regret, that we should be called to the unlovely and unplea- 
 sant»but necessary task of defending our friends and ourselves from your slan- 
 derous attacks. Consider also, Sir, that your attacks are powerless, and cannot 
 materially affect the British and Foreign Bible Society. If you were to collect 
 all the stumps of the pens you have worn out in this controversy—to arm 
 
 rself with a baby’s bow—to post to London, and to take up your station 
 directly in front of the Earl Street Establishment, and begin and conti- 
 nue, with desperate rage and fury, to shoot your pen-stumps against its walls, 
 with a view to demolish that building, your conduct would be both ridicu- 
 lous and. pitiable. The Reverend Mr. Brandram, as general of the inmates 
 of Earl Street, might summon them all to the windows to behold the creat 
 northern champion labouring zealously in his attempts to destroy ; and he might 
 say with a-smile, “ Behold our foe! Answer him not! Let silence be our watch- 
 word, for he can do us no harm!” And, Sir, your attempts to annihilate the 
 Earl Street Establishment by the efforts of your pen, in the Christian Instruc- 
 tor, are both ridiculous and pitiable—ridiculous, in as much as they are utterly 
 impotent—pitiable, in as much as you will not desist, though you must perceive, 
 if you are not completely crazed, that your efforts are useless as to the end de- 
 signed, and are beginning to rebound with greater and greater force on your- 
 self. The Christians in Scotland will have peace ; turmoil and war are not the 
 scene. in which true religion thrives; and, by and by, the man who shall 
 endeavour to continue the:strife will become the ohject of universal and unmixed 
 detestation. If you and your associates were to act consistently, you would with- 
 draw from almost all the Societies which have the religious improvement of 
 mankind for their object. You would withdraw from the Hibernian School 
 Society ; for that Society employs and pays papists to teach the Bible in their 
 schools: and you would withdraw from the London, the Baptist, and the Scot- 
 tish: Missionary Societies, for these pay and employ idolaters to teach the Scrip- 
 tures and catechisms in their schools, to distribute tracts, and to assist in the 
 translation of. the Scriptures. 
 
 3. If you are determined to prolong and keep alive the controversy, do take ~ 
 heed unto your spirit. You know it has been universally complained of as “a 
 bad spirit.” I am aware that this complaint disgusts you, and that the slight- 
 est reference to your spirit as bad, is apt in an instant to make it bad, and to 
 excite you to cry, cant! cant! There is nothing that sooner pains a man than 
 touching him on his sore heel. You understand me. I mean to say, that there 
 is some ground for the complaint, and this makes you feel, on this subject, the 
 more keenly. I shall quote the closing part of my speech at the late public 
 meeting of the Aberdeen Auxiliary Bible Society, which bore on this point, 
 and in which I certainly chiefly referred to your spirit. 
 
 «But, Sir, in addition to all the malversations of the London Committee, 
 it has been said, that they have been actuated “‘ by the spirit of disobedience, 
 the spirit of fraud, the spirit of impiety, the spirit of dishonesty, the spirit 
 of obstinacy, the spirit of falsehood, the spirit of pride, the spirit of prodi- 
 gality, the spirit of the world, the spirit of impenitence, and the spirit of 
 folly ;—and, it has been affirmed that, if the spirit of the London Committee 
 could speak, it would say, as a certain unclean spirit said of old, ‘ My name 
 is Legion, for we are many !’” * 
 
 “Sir, we shall not attempt to defend the spirit of the London Committee ; we 
 shall leave it to defend itself. Neither shall we say, by what spirit some of the 
 accusers of that Committee are actuated. But we must say, in conclusion, that 
 we do not envy them their spirit of mildness, for we cannot charge them with 
 the guilt of endeavouring to restore their brethren, who were overtaken in a 
 
 * Dr. Thomson’s speech at the meeting of the Aberdeen Opposition Bible Society. 
 
? 
 68 
 
 fault, in the spirit of too much meekness. We do not envy them their spirit 
 of charity, for we cannot condemn it as being too expansive, or hold it blame~ 
 worthy, as too eager to cover a multitude of sins. We do not envy them their 
 spirit of moderation, for we cannot reproach them, in their strivings with the 
 fa n Committee, for too close an imitation of the conduct of Michael, who, 
 in contending with the Devil about the body of Moses, dared not bring a 
 railin accusation against him. We do not envy them their spirit of humility, 
 for e cannot blame them for manifesting too great a dread of interfering with 
 the prerogative of Him whose province it is to judge the hearts and the motives 
 of men. We do not envy them their spirit of candour, for, having calmly and — 
 dispassionately weighed their clamorous and imposing accusations, we cannot 
 think that their great strength and convincing power lie, in too scrupulous an 
 abstinence from exaggeration of errors, suppression of explanatory truths, and 
 misrepresentation of motives. We do not envy them their spirit of zeal, for, 
 notwithstanding its restless and incessant activity, we cannot deem it as charac~ 
 terised by too much either of the overflowings of knowledge or wisdom. And, 
 val, we do not envy them their spirit of peace, for we cannot believe that the 
 language of Abner to Joab is altogether inapplicable to them :—‘‘ Shall the 
 
 sword devour for ever? Know you not that zt will be bitterness in the latter end? 
 
 How long shall it be, then, ere you bid the people return from following their 
 
 brethren.” 
 
 «In the observations we have made, Sir, we disclaim the character of assailants, 
 for we have been defenders from the beginning, and will continue so to the end. 
 We wish for peace, and the moment we are let alone, our swords shall be 
 sheathed for ever. We leave others unmolested to pursue their own way in 
 doing good ; we claim the same privilege for ourselves. We hate war; but we 
 fear not the attacks of any man or body of men on earth; not that we indulge — 
 a vain confidence in our own abilities, but that we possess an unbounded confi- 
 dence in the goodness of our cause ; and it cannot be expected that we will 
 suffer the London Committee to be incessantly reproached as adulterators of © 
 God’s word, and ourselves as their Apocryphal supporters, without our saying — 
 a word in our own defence, especially on an occasion when our mouths are un- 
 muzzled for this very purpose. We would giye the men who are keen for 
 battle, and who are unweariedly persecuting the London Committee, a parting 
 word of advice. We fear they will not take it. They will despise our counsel. © 
 It is not ours,—it is the counsel of an infidel Jew to the persecutors of our” 
 Lord and his apostles ;—persecutors who were blind to and remembered none 
 of their good works, but were endlessly and vociferously clamouring about their 
 evil works. ‘ AND NOW, I SAY UNTO YOU, REFRAIN FROM THESE MEN, AND) 
 LET THEM ALONE ; FOR IF THIS COUNSEL OR THIS WORK BE OF MEN, IT WILL 
 COME TO NOUGHT; BUT IF If BE OF GOD, YE CANNOT OVERTHROW IT, LEST 
 HAPLY YE BE FOUND TO FIGHT EVEN AGAINST GOD. * ir 
 ‘4. Consider the immense good the British and Foreign Bible Society is now~ 
 doing, and is fitted to do, by filling the world with pure Bibles. Do you not 
 believe that this is a work which God approves? Can you then persist in op-— 
 posing it? If you wish to rival and eclipse that “ noblest of human institutions,” | 
 
 provoke it to love and to good works, by your exertions to circulate the pure 
 Scriptures, and not by your clamorous writings and speeches. I envy not» 
 your present exertions nor fame. There was a period when your opposition was — 
 useful, wise, and absolutely necessary. It was conducted, too, in my view, in~ 
 a spirit of firmness and decision, in which there was little of that rancour of 
 which we now complain. But, being provoked by opposition, when contending | 
 in the best of causes, you lost your temper, became unreasonable in your de- 
 mands, and nothing short of power to shape and mould the Earl Street Esta-: 
 blishment according to your will and wisdom can now induce you to hang out” 
 the signal of peace. Be assured, you will never gain your end. You will go- 
 . down to the grave fighting if you hold to your present principles. You have ' 
 
 * Acts v. 38. S9._ 
 
69 
 
 done no little good in this controversy, but you have also done immense evil: 
 But real Christians are of a forgiving temper. Cease from your unbrotherly 
 war, and all the hard and foul speeches and writings which you have poured 
 forth against them will be speedily forgotten and forgiven by them, as if they 
 had not been. What! seek to annihilate the British and Foreign Bible Society 
 as/at present constituted? It is the admiration of our age, the glory of our 
 nation. I see in it, indeed, ‘a holy alliance’ against the: empire of darkness; 
 which, J trust, God hath sanctioned, and which I hope neither the hostility of 
 men, nor of demons, shall be permitted to dissolve. Political alliances are often 
 the result of intrigue, of necessity, or of ambition, and those who: enter into 
 
 _ them have very different aims, feelings, and prospects, but this alliance is volun- 
 _ tary, and the objects, and the hopes, and: the fears of all real: Christians con- 
 
 nected with it are the same. It is to this alliance, under God, that I chiefly 
 
 _ look, for the diffusion of universal peace both in the religious and political 
 
 world. 
 
 The Bible is dictated by one Spirit, and, in as far as men are taught the mind 
 of the Lord, they are taught to see eye to eye; and hence, it is reasonable to 
 believe, that the more the Bible is circulated, read, searched, and: understood, 
 the more will differences of opinion lessen; the more will inveterate prejudices 
 
 _ be removed ; and the more will true Christians grow in the unity of the Spirit, 
 
 and be united in the bonds of peace. If Moses, by divine direction, cast a 
 tree into the bitter waters of Mara, which rendered them sweet, to what can 
 we look for sweetening and stilling the bitter and tumultuous waters of strife 
 and debate, which have so long and so often agitated nations, communities, 
 
 _ churches, societies, and families, but to the spreading of the leaves of the tree 
 
 of revelation, which infinite wisdom: hath appointed for the healing of the 
 
 | nations: And if ever the manifold systems of delusion, superstition, and idol- 
 
 atry, shall be swept from the face of the earth; if ever the habitations of horrid 
 
 ' etuelty shall be turned into the dwellings of peace ; if ever Antichrist shall be 
 
 destroyed, and the disciples of Christ re-united in one holy fellowship, as when 
 he established his kingdom after his resurrection ; and if ever the sublime, and 
 elevated, and beautiful, and cheering descriptions of ancient prophets shall be 
 realized, we must expect that the Bible will be the chief instrument in the 
 hands of the Holy Spirit of effecting this glorious and god-like consummation. 
 For when are we taught to look for the reign of universal love and peace? When 
 shall men beat their swords into plough-shares, and their spears into pruning= 
 hooks >» When shall feelings of national animosity, pride, and revenge, give place 
 to those of love, humility, and forgiveness? And when shall sectarian jealousy, 
 prejudice, and bigotry, cease to divide, disfigure, and embroil the Christian 
 Church? These things shall be, when the knowledge of the Lord covers the 
 earth as the waters cover the bottom of the seas. Then, ‘the wolf also shall 
 dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the 
 ealf and the young lion, and the fatling together ; and a little child shall lead 
 them. And the cow and the bear shall feed together ; their young ones shall 
 lie down together ; and the lion shall eat straw like the ox. And the sucking 
 child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his 
 hand on the coekatrice’ den, for they shall not hurt, nor destroy in all my holy 
 mountain, saith the Lord.” 
 
 Who is there, then, that possesses the least feeling of pure and genuine 
 love to his neighbour, that will not aid in spreading far and wide that blessed 
 Book, which is destined to be instrumental in ushering in a happy millenium 
 
 | on earth ; and which is fitted to point out the only way to obtain an abun- 
 | dant entrance into the everlasting millenium of the world to come? Who is 
 | there now connected with the British and Foreign Bible Society—(a Society © 
 
 which has been cradled in storms and rocked in tempests, and preserved by an 
 
 Aupetule but almighty hand, amidst many open and unseen perils), that sees 
 : for despair—that is not rather excited to thank God and take courage—that 
 is not disposed to erect am Ebenezer, and say, “ hitherto hath the Lord helped ; 
 
 _ and that is not animated from the triumphs already achieved by the circulation 
 _ of the Bible, to anticipate still greater and more glorious results? Let the 
 K 
 
: ae i 7 
 - | 
 
 men of the world delight to read the actions of Alexander; the exploits of 
 Cesar, and of other heroes of antiquity who turned the world upside down ;— 
 let them admire the famous retreat of Xenophon, with his ten thousand Greeks, 
 the celebrated defence of the straits of Thermopyle against the myriads 
 sia, by five hundred Spartan patriots under their king ; let them, descend- 
 ing through the history of other years, come to that of a more modern date, 
 behold with rapture, if they can, the blood-stained triumphs of our country 
 on the plains of Egypt, the mountains of Spain, and the fields of Waterloo; 
 but let Christians delight in the more refined, dignified, and exalted pleasures 
 which spring from hearing, reading, and. speaking of the: bloodless, peaceful, 
 and gladdening victories of the Word of God. Let Christians never forget that — 
 the wreath of laurel which entwines our country’s brow was purchased by the 
 life-blood of thousands ; that the sovereignty of the ocean on which she looks 
 from her towering clifts in triumph, was procured by empurpling its waves 
 with the life-blood of her sons ;—and that the shout of victory which pro- 
 her fame to a world in arms, on the downfal of the late Ruler of 
 Frai though loud and thrilling, was mingled with the dying groans of her — 
 slaughtered children. It is not when I see my country holding in her firm and — 
 powerful hand, the blood-stained sword of victory, that I behold her truly great 
 and nobly glorious. Other nations have equalled, 1 will not say excell 2 
 indeeds of arms. But when I see my country-throwing aside the garments 
 in blood, and assuming the white and speckless robe of love and peace ; 
 when I see her risen up, and standing on her native throne of rocks, and look= 
 ing to the east and to the west, to the south and to the north, and commiser=— 
 ating the state of the nations who are sitting in darkness, and purposing fo 
 d them the cheering light of salvation ; and when I see her princes and heed 
 ni her statesmen and her merchants, her ministers of religion and her " 
 sons and daughters of every rank and age united in one great. confederacy, in 
 one grand holy alliance ta circulate the BIBLE, then it is that my whole 
 heart beats in unison with her praises, and that I wish my country the pres 
 cedeney, the honour, and the glory in the blessed and heavenly strife of con- 
 ferring this inestimable treasure on the human race. » isasd hivy | bale 
 To circulate the pure Bible; to supply to the utmost: of its means,!all the - 
 perishing families of our fallen race, with the bread of heaven,! which is fitted — 
 to feed and nourish them in this world, comfort them in death, and: = 
 
 them for endless bliss and glory; is the only object of the British and Foreign 
 Bible Society. ‘Those, therefore, who seek its destruction, who use every — 
 art to make its friends forsake it, which, if they did, would prove its instant 
 ruin, are guilty of a far greater.crime, in my estimation, then if they were 
 labouring: to destroy an institution which had for its: object the suppl ing, 
 in as far as practicable, all the poor of the earth with the bread which perisheth. 
 ‘May Jehovah turn the counsels of all the enemies of the British and Foreign” 
 pri into foolishness !* May that institution increasingly prosper !- May. 
 2 the families of the earth, through its instrumentality, be blessed! May it 
 ever cease from its labours, until it shall have conveyed the “ light of life” tc 
 every clime, and “ the water of life” to every country, and until it shall have 
 planted “the tree of life” in every land ;—nay, until the heavy-laden branches” 
 of that tree spread so wide and bend so low, that every miserable dying sinner, 
 however remote his situation, or abject his condition, may have it im his power 
 to stretch forth his hand, pluck and eat its unwithering, immortal, imperish-— 
 able fruits, and live for ever ! 00 
 
 I remain, 
 Reverend Sir, 7a wale 
 on Your faithful Reprover, one e : 
 
 JAMES SPE * 
 
 * The Devil and his Angels, the Pope and his Cardinals, bishops and priests are 
 its chief foes! ? : 
 
THE 
 CONDUCT 
 oF 
 THE CLERGY 
 IN SUPPORTING 
 
 THE BIBLE SOCIETY, 
 
 VINDICATED, 
 
K oe’ 
 { 
 ce 
 } 
 «i 
 > 
 t rr} 
 erate” 
 é “ yz Ll 1, xg a 
 
 , tae ro) Se 
 Printed by A. Suahan, . 
 - New-Stzeet-Square, London af 
 
THE CONDUCT 
 
 OF 
 
 Che Clergy 
 
 IN SUPPORTING 
 
 THE BIBLE SOCIETY, 
 
 VINDICATED 
 
 FROM THE CHARGES BROUGHT AGAINST THEM BY 
 THE REV. RICHARD LLOYD, 
 
 IN 
 A LETTER TO THAT GENTLEMAN. 
 
 By Tue Rev. EDWARD COOPER, 
 
 RECTOR OF HAMSTALL-RIDWARE, AND OF YOXALL, IN THE 
 COUNTY OF STAFFORD, AND LATE FELLOW OF 
 ALL-SOULS’ COLLEGE, OXFORD. 
 
 LONDON: 
 PRINTED FOR T. CADELL AND W. DAVIES, 
 IN THE STRAND. 
 
 1818. 
 
@ 
 Par a" vies Ska 
 i . 
 re tO 
 CS A ye ‘Lbs 
 , Pitatint re Ne 
 j ging 
 arivaryey! <t 
 me tOt COP ra Dat) os 
 Pet, MI AKO SSL es Ny ga 
 oat 
 r REORRO! 
 ie) AE RE AE 
 
| OT PS SE TT TE Ca STS 
 Ce eee ee ee ——— 
 SR ST 
 
 LETTER, ce 
 
 _ REVEREND SIR, - 
 In a recent publication, entitled « Let- 
 ters addressed to a Young Clergyman,” 
 you have been pleased to notice me in a 
 particular manner, and in a note, begin- 
 ning at 121st page, have inserted, among 
 other allusions to a work which [ lately 
 published, some interrogations, which I 
 think demand an explicit answer. 
 
 If these interrogations indeed had re- 
 lated merely to my own publication, and 
 to my individual sentiments, I should not 
 have thought it necessary to take any 
 public notice of them. But this is not 
 the case. They contain, in fact, the pith 
 
 ' and marrow of your publication, and ex- 
 ) B 
 
4 
 
 hibit, in a condensed form, nedrly the 
 whole of those arguments, by which you 
 have endeavoured to shew, that no Cler- 
 gyman of the Established Church can 
 conscientiously unite himself to the Bible 
 Society. In this view, the interrogations 
 belong not exclusively to myself, and 
 might, with equal propriety and force, 
 have been addressed to any Reverend or 
 Right Reverend member of the Bible 
 Society. But since you have thought fit 
 to select me on this occasion as the indi- 
 vidual to whom you have put these ques- 
 tions, I feel it a duty to endeavour spe- 
 cifically to reply to them. 
 
 I enter indeed on this work with fear 
 and trembling. I have a dislike to con- 
 troversy, and I am afraid of if. I have 
 seen, by experience, the difficulty of con- 
 ducting it in a Christian spirit, and with 
 Christian weapons. And I will frankly 
 acknowledge, that the perusal of your 
 book has neither increased my partiality 
 to this kind of warfare, nor diminished 
 
3 
 
 my fears of its consequences. I hope, 
 however, that in the following pages no 
 word will drop from my pen, which can 
 be construed into a breach of real 
 charity. : 
 
 And in the spirit of these remarks, I 
 will begin with thankfully acknowledg- 
 ing the Christian regard which you pro- 
 fess to feel for me. From the tone and 
 spirit displayed in some parts of the note 
 in question, I should have beeu fearful 
 that your feelings towards me were not 
 of that description; but since you assert 
 the contrary, I most readily admit your 
 assertion, and beg leave to return you 
 my Christian regard, with the same sin- 
 cerity with, which I trust you have offered 
 _ me your’s. : 
 
 On a careful perusal of your note con- 
 
 _ taining the interrogations in question, 
 
 _ illustrated by a reference to the general 
 
 _ text of your work, it appears to me that 
 
 your objections against the lawfulness of 
 
 a Clergyman’s uniting himself to the Bible 
 B 2 
 
4 
 + 
 
 Society, are reducible to five; which, 
 for the clearer view of the subject, I will: 
 here briefly state in the order which f 
 think best adapted for discussion. I may 
 have overlooked and omitted some minor 
 points ; but I think that the substance of 
 your arguments is comprehended i in those . 
 which I am going to state. 
 
 A Clergyman cannot lawfully become, 
 or continue a member of the Bible So- 
 ciety, because by so doing, ~ 
 
 1st, He associates with avowed infidels 
 and heretics on religious grounds. 
 
 . Qdly, He belongs to.a Society among 
 the members of which prayer, of any 
 kind is inadmissible. 
 
 3dly, He compromises the dignity of his 
 sacred and apostolical office, . together 
 with that of his church, by mingling with 
 teachers and ministers of other persua- 
 sions. 
 
 4thly, He Bate. to inflame the sects. 
 against the church, and to divide the 
 church against herself. 
 
5 
 
 Sthly, He commits all this sin merely 
 tor the sake of an object, which, in itself, 
 is both unlawful and mischievous. 
 
 The charges, Sir, are weighty and serig_ 
 ous, and deserve a grave and temperate — 
 disquisition. I have no doubt but that 
 you think them solid and true. To me 
 they appear unfounded and erroneous ; 
 and such J will ae to prove 3 
 them. 
 
 1. Aclergyman cannot lawfully tlloiss 
 to the Bible Society, because it is to asso» 
 ciate with avowed heretics and infidels on 2 
 vere grounds. 
 
 ‘To. this objection I reply by saying, 
 tha it is altogether. founded on a misap- 
 prehension of the nature of the Bible 
 Society. This Society is not associated 
 on any religious ground, ’ properly so 
 called. She does not meet for purposes 
 of religious worship, communion, or in- 
 struction. She does not meet to explain, 
 or even to read the Scriptures, but sim- 
 | ply to distribute them. ‘The Bible So- 
 BS 
 
6 
 
 ciety is formed for the one exclusive 
 object of promoting a larger circulation 
 of the Bible, in the authorised version, 
 without note or comment. And this, 
 Sir, is not in the correct sense of the 
 word a religious, but a charitable object. 
 The Society which proposes to herself this 
 object, is as really a charitableSociety, and 
 as directly instituted for a charitable pur- 
 pose, as any society which is formed 
 with the design of alleviating the sorrows, 
 or supplying the necessities of mankind. 
 The only difference between the Bible 
 Society and other charitable societies, 
 consists in the nature and value of the 
 gift which it bestows. .While other ¢ha- 
 ritable institutions provide for the tem- 
 poral and bodily wants of mankind, this 
 endeavours to assist them in providing 
 for their souls, by putting into their 
 hands the word of God. Religion, it is 
 true, may be promoted by the gift; but 
 the mere act of conferring the gift, is not 
 a religious act, nor partakes of any of the 
 
| 
 
 7 
 
 characters of a religious act: except in- 
 deed, that as all charitable acts of what- 
 ever description ought to flow from re- 
 ligious motives, so this may and ought to 
 spring from a pious wish of doing good 
 to the souls of others, and be accompa- 
 nied with a secret desire that it may be 
 productive of spiritual benefits. But in 
 itself, it is altogether a charitable work. 
 
 - Having corrected your statement in 
 this point, I must now make one observ- 
 ation on another part of it. From the 
 ‘way in which you have expressed your- 
 self, you might be thought to have in- 
 sinuated, that aii the members of the 
 Bible Society, except those belonging to 
 the Established Church, are ‘“ avowed 
 Heretics and Infidels.” This construc- 
 tion I do not put on your words: for I 
 think you would yourself disclaim it. 
 My only reason for noticing it, is to pre- 
 vent any such perversion of your mean- 
 ing. In truth, compared with the great 
 bulk of the subscribers to the Society, 
 
 B 4 
 
8 
 
 there would probably be found very, few: 
 individualsof the character here supposed. 
 That an avowed infidel should join a 
 
 Society for distributing the Bible is in 
 fact rather a solecism. His very act: 
 
 of associating for .this purpose, seems 
 almost to imply, that if he is really au 
 infidel, yet he does not avow himself one. 
 
 Nor are there many, I presume, who 
 
 avow themselves heretics. That there 
 are some members of the Bible Society 
 
 who avow doctrines that we hold to be 
 
 heretical, I readily admit; and in this ap- 
 
 plication of your term, it may perhaps be’ 
 
 free from objection. Iam not, however, 
 
 seeking to lessen the number of the per- 
 
 sons, to whom your description applies, 
 with any intention. of thereby diminish- 
 ing the force of your argument. -For on 
 the supposition that al/ the dissenting 
 members of the Society were avowed 
 heretics and infidels, I should not, on that’ 
 account. consider it unlawful im me, as a 
 minister of the Established Church, to 
 
9 
 
 associate with them for the purpose in 
 question. If on grounds of expediency, 
 I might perhaps doubt as to associating 
 with them for other purposes ; yet when 
 the distribution of the Bible were the 
 object in view, I should be less disposed 
 to hesitate on the subject, because I 
 should feel, that in promoting the circu- 
 Jation of the Scriptures, ' I was co- -ope- 
 rating with them in disseminating the 
 most powerful antidote to their own 
 poison. For I should be certain that a 
 man would be less likely to become a 
 heretic or an infidel, who had a Bible to 
 read, than he who had none. And since 
 in the Catholic spirit and language of our — 
 Church, I am taught to pray for all 
 heretics and infidels, as well as Jews and 
 Turks, and to beg that God « will have 
 mercy on them, and will take from them 
 alt ignorance, hardness of heart, and con- 
 tempt of his word*:” though I should en- 
 
 * See the Third Collect for Good Friday. 
 BS 
 
10 
 
 deavour to. take every proper opportunity 
 of protesting against their. errors, and of 
 letting them know my opinion of theit 
 aweful condition, yet I should be very 
 careful lest, by supercilious reserve, or by 
 a determined refusal to unite with them 
 in so laudable an undertaking, I should 
 inadvertently increase the hardness of 
 their heart, and augment the unfavour- 
 able impressions, which they already en- 
 tertained of the pure and orthodox prin- 
 ciples, which I professed. . 
 
 . Upon.the whole, I can see no weight 
 in this your first objection. You have 
 clearly misapprehended the nature of the 
 Bible Society, in supposing it to be an as- 
 sociation formed. on relgious grounds. 
 It is a charitable institution; and, con- 
 sequently, with respect to this objection, 
 it does not operate in the least to pre- 
 vent a Clergyman of the Church of Eng- 
 land from contributing to the funds of 
 the Bible Society, as conscientiously as 
 to those of any other charitable institu- 
 
11 
 
 tion which is open to him. The contri- 
 ' butions of heretics and infidels, avowed 
 or concealed, to the same funds, cannot 
 render his act of contributing unlawful, 
 whether a Dispensary, or an Hospital, a 
 Bible Society, or an Asylum, be the in- 
 stitution in question. 
 
 - @dly. Your next objection is this :-— | 
 the Bible Society is an institution, among 
 the members of which prayer of any 
 kind is inadmissible. 
 
 This, Sir, is an argument which you 
 seem to urge with the greatest confidence, 
 as if it were conclusive on the subject 
 for which you have extracted it, from the 
 work of Mr. O’Callaghan; but to me it 
 appears the weakest of any which you 
 have advanced, and the one most easy to 
 be refuted. In fact, it is founded on 
 the same mistaken notion of the nature 
 of the Bible Society, which I have al- 
 
 ready exposed. It is built on the suppo- 
 
 _ sition that the Bible Society is a religious, 
 
 not a charitable, institution. Had ‘the 
 B6 
 
12 
 
 writer from whom: you: have borrowed - 
 the argument, properly considered the 
 difference between these two things, he 
 might have spared, with no loss of credit 
 to himself, his coarse and ree pts 
 . remarks. 
 
 The reasoning by which he atengis 
 to establish his position is equally appli- 
 cable to the Naval and Military Bible 
 Society, over which the Archbishop of 
 Canterbury himself presides. Prayer 
 would be as inadmissible in the meetings 
 of that Institution, as in those of the Bible 
 Society. Churchmen and Dissenters are 
 there mingled together; and, conse- 
 quently, even with our venerable Primate 
 in the chair, the “very attempt to pray, 
 would be the signal of discord, perhaps 
 of dissolution.” But whoever pretended 
 to suggest this circumstance as an objec- 
 tion to this useful Institution, or to ex- 
 ercise his wit and ingenuity in endea- 
 vouring to turn its constitution, and ob- 
 jekt, and members, into ridicule for the 
 
18 
 
 reason here assigned... In fact, what 
 charitable, merely charitable, institutions 
 are ever ushered in with prayer? Is 
 such, a mode of proceeding expected? 
 ds it_usual? Is it practicable?) Were 
 you, Sir, ever present at a meeting of any 
 society, open to all subscribers, or at the 
 committee of any such society, in which 
 prayer formed a part, or could with any 
 propriety form a part, of the proceedings? 
 But I will not dwell on a point so clear. 
 Surely a Clergyman of the Church of 
 England needs not to be censured and 
 reproached by his brethren for attending 
 the meetings of one institution under 
 precisely the same circumstances, under 
 which they are continually attending the 
 meetings of other societies. But, though 
 a Clergyman does not join in prayer with 
 the Bible Society in public, yet he can 
 most sincerely and conscientiously im- 
 plore a blessing on its labours and oper- 
 ations in. private. There, without any 
 reserve, he can truly pray that the Al- 
 
14 
 
 mighty will bless, and prosper the object 
 of the Society; will cause his word to 
 run and be glorified, to penetrate all 
 lands, and to purify and enlighten every 
 heart. Surely it is no trifling evidence 
 of the lawfulness with which he may 
 unite himself to this Society, that he finds 
 the one great object which it is pursuing, 
 so Closely allied, and so intimately asso- 
 ciated with all those separate. objects 
 which lie nearest to his own heart, and 
 which, when he bows before the throne 
 of grace, constitute the theme of his 
 most earnest and frequent supplications, 
 namely, the success of his ministry 
 among his own people, the increase of 
 true religion in his native church and 
 land, and the extension of Christ’s king- 
 dom throughout the world. Permit me 
 here, Sir, in return for the many inter- 
 rogatories which you have suggested for 
 my consideration, to put one for your’s. 
 Is there an opponent of the Bible Society, 
 who in his daily devotions before’ God 
 
15 
 
 can with sincerity pray that the oijeci of 
 this imstitution may mot succeed ;. that 
 the circulation of the Scriptures may not 
 be promoted by it; that the Almighty 
 will be pleased to blast its endeavours; 
 and defeat its purposes? I question 
 whether even the Reverend Gentleman, 
 who has ventured to designate a Society 
 with such an object, by the title of 
 *« Anti-Christian,” would, to use his own 
 expression, ‘ dare’’ thus to pray. 
 
 » Sdly. Your next proof in support of 
 your charge against the Clerical Mem- 
 bers of the Bible Society is, that by join- 
 ing this Society, they compromise the 
 dignity of their sacred and apostolical 
 office, together with that of their Church, 
 by mingling with teachers and ministers 
 of other persuasions. I expressed the 
 objection, when I first noticed it, in 
 these words, for the sake of brevity ; 
 but lest I should not be thought to do 
 your statement justice, or seem to avoid 
 the question, instead of meeting it, I will 
 
16 
 
 now put the interrogation exactly as you 
 _ have put it. You ask, “Is it no sin to 
 amalgamate, even im appearance, the 
 Episcopal and Apostolical Constitution’ 
 of the Church with every dissenting 
 form, and to reduce the Clergy of the 
 nation, who hold their divine commis- 
 sion in regular succession from the 
 Apostles, to .a level with every vain up- 
 start, who. substitutes spiritual gifts for 
 learning, and a strong impulse to preach 
 the Gospel, for a divine call to do 
 so??? 
 
 Qn this point I must despair of giving 
 you satisfaction. There is involved in 
 it a discrepancy of principles Se) wide 
 and fundamental, as prevents the possi- 
 bility, while our respective sentiments 
 continue as they are, of our ever ap-. 
 proximating the one to the other. Hap- 
 pily, however, for- myself, and for the 
 other Clergy of the Establishment, it is 
 not your conscience that we are required 
 to. satisfy, but our own, And as, our 
 
17 
 
 Church admits not within her bosom, 2 
 self-appointed Teacher, so likewise it 
 excludes any self-appointed Pope. In 
 this Protestant sentiment, I feel you will 
 accord; and should a thought obtrude 
 itself on your mind, which would tend to 
 abridge us of our Christian liberty, and in 
 the spirit of self-sufficiency or intoler- 
 ance, to impute to us an erroneous judge: 
 ment, or a deluded conscience, I trust 
 it. would be instantly dismissed by the 
 recollection of the Apostle’s words: 
 ‘Who art thou that judgest another 
 man’s servant? ‘To his own Master he 
 standeth or falleth? Yea, he shall be 
 holden up ; for God is able to make him 
 stand.” 
 
 ‘The whole force of your argument in 
 the objection now before us, appears to 
 me to hinge on the following question. Is 
 Episcopal ordination, though primitive, 
 though apostolical, yet the only, the ex- 
 clusive way in which God has provided, 
 or does at this time provide pastors and 
 
18 
 
 teachers * for the perfecting of the saints, 
 for the work of the ministry, for the edi- 
 fying of the body of Christ ?” If I should 
 infer, from your mode of stating the ob- 
 jection we are considering, and from 
 Other parts of your publication, what 
 your answer to this question would be, 
 I should suppose it would be in the affir- 
 mative. But as you have not expressly 
 made such a declaration, I will not take 
 the liberty of making it for you. In- 
 deed, Sir, it is wise’ to pause before you 
 venture affirmatively to decide a question 
 which the Scriptures have not decided; | 
 which the articles of your Church, with 
 her characteristic modesty on points un- 
 settled in Scripture, have not decided ; 
 which the laws of the British empire, by 
 establishing the Church of Scotland, and 
 declaring it in the Act of Union, to be 
 a true church of Christ, have in fact de- 
 cided negatively. It is wise to pause be- 
 fore you venture to predicate a conclu- 
 sion, which necessarily involves in it such 
 
19 
 
 tremendous consequences, which would at 
 once unchurch the Church of Scotland, and 
 many other of the Reformed Churches ; 
 which would assign the names of upstarts 
 and intruders to men, on whom God has 
 fixed the broad seal of his sanction and 
 authority, on such men as Howe and 
 Henry, as Watts and Doddridge; and 
 would consign over a large portion of 
 our present population to the uncove- 
 nanted mercies of God. I say, Sir, that 
 you act wisely in pausing before you ven- 
 ture to decide on such a question, and to 
 predicate such a conclusion. And yet 
 till you do predicate this conclusion, it 
 appears to me, that your argument loses 
 the only support on which it could have 
 pretended to stand. For if there be other 
 lawful modes of ordaining ministers, than 
 that which our Church retains; and. if, 
 as the 23d article of our Church declares, 
 ** We ought to judge those lawfully 
 called and sent, which be chosen and 
 called to this work ‘by men, who have 
 
20 
 
 public authority given unto them in the 
 congregation to call and send ministers 
 into the Lord’s vineyard ;” then I would 
 ask, Who is to be Judge in these matters? 
 Within the pale of our own Church, we 
 know who are the persons that havé 
 public authority given unto them for this 
 work; and hence, we are confident that — 
 such as they ordain to the office of pub- 
 lic preaching, or ministering of the sacra- 
 ments in the congregation, are lawfully 
 called and sent to execute the same. But 
 with respect to those who are without 
 this pale, who, I ask, is to be the Judge? 
 Who is to decide on the lawfulness or 
 unlawfulness of those proceedings “by 
 which any individual, who dissents from 
 the form and discipline of our Church; 
 claims to have been chosen and called te 
 the work of the ministry? I know that 
 if he has separated himself from us with- 
 out a sufficient plea, and has thrust him- 
 self into the sacred office without a law- 
 fal calling, he is on these ‘accounts a — 
 
21 
 
 sinner before.God. But who ‘is: to de- 
 cide on his’plea, or on his calling? Am I 
 to erect myself into a judge, and to sum- 
 mon him to the tribunal of my feeble 
 and perhaps prejudiced judgement ; and 
 having condemned him for a sin, of 
 which God who seeth the heart, may 
 possibly acquit him, am I, in proof and 
 vindication of my dignity as a minister, 
 episcopally ordained to say, “ Stand by 
 thyself: come not near to se for Iam 
 holier than thou ?” 
 
 » Sir, I am not advocating the cause of 
 didesitrs I wish from my heart that there . 
 were no divisions in the body of Christ: 
 but that all were “ of one spirit and of one 
 mind, striving together only for the faith 
 of the Gospel.” But these things cannot 
 yet be: and since God has thought fit 
 in his Providence to place me in these 
 troublous times, and to call me to the 
 high and important office of a minister 
 of his Gospel, in our apostolical church ; I 
 would endeavour; as much as in me lieth, 
 to live consistently with that sacred cha- 
 
22 
 
 racter, and in reference to it, “ with 
 simplicity and godly sincerity, to have 
 my conversation in the world.” I wish 
 so to steer my perilous and difficult 
 course, that while, on the one hand I 
 magnify my office, I may not, on the 
 other hand, degrade the exalted cha- 
 racter of my religion. I would not seek 
 needlessly to associate in public with those 
 who differ; but in the way of duty I 
 would not shun all occasion of intercourse 
 with them. And such an occasion the 
 Bible Society presents to me, and enforces 
 upon my conscience. In giving my feeble 
 support to this Society, I believe that I 
 am doing a work pleasing to the Al- 
 mighty. I believe that I am fulfilling a 
 duty which I owe to my Church, to my 
 country, and to the world at large. “In 
 the course of discharging this duty, I oc- 
 casionaily associate, for a short time, with 
 those who profess themselves ministers of 
 Christ, but not of the calling with which 
 I am called. On such occasions, I regard 
 
23 
 
 them in the character in which the laws 
 of our country, and, consequently, the 
 laws of our Church, regard them, as per- 
 sons laying claim to.holy orders, tolerated 
 by our statutes, and licensed by them to 
 the office of ministers. Whether these 
 claims be right, or otherwise, falls not 
 - within my province, or my power to de- 
 cide. If they are erroneously made, my 
 presence cannot sanction an error, in a 
 point on which I am wholly incompetent 
 to determine; and the determination of 
 which has not the most distant connection 
 with the object on which I have met them. 
 No doubt, no imputation is cast on the 
 validity of my episcopal ordination; no 
 recognition is required fromme of the vali- 
 dity of theér ordination. On going to the 
 committee-room, or to the hall, Imake no 
 compromise of principle, even in appear- 
 ance, in any way. _ I offend not, either in 
 letter, or in spirit, against any one article 
 of my Church. -I break no law, or canon, 
 which I have subscribed. I violate no 
 
24 
 
 duty, which I owe to my ecclesiastical 
 Rulers. I am countenanced by many of 
 my superiors, by some of the highest au- 
 thority in my Church. And when I have 
 _ transacted the business on which I haye 
 attended, I leave the assembly, I trust, 
 uncontaminated by the work in which I 
 have been engaged; or, by the persons 
 with whom I have associated. My feel- 
 ings of affection and gratitude towards 
 my own apostolic Church, and of the duty 
 ‘and allegiance which I owe to her, are 
 not diminished by the circumstance of 
 having been for a season in the company 
 of those who. dissent from. her commu- 
 nion:; perhaps they are strengthened and 
 increased by a tacit comparison, suggested 
 by this very circumstance to my mind, 
 of the superior privileges which, through 
 the mercy of God, I enjoy within the pre- 
 cinets of the Established Church ; and of 
 the authorized and undisputed right — 
 which she confers on me, to. preach the 7 
 Gospel of the grace of God. | 
 3 
 
25 
 
 - Judge, Sir, whether a Clergyman of the 
 established Church necessarily commits’ 
 sin, in the way you have specified, by 
 associating with Dissenters in the sok 
 Society. 
 
 4. You also affirm, that Clergymen, by’ 
 joining the Bible Society, help to concen- 
 trate and inflame the sects against the 
 
 Church, and to divide the ene against 
 — 
 
 ' From your representations, and ‘lan- 
 guage on this head, persons unacquainted 
 with the real state of the case would con- 
 clude, that even the professed object of 
 the Bible Society was the ruin of the 
 
 Church, and that not only the Dissenters, 
 but even the Clergy themselves, meet 
 there for the express purpose of declaim- 
 ing against the Establishment, and of stir- 
 ring up hostility and animosity against 
 her. But how wide would such a. con- 
 clusion be from the truth! Declamations - 
 against the Church form no part of the — 
 business of the Bible Society ; nor in any 
 € 
 
26 
 
 of the. meetings at which I have been pre- 
 sent, do I recollect to have heard any. 
 inflammatory language, or any hostile 
 expressions uttered with reference to her. 
 Individual members indeed of the Church, 
 who have misrepresented, or opposed the 
 Society, may have sometimes been the 
 objects of animadversion: their argu- 
 ments have been refuted, and their mis- © 
 representations exposed. But even in 
 these instances, it was their conduct only 
 in its particular relation to the Society, 
 that has been the subject of reprehension: 
 ho reflection has been cast on them, no 
 displeasure expressed towards them, on ac- 
 count of their churchmanship, or with a 
 reference to it: while the Church itself, 
 as a body, as an establishment, has uni- 
 formly been mentioned with respect by 
 the Dissenters, and by the Clergy in ge- 
 neral, with affection and gratitude. And 
 so far as my knowledge has reached, this 
 has been the usual practice in the meet- 
 ings of the Bible Society. With what 
 
27 
 
 justice. then it can be said, that this So- 
 ciety “ concentrates and inflames all dis- 
 cordant sects and parties against the 
 Church,” I am at a loss to learn. 
 
 That the Dissenters are active in pro- 
 pagating their peculiar opinions, and in 
 making proselytes to their respective 
 sects, are things which cannot be denied. 
 But they are not things which have any 
 particular connection with the Bible So-_ 
 ciety. They existed long before this So- 
 ciety was established; and if it were to 
 be immediately dissolved, they would still 
 continue to exist. They are the natural 
 consequences of dissent; its necessary 
 attendants: and will be such so long 
 as dissent exists. Let not then the 
 Bible Society be charged with effects 
 which it has not produced ; which it has 
 no tendency to produce; nay, which it 
 has every tendency to counteract and di- 
 minish. For the very circumstance of the 
 ministers of the Church, and the most 
 respectable of the Dissenters, occasionally 
 
 c 2 
 
28 
 
 meeting together, for the purpose of 
 uniting in a charitable work, might of 
 itself be expected to have a salutary in- 
 fluence on the minds of both parties. It 
 might be expected to soften prejudices, 
 to erase unfavourable impressions, and, 
 instead of increasing the Dissenter’s hos- ' 
 tility against the Church, in many in- 
 stances, to mitigate and subdue it. I do- 
 not expect that the Dissenters will be-. 
 come churchmen, through the means of 
 the Bible Society; but I feel convinced 
 that it operates to produce in them a more 
 friendly disposition towards the Church 
 as-a body, in consideration of what they 
 observe in that portion of Churchmen at 
 least, who are thus brought into occasional 
 contact with them. ” 
 But this is one of the very effects of 
 this union, which you chiefly deprecate. 
 It * divides the Church against herself.’? 
 Fhose who join this Society separate’ 
 themselves from their fellow-clergymen, | 
 that they may unite themselves with Dis- 
 
39 
 
 -senters. Hence arises a division in the 
 Church. - But permit me, Sir, again to 
 - remind you of the particular nature of this 
 union, of the slender tie by which it is 
 formed, the mere circumstance of be- 
 longing to the same charitable institution, 
 and of the sole and specific object for 
 _ which it takes place. An unionof this kind 
 needs not to give umbrage to those who 
 _are unwilling themselves to enter into it. 
 They need not necessarily to look with 
 jealousy and reserve on those who join the 
 -Bible Society, and to charge them, merely 
 on this account, with being separatists 
 and schismatics. That there is a division 
 in our Church, I both know and lament. 
 But it existed before the Bible Society ap- 
 peared : it would. equally survive its dis- 
 solution. The nature and grounds of 
 this division are not matters which fall 
 within my present discussion. It is the 
 fact alone to which I appeal ; and I ap- 
 peal to it asa proof, that it is not the 
 Bible Society which has created this di- 
 c 3 
 
30 
 
 vision ; and, consequently, that it is not 
 the mere circumstance of joining it, that 
 involves a man in the sin of dividing the 
 Church. If the division itself be sinful, 
 the sin is to be laid on some other cause, 
 ‘and not on the Bible Society. But if the 
 case were otherwise: if it could be proved 
 to demonstration, that the Bible Society 
 were the cause, and the on/y cause of di- 
 ‘vision in the Church, and that if this 
 institution were abolished, there would 
 be no farther cause of separation remain- 
 ing; yet even in this case, it would not 
 necessarily follow, that to join the Bible 
 Society is unlawful ; or that the sin of 
 creating a division in the Church lies with 
 those who join this Society. The sin may lie 
 with those who refuse to join it. The duty 
 of joining this Society may itself be so 
 plainly imperative on all the disciples of 
 Jesus Christ as to leave every member of 
 our Church, and especially every minister 
 ‘of it who dissents from the Society, with- 
 out any excuse for his dissent, and conse- 
 quently responsible for that division which’ 
 
31 
 
 his own dereliction of a manifest duty oc- 
 casions. I do not mean to assert that this is 
 really the state of the case ; but insupport 
 of my argument I may fairly assume that 
 it might be so. I do not wish to rebut the 
 charge of sin, which you have brought 
 forward against one part of your brethren, 
 by recriminating on the other. I am only 
 desirous of shewing, that the proof by 
 which you have attempted to support 
 your allegation is inadequate to the pur- 
 pose. The real merits of the question 
 rest on other grounds, and must be 
 sought in other considerations. And 
 this observation naturally leads me to the 
 notice of the last objection which I have 
 proposed to discuss, because it is the one 
 which more particularly involves the ob- 
 ject of the, Bible Society, and its preten- 
 sions to general support. 
 
 5. The Clergyman who joins the Bible 
 Society “* commits all this sin ;” that is, 
 all the sin contracted according to the 
 foregoing objections “ mefely for the sake 
 
 c 4 
 
 Q 
 
32 
 
 of an object, which in itself’ is bsiual un 
 lawful and mischievous.” _ 
 
 _, The allegation in this passage ‘is so 
 very extraordinary, that to prove my 
 correctness in stating it, I will again 
 adduce the express words of your charge. 
 You ask, ‘Is it no sin to inflame all 
 discordant parties against the Church, 
 to divide the Church against herself, 
 and for the sake only of distributing the 
 Scriptures in one particular mode, and 
 that mode repugnant to the practice 
 of the primitive Christians, and of our 
 venerable Reformers, and implying that 
 the Bible can do tts own work, and vir- 
 tually encouraging every man to be his 
 own divine 2”? . 
 
 This is your charge: and I cannot 
 characterize it in any other terms, than 
 by saying, that it appears to me to be a 
 complete tissue of misrepresentation from 
 the one end to the other ; and to con- 
 tain in one short passage as many mis- 
 takes as can well be conceived to exist.in 
 
33 
 
 the same compass. This assertion - 
 will undertake to prove. ; 
 The “one particular mode” of distri- 
 bution to which you allude, is evidently 
 that of distributing the Scriptures ‘“ with- 
 out note or comment :” for this is the 
 mode pursued by the Bible Society. 
 Now what does the Society mean by this 
 expression, ‘‘ without note or comment ?” 
 She: intends to say, that the copies of 
 the Scriptures which she undertakes to 
 distribute are those of the authorized 
 version only, which are without note or 
 comment —the Scriptures simply, by 
 themselves — the volume which God has 
 given by inspiration from Heaven, with- 
 out human intermixture, or addition. 
 .Thus to distribute the Scriptures is her 
 object, and her practice. And I would 
 ask, in what other mode can the Scrip- 
 tures ever be distributed? In what other 
 mode could the Primitive Christians, or 
 our venerable Reformers, make a practice 
 of distributing them; if, indeed, con- 
 c 5 
 
34 
 
 ‘sidering the scarcity of copies in» their 
 days, they can be supposed to have ‘had 
 any practice of distributing them at all ? 
 ‘Do you mean to affirm, that whenever 
 they distributed the Scriptures, they suni- 
 formly provided that some Commentary, 
 or Exposition, or Explanation, should: be 
 attached to every copy? And that to 
 circulate the Scriptures» without some 
 appendage of this kind, is» to circulate 
 them in a mode repugnant to their uni- 
 form practice? If this be your meaning, 
 ‘then the mode in: which our law pre- 
 scribes that the Scriptures should be cir- 
 culated ; then the mode in which the 
 Naval and Military Bible Society circu- 
 lates them; then the mode in which the 
 ‘Society for promoting Christian Know- 
 ledge circulates them, is altogether re- 
 pugnant to the practice of the Primitive 
 €hurch, and of our venerable Reformers; 
 for all the copies so circulated are pre- 
 cisely in the state to which you object. 
 They are “without note or comment.” - 
 
35 
 
 And here I cannot but notice with 
 severe reprobation an instance of so- - 
 phistry, which, in referring to the last 
 mentioned Society, has almost constantly 
 recurred in the attacks on the Bible So- 
 ciety; and which I should wish to have 
 seen distinctly exposed, and discarded by 
 an antagonist of your penetration. In 
 order to exhibit the alleged advantages 
 of the Society for promoting Christian 
 Knowledge above those of the Bible So- 
 ciety, and the claims which it prefers to 
 the exclusive support of the Clergy, it is 
 continually declared, that this Society 
 distributes Prayer Books with the Bible, 
 and thus annexes the Formularies of the 
 Church tothe circulation of the Scriptures. 
 And this argument is urged in such a 
 manner, as to lead a person, unacquainted 
 with the real fact, to conclude that this 
 Society always distributes a Prayer Book 
 with every Bible, and never sends out the 
 one without the other attached to it. But 
 this we know, Sir, is altogether an as- 
 
 c6 |. 
 
36 
 
 sumption which has no foundation in 
 fact ; a representation of the Constitu- 
 tion and Proceedings of that Society, 
 which exists only in the imaginations of 
 those who fabricate it. In truth, that 
 Society distributes, correctly speaking, 
 neither Prayer Books nor Bibles. She 
 only furnishes her Subscribers with these 
 Books, with both, or with either of them, 
 as they choose to order: and any Sub- 
 scriber to her funds might, in the course 
 of twenty years, distribute as many hun- 
 dred Bibles from her depository, without 
 circulating a single Prayer Book. So that 
 if the distribution of the Scriptures 
 ‘* without note or comment” be a mode 
 of distributing them, unprecedented in 
 the annals of the Church, and mis- 
 chievous in its effects, there is not amem- 
 ber of the Society for promoting Chris- 
 tian Knowledge, but may in this respect 
 be as mischievous, and may offend as 
 much against the practice of the Primi- 
 tive Christians, and the venerable Re- 
 
37 
 
 formers, as any Subscriber to the Bible 
 Society. 
 
 _ But the Bible Society, you allege, 
 when she thus distributes the Scriptures, 
 has a meaning, and a design peculiar to 
 herself. She. implies by this mode of 
 distribution that the Bible can do its own 
 work, and virtually encourages every man 
 to be his own divine. If by the first of 
 these expressions -it is meant, that the 
 Bible Society, by distributing the Scrip- 
 tures * without note or comment,” inti- 
 mates her conviction that the Scriptures 
 are the only source and basis of reli- 
 gious truth, and exclusively contain all 
 things necessary for life and godliness ; 
 in this sense, I admit her to imply (great- 
 ly as I disapprove the phraseology, from 
 whatever quarter it may be fetched) that 
 the Bible can do its own work. If by the 
 second expression it is intended that by 
 thus distributing the Bible she encou- 
 rages every person to read it diligently 
 with prayer, and to hope and. expect that 
 
38 
 
 God will bless his humble study ‘of it, 
 and will give him grace substantially to 
 understand, and love the truth contained 
 in it; in this sense also, I am ready to 
 allow, “‘that she does virtually encourage 
 every man to be his own divine.”” And | 
 in justification of her conduct in giving 
 such intimations and encouragements, 
 she can produce authority, to which you, 
 Sir, will not object. For as ‘to the first 
 point, the Sixth Article of our Church 
 declares, that “ Holy Scripture contain- 
 eth all things necessary to Salvation: so 
 that whatsoever is not read therein, nor 
 may be proved thereby, is not to be re- 
 quired of any man that it should be be- 
 lieved, as an Article of Faith, or be 
 thought requisite, or necessary to Salva- 
 tion.” And as to the second point, in 
 the first Homily of our Church, entitled 
 «A fruitful Exhortation to the Reading 
 and Knowledge of Holy Scripture,” we 
 find, among many other passages, these 
 following: ‘ Let us apply ourselves as far 
 
39 
 
 forth as we can have time and leisure to 
 know God’s word by diligent hearing, 
 and reading thereof, as many as profess 
 God, and have faith and trust in Him.’ 
 «« And if you be afraid to fall into error 
 by reading of Holy Scripture, I shall 
 shew you, how you may read without 
 danger of error. Read it humbly, with 
 a meek and lowly heart, to the intent you 
 may glorify God, and not yourself, with 
 the knowledge of it: and read it, not 
 without daily praying to God, that He 
 would direct your reading to good ef- 
 fect.’ «* And St. Chrysostom saith, that 
 man’s humour and worldly wisdom of 
 science is not needful to the understand- 
 ing of the Scriptures; but the revelation 
 of the Holy Ghost, who inspireth the 
 true meaning into them, that with hu- 
 mility and diligence, do search therefore.” 
 Surely if these things are all which 
 the Bible Society intends to imply or 
 encourage, by the one particular. mode 
 
40 
 
 in which she distributes the Seriptures } 
 that mode cannot, even in this view, be 
 repugnant to the practice of the primi« — 
 tive Christians, and of our venerale sae 
 formers. - 
 
 But these things, say her nice 
 are not al] which are intended. By dis- — 
 tributing the Bible *“ without note or - 
 comment,” she implies, and virtually ens 
 courages, the notion, that when a man is 
 once possessed of the Bible, he has every 
 thing necessary to his salvation: that 
 henceforth he hath no need of sacra- 
 ments or ordinances, of ghostly coun- 
 sellors or spiritual guides; that he may 
 become his own teacher and minister ; 
 may interpret the Scriptures for himself, 
 and safely disregard and reject all the 
 helps and assistances, with which the 
 wisdom and piety and experience of 
 others might furnish him.” 
 
 Such virtually is the construction 
 which is constantly put by opponents, 
 upon this fundamental principle of the 
 
 2 
 
4d 
 
 Bible Society, and which throughout 
 your pages, is either tacitly assumed or 
 openly implied. But against such a 
 construction of her principles, in behalt 
 of the Society, I do most strongly pro- 
 test. I maintain that it is a most erro- 
 neous and most unjust misrepresenta- 
 tion ;. one which is totally unsupported 
 by every argument drawn either from 
 reason or from analogy. Because’ the 
 -Bible Society distributes Bibles ‘<* with- 
 out note or comment,” can she there- 
 fore be justly said to imply, that notes 
 and comments are unnecessary or un- 
 important for explaining the Bible ? .Be- 
 cause she gives the Bible only, can she 
 therefore be justly said to imply, that 
 no. other helps than the Bible are neces- 
 sary or important to salvation? Because 
 she encourages every man to read the 
 Scriptures, can she therefore be justly 
 said to encourage them to discard their 
 ministers, and to forsake their church? 
 Surely these questions must carry their 
 
42 
 
 own answers with them. May not & 
 Society be established for the promotion 
 of some specific object, without subject- 
 ing itself to any imputation for not pro- 
 moting some other object? Must the 
 same Society embrace all objects? Or if 
 it pursue but one, does it imply there- 
 fore that others are unnecessary? It is 
 probable, Sir, that you may be a sub- 
 scriber to some of the many charitable 
 institutions which abound in the metro- 
 polis. Now, because you may choose 
 to give your support to a Dispensary or 
 a National School, ought your conduct 
 in this particular to be construed into a 
 proof that you esteem the Foundling or 
 the Magdalen Hospitals ‘to ‘be useless, 
 and that you virtually encourage others 
 to neglect these establishments? Would 
 you feel such a construction of your con- 
 duct to be reasonable, to be just ? Would 
 it be reasonable, would it be just to 
 infer, that the Naval and Military Bible 
 Society implies,’ that Prayer Books and 
 
 ] 
 
43 
 
 ministers are of no use, because it gives 
 the Bible. «‘ without note or comment ?” 
 If I should appear tedious in pressing 
 this point, I must urge in my defence, 
 the great importance of it in our present 
 argument. The Bible Society claims 
 from her enemies that justice which is 
 due to her, and which is paid to other 
 societies. She claims to have a right 
 of publicly putting her own construction 
 on her own declarations, and not to be 
 accused of meanings and designs, which 
 she utterly disclaims. Happily on this 
 occasion, she has decisive proof to offer 
 in vindication of her principles: she can 
 appeal to the evidence of facts. I would 
 put it to your candour, Sir, to declare 
 whether the clerical members of the 
 Bible Society justify, by their practice, 
 the imputation you cast upon her prin- 
 eiple, and act in their ministerial capa- 
 city as if they implied, that. the Bzble 
 can do its own work, or would encourage 
 every man to be his own divine? I would 
 
dvd 
 
 ask, whether taken asa body they are 
 not. as active and exemplary, as any 
 equal number of clergy whom you may 
 select from the non-subscribers to this 
 Institution, in preaching and expounds 
 ing the Scriptures, in distributing the 
 Book of Common Prayer, the Homilies 
 of our Church, and other religious 
 works ; in establishing schools ; in cate- 
 chising the children, and preparing them 
 for confirmation ; in visiting and praying 
 with the sick; and in urging upon their 
 flocks, the duty and benefit of attend- 
 ing Divine ordinances, and the means 
 of religious instruction? 1 say, Sir, I 
 would put it to your candour, to declare 
 from the knowledge which you have of 
 the general habits and practices. of 
 these clergymen in these particulars 5 
 (and I believe that their habits and prac- 
 tices, have not always been contemplated 
 by you from a distance, or under the. 
 influence of your present feelings. to- 
 wards them) whether you do justice to 
 
45 
 
 them, and consequently to the principles 
 of that Society of which they are mem- 
 bers, in charging them as you have done, 
 in the passage under review, with having — 
 joined this Society, for the sake only of 
 distributing the Scriptures in such a par- 
 ticular mode as implies, that the Bible 
 can: do its own work, and encourages 
 every man to be his own Divine? Is it 
 candid, is it true, to say that they joined 
 a Society for the sake only of maintain- 
 ing a principle which they disclaim, and 
 with which their whole practice is at 
 variance ? Especially when you reflect, 
 that if such had been their object, they 
 might with as much facility have attained 
 it, as I have already shewn, from the de- 
 positories of another institution. 
 Whether I have not now redeemed 
 my pledge, and proved the complete 
 misrepresentation which pervades. the 
 particular passage under discussion, I 
 _ must. leave it with your judgement, and - 
 with that of the public to-decide. Pers 
 
46 
 
 mit me, however, Sir, since I have de- 
 monstrated that I did not unite myself 
 to the Bible Society, for the reason 
 which you have assigned, to state to you 
 the real reasons which did induce me to 
 become a member of that Institution. 
 I joined the Bible Society from a desire 
 of contributing, so far as my situation and 
 circumstances would permit, to the dis- 
 semination of the Holy Scriptures among 
 all the members of my own Church, and 
 throughout the land in which I live. I 
 felt a wish to assist in the charitable work | 
 of putting a Bible into the hands of every 
 one of my fellow-countrymen, who might 
 be able to read it; that by the perusal of 
 its sacred pages, he might be prepared to 
 attend with the greater profit and edifica- 
 tion on the means of grace and instruction, 
 with which our Church had provided him. 
 I felt how thankful I should be, if every 
 individual of the flock committed to my 
 care were in possession of a Bible, and 
 could read it. I felt sensible with what 
 
47 
 
 an enlarged probability of usefulness I 
 should address them, both in my public 
 and in my private admonitions, if they 
 were all in some measure familiarized 
 with the Word of God; how much more 
 effectively I should be able to appeal to 
 their understandings, and their hearts, 
 when I could at once refer them to facts 
 and examples in Sacred History, with 
 which they were previously acquainted ; 
 and with what greater confidence and 
 satisfaction I could lay before them the 
 truths and precepts of the Gospel, when 
 I should hope that, like the noble Be- 
 reans, they would “search the Scriptures- 
 daily, to see whether these things were 
 so.” I thought what a happiness and 
 privilege it would be to the poorest 
 among them to be in possession of that 
 inspired Volume, which might prove to 
 them a solace after the labours of the 
 day, a companion during the intervals of 
 public worship on the Sunday, a ready 
 and present source of consolation under 
 
48 
 
 affliction, of direction in difficulties, of 
 peace and hope in the hour of sickness, 
 and at the approach of death. I.ima-. 
 gined that every Clergyman in ‘every 
 parish, who was alive to the spiritual in- 
 terests of his people, would participate 
 
 in all these feelings with myself, and — 
 would rejoice in the general distribution — 
 of the Scriptures among his flock: while 
 
 in those parishes, in which, either. from 
 
 the negligence of the appointed. Pastor, — 
 or from some unfortunate combination of | 
 
 local circumstances, the people did not 
 enjoy so many religious advantages, it 
 appeared to me that the circulation of 
 the Bible became an object doubly. de- 
 sirable, as affording to the inhabitants of 
 such a place some counterbalance. for 
 their heavy deprivations, and some por- 
 tion of spiritual food administered to 
 them in its purest form, and in such a 
 shape as could not reasonably give um- 
 brage to the most jealous mind. Under 
 these impressions, I hailed: with delight 
 
49 
 
 the institution of the Bible Society, be- 
 cause it provided additional means of 
 accomplishing an object so consonant to 
 my own wishes and feelings; and be- 
 cause, without the provision of such 
 means, the object itself was quite unat- 
 tainable. I would not appear unmindful 
 of the benefits which the Church and 
 Nation have derived from the circulation 
 of the Scriptures by the venerable So- 
 ciety, to which so frequent allusion has 
 been already made. I would not in the 
 slightest degree disparage or undervalue 
 the amount of good which it has effected 
 in this meritorious department of its 
 labours. But adequately to supply the 
 country with Bibles was utterly out of its 
 power. No one Society, especially one 
 whose operations were not exclusively 
 directed to this object, could be com- 
 petent to the task. With all the in- 
 creased momentum, which has _ been 
 given to this Society since the establish- 
 ment of the Bible Society, it has not yet 
 D 
 
50 
 
 been able, with the addition of nearly 
 two millions of copies from the latter 
 institution, to produce a supply in any 
 measure equal to the demand of the po- 
 pulation ; a demand, now daily increasing — 
 by the establishment and multiplication 
 of National Schools, which promise ina 
 few years to put the whole of the rising 
 generation in a capacity to read. This,. 
 _ Sir, was one reason which induced me to 
 join the Bible Society, and which, I 
 doubt not, has operated on all its other 
 Clerical Members: and I cannot but 
 think, that in the motives which thus 
 dictated such a step, there were some 
 sparks of genuine patriotism, of real 
 charity, and of sincere attachment to the 
 Established Church. 
 
 I had also another reason for joining 
 the Bible Society, of a character, I trust, 
 not less exalted, or less pure. It af- 
 forded me an opportunity, which in no 
 other way 1 could enjoy, of directly con- 
 tributing my mite towards the introduc- 
 
51 
 
 tion of the Scriptures into foreign and 
 Heathen nations. I saw myself enabled, 
 through the means with which it pro- 
 -yided me, to be instrumental in trans- 
 mitting the light of the Divine Word 
 - nto the dark regions of the earth. My 
 Church had accustomed me to think that 
 this was a sacred duty, which I was 
 strongly called to fulfil, whenever a suit- 
 able occasion presented itself. She had 
 taught me daily to pray that God “ would 
 send his saving health unto all nations ;” 
 and I should have almost considered 
 myself a hypocrite in my prayers, and 
 a dissenter from my church, if 1 had 
 declined to lend my aid, however feeble, 
 ‘in promoting an object, which she thus 
 incessantly urged upon my mind and 
 conscience. Besides, I thought that in 
 joining a society for such a purpose, I 
 was complying, so far as I was able, 
 with the spirit of our Lord’s injunction 
 to his apostles, “*Go ye into all the 
 world, and preaeh the Gospel to need 
 D2 
 
 S 
 
52 
 
 creature.” I thought, that in endea- 
 vouring to extend the knowledge of his 
 salvation to nations yet ignorant of it, 
 
 I was promoting, in some measure, the — 
 
 great end for which He had given Him- 
 self up to death upon the cross. I 
 thought, that in joining a British Society 
 established for this purpose, I was making 
 some little return of acknowledgement 
 - to the Almighty for the copious and un- 
 merited diffusion of temporal and _spiri- 
 tual mercies, with which He for so long 
 a time has blessed our highly privileged 
 nation; and that I was assisting in con- 
 ferring honour on the Church of Eng- 
 land, by helping her to take the lead in 
 this labour of love, and to cause her 
 Name to be had in grateful remem- 
 brance unto the ends of the earth. I 
 thought that in procuring for her an in- 
 terest in the prayers of distant countries, 
 and of ages yet unborn, I was rendering 
 her an essential service, and laying a 
 strong foundation of hope, that the Lord 
 would still continue to bless our Sion, 
 
53 
 
 and would make her the joy and glory 
 of alllands. I thought that in promoting, 
 so far as I could promote, the translation 
 of the Scriptures into all languages, I 
 was preparing the way for the more 
 successful preaching of the Gospel ; that 
 I was smoothing the road, and dimi- 
 nishing the obstacles of the pious Mis- 
 sionary, whenever he might personally 
 enter on his arduous work; and that 
 thus, in accordance with the spirit of 
 my sacred office, I was at least testifying 
 the readiness and desire of my heart to 
 extend the kingdom and to exalt the 
 , glory of our Redeemer.—Impelled by 
 these considerations, I united myself to 
 the Bible Society, and gave to it my 
 cordial wishes and most willing services. 
 I must leave it with the opponents of the 
 Bible Society to shew in what single 
 respect these motives, or the conduct re- 
 sulting from them, were inconsistent with 
 the principles. of the Church of which I 
 am a Minister, and with the duty which, 
 
 Q 
 
 Do 
 
54 
 
 in that character, I owe ‘to her. “Let me 
 only advise them to beware, lest in their 
 attempt to prove these things, they 
 prove too much; and expose their own 
 want of congeniality with the spirit and 
 genius of that Church, of which they 
 profess themselves such zealous admirers 
 and advocates. 
 
 I said at the beginning of this Leese, 
 that had your interrogations to me reé 
 lated merely to my own publication, and 
 to my individual sentiments, I should not 
 have deemed it necessary to notice them 3 
 but having now a fair opportunity m my 
 way, I shall so far avail myself of it, as 
 to request your attention to a few remarks 
 on one part of your strictures, bearing, 
 however, on the present ‘subject, which 
 belong specially to myself. You- accuse 
 me of want of candour in stating it as 
 my calm conclusion that an indifference 
 to the great objects of the British and 
 Foreign Bible Society, is the principal 
 reason why the bulk: of the Clergy with- 
 
55 
 hold from it their countenance and sup- 
 port. But the whole tendency of your 
 publication appears to me to corroborate 
 this conclusion, and to strengthen the 
 arguments on which I stated it to rest. 
 You intimate that I might have disco- 
 vered other more obvious reasons for the 
 unfriendliness of the Clergy to the Bible 
 Society, had I impartially sought after 
 them ; and that in fact the very objec- 
 tions which you have advanced, are of 
 themselves sufficient to account for this 
 phenomenon. But unsound, irrelevant, 
 and untenable as 1 haye proved those 
 objections to be, I could never believe 
 that they have operated to the extent, 
 which you would wish to infer, on the 
 minds of the great body of the Clergy, 
 without assuming to myself a larger 
 measure of discernment, than I have 
 _ -any desire to claim, or without supposing 
 them to be under the influence of pre- 
 _ judice to a degree, which I should be 
 most unwilling to attribute to them. . No, 
 D4 
 
56 
 
 Sir ; the objections which you have ad- 
 vanced, never can have had any. real 
 weight with the clergy in general. That 
 some vague and indistinct apprehensions 
 of danger to the Established Church from 
 the operations of the Bible Society, may 
 have in several, perhaps in many ‘in- 
 stances, produced an unwillingness to 
 support it, I am ready to admit: and 
 wherever such apprehensions have ‘been 
 conscientiously entertained by any mdi- 
 viduals, I would be very far from indis- 
 criminately involving them ‘in the ¢on- 
 clusion in question. But even in respect 
 to these persons, 1 am not altogether 
 without my fears. Being fully convinced, 
 that a zeal for the Established’ Church 
 is of itself no certain and conclusive 
 criterion of a zeal for true Christianity, 
 and that there may possibly be a great 
 ‘deficiency of just and lively feeling for 
 the spiritual interests of mankind, in 
 hearts which are tremblingly alive to the 
 - interest of their particular Church; I 
 
a7 
 
 would still, with all deference and humi- 
 
 lity, repeat my former admonition, and 
 “submit it to the conscientious consi- 
 deration of every individual who is in- 
 disposed, from whatever professed cause, 
 to the Bible Society — whether at the 
 bottom of his indisposition, there may not 
 be a latent and an unsuspected portion 
 of indifference to the great and ae 
 cause of Christianity ?” 
 
 ' I feel this admonition to be the more 
 necessary and seasonable, because while 
 I learn from your publication, that one 
 objection to the Bible Society consists 
 in its sending Bibles to Heathen Lands, 
 without undertaking to furnish Preachers 
 to explain and interpret them; I per- 
 ceive also, in the same publication, an 
 eagerness to bring forward objections 
 against the only attempt which is making 
 invour Church to supply this deficiency. 
 To an indifferent observer there might 
 appear an inconsistency of conduct in 
 such endeavours, first to censure one 
 DS 
 
‘58 
 
 Society for sending Bibles without Mis- 
 sionaries, and then to find fault with an- 
 other, which is sending out the very: Mis- 
 sionaries which are wanting. Surely if 
 any large portion of the members and 
 friends of the Church of England are of 
 opinion, that she has sufficient reasons 
 for declining to unite herself with the 
 Bible Society, still it might have been 
 hoped that they would have embraced 
 with avidity the opportunity opened to 
 them, of sending Preachers to unfold to 
 the benighted and perishing Heathen, 
 . the glorious treasures contained in those 
 useless “ Packets of Bibles;”? which, if 
 not so good as those which some other 
 depositaries might have furnished, are yet 
 the best and the only copies which have 
 reached these distant shores; and from 
 which, during their voyage into another 
 hemisphere, the ‘ Smell of Schism” 
 will surely have evaporated. 
 
 If, Sir, we are to consider you as an 
 accredited organ of the opponents of the 
 
59 
 
 Bible Society in our Church, it would 
 certainly have been more gratifying to 
 the real Friends of that Church to have 
 seen in your pages some promise given, 
 or some expectations held out, or at 
 least some intimations disclosed, of her 
 intentions to awake out of her slumber, 
 and by some new and well-directed ex- 
 ertions to repay to the dark and distant 
 nations of the earth some portion of her 
 debt of gratitude to her Heavenly Bene- 
 factor for light, and life, and peace, so 
 long enjoyed. As to Church Esta- 
 blishments,. they cannot be sent into 
 Heathen nations, It is the labour of 
 the Missionary which, in this service, 
 she must employ. And if the Societies 
 already existing are not constituted ac- 
 cording to her wishes, nor, as she sup- 
 poses, are consistent with her modes of 
 operation, the world still opens to her . 
 an abundance of unoccupied regions, 
 amidst which, in her own way, and ac- 
 cording to her own views, she may dif- 
 pd 6 
 
60 
 
 fuse, without a rival or‘an intruder, the 
 pure ray of Gospel Truth. I think I might 
 venture to predict, that im any suitable 
 efforts of this kind commensurate with 
 her high pretensions, she would find allt 
 her Children ready to concur. And no 
 sooner should her banners be unfurled in 
 this sacred warfare, underher legitimate 
 leaders, than thousands of those, whom 
 she‘now is taught by some of her pro- 
 fessed friends to accuse as disloyal to her 
 interests, and as movers of sedition against 
 her authority, would flock with joy to 
 her standard, and serve her with heart 
 and hand in this her new and holy Cru- 
 sade against Pagan and Mahomedan 
 Idolatry. rie 
 To rouse her energies in this sacred 
 cause, would be an employment well 
 worthy of her advocates and counsellors 
 an employment far more honourable to 
 themselves, and far more expressive of 
 their zeal for her glory, and for the glory 
 of her God, than to exercise their in- 
 
61 
 
 genuity, their talents, and their influence 
 nly, in discouraging ‘every effort, in 
 opposing every plan, and in protesting 
 against every method, by which the 
 humble and active piety of some of her 
 children, is attempting to supply her 
 lack of service, and to fulfil the duties 
 which she awefully neglects. A wise 
 and considerate parent should know how . 
 to value and employ such children. In- 
 stead of repelling them by stern unre- 
 lenting severity, or looking down upon 
 them with cold supercilious contempt ; 
 instead of minutely scanning, and ‘offi- 
 ciously exposing their real or imaginary 
 faults; ‘instead of aggravating every 
 casual indiscretion, and by her own dis- 
 regard and neglect of them forcing them 
 into the very errors, if errors they be, for 
 which she afterwards censures and up- 
 braidsthem; she should act towards them 
 a more conciliatory part, and adopt a 
 kinder conduct. Knowing, as she can- 
 not but know, their many sterling qua- 
 
62 
 
 lities, she should labour to attach them 
 more strongly to herself, and to secure 
 and appropriate their affections. She 
 should study their tempers, and bear 
 with their infirmities and mistakes. . She 
 should encourage and direct their honest 
 and pious zeal; should wisely co-operate 
 with them in all their humble efforts to 
 do good ;: and should delight to see and 
 to foster in them every benevolent dis- 
 position, every fruit of Christian promise, 
 every tender feeling, which humanizes, 
 exalts, and purifies the soul. 
 
 Great and obvious are the Sarita 
 which the rulers of our Church possess 
 for healing her present wounds, if they 
 have wisdom and courage to apply them. 
 But if some late events are to be consi- 
 dered as indicative of the counsels which 
 they intend to follow, then indeed the 
 case is hopeless, and the breach must be 
 incurable. Intemperate protests, and 
 coarse, indiscriminate abuse, , may gratify 
 the evil passions of mankind, but, they 
 
63 
 
 never can do any good. It is contrary to 
 all experience to suppose that peace can 
 be promoted by such means. How de- 
 voutly then is it to be wished that such 
 means were universally discouraged and 
 condemned! What a favourable symp- 
 tom would it be of right dispositions and 
 views, what a gleam of light and hope 
 would it shoot across our dark and cloud- 
 ed prospects, if those who are in autho- 
 rity would express their unanimous and 
 decided disapprobation of all such pro- 
 ceedings and their authors, as tending 
 only to aggravate existing evils, to per- 
 petuate our unhappy divisions, and to 
 gratify the enemies of Christianity and 
 of our Church ! 
 
 But it is time that I should bring my 
 letter to a close. Permit me then, Sir, 
 in conclusion, to express the satisfaction 
 which I have derived from the perusal of 
 your book. Both in my individual capa- 
 city, and as.a member of the Bible So- 
 ciety, 1 am glad that you were induced 
 
 6 
 
64 
 
 to give publicity to your feelings and 
 sentiments, for [ have not a doubt but 
 that your publication will eventually aid 
 the cause which it was intended to injure. 
 Ithas certainly produced onmy own mind, 
 a result the very contrary of that which 
 you designed it to accomplish. You sug- 
 gested to me the propriety of reviewing 
 more earefully my principles and con- 
 duct, as a Clergyman of the Church of 
 England in respect to the Bible Society ; 
 and I have complied with the suggestion. 
 I have examined, with more attention 
 than I had ever previously bestowed on 
 the subject, the lawfulmess and the pro- 
 priety of m} union with this Society :/ I 
 have weighed the arguments by which 
 you have attempted to shew that such an 
 union is unlawful: I have recalled to my 
 mind the motives, which originally led 
 me to join this Society: I have retraced 
 in recollection, my feelings and conduct 
 in connection with it: and, I have con- 
 sidered the legitimate effect of my exam- 
 
65 
 
 ple, on the feelings and consciences of 
 others ; and the result of the whole in- 
 quiry is this: that while, as a Minister of 
 the Church of Christ, I should feel my- 
 self guilty of a most shameful dereliction 
 of duty to Him, from whom I have re- 
 ceived my office, and to whom I am re- 
 sponsible for the discharge of it, if I did 
 not give my cordial support, (unless some 
 duty interfered to prevent it,) to an in- 
 stitution whose sole and exclusive object, 
 is to put into the hands of those for whom 
 He died, the blessed words of eternal life. 
 As a minister of the Church of Eng- 
 land, so far from discovering in present 
 circumstances any duty interfering which 
 should prevent me from conscientiously 
 continuing a member of the Bible So- 
 ciety, and from giving to it, under the 
 exercise of a due discretion, the support, 
 which I might furnish to any other chari- 
 table institution, in a measure propor- 
 tioned to my means, and to the magni- 
 tude of the object in view, I see, on the 
 
66 
 
 contrary, strong obligations to join the 
 Society, and to aid it to the extent of my 
 power. For the assistance which your 
 publication has afforded me in coming to 
 this very satisfactory conclusion, by sug- 
 gesting the inquiry, and furnishing me 
 with matter for the prosecution of it, I 
 feel truly glad; and from my heart I 
 wish, that whenever you shall be led to 
 take as deliberate and impartial a review 
 of your conduct, in relation to the same 
 Society, you will be enabled to come 
 to a conclusion equally satisfactory; and 
 at length to give up with joy to your 
 Heavenly Master, the account of this 
 talent, which He has placed within your 
 reach, as well as of oneal other cogent 
 to your trust. 
 
 As a member of the Bible Society ok 
 feel thankful for your publication: for [do 
 expect that she will derive very import- 
 ant benefits from it. A severe and’ ad- 
 venturous enemy, often proves in the 
 end a most serviceable friend ; and such 
 
67 
 
 I trust. you will prove on this occasion. 
 You have taken on yourself the office of 
 a castigator, and it does not appear that 
 it could have fallen into more willmg 
 hands. Talents and station, learning and 
 piety, have in vain pleaded for the vic- 
 tim, and tried toarrest your hand. With 
 remorseless fidelity to your object, you 
 have aimed a blow at every friend of the 
 Bible Society, who, as you have sup- 
 posed, lay open to your attack; and have 
 hurled at the institution every dart, whe- 
 ther new or old, within your reach. The 
 design of all this hostility is obvious : 
 . but the result I anticipate with satisfac- 
 tion. Iam not, Sir, so blind an admirer 
 of the Bible Institution, or so prejudiced 
 an advocate in her behalf, as to see 
 among her supporters no faults, and to 
 defend them to all lengths. Her object 
 I believe to be most pure, and her prin- 
 ciple unexceptionable: and when I sur- 
 vey the amount of good, which she has al- 
 ready accomplished within the wide range 
 of her operations, I cannot regard her but 
 
68 
 
 as an instrument, which God has prepared, 
 and is employing for effecting the pur- 
 poses of his grace. But at the same time 
 I cannot expect that all this good will be 
 attained without an incidental admix- 
 ture of some inconvenience; and when 
 I consider the variety of branches into 
 
 which the Society is ramified, and that — ) 
 
 the numerous agents employed by it, are 
 men of like passions with myself, I can- 
 not but expect that some instances will 
 occur of indiscreet zeal, of improper in- 
 terference, and of exertions, which. in- 
 volve an unintentional departure from 
 the principle of the Society, and a viola- 
 tion of her wishes and_ injunctions. * 
 
 * I wish distinetly to state that in this passage, I mean 
 to make no particular allusion to the proceedings which 
 have taken place at Midhurst. Having seen only your re- 
 presentations of the case, which of course, constitute 
 merely an ex parte statement, I do not feel myself compe- 
 tent to form any opinion on the subject. The favourable 
 sentiments which I entertain of Mr. Sargent, would cer- 
 tainly lead me to suspect, that you have given an incor- 
 rect and exaggerated view of the. circumstances.—V.B. 
 Since writing this note, a perusal of Mr, Sargent’s short 
 
 publication has convinced me that my suspicions were far 
 from being erroneous. 
 
69 
 
 These things I expect will casually take 
 place: but Ido not on that account the 
 less deplore them, whenever they do 
 occur. For I am sensible that they have 
 greatly tended to {obstruct and weaken 
 the operations of the Society, by increas- 
 ing the prejudices against it, and by fur- 
 nishing a handle for that convenient but 
 unjustifiable mode of attack, by which 
 modern controversy has been so shamie- 
 fully distinguished, of indiscriminately 
 charging on whole Societies, the offences 
 or follies of some few individuals belong- 
 ing to them, and of representing such ex- 
 cesses as the effect of principles, with 
 which they have no necessary connec- 
 tion. On these accounts I always hear 
 with concern of’ any irregularity or ex- 
 travagance with which the friends of the 
 Bible Institution can be justly charged. 
 And though I cannot but think that a 
 large portion of the inconveniencies and 
 evils attributed to this Society, would 
 never have occurred, ‘had the Clergy in 
 
70 
 
 general supported it; had they thrown 
 into its concerns the weight and influence 
 of their authority; had they. sanctioned 
 it with their presence, and assisted it with 
 their superintendence and counsel: yet 
 
 as things now are, I would wish that as 
 
 little umbrage as_ possible, should be 
 given to them by the proceedings of the 
 Society ; that attention should be studi- 
 ously paid to their feelings and preju- 
 dices by all the members of it; and 
 though I cannot advance so far in my 
 attempts to conciliate them, as to desire 
 that none of its Bibles, may find admis- 
 sion into their parishes, nor that their 
 parishioners, who approve the institution, 
 should not individually exercise their 
 right of supporting it, even though their 
 parochial minister should not be its friend: 
 yet I could wish that no endeavours may 
 be henceforth made to introduce, by ex- 
 traneous interference, the organised ma- 
 chinery of the institution into, those 
 places, where the avowed. sentiments: of 
 
7t 
 
 the clergyman are known to be hostile to 
 the establishment of an association or an 
 auxiliary society. Though the friends 
 of the institution, by an attention to these 
 - circumstances, might not swell to so 
 large an amount the sum of her annual 
 receipts, yet she would rise in respect- 
 ability and influence; she would present 
 to her opponents a more conciliatory 
 aspect’; and would remove many of those 
 grounds of objection, by which they are 
 _ now excited against her. ‘These feelings 
 and sentiments have been greatly aug- 
 mented and strengthened in my own 
 mind, by the perusal of your work: and 
 I cannot but hope, with some degree of 
 sanguine expectation, that similar effects 
 will be produced on the minds of the 
 great body of her members. And if, in 
 consequence, a more strict and continual 
 recurrence to the principle of the Society 
 take place throughout every part of its 
 numerous dependancies; if any excres- 
 cences, which in places may have disfi- 
 
72 
 
 gured her appearance be removed, «and 
 occasional ebullitions of zeal suppressed ; 
 you will, in my opinion, have rendered 
 to the Bible Society, however uninten- 
 tionally, an essential and important ‘ser- 
 vice. | 
 
 And now, Sir, if during the discussion 
 into which I have been led, by your in- 
 terrogations publicly addressed to me, I 
 
 have in any instance transgressed the 
 
 boundaries, which at the beginning I pre- 
 scribed to myself; I hope you will attri- 
 bute it to the insensible and unallowed 
 operation of the dangerous occupation in 
 which I have been engaged, and not to 
 any want of Christian courtesy with 
 which I subscribe myself, 
 
 Reverend Sir, 
 Yours, &c. 
 EDWARD COOPER. 
 
 Iiamstall Ridware, 
 March 3], 1818. 
 
 _Printed by A. Strahan, © 
 New-Swreet-Square, London. 
 
 | 
 
APPEAL 
 
 TO 
 
 ATAILE .CLERGY 
 
 UNITED CHURCH OF ENGLAND & IRELAND, 
 
 ON THE SUBJECT OF THE 
 
 British & Foreian Bible Society. 
 
 BY THE 
 
 HON. & REV. LITTLETON POWYS, M.A. 
 
 RECTOR OF TITCHMARSH, NORTHAMPTONSHIREy 
 5 
 
 SECOND EDITION, 
 
 LONDON: 
 PUBLISHED BY HATCHARD AND SON, PICCADILLY. 
 
 SOLD ALSO BY SEELEY AND SONS, FLEET-STREET; AND NISBET, 
 BERNERS-STREBET. 
 
 1830, 
 Price 1s. 6d. 
 
 ~« 
 
* > 
 
 i ~ 
 / 
 ] + ren 
 or 
 AEH 
 MS ase 
 . ays Ave 
 
 vorpons).'/ if (haem 
 
 x 
 
 i 
 gunn ey 
 
 CLAY, BREAD-STRI 
 
 ferig 
 ¥ hs 
 D oa so Sas 
 ri as & 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 Asove twenty-six years have now transpired 
 since the British and Foreign Bible Society was 
 established in this country ; and yet it is a well- 
 known fact, that a considerable number of the 
 Clergy of the Church of England have not hitherto 
 been disposed to connect themselves with that 
 ereat christian institution. 
 
 Some have come forward as its decided oppo- 
 nents; many others have declined to take any 
 part in its concerns; and only a comparatively 
 small, though it is hoped an increasing, number 
 have enrolled themselves amongst its friends and 
 supporters. "4 
 
 That such should be the fact respecting so many 
 of the Clergy of a Prorestant Cuurcu, whose very 
 existence is so much to be ascribed to the trans- 
 lation of the Scriptures into the Englsh language, 
 and whose peculiar excellence so much arises 
 from its scriptural character, has appeared to many 
 an extraordinary religious phenomenon in modern 
 times. But if this subject be examined in a calm, 
 _candid, and dispassionate manner, under the 
 influence and direction of that charity, which 
 
 A 2 
 
V1 PREFACE. 
 
 members, pastors, and prelates of the Established 
 Church, with the different sects and denominations 
 of Dissenters, appeared to him to be fraught with 
 so many invincible difficulties as to render it 
 utterly chimerical.” * 
 
 Let us also consider the various mediums 
 through which this institution has been first pre- 
 sented to the notice of each imdividual. For in- 
 stance, one person was first made acquainted with 
 its object and constitution, and formed his esti- 
 mate of its character, from one of the first pam- 
 phlets which were written against it, representing 
 the British and Foreign Bible Society thus :—“ It 
 consists of a combination of two parties; one of 
 which makes a great sacrifice by consenting to 
 circulate the Bible without the Prayer-book, the 
 other makes no sacrifice, having no Prayer-book 
 to circulate; such a combination must end in the 
 ruin of that party which makes the sacrifice.” + 
 
 Another person was first introduced to the 
 Bible Society by receiving some of its first Re- 
 ports, accompanied by the strong recommenda- 
 tion of men highly esteemed for wisdom, piety, 
 
 * See Owen’s History, Vol. I. p. 37. 
 
 + The fallacy of such an argument may be clearly shewn, 
 either by pointing out that the premises are false, because, in 
 fact, neither one party nor the other makes any sacrifice; or 
 that if any sacrifice be made it is mutual; for those who haye 
 no Prayer-book have a Catechism or a Hymn-book, or some 
 other printed document in which their peculiar principles are 
 embodied, and which is as valuable to conscientious Dissenters, 
 as the Prayer-book is to conscientious Churchmen. 
 
PREFACE. vii 
 
 and benevolence, and derived his first impression 
 in that manner, not having seen any controver- 
 sial pamphlets on the subject. 
 
 The same thing thus viewed through such dif- 
 ferent mediums, is evidently calculated to produce 
 very different effects:—and if the minds of the 
 two persons named had no previous bias either’ 
 _ way, there is a strong probability, that the one 
 would be friendly, and the other opposed to the 
 Bible Society. 
 
 If we extend this reasoning to all other similar 
 instances, it will very much account for that. great 
 difference of opinion which has prevailed, and 
 which still prevails on the point in question. 
 
 For these, and other reasons which might be 
 assigned, the circumstance of many members of 
 the Established Church not having cordially en- 
 tered into the views of the British and Foreign 
 Bible Society, may be accounted for without sub- 
 jecting them to any just imputation of unwilling- 
 ness to circulate the Scriptures, or to any 
 unconcern in the promotion of so important an 
 object. Indeed, the large number of Bibles and 
 Testaments which have been distributed by the 
 Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge during 
 a period of above one hundred and thirty years, 
 and the large number which is constantly issuing 
 from its depository, afford abundant evidence on 
 this subject. 
 
 But after all due acknowledgments of this nature, 
 which the writer of the following pages has felt 
 
vill PREFACE. 
 
 it incumbent upon him to make, he must declare 
 his deep and increasing conviction, that the 
 British and Foreign Bible Society has strong 
 and unquestionable claims on the Church of 
 England: and that the reason why these claims 
 have not hitherto been fully recognized, is a mis- 
 apprehension of the real character and tendency 
 of that Society. He is, indeed, fully aware that 
 those who appear to him to have mistaken its 
 character and tendency, have the same sources 
 of information with himself: that many are greatly 
 his superiors in every respect; and, on many ac- 
 counts, more capable of forming a right judgment 
 on the most important subjects, than himself. 
 This thought has often restrained his hand when 
 he has before taken up his pen to advocate this 
 cause. But as every succeeding year since his first 
 acquaintance with this Society has strengthened 
 his opinion that the English Clergy ought to oc- 
 cupy a conspicuous station in this holy alliance; 
 and that their declining to do so, has a lamentable 
 tendency to alienate the people of England from 
 the Established Church, to awaken a suspicion 
 that there is something in that Church which will 
 not bear the light of Scripture Truth, and to pro- 
 duce many other injurious effects, he has felt 
 compelled to make this public appeal. 
 
 After all the pamphlets which have been written 
 on this controversy, it is not improbable that the 
 substance of the following pages is already before 
 the public. But even if this should be the case, 
 
PREFACE. ix 
 
 the author indulges a hope that he may be instru- 
 mental in persuading his clerical brethren to recon- 
 sider the question. If, however, his representation 
 of it should produce no effect on their minds, he 
 trusts that they will allow the experience of more 
 than twenty-five years to have its due influence: 
 for throughout the whole of that period, the tes- 
 timony Bishop Porteus once delivered,* may be 
 now extended:—‘“ None of those secret, dark 
 designs, none of those plots and conspiracies to 
 subvert the Establishment, and to devour both 
 the shepherds and their flocks, which were so con- 
 fidently predicted by a certain set of men, as the 
 inevitable effect of this Society, have been yet 
 discovered in it. It is, in fact, much better 
 employed. It goes on quietly and steadily in the 
 prosecution of its great object, and pays no sort of 
 regard to the sneers and cavils of its intemperate 
 opponents.” 
 
 Let us now enter upon the discussion proposed, 
 and examine whether the British and Foreign 
 Bible Society be entitled to the sanction and 
 support of the Established Church. 
 
 The supposition that it is so, is the foundation 
 of all that is advanced in the following pages. 
 
 * See Life of Bishop Porteus, by the Rev. R. Hodgson, 
 M.A. F.R.S. 
 
 + For additional Episcopal testimonies in favour of the 
 general circulation of the Scriptures, without note or comment, 
 see Appendix, No. I. 
 
AN APPEAL. 
 
 As many persons are either altogether ignorant _ 
 pot the origin of the Society in question, or im- 
 “/ perfectly acquainted with it, or have derived their 
 
 information from some unfair and prejudiced re- 
 presentation, it appears to be necessary, as a 
 preliminary step in this discussion, to give a com- 
 pendious statement of the origimal formation of the 
 Bible Society. 
 
 Those who are desirous of being acquainted 
 with all the interesting details, may obtain the 
 fullest satisfaction and the highest gratification, by 
 reading the History of the Origin and First Ten 
 Years of the British and Foreign Bible Society, by 
 the Rev. John Owen, to whose intelligent and 
 indefatigable labours that Society was so much in- 
 debted during a period of eighteen years, while he 
 so ably filled the office of Clerical Secretary ; but 
 a summary account, chiefly extracted from that 
 history, will be sufficient for the present purpose. 
 
 It appears that towards the close of the last 
 century, about the year 1787, a great scarcity 
 
12 
 
 of the Scriptures in the Welsh language had been 
 discovered in Wales; and an earnest desire was 
 felt by those acquainted with that scarcity, to re- 
 lieve it. With the hope of obtaining relief, appli- 
 cation was made to the Society for Promoting 
 Christian Knowledge; the only institution then 
 existing whose principal object was the circulation 
 of the Scriptures; whose benevolence would dis- 
 pose it, and whose resources would enable it, 
 either to contribute a supply of Welsh Bibles and 
 Testaments already printed, or to undertake the 
 printing of a new edition. After frequent and 
 earnest applications, that venerable Society was 
 induced to undertake a new edition of ten thousand 
 Bibles and two thousand Testaments; and “‘ when 
 the impression was ready for delivery, notice was 
 given, with a liberality that deserves the warmest 
 commendation, that copies might be had neatly 
 bound in calf by any of the inhabitants of the 
 principality, through the medium and upon the 
 application of any member of the Society, at one 
 half of the prime cost in sheets.” 
 
 But as thirty years had elapsed since the last 
 edition of the Welsh Bible was printed, this supply, 
 though liberal, proved very inadequate; so that 
 the Secretary, Dr. Gaskin, declared that twenty 
 thousand copies would not answer half the demand. 
 Fresh applications therefore were soon after made 
 to the same Society, from various quarters, for 
 further supplies :. but after repeated solicitations, 
 no encouragement was given to hope that any- 
 thing more would be attempted. Mr. Owen 
 adds—“ At length, in the summer of 1802, all 
 
13 
 
 hope of further relief from the Society for Pro- 
 moting Christian Knowledge having been finally 
 abandoned ;” and similar wants to those in Wales 
 having been ascertained by inquiry in England, 
 Ireland, Scotland, in other parts of Europe, and 
 in all other quarters of the globe; many benevolent 
 individuals in London were led to entertain the 
 idea of forming a new Society, for promoting a 
 more extensive circulation of the Scriptures both 
 at home and abroad. Various private meetings 
 and consultations took place, until, the plan pro- 
 posed being sufficiently matured, a public meeting 
 took place at the London Tavern, on Wednesday, 
 March 7, 1804, and tHe British aND FoREIGN 
 BisLE SociETY WAS ESTABLISHED ! 
 
 Laws and regulations were then adopted for its 
 future management, which, after being revised 
 and amended at subsequent committee meetings 
 during the first year, were finally settled in the 
 following manner at the first anniversary :— 
 
 Laws and Regulations of the British and Foreign Bible 
 - Society. 
 
 1. Tue designation of this Society shall be, Tue Britisu 
 AND Foreien Bisxe Society, of which the sole object shall 
 be to encourage a wider circulation of the Holy Scriptures, 
 without note or comment. The only copies in the languages 
 of the United Kingdom to be circulated by the Society, 
 shall be of the authorized version. 
 
 2. This Society shall add its endeavours to those em- 
 ployed by other societies for circulating the Scriptures 
 through the British dominions; and shall also, according 
 to its ability, extend its influence to other countries, whet 
 Christian, Mahomedan, or Pagan. 
 
14 
 
 3. Each Subscriber of One Guinea annually shall be a 
 Member. 
 
 4, Each Subscriber of Ten Guineas at one time shall be 
 a Member for life. 
 
 5. Each Subscriber of Five Guineas annually shall be a 
 Governor. 
 
 6. Each Subscriber of Fifty Pounds at one time, or who 
 shall, by one additional payment, increase his original sub- 
 scription to Fifty Pounds, shall be a Governor for life. 
 
 7. Governors shall be entitled to attend and vote at all 
 meetings of the Committee. 
 
 8. An Executor paying a bequest of Fifty Pounds shall 
 be a Member for life; or of One Hundred Pounds, a 
 Governor for life. 
 
 9. A Committee shall be appointed to conduct the busi- 
 ness of the Society, consisting of thirty-six laymen; six of 
 whom shall be foreigners, resident in London or its vicinity; 
 half of the remainder shall be members of the Church of 
 England, and the other half members of other denomina- 
 tions of Christians. Twenty-seven of the above number, 
 
 who shall have most frequently attended, shall be eligible” 
 
 for re-election for the ensuing year. The Committee shall 
 appoint all officers except the Treasurer, and call special 
 general meetings; and shall be charged with procuring for 
 the Society suitable patronage, both British and foreign. 
 
 10. Each Member of the Society shall be entitled, under 
 the direction of the Committee, to purchase Bibles and 
 Testaments at the Society’s prices, which shall be as low as 
 possible. 
 
 il. The Annual Meeting of the Society shall be held 
 on the first Wednesday in May, when the Treasurer and 
 Committee shall be chosen, the accounts presented, and the 
 proceedings of the foregoing year reported. 
 
 12. The President, Vice-Presidents, and Treasurer, shall 
 be considered ex-officio Members of the Committee. 
 
 13. Every Clergyman or Dissenting Minister, who is a 
 Member of the Society, shall be entitled to attend and vote 
 at all the meetings of the Committee. 
 
15 
 
 14. The Secretaries for the time being shall be con- 
 sidered as Members of the Committee ; but no other* person 
 deriving any emolument from the Society shall have that 
 privilege. 
 
 15. At the General Meetings and Meetings of the Com- 
 mittee, the President, or, in his absence, the Vice- 
 President first on the list then present; and in the absence 
 of all the Vice-Presidents, the Treasurer; and in his 
 absence, such Member as shall be voted for that purpose, 
 shall preside at the Meeting. 
 
 16. The Committee shall meet on the first Monday in 
 every month, or oftener if necessary. 
 
 17. The Committee shall have the power of nominating 
 such persons as have rendered essential seryices to this 
 Institution, either Members for life, or Governors for life. 
 
 18. The Committee shall have the power of nominating 
 Honorary Members from amongst foreigners, who have 
 promoted the objects of this Society. 
 
 19. The whole of the minutes of every General Meeting 
 shall be signed by the Chairman. 
 
 The chief additional rules which have been 
 adopted since these original laws were agreed 
 upon, are those which relate to the formation, 
 and regulation of Auxiliary and Branch Societies 
 and Bible Associations; which have continually 
 multiplied throughout the kingdom, as the object 
 of the Bible Society has become more generally 
 
 * The author deems it proper to remark, that for above 
 eighteen years the Secretaries fulfilled their office gratuitously ; 
 but on the death of Mr, Owen, when the duties of Secretaries 
 had become so much more arduous and complicated, it. was 
 thought neither just nor reasonable that their services should 
 be any longer received without remuneration: a suitable 
 
 salary, therefore, was then appointed them.—Sce 1 Cor. ix. 7. 
 1 Tim. v. 18. 
 
16 
 
 known, and the efficiency of such means to pro- 
 mote that object has been more fully ascertained. 
 But it is needless here to record all these rules, 
 (which may be found in the Annual Reports of 
 the Society,) and which are framed with the most 
 scrupulous exactness according to the original laws. 
 The following extract from the Eighth Report, 
 again inserted in the Twenty-fifth Report, will 
 clearly show the constant, anxious desire of the 
 Parent Society to preserve fundamental principles 
 inviolate :— 
 “ It is the object of the Committee, in all their trans- 
 actions, to adhere with the utmost strictness to the simple 
 principle of the Institution;—viz. the distribution of the 
 Holy Scriptures, without note or comment: and while they 
 feel the obligation of this duty increasing with the increasing 
 magnitude of the establishment, they trust that a similar 
 feeling will pervade the several Auxiliary Societies and 
 Bible Associations: throughout the United Kingdom, and 
 
 that one correct line of operation may continue to charac- 
 terize the whole body.” * 
 
 The only other important appendage to the 
 original code of laws, is that which relates to the 
 Apocrypha. 
 
 For many years the Society had been accus- 
 tomed to print and circulate, and to assist m the 
 printing and circulation of the apocryphal books, 
 bound up with the canonical Scriptures; but when 
 the Committee and other members of the Society 
 
 \ 
 
 * The author would just remind the reader how completely 
 this document refutes every imputation, to which this Society. 
 has been frequently subject, of distributing other books and 
 tracts as well as the Bible. 
 
17 
 
 took this subject under their more deliberate con- 
 sideration, a very general and conscientious objec- 
 tion was felt to the continuance of the practice, 
 as contrary to the principles of the Society. 
 
 This objection derived great strength from the 
 circumstance that in some foreign (not Protestant) 
 churches, the apocryphal and canonical books are 
 so printed and bound up together, that no dis- 
 tinction whatever is made between them; much 
 less such a distinction as that made in our Bibles 
 which contain the Apocrypha; and still less such 
 as that made in foreign Protestant churches, and 
 by the Church of England, which declares, in the 
 sixth article, that these books are only read “ for 
 example of life and instruction of manners,” but 
 are “ not applied to establish any doctrine.” 
 
 This subject led to a most painful and perplex- 
 ing controversy among the members of the Society, 
 and disturbed their unanimity far more than any 
 other question which has ever been agitated in 
 that connexion. 
 
 But, through the kind providence of God, after 
 several years’ protracted discussion, and distressing 
 embarrassment, a final determination was made 
 totally to exclude the Apocrypha from the British 
 and Foreign Bible Society; and the following 
 resolutions were consequently adopted at the 
 annual meetings of the Society in 1826 and 1827: 
 
 1. That the fundamental law of the Society, which limits 
 its operations to the circulation of the Holy Scriptures, be 
 fully and distinctly recognised as excluding the circulation 
 of the Apocrypha. 
 
 B 
 
18 
 
 2. That, in conformity to the preceding resolution, no 
 pecuniary aid can be granted to any society circulating the 
 Apocrypha; nor, except for the purpose of being applied in 
 conformity to the said resolution, to any individual what- 
 ever. 
 
 3. That in all cases in which grants, whether gratuitous 
 or otherwise, of the Holy Scriptures, either in whole or in 
 part, shall be made to any society, the books be issued 
 bound, and on the express condition that they shall be dis- 
 tributed without alteration or addition. 
 
 4, That all grants of the Scriptures to societies which 
 circulate the Apocrypha, be made under the express con- 
 dition that they shall be distributed without alteration or 
 addition: and that the proceeds of the sales of any such 
 copies of the Scriptures be held at the disposal of the British 
 and Foreign Bible Society. 
 
 Having thus the original establishment of this 
 institution, and all its fundamental principles and 
 regulations, fairly placed before us, we are now 
 better prepared to make the appeal which is pro- 
 posed in the following pages. 
 
 Let us then impartially investigate the Object, 
 the Character, the Constitution, and the Proceed- 
 ings of the British and Foreign Bible Society. 
 
 In the first place, with respect to the odject— 
 _ This, according to the first and second laws of the 
 Society, appears to be solely the universal dis- 
 semination of the Holy Scriptures in all languages, 
 without note or comment; or, in plainer words, 
 TO GIVE THE BIBLE TO EVERY HUMAN BEING. 
 
 The desirableness of such an object as this, 
 evidently depends on the state of this country, and 
 of the world at large, with respect to their possession 
 
19 
 
 of the Holy Scriptures ; on the insufficiency of all 
 previously existing institutions to supply the wants 
 that prevailed ; and on the beneficial effects which may 
 reasonably be expected to arise from the distribution 
 of the Scriptures in this manner. 
 
 In reference to the first of these points—the 
 general want of the Scriptures,—the short account 
 that has been given of the state of Wales before 
 the formation of the Bible Society is applicable 
 also to many other parts of Great Britain; but the 
 following statement, in a sermon by the Rev. John 
 Scott, called “ Nations imploring the Word of 
 Life,” will perhaps give as clear and comprehensive 
 a view of the want of the Scriptures in all nations 
 as any representation which can be made: 
 
 ** In Asia, nearly one-half of our species exists involved 
 in all the darkness of paganism, or in the licentious and 
 blood-thirsty delusion of Mahomet. 
 
 ** In China alone there are computed to be three hun- 
 dred and thirty millions of people, all pagans. 
 
 ** Almost the whole of Africa is in this respect in like 
 circumstances with Asia; and at least half the inhabitants 
 of the great western continent of America, we may presume, 
 are uncivilized pagans. 
 
 ** And in Christendom, in those countries which profess 
 the christian religion, what corruptions prevail! corruptions 
 which, let it be remembered, have been mainly produced, 
 and continued, by the want of the Scriptures diffused 
 among the people in the vulgar tongue. 
 
 “ On the whole it is computed, that if the eight or nine 
 hundred millions of people, which exist upon the face of 
 the earth, be divided into thirty parts, méneteen of these 
 parts will be found pagans, s¢x of those which remain 
 Mahomedans and Jews, and only jive parts Christians, 
 including the Greek, the Papal, and the Protestant com- 
 
 B2 
 
20 
 
 munions. Well, therefore, may we adopt the words of an 
 eloquent advocate* of the Bible Society :—‘ Let any man, 
 who feels as he ought for the interests of christianity and 
 the welfare of his fellow-creatures, look upon the map of 
 the world, and his heart must sicken at the sight of king- 
 doms and continents immersed in the profoundest ignorance, 
 ‘ without hope and without God in the world.’ 
 
 “‘ Whether we direct our attention to the myriads of 
 China, and to the overflowing population of the civilized 
 East; or pass through the barbarous kingdoms of Africa, 
 and then fix our regards on the superstitious inhabitants 
 of the west; how little has been done to spread through 
 these benighted lands the knowledge of the Word of God! 
 
 * And if we turn to these christian countries, where the 
 light of christianity has in some degree shone, how little, 
 in most instances, are we able to trace of her genuine 
 character !” 
 
 Such a view of the state of the world shews at 
 once the importance of the object proposed by the 
 Bible Society. But that importance is much in- 
 creased by the consideration that all other pre- 
 viously existing institutions were insufficient to supply 
 the want of the Scriptures that prevailed. 
 
 The insufficiency of the Society for Promoting 
 Christian Knowledge has been proved, by its in- 
 ability to afford an adequate supply for the neces- 
 sities of Wales.{ Similar wants, upon more 
 particular inquiry, were soon discovered in other 
 parts of the united kingdom, more or less urgent 
 and extensive; which, together with the general 
 state of foreign christian churches, and that of 
 
 * Dealtry’s Vindication, p. 35. 
 + See extract from Owen’s History of the Bible Society, in 
 page 12. 
 
21 
 heathen lands, still further proved the necessity of 
 other means, than those which had been previously 
 empioyed, to distribute the Holy Scriptures. 
 
 Nor was it any dishonour to that great and 
 venerable Institution, the Society for Promoting 
 Christian Knowledge, that the spiritual wants of 
 mankind still contmued so great in this respect. 
 The very nature and constitution of that Society 
 rendered it incapable of accomplishing that one 
 great object, here spoken of, so extensively as was 
 desirable; for the Society for Promoting Chris- 
 tian Knowledge is confined by its laws to the 
 members of the Established Church. None but 
 “a well-affected member” of that church can be 
 admitted into it.* And it is obviously impossible 
 that one branch of the visible church of Christ 
 should by itself accomplish all, m the case be- 
 fore us, which the state of the Universal Church 
 and of the world requires. As to the objects 
 of the Society for Promoting Christian Know- 
 ledge, whilst the principal is confessedly the 
 circulation of the Scriptures, yet so many other 
 secondary, though important, objects occupy its 
 attention, and draw from its resources, that its 
 
 * According to the XI“ of the Laws and Regulations of the 
 Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge,—“ That any person 
 proposed as a member of this Society be recommended by one 
 member, according to the following form :— 
 
 ** ], the undersigned, do recommend A. B. to be a member of 
 the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, verily believing 
 him to be a well-affected member of the United Church of 
 England and Ireland, as by law established: and disposed to 
 aid the pious and charitable designs of the Society.” 
 
22 
 
 principal object is, and must be, in consequence, 
 less extensively promoted. Hence arose the great 
 desirableness of another Christian institution, which 
 should undertake to promote the printing and dis- 
 tribution of the Scriptures, as its sole and exclusive 
 object. 
 
 The manner in which the first law of the Bible 
 Society thus precisely specifies and strictly limits 
 the object proposed, is worthy of particular notice. 
 The original law, as it at first stood, was not so 
 precise: but we learn, from Mr. Owen’s History, 
 (Vol. I. p. 72.) that, “ a little before the first anni- 
 versary, an addition was made to the first law of 
 the following clause :—‘ The only copies in the 
 languages of the United Kingdom to be circulated 
 by the Society shall be the authorized version, 
 without note or comment.”—“ This article, which 
 only expressed what the framers of the Society had 
 always intended, was adopted, on the recommen- 
 dation of the author, in consequence of a seasonable 
 and judicious suggestion from the Bishop of London.” 
 
 And thus that pious, judicious, and benevolent 
 prelate contributed more effectually to the stability 
 of this noble fabric, (of which that part of the rule 
 alluded to is certainly the cement which unites the 
 whole together,) than even by all his steady sup- 
 port and dignified patronage of the Society, amidst 
 the assaults and misrepresentations to which it 
 was so much subject in its early career.* 
 
 Let it be further observed in this part of the law 
 
 * A full account ofthe sentiments of Bishop Porteus respect- 
 ing the Bible Society is given in Hodgson’s Life of Bishop 
 Porteus, pp. 208 —216, 
 
23 
 
 now before us, that the Bible Society has thus 
 given the most solemn public pledge not to send 
 forth with the Bible any other book or tract, or 
 comment of any kind. And after such a pledge, 
 if any such were issued or sanctioned by the 
 Society, that act would involve a fraud upon the 
 public, a breach of good faith, and a direct viola- 
 tion of its fundamental principles. Such an act 
 would also be most detrimental to its own interest, 
 and even fatal to its existence. For as the union 
 and cooperation of the Members of this Society 
 entirely depend on the strict observance of this 
 rule, so the least deviation from it, if officially re- 
 cognised, would in effect be an act of self-destruc- 
 tion: it would not only cause discord and disunion, 
 but, if persisted in, it would inevitably lead to the 
 dissolution of the Society. 
 
 The desirableness of the odject proposed by the 
 Bible Society, also depends on the beneficial effects 
 which may be reasonably expected to arise from the 
 distribution of the Scriptures in this manner. This 
 is a most vital point: it is, in fact, one of the 
 hinges on which the whole controversy turns. It 
 involves a fundamental principle of Protestant 
 Christianity, and of the Church of England. And 
 what do the avowed principles of that church 
 lead us to expect as to the good which is likely 
 to result from the circulation of the Scriptures 
 without note or comment? Let us briefly advert 
 to the Liturgy, Articles, and Homilies on this 
 subject. The manner in which the Holy Scrip- 
 tures are interwoven with all the public services, 
 and the large portion of those services which is 
 
24 
 
 appropriated to the simple reading of the Scrip- 
 tures to the people without note or comment, at 
 once show the nature of that testimony which the 
 Liturgy affords on the point in question. And 
 the Article on the sufficiency of the Holy Scrip- 
 tures for salvation, affords a similar evidence :— 
 “Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary 
 to salvation, so that whatsoever is not read therein, 
 nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required 
 of any man that it should be believed as an Article 
 of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary 
 to salvation.” But the following extracts from the 
 Book of Homilies, will exhibit still more clearly 
 and forcibly the beneficial effects which the dis- 
 tribution of the Scriptures in the manner pro- 
 posed by the Bible Society may be expected to 
 produce. 
 
 As to the sufficiency of the Scriptures without 
 any other book,—“ Whatsoever is required to the- 
 salvation of man is fully contained in the Scripture 
 of God.” 
 
 As to the profit which may be derived from 
 reading the Bible,—‘‘ Unto a Christian man there 
 can be nothing either more necessary or pro- 
 fitable than the knowledge of Holy Scripture: 
 forasmuch as in it is contained God’s true word, 
 setting forth his glory and also man’s duty. And 
 there is no truth nor doctrine necessary for our 
 justification and everlasting salvation, but that is, 
 or may be drawn out of that fountain and well of 
 truth: and as drink is pleasant to them that be 
 dry, and meat to them that be hungry, so is the 
 reading, hearing, searching, and studying the Holy 
 
? . @ 
 
 Scripture to them that be desirous to know God, 
 or themselves, and to do his will.” Again:—‘ The 
 great utility and profit that Christian men and 
 women may take if they will, by learning and 
 reading the Holy Scriptures, no heart can suffi- 
 ciently conceive, much less is any tongue able, 
 with words, to express.” 
 
 As to the superiority of the Bible to all other 
 books,—“ Shall we christian men think to learn 
 the knowledge of God and of ourselves in any 
 earthly man’s work or writing, sooner or better 
 than in the Holy Scriptures, written by the in- 
 spiration of the Holy Ghost ?” 
 
 As to the means of rightly understanding 
 them, and the effectual security against all fatal 
 error, the following passages are very conclu- 
 sive : — “ Whosoever giveth his mind to Holy 
 Scripture with diligent study, and burning desire, 
 it cannot be, that he should be left without help. 
 For either God Almighty will send some godly 
 doctor to teach him, as he did to imstruct the 
 eunuch,” (Acts vill. 26—40.) “ (who having a great 
 affection to read the Scripture, although he un- 
 derstood it not, yet, for the desire that he had unto 
 God’s word, God sent his Apostle Philip to declare 
 unto him the true sense of the Scripture that he 
 read:) or else, if we lack a learned man to instruct 
 and teach us, yet God himself from above will give 
 light to our minds, and teach us those things which 
 are necessary for us, and wherein we be igno- 
 rant.” — “ Man’s human and worldly wisdom or 
 science is not needful to the understanding of 
 Scripture, but the revelation of the Holy Ghost 
 
26 
 
 which inspireth the true meaning unto them 
 that with humility and diligence do search there- 
 fore.” Again :—“* The Holy Ghost is the school- 
 master of truth, which leadeth his scholars, 
 as our Sayiour Christ saith of him, into all 
 truth.” ? q 
 
 Lastly, as to the danger of fallmg into error:— _ 
 “Tf you be afraid of falling into error by read- 
 ing the Holy Scripture, I shall show you how ~ 
 you may read it without danger of error. Read — 
 it humbly, with a meek and lowly heart, to the — 
 intent you may glorify God, and not yourself, with 
 the knowledge of it. And read it not without 
 daily praying to God that he would direct your 
 reading to good effect: and take upon you to 
 expound it no further than you can plamly under- 
 stand it..—‘ Presumption and arrogancy is the 
 mother of all error. And humility needeth to 
 fear no error.°—“ The humble man may search 
 any truth boldly in the Scripture without any 
 danger of error.”* 
 
 The next thing to be noticed is the sheild of 
 the British and Foreign Bible Society. This in- 
 deed has been, in some degree, exhibited, in its 
 object; but there are still some other parts of its 
 character which are entitled to separate considera- 
 tion. For imstance, with what caution does the 
 
 first law of the Society guard against the possi- 
 
 * These extracts are taken from the First and Twenty-second 
 Homilies, which abound throughout with similar weighty and 
 striking passages, all pleading most powerfully, in the judgment 
 of the author, for the excellence of that object which the Bible 
 Society exclusively promotes. 
 
27 
 
 bility of disseminating any thing but the Holy Scrip- 
 tures under that name, when it requires, that “‘ the 
 only copies in the languages of the united kingdom, 
 circulated by the Society, shall be of the autho- 
 rized version:”—that which has been translated 
 from the original by Royal command, and has re- 
 ceived the sanction of Royal authority for its use 
 in the Church. 
 
 But the peculiar character of the Bible Society, 
 which it is most important here to dwell upon, is 
 that which belongs to it in relation to other chris- 
 tian institutions, as described in these words of 
 the second law :—“ This Society shall add its 
 endeayours to those employed by other societies 
 for circulating the Scriptures through the British 
 dominions:” &c. &c. 
 
 From these words it evidently appears to have 
 been the desire of the framers of these laws to bear 
 honourable testimony to the value and importance 
 of all that other societies had done, to accomplish, 
 according to their ability, the same great purpose : 
 and also that it was very far from their wishes, to 
 interfere with, much less to supersede, the benevo- 
 lent labours of others; but rather to cooperate 
 with all engaged in the same great work, as their 
 friendly auxiliaries. Accordingly, soon after its 
 formation, it addressed respectful letters to the 
 Association in Dublin for Discountenancing Vice, 
 and to the Society for Promoting Christian Know- 
 ledge, which may be found in the Appendix to 
 the First Report of the British and Foreign Bible 
 Society. 
 
 Although the Bible Society has not hitherto 
 
28 
 
 been recognised by many in this character,* yet, 
 when tried by the letter and spirit of its own laws, 
 and by its uniform conduct, it has a right to be — 
 considered as sincere in its professions, and ought \ 
 to be acknowledged as the natural ally, the cordial 
 friend, and the most valuable coadjutor of ene 
 other christian institution. 
 
 The peculiar constitution of the Bible Beckett as 
 consisting of a union of Christians of all denomi- 
 nations, is the next point to be considered. And 
 this peculiarity indeed has been thought, by many 
 persons, above all other things objectionable. Yet 
 if all the circumstances and consequences of such 
 a union be fairly examined, it appears to be not 
 only desirable, but necessary for the accomplish- 
 ment of the object in view; and not only neces- 
 sary, but productive of the most important and 
 beneficial effects. Surely such a coalition is most 
 desirable, if it can be effected without any com- 
 promise of conscience or of truth. Surely the 
 relation in which Churchmen and Dissenters stand 
 to each other is not such that, like the Jews and 
 Samaritans of old, they can have “no dealings 
 with each other.” Are there not hundreds and 
 thousands of real Christians, without as well 
 as within the National Establishment, who are 
 united to the same Saviour; animated by the 
 same hope; influenced by the same Spirit; heirs 
 of the same glory and immortality; and who shall 
 spend a blessed eternity together? How, then, 
 can the principle for a moment be admitted, that 
 
 } 
 
 ' 
 
 4 
 
 J 
 4 
 1 
 
 * See Owen’s History, Vol. I. pp. 107, 109. 
 
} 
 
 | 
 
 { 
 
 29 
 
 union together, in this world, between Churchmen 
 and Dissenters, in any religious undertaking, is 
 utterly impossible ?* This principle had too long 
 been admitted in this country: but the constitu- 
 tion and operations of the Bible Society, blessed 
 be God, have given a practical proof of its 
 fallacy. 
 
 With respect to the necessity of such a union 
 for such a purpose, is it not obvious to demonstra- 
 tion that THE GREATEST UNION OF ALL FOR THE 
 GREATEST GOOD OF ALL, must accomplish that good 
 
 * In a Pamphlet, recently published by the Hon. and Rey. 
 Arthur Philip Perceval, the author grounds his opposition to 
 the Bible Society, partly on the 13th Rule of the Society, 
 already cited at p. 14. For a few cursory remarks upon the 
 “ Reasons” which the author has adduced, I refer to my Pamphlet 
 just published, entitled, ‘‘ The Claims of the British and Foreign 
 Bible Society on the Church of England, arising from the Prin- 
 ciples and Practice of that Church with respect to the Holy 
 Scriptures.” 
 
 The Lord Bishop of London has, in his recently published 
 Charge, the following important passage: “‘In the great body 
 of Protestant Dissenters, who hold, in common with ourselves, 
 the fundamental doctrines of the Gospel, I perceive no symp- 
 toms of increased hostility to the Established Church. On 
 the contrary, indications, I think, may be discerned, of a mi- 
 tigated dislike, a more candid interpretation of our ministerial 
 labours, and a readier disposition to cooperate with us in the 
 promotion of those objects, which do not immediately involve 
 the question of our religious differences.”—p. 7. 
 
 May we not cherish the belief that this improved state of 
 feeling has arisen partly from the occasional intercourse of 
 Churchmen and Dissenters, engaged in promoting the object 
 of the Bible Society ; since these very efforts continually remind 
 them of the necessity as well as duty of cherishing charity and 
 mutual good-will ? : 
 
30 
 
 more effectually and abundantly than any more 
 limited union, especially when not exclusively 
 directed to that one object? This consideration 
 seems fully to answer every thing that has been, 
 or can be said respecting the sufficiency of the 
 Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge to 
 accomplish all that the Bible Society has done, is 
 doing, or may further do. 
 
 It has already been noticed that Dissenters can- 
 not be admitted as members of that Society; and 
 also that the degree in which that Society cireu- 
 lates the Scriptures must be limited in proportion 
 as its funds are employed in promoting other 
 
 objects. Hence it appears that the Society for | 
 
 Promoting Christian Knowledge cannot do that 
 which the Bible Society does. 
 
 Let it also be observed, that the Society, whose 
 cause is here pleaded, not only needs great pe- 
 cuniary resources, but also the combination of all 
 those natural qualities and acquired endowments, 
 which are called into action in translating the Holy 
 Scriptures into the various languages spoken in 
 the world. Many persons possessed of such qua- 
 
 lities and endowments are found among Christians — 
 
 of different denominations ; and it must in candour 
 be confessed, that among recent translations, some 
 of the most difficult have been effected by Pro- 
 testant Dissenters.* 
 
 * In illustration of this remark it is only necessary to observe, 
 that two versions into the Chinese language were made by dis- 
 
 senters, the Rev. Dr. Morrison and the Rev. Dr. Marshman ; 
 that versions into Sanscrit and Bengalee have been made by — 
 
ol 
 
 But such a general union of all Christians is 
 not only necessary as a mean of obtaining the 
 largest funds, and concentrating the united talents 
 and labours .of all the most eminent linguists, 
 | (which is the best substitute in modern times for 
 
 | | tie pentecostal miracle of tongues;) but it is also 
 
 | productive of the most important and _ beneficial 
 
 _ effects. It has a tendency to destroy that unna- 
 
 \ 
 \ 
 
 _ tural estrangement which had before so much 
 
 alienated fellow-christians from each other, on 
 account of Church-government, the manner of 
 public worship, and difference of opinion in the 
 interpretation of Scripture. 
 
 Such a union is calculated to revive primitive 
 Christianity, when “the multitude of them that 
 believed were of one heart and one soul;” and 
 also to raise a most effectual barrier against 
 
 the inroads of infidelity. For the divisions vwitieh 
 prevail among Christians, have ever been one of 
 the strongholds of the unbelieving world: and let 
 
 us recollect the blessed consummation desired and 
 anticipated in the prayer of our gracious Redeemer, 
 (John xvii. 21.) “ That they all may be one, as 
 
 thou, Father, art in me, and I in Thee, that they 
 
 _ also may be one in us; that the world may believe 
 that thou hast sent me.”* 
 
 Dr. Carey, a Baptist missionary ; and into many other dialects 
 of India, by Dr. Carey and his fellow-missionaries ; and that 
 the translation into the Otaheitean language has been carried on 
 by the missionaries of the ‘‘ London Missionary Society.” 
 
 _* How much does the spirit of this prayer pervade the 
 
 | __devotional-language of the Church of England! See Appendix, 
 
 No, Il. 
 
32 
 
 Nothing further needs be added respecting the 
 union of Christians of different denominations, 
 but this; that the ninth law, by which it is regu- 
 lated, seems to afford a sufficient security, that the 
 interests of all Christians, both British and Foreign, 
 shall be fully maintained, and that no undue 
 ascendancy of any particular denomination shall 
 be allowed. ~ / | | 
 
 The only other part of the subject which re- 
 mains for our consideration, includes the proceed- 
 ings of the British and Foreign Bible Society. 
 
 The proceedings here referred to, are the 
 means which have been employed by this Society 
 in furtherance of the great object proposed—in 
 obtaining the support of the British public—in pro- 
 moting the translation of the Scriptures into various 
 languages, and in distributing the Scriptures at home 
 and abroad. 
 
 In obtaining the general support to which such 
 an Institution is entitled, it appeared to be neces- 
 sary that its nature and principles should be fully 
 made known, not only to that portion of the com- 
 munity, which is able and willing to read printed 
 statements and reports, but also to the whole 
 British population, who are all, either as givers 
 or receivers, interested in so. great, holy, and be- 
 nevolent an undertaking. Various means, there- 
 fore, were employed for this purpose; and, in a 
 few years after the formation of the Parent So- 
 ciety in London, many of the principal counties, 
 cities, and towns in the united kingdom, con- 
 nected themselves with it, by forming county 
 auxiliaries, branch societies, and various associ- 
 
33 
 
 ations, which gradually extended throughout the 
 British Empire. 
 
 In the formation of each of these, and in main- 
 taining them when formed, originated those public 
 and annual meetings in all parts of the kingdom, 
 at which the official agents of the Society, and 
 others capable of giving all necessary information, 
 and of advocating such a cause, address those 
 assembled, and thus obtain contributions to the 
 funds. And as every important work carried on 
 by human agency, receives a powerful impulse 
 from such vocal and popular appeals, this method 
 of gaining adequate support, and keeping up a 
 lively interest, has been wisely brought into full 
 action by the British and Foreign Bible Society. 
 
 Those engaged in addressing their fellow-chris- 
 tians on such occasions, when animated by those 
 strong and elevated feelings which such a subject 
 is calculated to mspire, may have been sometimes 
 led to speak unadvisedly ;* but all such speeches, 
 when compared with the aggregate amount of 
 beneficial influence resulting from these meetings, 
 and still more when set against the immense mass 
 of substantial good arising from all the operations 
 of this Society, are as insignificant as spots on the 
 sun. 
 
 Some of the means, however, which have been 
 resorted to by this Society in order to increase its 
 funds, and to promote its general efficiency, have 
 
 * The author has great satisfaction in declaring, that a con- 
 stant improvement has taken place in the spirit, the matter, 
 and the manner of the addresses made on such occasions, 
 
 Cc 
 
34 
 
 been strongly objected to, and therefore must here 
 be particularly noticed. The means alluded to are 
 Ladies’, or Female, Associations, and the contribu- 
 tions sought and obtained from the poor. 
 
 With respect to the Female Bible Associations, 
 let the principle thus recognised and acted on be 
 fairly considered on scriptural grounds. 
 
 Let us in the first place recollect that the 
 “woman” was the first “ in the transgression.” 
 (1 Tim. 11. 14.) And is it not most natural and 
 becoming, on that account, that woman should 
 take an active part in administering that effectual 
 remedy which the Bible alone contains for all the 
 dreadful consequences of that transgression ? 
 
 Let us consider also that the promised Saviour 
 of the world was to be “the seed of the woman,” 
 and was accordingly “ made of a woman.” (Gen. iii. 
 15. Gal.iv. 4.) What a distinguished honour has 
 thus been conferred on the female sex! And how 
 can woman better prove her sense of such an 
 honour, than by taking a part in circulating that 
 divine revelation which announces to all people a 
 Saviour, which is Christ the Lord? (Lukeii. 10,11.) 
 Let us call to mind that females were foremost in 
 “ministering to. Christ of their substance” (Luke 
 vii. 3.) during his life on earth; that their tender 
 sympathies were peculiarly called forth, durmg his 
 last suffermgs and crucifixion, (Luke xxiii. 27; 
 John xix. 25.); and that some of that sex were 
 first at the sepulchre on the morning of his resur- 
 rection, (Matt. xxvii. 1, &c.) How many benevolent 
 and useful offices did Christian females fulfil as 
 “ succourers of the apostles, as “ helpers in Christ,” 
 
30 
 
 as ‘‘servants of churches,” as ‘“ fellow-labourers 
 in the Gospel!” (Acts xviii. 26; Rom. xvi. 1—13; 
 Phil. iv. 3.)* 
 
 Is there then any just ground to suppose that 
 the state of the church and of the world is so 
 entirely changed, that Christian females are in- 
 capable of similar offices now? Is there any suf- 
 ficient cause why they should be excluded from 
 such “labours of love” in our days? Surely the 
 providence of God has endued the female sex with 
 an influence peculiar to itself; and how can that 
 influence be better exerted than in works of Chris- 
 tian benevolence ? 
 
 But when the further consideration is added, 
 that in heathen lands the female sex is the 
 most deeply and miserably degraded of all the 
 human species, and that in Christian lands alone 
 females are raised to that honourable and respect- 
 able station in civilized society, which they are so 
 well capable of filling to the greatest advantage ; 
 ought they not, above all others, to feel a peculiar 
 sympathy for the forlorn condition of their sex 
 amongst the heathen; and ought they not to 
 testify, by such means as these, their gratitude for 
 their own superior advantages? On all these ac- 
 counts, the cooperation of Christian Females in 
 the British and Foreign Bible Society appears to 
 
 * How fully is the importance of female cooperation recog- 
 nised by the Bishop of Chester, in a Charge lately delivered and 
 printed; in the Appendix of which his Lordship says (p. 31.)— 
 “Such schemes” (as had been suggested) ‘‘ can in very few 
 places be carried into execution unless the assistance of female 
 agency is called in.” 
 
 c 2 
 
36 
 
 be not only justifiable, but a most important and 
 valuable acquisition to the cause of Christianity. 
 
 The other point on which a few observations 
 seem to be desirable, relates to the contributions 
 which have been requested and recewed by the 
 Bible Society from the labouring classes, even from 
 those in the poorest condition of life. 
 
 Many persons have felt and expressed strong 
 objections to this part of the system of the Bible 
 Society, as if it were actually a means of increasing 
 the distresses of poverty. But the subject thus 
 viewed is certainly seen through a very distorted 
 medium ; and both facts and experience contradict 
 such a supposition. With respect to the principle 
 thus acted on, of receiving pence, or half-pence, 
 or even farthings from the poor, it assuredly needs 
 no other sanction than the memorable commen- 
 dation of the widow’s mite cast into the treasury. 
 (Mark xiv. 41—44.) And as to the distresses of 
 poverty being thus increased, innumerable facts 
 will prove, that when once a poor person has been 
 induced to contribute, ‘‘ out of his deep poverty,” 
 (2 Cor. viii. 2.) either to supply himself or others 
 with a Bible, habits have been thus induced of 
 forethought, temperance, frugality, and self-denial, 
 which make the poor richer by teaching them to 
 make the best use of what they have; and when 
 their minds have been thus led to pay attention to 
 the truths of the Bible, their poverty has thus 
 obtained the greatest possible alleviation, and their 
 characters in all respects have been much ame- 
 liorated. Indeed, these contributions of the poor 
 exalt and ennoble them in a peculiar manner, and 
 
37 
 
 bring them to feel in common with all their fellow- 
 christians, that “it is more blessed to give than 
 to receive.” (Acts xx.35.) And thus they have not © 
 only the gospel preached to themselves, but by 
 assisting in the dissemination of the Scriptures, 
 preach it to others also. 
 
 We now come to that part of the proceedings 
 of the Society which consists in distributing the 
 HHoly Scriptures, and in promoting their translation 
 into various languages. The extent to which this 
 has been accomplished in twenty-six years is most 
 extraordinary. 
 
 The number of languages and dialects into 
 which the distribution, printing, or translation of 
 the Scriptures, in whole or in part, has been pro- 
 moted by the British and Foreign Bible Society, 
 either directly, or indirectly, amounts to. onE 
 HUNDRED AND FORTY-EIGHT, Out of which there are 
 SIxTy-Four languages and dialects in which the 
 Scriptures have never been printed before. “The 
 essential importance, however, of this fact rests 
 on the supposition, that by these translations, the 
 truth of God is really communicated to mankind : 
 or, in other words, that the translations faithfully 
 render the meaning of the originals, so that by 
 reading these books, the nations may be instructed 
 in the knowledge of God as he has revealed him- 
 self in Christ Jesus.”* That such a supposition 
 is well founded, in the present case, appears mani- 
 
 * This passage is extracted from a very able pamphlet, en- 
 titled “A Protest against the Judgment pronounced in the 
 Quarterly Review upon the Character and Conduct of the 
 British and Foreign Bible Society, by another Reviewer.” 
 
38 
 
 fest by an impartial examination of the means 
 which have been employed by this Society im 
 obtaming those translations which have been 
 adopted by it. 
 
 Notwithstanding the manner in which the Bible 
 Society has been assailed on this point, (which is 
 indeed an assault on the citadel itself), there is 
 sufficient evidence to prove that no translations 
 have been hastily and negligently adopted, and 
 that none have been adopted so imperfect as to 
 forbid the hope of a blessing upon them.* Yet it 
 
 * A remarkable instance of the benefit which may attend 
 even imperfect translations of the Scriptures was related at the 
 Anniversary of the Calcutta Bible Association, in 1827, by the 
 Venerable Archdeacon Corrie, who was in the chair on that 
 occasion :—‘‘ About twenty years ago,” he said, “‘ when I was 
 stationed at Chunar, a native Roman catholic used to visit me 
 for religious instruction. There was not at that time any trans- 
 lation of the Scriptures to be put into his hands. I therefore 
 selected some of the most important passages of the Bible: and 
 according to the best of my ability dictated a translation of them— 
 very imperfect, it is true, to the poor man, who wrote it on a 
 number of pieces of loose paper. I soon lost sight of him, and 
 heard nothing of him for many years; but have been lately in- 
 formed by the Rev. Mr. Wilkinson, of Gorruckpore, that a short 
 time ago he had been called to visit the same man on his death-bed. 
 On entering into conversation with him he was surprised by the 
 extent of his acquaintance with scriptural religion, and the pro- 
 priety of the feelings which he expressed in reference to the 
 solemn situation in which he was then placed. He asked an 
 explanation, when the poor man produced the loose slips of 
 paper on which he had written my translations. On these, it 
 appeared, that his soul had fed through life, and through them 
 he died such a death that Mr. Wilkinson entertained no doubt 
 of his having passed into glory.” This was communicated by 
 the Calcutta Bible Society. 
 
39 
 
 is obvious that every translation must be imperfect 
 at first: and that even after all subsequent amend- 
 ments, it will still remain subject to some defects: 
 so that there is no such thing in existence as A PER- 
 FECT TRANSLATION.* 
 
 Nothing further remains to be noticed respect- 
 ing the proceedings of the Society, but the total 
 amount of the Scriptures distributed, and the total 
 expenditure. 
 
 The total number of the copies of the Scrip- 
 tures, or integral portions, which had been issued 
 by this Society up to May 5, amounted to more 
 than sIX MILLIONS AND A HALF: and the total ex- 
 penditure up to the same period was above ONE 
 MILLION SIX HUNDRED AND NINETY-SIX THOUSAND 
 POUNDS STERLING.| The expenditure of such a 
 sum for such a purpose cannot be unaccompanied 
 by great and important results: and if we may 
 anticipate a continuance—perhaps increase of such 
 pecuniary resources, and such constant multiplica- 
 tion of the Holy Scriptures, the probable beneficial 
 consequences to mankind exceed all computation. 
 
 * The truth of this assertion is fully confirmed by the Right 
 Rev. the Lord Bishop of Peterborough, who declares, in the 
 120th page of “‘ The Comparative View of the Churches of 
 England and Rome,” that ‘“ No translation can be exempt from 
 errors.” 
 
 + Much has been said with respect to lavish expenditure, 
 which certainly should be avoided by all possible vigilance, pru- 
 dence, and economy ; but faults imputed to the Society on this 
 ground have generally appeared to the author to have arisen 
 more from a desire to injure the Society in the estimation of 
 the public, than from a holy jealousy that a sacred fund might 
 not be really abused. 
 
40 
 
 They will never be known until the great final 
 disclosure of all things. 
 
 With this statement our investigation may con- 
 clude, and nothing further needs be added to ex- 
 plain the peculiar object, character, constitution, 
 and proceedings of the British and Foreign Bible 
 Society. 
 
 What then is the conclusion to which we are 
 brought? Does it not clearly appear, from the re- 
 presentation which has been made, that this Society 
 is one of the most powerful moral engines ever con- 
 structed and put in motion by the hand of christian 
 benevolence? And is not the nature and spirit of 
 such an Institution, in many respects, so entirely 
 congenial with the principles and practice of the 
 Church of England, as to give it a just claim upon 
 the sanction, support, and cooperation of the minis- 
 ters and members of that Church? It is true that 
 many have not the means of contributing to the 
 Bible Society and to. the Society for Promoting 
 Christian Knowledge also: but how can any who 
 have the means restrain their hands from casting 
 something into such a treasury as this? ‘To what 
 better purpose can a part of the income of the 
 Clergy be appropriated? How great a privilege is 
 it to take any part in so noble an enterprise! 
 How great a privation to have no part or lot in 
 this matter! 
 
 And shall a large number of the members of the 
 Church of England be still deprived of this privi- 
 lege by an act of self-exclusion? All predictions 
 which foretold serious injury to the Establishment 
 from the operations of the Bible Society have 
 
41 
 
 _ hitherto proved false. All anticipations of injury 
 to the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge 
 haye hitherto proved without foundation. On the 
 contrary, the resources and exertions of that So- 
 ciety have increased far beyond those of any former 
 period, since the formation of the Bible Society. 
 What, then, is the cause of that unwillingness 
 which still leads many Churchmen to decline all 
 connexion with this great work? Are they fearful 
 that Dissenters from the Established Church will 
 obtain greater influence by means of this Society ? 
 If any of that body, or of the Church of 
 England, do indeed only make use of the Bible 
 Society as a means of advancing the interests of 
 their own particular communion, that is indeed a 
 most unworthy motive, and almost a prostitution 
 of so sacred a cause. But do Churchmen really 
 apprehend the ascendancy of dissenterism in this 
 country because Clergymen and Dissenting Mini- 
 sters unite as fellow-labourers in this work? In 
 what manner may such a danger, if there be really 
 cause to apprehend it, be most effectually averted ? 
 Shall the British and Foreign Bible Society be 
 resigned into the hands of Dissenters? Shall 
 Protestant Dissenters appear before the British 
 public as the only persons in the united kingdom 
 who are willing to advocate such a cause? or shall 
 the English Clergy unanimously come forward 
 with all the weight and influence of so learned, 
 respectable, and valuable a body, and take that 
 station which seems to belong to them, according 
 to the scriptural principles of the church of which 
 they are Ministers? This latter course appears to 
 
42 
 
 afford the best hope of lessening the influence 
 apprehended, and maintaining the honour, the 
 efficiency, and the due preponderance of the 
 Established Church.* 
 
 Innumerable other arguments might be ad- 
 vanced in appealing to my respected clerical 
 brethren and fathers on so great and inexhaustible 
 a subject, but let one more suffice, founded on the 
 peculiar circumstances under which the Protestant 
 religion in general in this country, and the Pro- 
 testant Church of England in particular, have 
 recently been placed in relation to the Roman 
 Catholic Church. One great characteristic differ- 
 ence between these churches is well known to be 
 the principle which each maintains respecting the 
 WRITTEN RECORD OF DIVINE REVELATION. 
 
 In that part of the preceding pages in which 
 those beneficial effects are pointed out, which may be 
 reasonably expected to result from the distribution of 
 the Scriptures without note or comment, the principle 
 of the Church of England respecting the written 
 word is stated. To that statement might be added 
 the twentieth and twenty-first Articles of religion, 
 on the authority of the Church and the authority 
 of general Councils; in one of which the falhbility 
 of every Church is maintained, and in the other 
 “‘Gop’s WORD wRITTEN” is declared to be the 
 only standard of revealed truth. The totally 
 
 * Again I must here repeat the same sentiment which has been 
 before expressed in other words, that the ascendancy of the 
 Church of England on the one hand, and the promotion of what 
 is called the dissenting interest on the other, are most unworthy 
 motives of action in such a cause as that of the Bible Society. 
 
43 
 
 opposite principle held by the Roman Catholic 
 Church is clearly and ably stated, in a work called 
 ** A Comparative View of the Churches of England 
 and Rome.”* Jn the first two chapters of that 
 work (which are well worthy of attention at all 
 times, but more especially at the present period), 
 the character ascribed by the Romish Church to 
 the Scriptures is fully exposed. The following 
 extracts, however, from the first chapter will be 
 sufficient :— 
 
 “The state of the question in reference to the two 
 churches, is delivered by Bellarmine in the following 
 words :—‘ We,’ says Bellarmine, ‘assert that the ne- 
 cessary doctrine, whether relating to FAITH or to MORALS, 
 is not all expressly contained in Scripture; ‘and therefore 
 that beside the wrztten word of God, there is a necessity 
 for an unwritten word, that is, the divine and apostolical 
 traditions.’” P. 11. 
 
 And again— 
 
 ** T will quote at present only one more passage on this 
 subject, which shall be taken from the ‘ Exposition of the 
 Doctrine of the Catholic Church in Matters of Controversy, 
 by Bossuet, Bishop of Meaux:’ a work to which very great 
 deference is paid by the members of the Church of Rome, 
 and of which they have lately published an English trans- 
 lation. In the seventeenth chapter of this work, which is 
 entitled ‘ScriprurE AND TRapiTIoN,’ Bossuet says, ‘ Jesus 
 Christ having laid the foundation of his Church by preach- 
 ing, the unwritten word was consequently the first rule of 
 Christianity. And when the writings of the New Testa- 
 ment were added to it, its authority was not forfeited on 
 
 * By Herbert Marsh, D.D. F.R.S. Margaret Professor of 
 Divinity in the university of Cambridge, now the Lord Bishop of 
 Peterborough. 
 
44 
 
 that account: which makes us receive, with eguwal venera- 
 tion, all that has been taught by the apostles, whether in 
 writing, or by word of mouth.’ And he concludes by say- 
 ing, ‘ Our adversaries should not be surprised if we, who 
 are so earnest in collecting all that our fathers have left us, 
 
 do preserve the deposit of TRapITION as carefully as that 
 of the Scriprurgs.’”—P. 13. 
 
 While such a doctrine is maintained, the Roman 
 Catholic priesthood is, in fact, THE BIBLE oF THAT 
 Cuurcu. How important then is it to make known 
 the BisteE or Gop;* and to use all lawful and 
 effectual means for the translation and distribution 
 of THE WRITTEN RECORD OF DIVINE REVELATION! 
 Are not Protestant Christians now under a stronger 
 obligation than at any former period to cooperate 
 for such a purpose? Does not the situation of 
 the Protestant Church in this country, at this par- 
 ticular period,/ in relation to the Roman Catholie 
 Church, render such a cooperation necessary ? 
 And are not the united efforts of the Society for 
 Promoting Christian Knowledge, of the British and 
 Foreign Bible Society, and all other Institutions 
 which maintain and propagate scRIPTURAL CHRIS- 
 TIANITY, necessary, more than ever, at the present 
 period ? 
 
 * The opposition of the Roman Catholics to the circulation 
 of the Bible increases this importance. See a remarkable in- 
 stance of such opposition in Appendix, No. III. 
 
 + The author has abstained from any more distinct allusion to 
 the subject referred to, because he has been anxious on this subject 
 not even to touch on the confines of political affairs, from a deep 
 conviction that those who mix up politics with the Bible Society, 
 and still more those who make that institution a mere political 
 machine, are its greatest enemies. 
 
45 
 
 May the members of the Church of England be 
 disposed to listen favourably to this appeal! May 
 God’s blessing attend it! And if the Bible Society 
 be indeed as free from all reasonable objections, 
 and as much entitled to universal support as has 
 been represented in these pages, may it be recog- 
 nised in its true character by the Clergy of the 
 Established Church; and may that highly im- 
 portant, respectable, and influential body, be in- 
 duced to acknowledge, that the present state of 
 the Church, and of the world, requires and de- 
 mands this most powerful and comprehensive 
 Christian combination that has ever been formed ; 
 in order to supply the spiritual necessities of the 
 universal Church of Christ; to counteract, and, 
 through God’s assistance, to exterminate all Papal, 
 Mahomedan, and heathen superstition; and to 
 spread the light of divine revelation im all the dark 
 places of the earth! 
 
46 
 
 APPENDIX, No. I. 
 
 EPISCOPAL TESTIMONIES, 
 
 IN FAVOUR OF THE GENERAL CIRCULATION AND PERUSAL OF THE 
 SCRIPTURES, WITHOUT NOTE OR COMMENT. 
 
 The late Bisnor Horstey’s Opinion of reading the Bible without 
 Note or Comment. 
 
 “Ir should be a rule with every one who would read the 
 Holy Scriptures with advantage and improvement, to compare 
 every text which may seem either important for the doctrine it 
 may contain, or remarkable for the turn of the expression, with 
 the parallel passages in other parts of holy writ. In doing this, 
 you will imitate the example of the godly Jews of Beroea, which 
 is recorded with approbation in the Acts of the Apostles ; who, 
 when Paul and Silas reasoned with them out of the Scriptures 
 of the Old Testament, searched the Scriptures daily, whether those 
 things were so. It is incredible to any one, who has not in some 
 degree made the experiment, what a proficiency may be made 
 in that knowledge which maketh wise unto salvation, by study- 
 ing the Scriptures in this manner, without any other commen- 
 tary or exposition than what the different parts of the sacred 
 volume mutually furnish for each other. « 
 
 “ T will not scruple to assert, that the most illiterate Chris- 
 tian, if he can but read his English Bible, and will take the 
 pains to read it in this manner, will not only attain all that 
 practical knowledge, which is necessary to his salvation, but by 
 
a7 
 
 Gon’s blessing, he will become learned in every thing relating 
 to his religion in such degree that he will not be liable to be 
 misled either by the refined arguments or false assertions of 
 those who endeavour to ingraft their own opinion upon the 
 oracles of God. He may safely be ignorant of all philosophy, 
 except what is learned from the sacred books; which indeed 
 contain the highest philosophy, adapted to the lowest apprehen- 
 sions. He may safely remain ignorant of all history, except so 
 much of the history of the first ages of the Jewish and of the 
 Christian Church as is to be gathered from the canonical books 
 of the Old and New Testament. Let him study these in the 
 manner I recommend; and Jet him never cease to pray for the 
 illumination of that Spirit by which these books were dictated ; 
 and the whole compass of abstruse philosophy and recondite 
 history shall furnish no argument with which the perverse will 
 _ of man shall be able to shake this learned Christian’s faith. The 
 Bible thus studied will, indeed, prove to be what we Protestants 
 esteem it,—a certain and sufficient rule of faith and practice, a 
 helmet of salvation, which alone may quench the fiery darts of 
 the wicked.” —Pp. 223—228 of Bishop Horsley’s Nine Sermons. 
 London, 1815. 
 
 In another volume of Discourses (2d edit. 1811) the Bishop 
 expresses himself as follows :— 
 
 “It is the glory of our Church, that the most illiterate of her 
 sons are in possession of the Scriptures in their mother tongue. 
 It is their duty to make the most of so great a blessing, by 
 employing as much time as they can spare from the necessary 
 business of their several callings, in the diligent study of the 
 written word. It is God’s will that all descriptions of men, 
 great and small, rich and poor, learned and ignorant, should 
 come to the knowledge of the truth; that is, of the truths 
 brought to light by the Gospel; not only of the fundamental 
 truths, of faith towards God, of repentance from dead works, 
 and of a future judgment, but of all the sublimer truths con- 
 
 cerning the scheme of man’s redemption.” — Sermon I. pp. 
 3&4. 
 
 “Our Lord said of himself, that he came to preach the 
 Gospel to the poor: and the same thing may be said of the 
 
48 
 
 word of Revelation in general—that it was given for the in- 
 struction of all mankind, the lowest as well as the highest, the 
 most illiterate as well as the wise and learned. It may be 
 reckoned, therefore, a necessary characteristic of Divine Reve- 
 lation, that it shall be delivered in a manner the most adapted 
 to what are vulgarly called the meanest capacities ; and by this 
 perspicuity, both of precept and of doctrine, the whole Bible is 
 remarkably distinguished. For, although St. Peter speaks of 
 some things in it hard to be understood, he speaks of such 
 things only as could never have been understood at all had they 
 not been revealed; and, being revealed, are yet not capable of 
 proof or explanation upon scientific principles, but rest solely 
 on the authority of the Revelation ; not that the terms in which 
 these discoveries are made are obscure and ambiguous in their 
 meaning ; nor that the things themselves, however hard for the 
 pride of philosophy, are not of easy digestion to an humble 
 faith.” —Sermon VIII. p. 121. 
 
 “The obscurity of the prophecies, great as it is in some 
 parts, is not such as should discourage the Christian Laic from 
 the study of them, nor such as will excuse him under the neglect 
 of it. Let him remember, that it is the Apostle’s admonition, 
 who would not enjoin an useless or impracticable task, to give 
 heed to the prophetic word.”—Sermon XVIII. p. 359. 
 
 The Bisyor of Bancor (the late Dr. Warren) gave the Bible 
 Society, in 1804, soon after its establishment, ‘ the benefit of 
 his recommendation, and instructed the Rural Deans through- 
 out his diocese to distribute its plans and solicit benefactions in 
 its favour.” —Owen’s Hist. of the Bible Society, Vol. I. p. 160. 
 
 Extract of a Letter from the Bisnor of Duruam to Lorp 
 Te1cnmoutu, dated May 1, 1810. 
 
 “ The British and Foreign Bible Society has my warmest 
 wishes for a continuance of success in the important work in 
 which it is engaged ;—wishes which were formed on the fullest 
 conviction that its meritorious exertions have contributed, and 
 will contribute, to make known the Holy Scriptures in the most 
 
 —E—— 
 
49 
 
 unenlightened regions of the earth, and to convey to millions 
 what they otherwise would not have enjoyed—the inestimable 
 blessing of the Gospel.” 
 
 In another letter, dated May 5th, 1812, he apologized for his 
 non-attendance at the anniversary on account of indisposition, 
 and sent a second donation of 50/. This Prelate also sub- 
 scribed liberally to the Cavendish-square Bible Association, of 
 which he was the president or patron. 
 
 Copy of a Circular Letter, addressed by the Bisuor of Bristox to 
 the Clergy of his Diocese. 
 
 Rey. Sir, * January 9, 1810. 
 
 “ Having been requested by the committee of the British and 
 Foreign Bible Society to recommend the formation of an Auxi- 
 liary Society in the city of Bristol, similar to those which have 
 been established in several great towns throughout the kingdom; 
 I beg leave to state, that such a measure has my hearty appro- 
 bation, and that it will afford me the greatest pleasure to see it 
 carried into execution. 
 
 “J am, Reverend Sir, yours faithfully, 
 “ Trinity College, Cambridge. ‘© W. Bristor.” 
 
 “ The late Bisuor of Sopor and Many, in 1811, cooperated 
 with the Society in distributing the Manks Testament through- 
 out his diocese.”—Owen’s Hist. of the Bible Society, Vol. II. 
 p- 55. 
 
 Extract of a Letter from the Bisnor of Norwicu to the Rev. Mr. 
 Coszoxp, respecting the Formation of the Suffolk Auziliary 
 Society, dated Dec. 1811. 
 
 “It will be impossible for me to make my appearance in 
 person at the meeting to be holden at Ipswich, on the 10th of 
 this month (December.) May I request the favour of you to 
 take the chair m my stead? I can with truth add, that I shall 
 have a particular satisfaction in being represented by a Clergy- 
 man, whose steady and judicious attachment to our excellent 
 ecclesiastical establishment, renders him a peculiarly proper 
 
 D 
 
50 
 
 person ito promote the success of an institution so inseparably 
 connected with the best interests of this establishment. 
 “‘ T am, dear Sir, sincerely yours, 
 
 ‘“ H. Norwicnu.” 
 
 The Bisuor of Satispury has, on several occasions, borne his 
 public testimony to the merits of this institution, in the most 
 decided terms: and, whilst before Bishop of Exeter,—his 
 Lordship manifested the strongest desire to draw the attention 
 of the Clergy to the Bible Society, and to recommend it to their 
 support, as appears from the following statement in Mr. Owen’s 
 History: ‘The facts and observations contained in the Third 
 Report, as recited by the President at the Anniversary Meeting, 
 appeared to the Bishop of Exeter to carry so much conviction in 
 favour of the Society, that, with a laudable anxiety to commu- 
 nicate to others an impression similar to that which he had him- 
 self received, his Lordship, upon retiring from the assembly, 
 requested to be furnished with a number of copies as soon as 
 they should be ready for delivery from the press. This request 
 was comphed with ; and the Bishop availed himself of thé op- 
 portunity afforded by a visitation which he performed as the 
 representative of the Bishop of London, at that time indisposed, 
 to circulate the Report through the hands of the officiating 
 Chaplain, the Rev. Mr. Potchett,* among the Clergy who at- 
 tended on that public occasion.” — Owen's History, Vol. I. 
 Chap. V. p. 237. 
 
 The Bisuor of Kirparz, at the Annual Meeting of the British 
 and Foreign Bible Society, in May 1812, after having stated 
 the want and acceptability of the Scriptures, according to the 
 authorized version, not only among the Protestants, but also 
 among very many of the Roman Catholics in Ireland, and 
 spoken in terms of high commendation of the exertions made 
 by the Hibernian Bible Society of Dublin to meet the exigency, 
 asserted, that the ignorance which prevailed in that country on 
 the subject of religion was not to be conceived, and that the 
 doctrines of the Reformation were utterly unknown in many 
 parts of it. 
 
 * At that time Domestic Chaplain to Bishop Porteus, now the Vicar of 
 Grantham. ; 
 
51 
 
 The Bisnor of Mearu, at the same meeting, concurred with 
 the Bishop of Kildare, in representing the state of Ireland as 
 deeply needing the benefit which it was in the power of the So- 
 ciety to impart. The Bishop remarked, that only the skirts 
 of that cloud, charged with fertilizing showers, to which the 
 noble president had compared this benevolent Society, had yet 
 extended to Ireland. His Lordship expressed the warmest 
 Satisfaction at witnessing so numerous a meeting, united thus 
 cordially and ardently on an object of so much mmportance ; 
 and assured them that he should endeavour to impart a similar 
 impression to the Clergy of that diocese which constituted the 
 sphere of his labours. 
 
 Extract from the Speech of the Bisuor of Croyne, March 18, 
 1813. 
 
 “As an old member of the Parent Society, I rejoice in the 
 sight of this numerous and respectable meeting, convened for 
 the purpose of forming an auxiliary. I am proud of the healthy 
 and vigorous offspring which is rising on every side around that 
 parent ; and I do think its signal and honest merits have fixed, 
 and are fixing, themselves every day, upon the firm and broad 
 basis of decided public opinion. That there should be learned 
 and respectable men, and such men I am afraid are to be found, 
 who object to our principle, and are alarmed at our progress, 
 is to me matter of pure and simple astonishment! Will any 
 one of this assembly stand forward and tell us, that to give a 
 Bible to a poor man, who is unable to purchase one, is unbe- 
 coming a Christian assembly ? Will any one stand forward and 
 tell us, that to be at the expense and difficulty of translating 
 the Bible into a foreign language, and to send it into a country 
 where the name of the Bible has hardly ever been heard, is 
 likely to produce very dangerous consequences? No, gentle- 
 men: I know proofs to the contrary; and I agree with the 
 noble Lord who spoke last but one, that in Ireland the limits of 
 this institution are spreading everywhere: I see and converse 
 every day, in my own neighbourhood, with men who have been 
 beyond measure benefited by the exertions of the Society. Go 
 on, then, gentlemen, in the name of God; spread the Word of 
 God, without the opinions of man, throughout every part of the 
 world: translate it into every language, and send it into every 
 
52 
 
 country. And if this be a crime, it is one of a very singular 
 nature: for our Saviour set the example, the Apostles followed 
 it, and God himself has commanded and sanctioned it. I pro- 
 ceed, therefore, to move, that a Society be formed, to be called 
 ‘ The North West London Auxiliary Bible Society.’ ” 
 
 Extract from the Charge of the Bisuor oF St. Dayin’s, in 1813. 
 
 “The unexampled success of the British and Foreign Bible 
 Society is very interesting to us, as Christians and Protestants. 
 Auxiliary Societies continue to multiply throughout the United 
 Kingdom, A great accession has been very lately made to it, 
 both of numbers and credit, by the establishment of an Auxi- 
 liary Society at Oxford. Its only object, the promotion of 
 Christian knowledge, it has in common with the old national 
 Society. The old Society pursues this end by various means; 
 the new Society by one only; but that is one in which all 
 Christians can concur. 
 
 “The Bibie Society undertakes to distribute the Bible: it 
 confines itself to the Bible; but it neither obstructs nor dis- 
 courages the circulation of the Common-Prayer Book (for every 
 member of the Society is at liberty to give the Prayer-Book with 
 the Bible :) but if the Society had refused to sell the Bible with- 
 out the Prayer Book, it would certainly have obstructed the 
 circulation of the Bible. The Society is constituted on this 
 simp'e and comprehensive principle, that it may not exclude 
 the aid of any persons professing to be Christians. Indeed, no 
 contribution for the distribution of the Bible can be unaccept- 
 able, whether it come from a Churchman or Dissenter, from a 
 Christian, Jew, Mahometan, or Heathen:” 
 
 In a book entitled ‘‘ The Bible, and the Bible ashe the 
 Religion of Protestants,” his Lordship again speaks highly in 
 commendation of the Bible Society. 
 
 Extract of a Letter from the late Bisuor of Luanparr, to Lorp 
 Tricnmoutn, dated October 12, 1814. 
 
 ** Allow me to congratulate your Lordship on the flourishing 
 state of the Society ; it portends, I trust, the commencement of 
 a new epoch in the history of human kind, when the Christian 
 religion shall be univer sy pecan rightly understood, and 
 conscientiously practised.” 
 
53 
 
 Extract of a Letter from the Bisuor of Cuicuester, to the 
 Committee of the British and Foreign Bible Society, dated 
 August, 14, 1815. 
 
 *T confess myself extremely gratified with the contents of 
 the Reports of the British and Foreign Bible Society, and 
 might have conceived (had I not heard and known the con- 
 trary) that no well-wisher to an extensive dissemination of the 
 Gospel could fail of being so.” 
 
 The Bisnor or GroucesTer, at the twelfth Anniversary of 
 the British and Foreign Bible Society in 1816, spoke as 
 follows :— 
 
 * Opposition has been revived, but it has been ably and 
 decisively defeated. Indeed, facts begin now to speak. We 
 find many examples of the practical results of disseminating the 
 pure Word of God. The circulatien of the Prayer Book has 
 not been lessened; it has, on the contrary, greatly increased, 
 during the whole period since the formation of this Society—a 
 sufficient evidence that the Established Church is more firmly 
 -seated in the affections of the country. The other tendency, 
 which the friends of our Society thought to be the most proba- 
 ble, begins to appear. The effects of the Bible are becoming 
 daily more and more visible. And what are these effects? The 
 drunkard becomes sober, the profligate chaste, the swearer fears 
 an oath. May the God of the Bible grant that this tendency 
 May increase year by year! May the time come, when the 
 Word of God shall be in every heart an incorruptible seed, 
 which shall bloom and blossom here, and bring forth fruit to 
 everlasting life!” 
 
 The sentiments of the late venerable Dr. Portreus, BisHor 
 or Lonpow, in addition to those expressed in a passage already 
 quoted, are thus delivered to the world, in great part as re- 
 corded by the Bishop himself, in his life, written by his relative, 
 Dr. Hodgson, Dean of Carlisle, and Rector of St. George’s, 
 Hanover-square. 
 
 ** A limitation thus absolute and unequivocal,” viz. that the 
 sole and exclusive object of the Society should be the circulation 
 of the Scriptures, and the Scriptures only, without note or 
 
54 
 
 comment, ‘‘ removed from the Bishop's mind all doubt arid hesi- 
 tation. He saw instantly that a design of such magnitude, 
 which aimed at nothing less than the dispersion of the Bible over 
 every accessible part of the world, could only be accomplished 
 by the association of men of all religious persuasions. He 
 looked forward to great results from such a combination of 
 effort. He entertained the hope, that it might operate as a bond 
 of union between contending parties ; and that, by bringing them 
 together in one point of vast moment, about which there could 
 hardly be a diversity of opinion, it might gradually allay that 
 bitterness of dispute, and put an end to those unhappy divisions, 
 which have so long tarnished the credit of the Christian world. 
 Whilst, therefore, he remained firmly attached to the original 
 Society for promoting Christian Knowledge, whose exertions, as 
 far as its limited sphere allowed, no one ever held in higher 
 estimation, he gave at the same time the sanction of his name 
 without scruple to the new one: and the more he considered its 
 object, and the longer experience he had of the spirit and prin- 
 ciples on which it was conducted, the more deeply he was con- 
 vinced that it merited all the support which the Church of 
 England could give it.” 
 
 APPENDIX, No. II. 
 
 Devorionat Lancuace of the Cuurcn or ENGLAND, in which 
 the Unity and Concord of Christians is especially desired. 
 
 In the Litany.— That it may please Thee to give unto all 
 nations, unity, peace, and concord :’— 
 
 In the Prayer for all Conditions of Men.—“ More especially we 
 pray for the good estate of the Catholic Church ; that it may 
 be so guided and governed by thy good Spirit, that all who 
 profess and call themselves Christians, may be led into the 
 way of truth; and hold the faith in unity of spirit, in the bond 
 of peace, and in righteousness of life.” 
 
 In the Prayer for the whole state of Christ's Church Militant 
 here on Earth.— We beseech Thee to inspire continually the 
 
99 
 
 Universal Church with the spirit of truth, unity, and concord ; 
 and grant that all they that do confess thy holy Name, may 
 agree in the truth of thy holy word, and live in unity and godly 
 love.” 
 
 But there is a “ Collect for Unity,” in the Service for the 
 King’s Accession, which seems mere fully and fervently to 
 desire the unity of the Spirit and the bond of peace, than any 
 other form used by the Church of England.—“O God, the 
 Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, our only Saviour, the Prince 
 of Peace; give us grace seriously to lay to heart the great 
 dangers we are in by our unhappy divisions. 
 
 “Take away all hatred and prejudice, and whatsoever else 
 may hinder us from godly union and concord ; that as there is 
 but one body, and one spirit, and one hope of our calling; one 
 Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of us all; 
 so we may henceforth be all of one heart, and one soul, united 
 in one holy bond of truth and peace, of faith and charity; and 
 may with one mind and one mouth glorify Thee, through Jesus 
 Christ our Lord. Amen.” 
 
 It is delightfule to perceive that His present Majesty’s first 
 address to Parliament, in unison with the language of our 
 Church, strongly recommends unity and concord among his 
 subjects. Lallude to the following passage :—“ While I declare, 
 on this solemn occasion, my fixed intention to maintain, to the 
 utmost of my power, the Protestant reformed religion established 
 by law, let me at the same time express my earnest hope that 
 the animosities which have prevailed on account of religious 
 distinctions may be forgotten, and that the decision of Parlia- 
 ment, with respect to those distinctions, having been irrevocably 
 pronounced, my faithful subjects will unite with me in advanc- 
 ing the great object contemplated by the legislature, and in pro- 
 moting that spirit of domestic concord and peace which consti- 
 tutes the surest basis of our national strength and happiness.” 
 
56 “i 
 
 APPENDIX, No. III. 
 
 Extract from the Eighth Report of the Madras Auxiliary Bible 
 Society, showing the Hostility of the Roman Catholics to the 
 Holy Scriptures. 
 “The Roman Catholics in most places are opposing the cir- 
 
 culation of the Scriptures. A new species of wickedness seems 
 
 to have marked the conduct of some Romish priests of late, 
 
 which the committee deem it expedient thus publicly to notice, 
 in order that those to whom the care of distributing the word of 
 God is committed, may be on their guard against those proceed- 
 ings. It has been brought to the knowledge of the’ committee, 
 that the Catholic priests in some parts use all their efforts to 
 obtain possession of the Scriptures, only in order to destroy 
 them: and it has further been reported, that persons have been 
 actually sent by those priests to the missionaries, to profess an 
 earnest desire to obtain the Sacred Volume for themselves and 
 
 their families, whose only object was to obtain Bibles, and to. 
 
 take them immediately to the priests to be burned. Some of 
 the lower orders of the Catholics are sufficierttly enlightened to 
 discern the folly and the deceitfulness of the priests, in keeping 
 them in such utter darkness respecting the word of God; and 
 have. considered it to be of ‘so serious a nature, that they have 
 ventured to remonstrate with their priests on the subjects The 
 Roman Catholics. sometimes lament their ignorance of the Bible: 
 and it is known,'that some-of these Catholics have gone to their 
 priests, and have spoken very sharply to them respecting their 
 being left in such shameful ignorance.” iat 
 
 -FINIS. 
 
 PRINTED BY R, CLAY, BREAD-STREET-HILL, CHEAPSIDE. 
 
THE 
 
 CLAIMS 
 
 OF THE 
 
 BRITISH & FOREIGN BIBLE SOCIETY 
 
 ON THE 
 
 CHURCH OF ENGLAND, 
 
 ARISING FROM 
 
 THE PRINCIPLES AND PRACTICE OF THAT CHURCH 
 
 WITH RESPECT TO 
 
 The Holy Scriptures. 
 ———<—__. 
 
 BY THE 
 
 HON. & REV. LITTLETON POWYS, M.A. 
 
 RECTOR OF TITCHMARSH, NORTHAMPTONSHIRE}; 
 AND AUTHOR or ‘‘ AN APPEAL TO THE CLERGY ON THE SUBJECT OF THE BRITISH 
 AND FOREIGN BIBLE SOCIETY.” 
 
 “ Shall we Christian men think to learn the knowledge of God, and 
 of ourselves, in any earthly man’s work or writing, sooner or better than in 
 the Holy. Scriptures, written by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost?” 
 
 Twenty-second Homily. 
 
 LONDON: 
 PUBLISHED BY HATCHARD AND SON, PICCADILLY. 
 
 SOLD ALSO BY SEELEY AND SONS, FLEET-STREET; AND NISBET, 
 BERNERS-STREET. 
 
 1830. 
 Price One Shilling. 
 
t =. 
 ' 
 i) 
 ‘ 
 * 
 ; 
 > Se be 
 yp 
 rs 
 t 
 ie be 
 uf 
 +e Capt i 
 LONDON: 
 re Ls Fhe VEAES 
 
 PRINTED BY R. CLAY, BREAD-ST 
 _ CHEAPSIDE, 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 Tue chief glory of the Church of England is 
 its ScrreturaAL Cuaracter; and if that Church 
 be estimated according to its fundamental prin- 
 ciples, as established at the Reformation, it may 
 be justly considered as one of the principal de- 
 positories of revealed Truth, one of the noblest 
 bulwarks of Protestant Christianity. But none 
 of its principles are more important than those 
 
 maintained with respect to the Holy Scriptures. 
 
 As, however, there is reason to suppose that 
 the character of the Church of England in this 
 respect is not by many fully understood, or 
 duly appreciated, an endeavour has been made 
 in the following pages to investigate this sub- 
 ject. Many obvious reasons render such an 
 
 investigation desirable. 
 a2 
 
1V PREFACE. 
 
 The general tendency, indeed, of every Church 
 to degenerate from its primitive principles, is 
 in itself a sufficient reason for such an attempt. 
 But the following considerations have been the 
 
 principal inducement to engage in this work. 
 
 In all Christian countries which haye long 
 possessed the record of Divine Revelation con- 
 tained in the Bible, other publications, professedly 
 derived from the Sacred Volume, have continually 
 increased and multiplied. Various consequences 
 have resulted from this circumstance; some be- 
 
 neficial, others injurious. 
 
 With respect to all those Christian publica- 
 tions which have really been derived from the 
 Holy Scriptures, and have faithfully maintained 
 the truths, and enforced the principles and pre- 
 cepts contained in them; no doubt they have 
 been instrumental, by God’s blessing, in produc- 
 ing the most beneficial effects; and should be 
 thankfully recognised as valuable coadjutors to 
 the Sacred Volume. 
 
 But such a multiplication of human writings 
 
 on religious subjects, has also been in’ some 
 
PREFACE. ¥ 
 
 respects very injurious; and this has been the 
 case, not only when such writings have directly 
 perverted the Gospel of Christ, either by mis- 
 representing its doctrines, or misapplyimg its pre- 
 “cepts; but also by leading many to derive their 
 opinions altogether, respecting the nature and 
 character of the Christian Religion, from other 
 books instead of the Bible: and thus to receive 
 and “teach for doctrmes the commandments of 
 
 bb 
 
 men. 
 
 On this account it is most important to appeal 
 “to the law and to the testimony,” and fo bring 
 the Holy Scriptures themselves into the most promi- 
 nent and conspicuous notice, mm all their mvTRINsIC 
 EXCELLENCE, and to draw a very broad lime of dis- 
 tinction between the Inspired Writings and _ all 
 other publications. 
 
 _ Another principal inducement to the present 
 undertaking has been the conviction that many 
 Members, and even Ministers, of the Protestant 
 Church of England, do not fully receive or main- 
 _ tain the avowed principles of the Church to which 
 they belong respecting the Holy Scriptures; but 
 have practically fallen back mto the spirit of 
 
vi PREFACE. 
 
 Popery, by considering the Bible’as almost, if not 
 altogether, unintelligible without the Church’s in- 
 terpretation: by maintaining not only that “ some 
 things,” but that almost all things, are so “hard to 
 be understood,” that the Bible, without mterpreta- 
 tion, will be the means of propagating error instead 
 of truth. Nothing can more dishonour God’s 
 written Word than such a supposition: nothing 
 can have a stronger tendency virtually to neu- 
 
 tralize the value of a Divine Revelation. 
 
 May the Protestant Church in this country be 
 emancipated from the spirit of Popery* in this and 
 all other respects: and may the Holy Scriptures 
 be more fully acknowledged in that character 
 which belongs to them according to the funda- 
 mental principles and the continual practice of the 
 Church of England! 
 
 * In a former pamphlet,—‘“ An Appeal to the Clergy,” 
 p- 41—43, I have already alluded to the difference between 
 Popery and Protestantism on this point, and cited extracts from 
 the present Lord Bishop of Peterborough’s “* Comparative View 
 of the Churches of England and Rome.” — 
 
— 
 
 THE 
 
 PRINCIPLES AND PRACTICE 
 
 OF 
 
 THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND, 
 
 WITH RESPECT TO THE HOLY SCRIPTURES. 
 
 In order fully to ascertain what are the funda- 
 mental principles, and what the continual practice, 
 of the Church of England, with respect to the Holy 
 Scriptures, let us consult those official documents 
 of the Church, in which those principles are either 
 most precisely stated, or most fully explained: and 
 also take particular notice of the degree and man- 
 ner in which the Holy Scriptures are employed in 
 all the public services of the Church. 
 
 In the first place, let us direct our attention to 
 those official documents in which the principles of 
 the Church with respect to the Scriptures are most 
 precisely stated, and most fully explained. 
 
 For precise statements, or accurate definition, we 
 are naturally led to the ArticLes oF RELicion: and - 
 amongst those Articles, especially to that which is 
 appropriated to the subject before us, the Sixth, 
 “Of the sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures for 
 
8 
 
 salvation.” On this pomt, the Church maintains, 
 that “ Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary 
 to salvation ; so that whatsoever is not read therein, 
 nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of 
 any man that it should be believed as an article of 
 the faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to 
 salvation.” And in all the other Articles, the same 
 principle is either expressed or implied: the truth 
 of each proposition is declared to depend on its 
 agreement with Scripture; and that is renounced 
 as error which is “ repugnant to the Word of God.” 
 How strongly is this principle maintained in the 
 Eighteenth Article, “ Of obtaining eternal salvation 
 only by the name of Christ.” “They also are to be 
 had accursed that presume to say, that every man 
 shall be saved by the law or sect which he professeth, 
 so that he be diligent to frame his life according 
 to that law and the light of nature. For Hoy 
 ScRIPTURE DOTH SET OUT UNTO US ONLY THE NAME 
 or JEsus CHRIST, WHEREBY MEN MUST BE SAVED.” ~ 
 The only other Articles which afford any direct 
 evidence to the present point are those which refer 
 to the character of a true Church, and to the au- 
 thority of the Church and of General Councils, and 
 to the traditions of the Church. It is declared in the 
 Nineteenth, to be an essential part of the character 
 of “the visible Church of Christ,” that in it, “ the 
 pure word of God is preached.” The whole of the 
 Twentieth appears worthy of notice, but especially 
 that part— It is not lawful for the Church to 
 ordain any thing contrary to God’s word written; 
 neither may it so expound one place of Scripture, 
 that it be repugnant to another. Wherefore, 
 
9 
 
 although the Church be a witness and keeper of 
 Holy Writ, yet, as it ought not to decree any thing 
 against the same, so besides the same ought it not 
 to enforce any thing to be believed for necessity of 
 salvation.” 
 
 On the authority of General Councils, the 
 Twenty-first Article asserts, that, when such Coun- 
 cils “be gathered together (forasmuch as they 
 be an assembly of men whereof all be not go- 
 verned with the Spirit and Word of God) they 
 may err, and sometimes have erred, even in things 
 pertaining unto God. Wherefore things ordained 
 by them as necessary to salvation, have neither 
 strength nor authority, unless it may be declared 
 that they be taken out of Holy Scripture.” . 
 
 With respect to the Traditions of the Church, 
 itis declared in the Thirty-fourth Article to be ne- 
 cessary, that “‘ NOTHING MUST BE ORDAINED AGAINST 
 Gop’s Worp; and that no one from his private 
 judgment may break the traditions and ceremonies 
 of the Church which be not repugnant to the Word 
 of God.” 
 
 And what are the principles of the Church as 
 proved by these extracts from the Articles? They 
 are clearly these: that the Bible is the only 
 standard of revealed truth; that every Church is 
 fallible; and that the Word of God is alone in- 
 fallible. 
 
 But in order to obtain a fuller explanation of 
 the Church’s principles on the subject in question, 
 let us examine the Book of Homilies—that most 
 valuable and edifying volume, which by many 
 members of the Church of England, it is feared, is 
 
10 
 
 little known; by others undervalued; by others 
 cast aside as obsolete, not only in language, but in 
 matter also; but which, notwithstanding, contains 
 a most luminous, forcible, and practical exposition 
 of Scripture truths, and affords a full exhibition of 
 the Church’s principles relative to the Bible.* The 
 first Homily is exactly to the purpose. Its title 
 is—“ A Fruitful Exhortation to the Reading and 
 Knowledge of Holy Scripture.” 
 
 Where all is so appropriate and excellent, it is 
 difficult to select. Those passages, however, are 
 more particularly suited to the object now pro- 
 posed which relate to the intrinsic value of the 
 Scriptures; the danger of falling into error from 
 ignorance; and the manner in which a night un- 
 derstanding of the Scriptures may be attained. 
 
 A few sentences expressing the value of the 
 Sacred Volume, and the divine efficacy which 
 attends the reading it, will suffice:—“ Unto a 
 
 * Tt was intimated in my former pamphlet,—“‘ An Appeal. to 
 the Clergy,”—that some persons have endeavoured to deprive 
 the Book of Homilies of all its authority as a standard by which 
 to determine the principles of the Church of England, by the 
 interpretation which they have put on the Thirty-fifth Article. 
 
 In that Article the Book of Homilies is declared to “ contain 
 a godly and wholesome doctrine, and necessary for these times.” 
 These last words, ‘“ necessary for these times,” have been inter- 
 preted as limiting the character there given of the Homilies to 
 the times in which they were written. Such a representation, 
 in reference to the manner in which some of the doctrines con- 
 tained in the Homilies 2s applied to the particular times when 
 they were written, may be in some measure admitted; but such 
 a supposition respecting the doctrines themselves involves an 
 absurdity which needs no refutation. For that which is a good 
 and wholesome doctrine at one time, MUST ALWAYS BE So. 
 
11 
 
 Christian man there can be nothing either more 
 necessary or profitable than the knowledge of Holy 
 Seripture: forasmuch as in it is contained God’s 
 true word, setting forth his glory, and also man’s 
 duty. And there is no truth or doctrine, necessary 
 for our justification and everlasting salvation, but 
 that is, or may be drawn out of that fountain and 
 well of truth: and as drink is pleasant to them 
 that be dry, and meat to them that be hungry, so 
 is the reading, hearing, searching, and studying of 
 Holy Scripture, to them that be desirous to know 
 God, or themselves, and to do his will.” Again: 
 ** Whatsoever is required to the salvation of man, 
 is fully contained in the Scripture of God.” Again: 
 “ The words of Holy Scripture be called words of 
 everlasting life: for they be God’s imstruments, 
 ordained for the same purpose. They have power 
 to turn through God’s promise; and they be effec- 
 tual through God’s assistance; and being received 
 in a faithful heart, they have ever a heavenly 
 spiritual working in them. They are lively, quick, 
 and mighty in operation, and sharper than any 
 two-edged sword; and enter through even unto 
 the dividing asunder of the soul and the spirit, of 
 the joints and the marrow.” 
 
 As to the danger, in reading the Scriptures, of 
 falling into error from ignorance, it is observed :— 
 “Some say that they dare not read the Holy 
 Scripture, lest through their ignorance they should 
 fall into any error. Others pretend that the diffi- 
 culty to understand it, and the hardness thereof is’ 
 so great, that it is meet to be read only of clerks 
 and learned men. As touching the first :—Igno- 
 
12 
 
 rance of God’s Word is the cause of all error, as 
 Christ himself affirmed to the Sadducees, saying, 
 that they erred because they knew not the Scrip- 
 tures. How should they then eschew error that 
 will be still ignorant ? And how should they come 
 out of ignorance, that will not hear nor read that 
 thing which should give them knowledge? He 
 that now has most knowledge was at the first 
 ignorant; yet he forbore not to read for fear he 
 should fall into error, but he diligently read lest he 
 ‘should remain in ignorance, and through ignorance 
 in error. ‘And if you will not know the truth of 
 God, a thing most necessary for you, lest you fall 
 into error, by the same reason you may then lie 
 still, and never go, lest if you go you fall into the 
 mire; nor eat any good meat lest you take a sur- 
 feit ; nor sow your corn, nor labour in your occu- 
 pation, nor use your merchandise, for fear you lose 
 your seed, your labour, your stock: and so by that 
 reason it should be best for you to live idly, and 
 never to take in hand to do any manner of good 
 thing, lest peradventure some evil thing may 
 chance thereof. And if you be afraid to fall into 
 error by reading of Holy Scripture, I shall shew 
 you how you may read it without danger of error. 
 Read it humbly, with a meek and lowly heart, to 
 the intent you may glorify God, and not yourself, 
 with the knowledge of it. And read it not without | 
 daily praying to God that he would direct your 
 reading to good effect: and take upon you to 
 expound it no further than you can plainly under- 
 stand it. For the knowledge of Holy Scripture is 
 a great, large, and a high place, but the door is 
 
13 
 
 very low, so that the high and arrogant man can- 
 not run in; but he must stoop low, and humble 
 himself, that shall enter into it. Presumption and 
 arrogancy is the mother of all error. And humility 
 needeth to fear no error. For humility will only 
 search to know the truth; it will search, and will 
 bring together one place with another ; and where 
 it cannot find out the meaning, it will pray, it 
 will ask of others that know, and will not pre- 
 sumptuously and rashly define any thing which it 
 knoweth not. Therefore the humble man may 
 search any truth boldly in the Scripture, without 
 any danger of error.”—And concerning “ the hard- 
 ness of Scripture,” and the means by which a might 
 understanding of it may be attained, the following 
 passage is very explicit :—“‘ The Scripture is full 
 as well of low valleys, plain ways, and easy for 
 every man to use and to walk in; as also of high 
 hills and mountains, which few men can climb 
 unto. And whosoever giveth his mind to Holy 
 Scriptures, with diligent study and burning desire, 
 it cannot be, as saith St. John Chrysostom, that 
 he should be left without help. For either God 
 Almighty will send some godly doctor to teach 
 him, as he did to instruct the eunuch, a nobleman 
 of Ethiopia, and treasurer unto Queen Candace, 
 who having a great affection to read the Scripture, 
 although he understood it not, yet for the desire 
 that he had unto God’s Word, God sent his Apostle 
 Philip to declare unto him the true sense of the 
 Scripture that he read: or else, if we lack a learned 
 man to instruct and teach us, yet God himself, 
 from above, will give light to our minds, and teach 
 
14 
 
 us those things which are necessary for us, and 
 wherein we be ignorant. 
 
 “And in another place Chrysostom saith, that 
 man’s human and worldly wisdom or science is not 
 needful to the understanding of the Scripture, 
 but the revelation of the Holy Ghost, who inspireth 
 the true meaning unto them that with humility 
 and diligence do search therefore. He that asketh 
 shall have, and he that seeketh shall find, and he 
 that knocketh shall have the door opened. If we 
 read, once, twice, or thrice, and understand not, 
 let us not cease so; but still continue reading, 
 praying, asking of others; and so, by still knock- 
 ‘ing, the door shall be opened. Although many 
 things be spoken in obscure mysteries, yet there is 
 nothing spoken under dark mysteries in one place, 
 but the self-same thing in other places is spoken 
 more familiarly and plainly, to the capacity both of 
 learned and unlearned.” 
 
 Many other of the Homilies might be referred 
 to, as they abound throughout with similar senti- 
 ments and expressions, all tending to exalt the 
 Holy Book of God, and manifesting the utmost 
 deference to its sacred contents. But we will pass 
 over all, excepting the Twenty-second, entitled, 
 * An Information for them which take offence at 
 certain places of the Holy Scriptures.” The con- 
 tents of this Homily are so very important, and so 
 much in point, that I cannot be satisfied without 
 extracting largely from it. Nothing in the first 
 page can be omitted without serious loss. It is 
 thus expressed :—“ The great utility and profit 
 that Christian men and women may take, if they 
 
15 
 
 will, by hearing and reading the Holy Scriptures, 
 no heart can sufficiently conceive; much less is 
 any tongue able with words to express. Wherefore 
 Satan, our old enemy, seeing the Scriptures to be 
 the very means and right way to bring the people 
 to the true knowledge of God, and that Christian 
 religion is greatly furthered by diligent hearing 
 and reading of them; he also perceiving what an 
 hindrance and let they be to him and his king- 
 dom; doth what he can to drive the reading of 
 them out of God’s Church: and for that end, he 
 hath always stirred up in one place or other cruel 
 tyrants, sharp persecutors, and extreme enemies 
 unto God and his infallible truth, to pull with 
 violence the Holy Bibles out of the people’s hands; - 
 and have most spitefully destroyed and consumed 
 the same to ashes in the fire; pretending most 
 untruly that the much hearing and reading of 
 God’s Word is an occasion of heresy and carnal 
 liberty, and the overthrow of all good order in all 
 well-ordered commonweals. 
 
 “If to know God aright be an occasion of evil, 
 then we must needs grant, that the hearing and 
 reading of the Holy Scriptures is the cause of 
 heresy, and carnal liberty, and the subversion of 
 all good orders. But the knowledge of God and 
 of ourselves is so far from being an occasion of 
 evil, that it is the readiest, yea the only mean to 
 bridle carnal liberty, and to kill all our fleshly 
 affections. And the ordinary way to attain this 
 knowledge is with diligence to hear and read the 
 Holy Scriptures. For the whole Scriptures, saith 
 St. Paul, were given by the inspiration of God, 
 
16 
 
 And shall we Christian men think to learn the 
 knowledge of God and of ourselves in any earthly 
 man’s work or writing, sooner or better than in the 
 Holy Scriptures, written by the inspiration of the 
 Holy Ghost? The Scriptures were not brought 
 unto us by the will of man; but holy men of God 
 (as witnesseth St. Peter) spake as they were moved 
 by the Holy Spirit of God. - The Holy Ghost is 
 the Schoolmaster of Truth, which leadeth his 
 scholars, as our Saviour Christ saith of him, into 
 all truth. And whoso is not led and taught by 
 this Schoolmaster cannot but fall mto deep error, 
 how godly soever his pretence is, what knowledge 
 and learning soever he hath of all other works and 
 writings, or how fair soever a shew or face of 
 truth he hath in the estimation and judgment of 
 the world.” 
 
 In the next page are the following observa- 
 tions :—“‘ If we desire the knowledge of heavenly 
 wisdom, why had we rather learn the same of 
 man than of God himself: who, as Saint James 
 saith, is the giver of wisdom? Yea, why will we 
 not learn it at Christ’s own mouth; who, promis- 
 ing to be present with his Church till the world’s 
 end, doth perform his promise, in that he is 
 not only with us by his grace and tender pity, but 
 also in this, that he speaketh presently unto us in 
 the Holy Scriptures, to the great and endless com- 
 fort of all them that have any feeling of God at all 
 inthem? Yea he speaketh now in the Scriptures 
 more profitably to us, than he did by word of mouth 
 to the carnal Jews, when he lived with them here upon 
 earth.” It is afterwards added :—“ We may in 
 
ber 
 
 the Scriptures so perfectly see whole Christ 
 with the eye of faith, as we, lacking faith, could 
 not with these bodily eyes see him, though he 
 stood now present here before us.” The following 
 simple and striking exhortation is then offered :— 
 “ Let every man, woman, and child, therefore, 
 with all their heart, thirst and desire God’s Holy 
 Scriptures, love them, embrace them, have their 
 delight and pleasure in hearing and reading them: 
 so as at length we may be transformed and changed 
 into them. For the Holy Scriptures are God’s 
 treasure-house, wherein are found all things need- 
 ful for us to see, to hear, to learn, and to believe, 
 necessary for the attaining of eternal life.” 
 
 With respect to the especial object of this 
 Homily, as an address to those who take offence at 
 certain places of the Holy Scriptures, after endea- 
 vouring to answer the objections alluded to, the 
 following rebuke is directed against those who turn 
 Scripture into jest :—‘ It is a shame that Christian 
 men should be so light-headed to toy, as ruffians 
 do, with such manner of speeches uttered in good 
 graye signification by the Holy Ghost. More 
 reasonable it were for vain men to learn to reve- 
 rence the form of God’s words than to sport at 
 _ them to their damnation.” To the same effect in 
 another place :—“ Let us earnestly take heed that 
 we make no jesting-stock of the books of Holy 
 Scriptures. The more obscure and dark the say- 
 ings be to our understanding, the further let us 
 think ourselves to be from God and his Holy 
 Spirit, who was the author of them.” Again :— 
 “There is nothing so impertinently uttered in all 
 
 B 
 
18 
 
 the whole book of the Bible but may serve to 
 spiritual purpose in some respect to all such as will 
 bestow their labour to search out the meanings.” 
 The following admonition may properly conclude 
 these extracts :—‘“ Thus, if ye will be profitable 
 readers and hearers of the Holy Scriptures, ye 
 must first deny yourselves and keep under your 
 carnal senses, taken by the outward words, and 
 search the inward meaning: reason must give 
 place to God’s Holy Spirit; you must submit your 
 worldly wisdom and judgment unto his divine 
 wisdom and judgment. Consider that the Scrip- 
 ture, in what strange form soever it be pronounced, 
 is the word of the living God. Let that always 
 come to your remembrance which is so oft re- 
 peated by the Prophet Esaias: ‘The mouth of 
 the Lord hath spoken it:’ the almighty and ever- 
 lasting God, who with his only word created heaven 
 and earth, hath decreed it; the Lord of Hosts, 
 whose ways are in the seas, whose paths are in the 
 deep waters, that Lord and God, by whom all 
 things in heaven and earth are created, governed, 
 and preserved, hath so provided it; the God of 
 Gods, and Lord of Lords, yea, God that is God 
 alone, incomprehensible, almighty, and everlasting, 
 he hath spoken it; it is his Word. It cannot there- 
 fore be but truth which proceedeth from the God 
 of all truth: it cannot be but wisely and prudently 
 commanded what Almighty God hath devised, how 
 vainly soever, through want of grace, we miserable 
 wretches do imagine and judge of his most holy 
 Word.” The following seasonable prayer sums 
 up the whole :—‘ God therefore, for his mercies’ 
 
 _ 
 
19 
 
 sake, vouchsafe to purify our minds through faith 
 in his Son Jesus Christ, and to instil the heavenly 
 drops of his grace into our hard stony hearts, to 
 supple the same, that we be not contemners and 
 deriders of his infallible Word; but that with all 
 humbleness of mind and Christian reverence, we 
 may endeavour ourselves to hear and to read his 
 Sacred Scriptures, and inwardly so to digest them, 
 as shall be to the comfort of our souls, and sanc- 
 tification of his holy name, to whom with the Son 
 and the Holy Ghost, three persons and one living 
 God, be all laud, honour, and praise, for ever and 
 ever. Amen.” ; 
 
 Having thus appealed to the official documents 
 of the Church, in which her principles are either 
 most precisely stated, or most fully explained; and 
 haying on the latter poimt made such copious 
 extracts from the Book of Homilies, from a con- 
 viction that by many Churchmen that volume is 
 not studied as it deserves; we have, I trust, at- 
 tained the objects proposed, and have clearly and 
 fully ascertained what the principles of the Church 
 of England are in reference to the Holy Scriptures. 
 
 But a still further confirmation of these princi- 
 ples will be afforded by considering the practice of 
 the Church in reference to the Scriptures ; and by 
 taking particular notice of the degree and manuer 
 in which the Holy Scriptures are employed in the 
 various public services of the Church. 
 
 All those public services might be brought for- 
 ward in illustration of this point: not only those 
 which are in constant and ordinary use, but those 
 
 B2 ' 
 
20 
 
 also appointed for particular and extraordinary 
 occasions. But an allusion to one or two of the 
 latter description will be sufficient. Let me, in the 
 first place, advert to one of our public services, which 
 of necessity does not often attract public observa- 
 tion, but which is well entitled to the most devout 
 attention. The Coronation Service is here referred — 
 to:—that solemn ceremony which takes place 
 when the lawful Sovereign of Great Britain is con- 
 secrated to his regal office. During that imposing 
 and affecting ordinance, in which the King and his _ 
 subjects, assembled in the House of the Lord, like 
 Josiah and his subjects of old,* enter into “a 
 covenant before the Lord” never to be forgotten : 
 and when so much takes place which is calculated 
 to impress and to edify all present, and to prevent 
 a most sacred ordinance from degenerating into a 
 vain-glorious pageant, then, to the Holy Scrip- 
 tures is assigned a most honourable station and a 
 most important office. At the commencement of 
 that service the Holy Bible is brought forth and 
 placed upon the altar; and when the King has 
 taken the oath required in the sight of all the 
 people, he lays his right hand upon the Holy 
 Gospel in the great Bible, now brought from the 
 altar by the Archbishop, and tendered to him as he 
 kneels, and says these words: “ The things which 
 I have here promised I will perform and keep, so 
 help me God!” Then the King kisses the book, 
 and signs the oath. 
 
 During that momentous part of the ceremony, 
 when the crown has just been placed on the King’s 
 
 * 2 Chron. xxxiv. 29—383. 
 
21 
 
 head, the Archbishop takes the Holy Bible, and 
 presents it to the King, first saying these words : 
 “ Our gracious King, we present unto your Majesty 
 this Book ; the most valuable thing that this world 
 affordeth. Here is wisdom; this is the royal law; 
 these are the lively oracles of God. Blessed is he 
 ' that readeth, and they that hear the words of this 
 Book ; that keep and do the things contained in 
 it. For these are the words of eternal life; able to 
 make you wise and happy in this world; nay, wise 
 unto salvation, and so happy for evermore through 
 faith which is in Christ Jesus, to whom be glory 
 for ever. Amen.” 
 
 There is one other part of that service in which 
 the most important truths of the Bible* are appro- 
 priated in so striking and significant a manner to 
 the special occasion, that the notice of that also 
 does not appear irrelative. Besides presenting the 
 Bible in the manner just described, it is the Arch- 
 bishop’s office to present to the King an instru- 
 ment, called “The Orb,” that is, a spherical 
 figure, representing the globe we inhabit, with a 
 cross affixed to the upper part of it; when the 
 King is thus addressed by the Archbishop: “ Re- 
 ceive this orb, and when you see it set under the 
 cross, remember that the whole world is subject to 
 the power and empire of Christ our Redeemer ; 
 for He is the Prince of the Kings of the earth, 
 King of Kings, and Lord of Lords, so that no man 
 can reign happily who deriveth not his authority 
 from Him, and directeth not all his actions ac- 
 cording to His laws.” 
 
 * 1 Tim. vi. 15. Rev. i. 5, &c. 
 
22 
 
 When we consider ‘that he who is thus invested 
 with his high office is, accordmg to the British 
 Constitution, the supreme governor, under God, 
 both of Church and State; that the title ascribed 
 to him is “ Defender of the Faith;” and when we 
 observe how the Bible is employed in the Corona- 
 tion Service in placing the King of England on his 
 throne; surely all these considerations combined 
 afford some further evidence of what the principles 
 of the Church of England are in reference to the 
 Holy Scriptures. 
 
 The only other occasional service of the Church 
 to which I would appeal, is the form of ordaining 
 and consecrating Bishops, Priests, and Deacons.* 
 There, also, a distinguished place is given to the 
 Sacred Volume; most significant ceremonies are 
 observed in relation to it; suitable portions of the 
 Scripture are read respecting the nature and ob- 
 ligations of the ministerial office; and the strictest 
 scrutiny takes place amongst those ordained or 
 consecrated, respecting their sense of the value 
 and divine authority of the Holy Scriptures. For 
 instance, in the Ordination of Deacons, just before 
 
 * The close connexion into which these two services are here 
 brought, will not to any persons appear unnatural when they 
 are informed that the beautiful Hymn, called ‘‘ Veni Creator 
 Spiritus,” forms a part of the Coronation, as well as of the Ordina- 
 tion Service. The same expressive words are sung or said when 
 the King is anointed by the Archbishop, and when Christian 
 Ministers are ordained. 
 
 “Come, Holy Ghost! our souls inspire, 
 And lighten with celestial fire ; 
 Thou the anointing Spirit art, 
 Who dost thy sevenfold gifts impart,” &e. 
 
23 
 
 they receive their commission, they are required to 
 kneel before the Bishop, having each the New 
 Testament in his hand; and thus is each sepa- 
 rately authorized to read and preach the Gospel 
 in the Church of God. And in a similar manner, 
 just before Priests receive their authority, they 
 also are required to fall on their knees, and whilst 
 in that posture, the Bishop delivers to every one of 
 them the Bible into his hand, and thus gives to 
 each his commission to preach the Word of God. 
 And when an Archbishop or Bishop is consecrated, 
 how much is signified by that part of the service, 
 when he, also kneeling in the midst of the congre- 
 gation, has the Bible delivered to him by the 
 Archbishop who officiates; and who, at the same 
 time, delivers a most impressive exhortation, the - 
 second sentence of which is equally simple and 
 weighty, “ Think upon the things contained in TuIs 
 Book.” 
 
 But a strict inquiry is also made before ordina- 
 tion, or consecration, respecting the Holy Scrip- 
 tures, which strongly marks the high importance 
 attached to them by the Church of England. The 
 question proposed to each candidate for the office 
 of Deacon is, “ Do you unfeignedly believe all the 
 Canonical Scriptures of the Old and New Testa- 
 ment? And will you diligently read the same unto 
 the people ?” 
 
 That proposed to each candidate for the higher 
 offices in the Church is nearly the same. It is 
 thus expressed: “Are you persuaded that the 
 Holy Scriptures contain sufficiently all doctrine re- 
 quired of necessity for eternal salvation through 
 
24 
 
 faith in Jesus Christ? And are you determined, 
 out of the same Holy Scriptures, to instruct the 
 people committed to your charge, and to teach or 
 maintain nothing as required of necessity to eternal 
 salvation, but that which you shall be persuaded 
 may be concluded and proved by the same ?” 
 Thus is the principle of the Church in question 
 still further discovered by the manner in which the 
 Holy Scriptures are employed in those sacred 
 services in which the several orders of her mini- 
 sters are appointed to their office: an office, it 
 may be added, of which none, according to the 
 laws of the Church,* are allowed to partake but 
 those who are able to confirm the truths contained 
 im the Articles of Religion “ by sufficient testimonies 
 out of the Holy Scriptures.” . 
 
 But without noticing any other of the occasional 
 services of the Church, let us now proceed to 
 examine into the manner in which the Holy Scrip- 
 tures are employed in those public services which 
 are in more constant and ordinary use. The ser- 
 vices here alluded to are those appointed by the 
 Church for Morning and Evening. Prayer, daily, 
 throughout the year. But in these forms of devo- 
 tion, the Holy Scriptures are so interwoven with 
 their very texture, and are so prominent a feature 
 in their composition, that it is difficult to specify 
 particulars without transcribing the whole. Some 
 principal circumstances, however, may be pointed 
 out in these services; from which it will appear 
 still further manifest what is the essential value 
 
 * Canon XXXIV. 
 
25 
 
 attributed by the Church of England to the Holy 
 Scriptures, and what the supposed practical efficacy 
 of reading them to the people. 
 
 Let us direct our attention to those portions of 
 the Scripture which are read from the Prayer-book, 
 and also those which are read from the Bible. 
 
 With respect to those read from the Prayer- 
 book, the very first words which proceed from the 
 lips of the Minister are select “ sentences of the 
 Scripture.” The very first exhortation represents 
 “the Scripture,” as the main-spring of every right 
 motive in sinful creatures when approaching the 
 throne of grace,—“'The Scripture moveth us’— 
 and one of the principal purposes of public worship 
 is declared to be “to hear his holy word.” One 
 of the first prayers in order, the very first in 
 estimation, the Lord’s Prayer, which is afterwards 
 frequently repeated, sometimes as recorded by 
 St. Matthew, and sometimes as by St. Luke, the 
 most perfect prayer in itself, and the most perfect 
 model for all prayers, is, be it observed, the precise 
 language of Holy Scripture. 
 
 Then follow (before and after the Lessons) select 
 Psalms from the Old, or select Hymns from the 
 New Testament; besides the Psalms appointed 
 for each day, recited alternately by Minister and 
 People. 
 
 The select portions read in both services toge- 
 ther, amount to about thirty or forty verses, ac- 
 cording to the Psalm or Hymn that may be used; 
 and the Psalms, (from two to six, or eight, or even 
 twelve, according to their length) are thus daily 
 appointed to be read, so that the whole Book of 
 
26 
 
 Psalms may be publickly read in the Church once 
 every month, or twelve times every year. 
 
 The only other passages of Scripture read from 
 the Prayer-book which I shall mention, are the Ten 
 Commandments, and the portions chosen for the 
 Epistles and Gospels to be read every Sabbath-day. 
 The admirable selection of the latter is well cal- 
 culated to ensure the edification of all present ; 
 and in all these appointments the high estimation 
 in which the Holy Scriptures are held by the 
 Church, and the beneficial effects which are ex- — 
 pected, by God’s blessing, to result from their pub- — 
 lication, most plainly appear. . 
 
 But a still stronger proof of this is afforded by 
 the means which the Church has prescribed, in 
 order constantly and repeatedly to proclaim to 
 the people, by the chapters set apart for every day, 
 the principal contents of the Holy Bible. For this 
 purpose, it is appointed that four chapters, two from 
 the Old, and two from the New Testament, should 
 be publickly read every day throughout the year. By 
 this means the greater part of the Old Testament 
 is appointed to be read to the people once every 
 year; and the whole New Testament, excepting 
 the Revelation of St. John (out of which only two 
 or three chapters are read) is directed to be read 
 in the Church three times every year.* 
 
 * The Books of Chronicles are omitted, as being, for the 
 most part, a repetition of the Books of Samuel and Kings. 
 The Song of Solomon is also omitted as not suited, for obvi- 
 ous reasons, to a mixed assembly, such as that which meets in 
 a place of Public Worship, Many chapters of Ezekiel are 
 
 omitted, as too much wrapped up in mystical visions for popular 
 apprehension. See Wheatly on the Book of Common Prayer. 
 
27 
 
 This part of the constitution of the Church of 
 England cannot be too much admired, or too 
 highly esteemed ; and it affords, without any other 
 consideration, the most convincing practical proof 
 which can be adduced of the principle of the 
 Church respecting the Scriptures.* Such an ex- 
 uberant stream of scriptural instruction continually 
 flowing amongst the members of the Established 
 Church, brings with it a clear evidence of the 
 nature of that fountain from whence these holy 
 waters spring; and shews how pre-eminent is the 
 desire of that Church, that all its members should 
 receive their edification principally from tur Hoy 
 ScRIPTURES THEMSELVES. 
 
 Having now made the investigation proposed ; 
 and having thus appealed to the official documents 
 and public services of the Church, we have been 
 brought, I trust, to some decisive and satisfactory 
 conclusion as to the fundamental principles of the 
 Church of England in reference to the Holy 
 Scriptures. 
 
 What then is the amount of all the positive and 
 circumstantial evidence that has been brought for- 
 
 * If a calculation be made of the time occupied in publickiy 
 reading the Holy Scriptures in the Church, it will be found, that 
 if the portions of Scripture appointed were read every week to 
 the people in that distinct and impressive manner in which they 
 ought to be read, between five and six hours would be thus oc- 
 cupied every week, which is a much larger portion of time than 
 that appropriated to any other means of religious instruction, 
 supposing two sermons to be preached every Sunday, and one 
 besides in the course of every week. 
 
28 
 
 ward? That evidence may be summed up thus: 
 
 ~That the Church of England supposes the Holy 
 Scriptures are all that such a title imports ;—that 
 they have the broad seal of heaven on every page;— — 
 that they bear throughout the image and super- 
 scription of their Divine Author;—that they are the 
 fountain-head of all Christian knowledge ;—the only — 
 touchstone by which all religious opinions must be 
 tried;—the tribunal of final appeal in all religious 
 controversy ;—the book of the covenant ito which 
 the Christian King and his subjects. have entered 
 with their God.and each other;—the solemn pledge, — 
 given and received, by which all orders of the 
 Clergy are bound to the faithful discharge of their 
 holy function :—But not only so; the Church of 
 England evidently supposes that the Holy Scrip- 
 tures, as to those things which it is essential for all 
 to know, are perfectly intelligible to all who hear 
 or read them in a right spirit; and that whilst the 
 publication of the Word of God in her services 
 is considered an object of the highest possible 
 importance, the main dependence for a right in+ 
 terpretation or a right understanding of it, is not 
 so much placed in any means which may be em- 
 ployed for that purpose, as on the teaching of the 
 Holy Spirit in the use of those means; so that 
 it appears to be the fundamental principle of the 
 Church on this point, that the Holy Scriptures, 
 and the Holy Spirit, whenever they cooperate, 
 (which they may be always expected to do when 
 the truths of the Bible are heard or read in the 
 spirit of prayer), are all-sufficient in themselves, 
 independently of any other means of religious 
 
29 
 
 instruction, to make mankind wise te Salvation 
 through faith which is in Christ Jesus. an 
 
 excetee — 
 
 The point in question ee now established, it 
 is desirable to suggest several important inferences 
 fairly and obviously resulting from the preceding 
 discussion. 
 
 It may be observed, in the jist place, that if 
 such be indeed the principles and practice of the 
 Church of England respecting the Holy Scriptures, 
 then, assuredly, all the members of that Church 
 who understand those principles, and approve of 
 that practice will, when desirous of obtaining 
 Christian knowledge, consult the Holy Bible in 
 preference to any other book, and will place far 
 greater confidence in the Holy Scriptures them- 
 selves, than in all the ablest commentaries that 
 have been written upon them. Such a decided 
 preference for the Bible, and confidence in its con- 
 tents, will also be accompanied by a daily habit of 
 devout meditation on its truths, and self-application 
 and self-examination, together with constant and 
 fervent prayer for the influence and assistance of 
 
 the Holy Spirit.+ 
 
 * It is very far from.the author’s intention, in thus stating the 
 essential value and efficacy of the Holy Scriptures, without any 
 human interpretation, to disparage any kind of ministerial in- 
 struction which is according to Scripture, much less to lower the 
 importance so justly attached to Preacuine tHE Gosret, which 
 ever has been, and doubtless ever will be, one of the most effec- 
 tual ordinances of God, for the Bee of the truths of the 
 _ Bible amongst mankind. 
 
 + Luke xi. 9—13: Rom. viii, 26. 1 Cor. ii. 13, 14, 
 
30 
 
 There is also a second inference to be drawn from 
 this subject, arising from the consideration how f 
 little the intentions and appointments of the Church 
 are fulfilled according to their original purpose. It 
 
 is well known how very small a portion of that 
 publick-scriptural instruction, which the Church has — 
 
 provided, is ever publickly communicated to the 
 people. This circumstance, which is much to be 
 
 regretted, imposes a strong obligation on all who — 
 really esteem the principles and constitution of the — 
 English Church to fulfil the intentions of their — 
 
 Church by private means of instruction, and By — 
 
 DAILY READING THE SCRIPTURES IN THEIR FAMILIES, 
 
 ) 
 
 to make themselves and their household familiarly — 
 
 acquainted with those portions of the Sacred 
 Volume which they have no opportunity of hearing 
 in the public congregation. 
 
 Another equally obvious inference is this, that 
 in proportion as the Holy Scriptures are generally 
 read, and extensively circulated, the stability and 
 perpetuity of the Church of England must be en- 
 sured, and the purposes of its original establishment 
 answered, unless, indeed, it should become so cor- 
 rupt and degenerate in other respects as to draw 
 down the judgments of the Almighty. 
 
 I proceed to suggest another inference, in which 
 the welfare of the Church of England, of the 
 universal Church of Christ, and of all the inhabi- 
 tants of the earth to whom Great Britain has now, 
 or shall hereafter have access, is deeply involved: 
 I mean the part which the Members of the Church 
 
 . 
 
31 
 
 of England, Noblemen* and Clergymen, as well as 
 
 others, may justly be expected to take, in con- 
 formity with her own scriptural character and prin- 
 ciples, in all those benevolent endeavours in which 
 Christians are now united, in order to promote THE 
 “UTMOST POSSIBLE DISSEMINATION OF THE Hoty Scrip- 
 _ TURES. 
 
 The Members of the Church of England have, 
 for above one hundred and thirty years, set a bright 
 example to all their fellow-christians on this sub- 
 ject, by the means which the “Society for Pro- 
 moting Christian Knowledge” has during that 
 period employed for printing and circulating the 
 Scriptures: and that most important of all objects 
 has thus perhaps been as extensively accomplished 
 as was compatible with the prosecution of other 
 objects in which that Society has constantly been 
 engaged. The utmost, however, that was accom- 
 plished by that Society fell far short of the existing 
 want of the Scriptures both at home and abroad. 
 At the beginning, therefore, of the present century 
 another Institution was established, under the 
 name of the “ British and Foreign Bible Society,” 
 in which Christians of all denominations were asso- 
 ciated together for THE SOLE AND EXCLUSIVE PURPOSE 
 OF PROMOTING A WIDER CIRCULATION OF THE Hoty 
 ScRIPTURES, WITHOUT NOTE OR COMMENT. And might 
 it not reasonably be expected that the Members of 
 the “ Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge” 
 would have joyfully hailed the formation of another 
 Society which has adopted that for its only object, 
 
 * No. I. of the Appendix contains a list of Noblemen who 
 patronise the British and Foreign Bible Society. 
 
32 
 
 which has always been the principal object of their 
 own Society? Was it unreasonable to expect that 
 the English Clergy, in consideration of the manner 
 in which they were ordained to their sacred office,* 
 and in conformity to THe Lirurcy, ARTICLES, AND 
 HomILiEs oF THEIR CuurcH, would have been dis- 
 posed unanimously to enrol themselves as Mem- 
 bers of the “ British and Foreign Bible Society ?”+ 
 For in proportion to the acknowledgment, by the 
 English Church, of the essential excellence of the 
 Bible, is the importance, and even obligation, of 
 employing the most effectual means for printing, 
 translating, and distributing it, which human agency ~ 
 presents: and it may be clearly demonstrated, on 
 the principle of the division of labour,—that very 
 principle which has been productive of such great 
 results in British manufactures,—that the “ British 
 and Foreign Bible Society” is capable of effecting — 
 a more extensive dissemination of the Holy Scrip-— 
 tures than any other Christian combination which 
 has ever been formed. f 
 
 eS 
 
 ee a 
 
 * As the Hon. and Rev. Arthur Philip Perceval contends, in 
 a pamphlet entitled, ‘‘ Reasons why I am not a Member of the 
 Bible Society,” that Clergymen of the Church of England should 
 not connect themselves with it, I have inserted, in Appendix — 
 No. III., a brief reply to his principal arguments. ; 
 
 + This observation is of course limited to those of the Clergy 
 who can afford to subscribe to the Bible Society. Episcopal — 
 testimonies in favour of that Society will be found in the Ap- — 
 pendix to my “‘ Appeal to the Clergy.” 
 
 + During the last twenty-six years, this Society bas issued 
 more than six millions and a half of copies of the Scriptures, 
 and expended nearly 1,700,000/. No. II. in the Appendix, 
 contains a list of languages and dialects in which the Scriptures 
 
 in 
 
33 
 
 With all due respect, I must still further venture 
 to suggest, as a legitimate inference from this dis- 
 cussion, whether it might not reasonably be ex- 
 pected that the reigning sovereign of the British 
 empire, in recollection of his Coronation Oath, and 
 the solemn and significant use of the Bible in the 
 Coronation Service, would be disposed to extend 
 the sanction of his Royal patronage, and the bounty 
 of his Royal munificence, to every Christian insti- 
 tution in this country which gives the Bible the 
 honour and ascendancy to which it is so justly en- 
 titled, and which recognises the same fundamental 
 principles, and stands on the same solid foundation, 
 as the National Church itself. 
 
 Whilst many British Christians look back upon 
 the original formation of the “ British and Foreign 
 Bible Society,” as one of the most glorious and 
 memorable events by which the reign of George 
 the Third was signalized, may they not also antici- 
 pate the period, when the successors of that justly 
 revered monarch (perhaps one of his own sons) 
 shall be led to view the Bible Society as an ad- 
 ditional security to the Established Church; and 
 to consider the patronage of that Institution as the 
 accession of a brilliant jewel to the crown of Eng- 
 land; as a most effectual means of promoting the 
 welfare of his own subjects; of rendering Great 
 Britain a blessing to her distant dependencies* and 
 
 have been printed through the influence and efforts of the Bible 
 Society. 
 
 * On this subject the late Earl of Liverpool commented in 
 striking language in his speech at the formation of an Auxiliary 
 Society in the Isle of Thanet. Speaking of the British and 
 
 Cc 
 
34 
 
 to other nations; and of effectually ec 
 own sovereignty in the hearts of saspenladl te 
 
 Foreign Bible Society, his Lordship remarked,— “ The ; 
 ciples of this Society adapt it, indeed, to convey the We rd of 
 Life to the whole world. Britons have a duty, an importa 
 duty to perform, avg ont of eet ee 
 foreign possessions. As Christians, we ought to de 
 this duty has beenso long neglected.” beige erent 
 to in the Appendix, No. II. at once evinces what 2 
 loc psiwom Se the tromttatoon of dhe Garasiaeeananann zuas 
 and dialects prevalent in the Asiatic portion of the British e 
 
 as well as other possessions of the crown. I 7 1e 
 consider that many of the greatest excellencies in the 4 
 England, and of the British Constitution, may be traced either 
 to the Mosaic code under the Jewish theocracy, or to the in 
 ciples and precepts contained in other parts of the Bible, wh 
 are not only of the greatest individual, but also of the gre 
 national importance, it becomes a subject for serious considerat 
 whether the Bible Society is not justly entitled to t Ba 
 
 and support of the British legislature. ree veld 
 
APPENDIX, No. L. 
 
 PATRONS, PRESIDENTS, AND VICE-PRESIDENTS 
 
 OF THE 
 
 British and Foreign Bible Society, 
 
 AND ITS AUXILIARY AND BRANCH SOCIETIES IN THE UNITED KINGDOM. 
 
 His Roya, HIicGHNEss THE DUKE oF 
 His Royat Hicuness THE DUKE 
 His Royat HicHNEess THE DUKE oF 
 
 His Royat HicHNEss THE DUKE 
 
 Duke of Beaufort 
 Bedford 
 Buckingham 
 Gordon 
 Grafton 
 Hamilton and 
 Brandon 
 Manchester 
 Portland 
 Wellington 
 Marquess of Anglesea 
 Bute 
 Camden 
 Cholmondeley 
 Downshire 
 Exeter 
 Londonderry 
 Northampton 
 Tavistock 
 Tweedale 
 — — Winchester 
 Earl of Ashburnham 
 —w— Balcarras 
 Breadalbane 
 Carlisle 
 Chichester 
 —-— Coventry 
 Dalhousie 
 —— Darlington 
 Darnley 
 Dartmouth 
 De la Warr 
 Derby 
 Digby 
 —-— Dudley 
 Egremont 
 
 ——— 
 
 Earl of Falmouth 
 Fitzwilliam 
 Fortescue 
 Glasgow 
 Gosford 
 Grosvenor 
 Guilford 
 Harcourt 
 Hardwicke 
 Harewood 
 Harrowby 
 Hopetoun 
 Lisburne 
 Mexborough 
 Morley 
 Mount-Norris 
 Radnor 
 Roden 
 Romney 
 Spencer 
 Stamford and 
 Warrington 
 Stanhope 
 Verulam 
 Waldegrave 
 Wemyss and 
 March 
 Viscount Exmouth 
 Lorton 
 Mandeville 
 Maynard 
 Middleton 
 Lord Ashtown 
 Barham 
 
 TT PE EPETTL EEL 
 
 OF 
 
 OF 
 
 —— W. H.C. Bentinck 
 
 —— W. Bentinck 
 
 Lord Bexley 
 Blantyre 
 Braybrooke 
 Calthorpe 
 G. H. Cavendish 
 Dacre 
 Downe 
 Dundas 
 Erskine 
 Farnham 
 Foley 
 Gambier 
 G. L. Gower 
 Grenville 
 Headley 
 Henniker 
 Holland 
 Howard of Effing- 
 ham 
 Lyttleton 
 Milton 
 Mount-Sandford 
 Ossulston 
 Rivers 
 Rob. Seymour 
 Sherborne 
 G. Somerset 
 Stanley 
 Suffield 
 Teignmouth 
 Waterpark 
 Wharncliffe 
 
APPENDIX, No. II. 
 
 A TABLE of LANGUAGES and DIALECTS, im which the Distribution, 
 Printing, or Translation of the Scriptures, in whole or in part, has been promoted 
 by the BRITISH AND ForEIGN BIBLE Soctery, either directly or indirectly. 
 
 English Greenlandish Karelian Seik, or Punjabee 
 Welsh Mandjur Mongolian Telinga 
 Gaelic Tigré (Abys. dial.) |Tartar-Turkish | Watch, Wucha, or 
 Trish Curdish Mordwinian Multanee 
 Manks Peruvian Orenburg Tartar | Delaware Indian 
 Danish Aimara Tschuwaschian | Otaheitean 
 Swedish Quanian (Norwe-|Tscheremissian | Chinese 
 Dutch gian Lapponian) Zirian Pali. 
 German Negro-English Sanscrit Cingalese 
 Italian Mexican Afghan, orPushtoo | Creolese 
 French Vaudois Assamese Servian: _ 
 Spanish Malagasse Bengalee Bulgarian 
 Portuguese Bohemian Bhutuneer Faroese 
 Greek, Ancient Hungarian Bhugelkund Ossitinian 
 Greek, Modern | Latin Bikaneer Wotiak 
 Ethiopic Romanese (Upper] Bruj Bhojpooree 
 Arabic dialect) Burman Birat 
 Syriac Romanese (Lower|Canarese (Kur- | Budrinathee 
 Coptic and Arabic} dialect) nata) Bugi 
 Hebrew Wendish (Upper | Guzerattee Bulochee 
 Malay dialect) Harotee Bundelkhundee 
 Turkish Wendish (Lower | Hindee ~ Gudwal 
 Tartar dialect) Joypore Huriyana 
 Calmuc Polish Shree-Nagur Javanese 
 Amharic (ver-Ab.) | Moldavian Jumboo Munipoor Koon- 
 Bullom (W. Afri- | Flemish Kanoja _ kee . 
 can language) {Slavonian Kashmeer Tripoora Koonkee 
 Mohawk (N. A. | Lithuanian Khassee Kousoulee 
 language) Reval-Esthonian | Kunkuna Kucharee 
 Esquimaux, ditto Dorpat-Esthonian | Kemaren Kutch 
 Indo-Portuguese | Lettish Koomaoon Macassar 
 - Breton Finnish Mahratta Maldivian 
 Albanian Lapponese Mughudh Mithilee 
 Armenian, Mo- | Swedish Munipoor Oodoypore 
 dern Armenian Malayalim Rakheng © 
 Jewish-Spanish | Georgian Marewar Siamese 
 Basque Tamul Nepalee Sindhoo : 
 Persian Modern Russ Oojjuyinee Southern Sindhoo, _ 
 Hindoostanee, or |Samogitian Orissa . or Hydrabadee 
 Oordoo Judeo-Polish Palpa, or Dogura | Namacqua . 
 RECAPITULATION. : 
 Reprints tb elves bc oeiviceu ews sce © pase ice cc clelatulelule nite @aletainimmtees ; q 
 Re-translations seeeeeseeeseseseceeesr ess ecererecseeeess OF | 
 Languages and Dialects, in which the Scriptures have never 
 been printed before the Institution of the Society ..-..-.++. 62 
 
 New Translations commenced or completed ..scce--..+eee0s 38 
 
 Total’. case ees e0ee 147 
 N.B. Most of the Northern Asiatic Versions haye been promoted by the 
 Russian Bible Society; and the Southern Asiatic, &c. generally by the Se- 
 rampore Missionaries, and the Bible Societies of Calcutta, Colombo, Madras, 
 and Bombay, and the Missionaries of other Missionary Societies. 
 
APPENDIX, No. II. 
 
 Just and conclusive as I deem the inference, in page 32, 
 respecting the unanimous cooperation of the Clergy in the Bible 
 Society, very different sentiments have been lately expressed 
 by the Hon. and Rev. A. P. Perceval, Chaplain in Ordinary to 
 his late Majesty, in a Pamphlet, entitled, “‘ Reasons why I am 
 not a Member of the Bible Society.” . That Pamphlet has re- 
 ceived a full, forcible, and complete answer from the pen of 
 John Poynder,. Esq., in a Pamphlet, entitled, ‘ Reasons why I 
 am a Member of the Bible Society ;” but as the last publication 
 contains no less than eighty-eight pages, and that which called 
 it forth only twenty, it cannot reasonably be expected that the 
 circulation and perusal of both will be equally extensive : hence 
 it is thought desirable to make a very few concise remarks here, 
 on the contents of Mr. Perceval’s Pamphlet, for the sake of 
 those who have read that, but have not seen Mr. Poynder’s. 
 
 _ Four principal reasons are assigned by. Mr. Perceval why he 
 is not a Member of the Bible Society, which shall here be very 
 briefly noticed. . The first reason mentioned (p. 7.) is, that the 
 Bible Society is unnecessary. This assertion is directly opposed 
 to well-knonn principles, and well-ascertained facts, which prove 
 the contrary almost to demonstration. But as these facts and 
 principles formed.a part of a Pamphlet lately published; ealled 
 * An Appeal to the Clergy of the. United Church of England 
 and Ireland respecting the Bible Society,” they need not tobe 
 repeated. here. The second objection made to the Bible Socidt 
 
 is, that “‘ it is injurious to the Established Church,’ (p. 8), becatise 
 ‘the practical effect of it has been to introduce disunion into the 
 Church of England to a great and lamentable extent.” On that. 
 cireumstance it is sufficient to observe, that if the Bible Society *2 
 be, indeed, justly entitled to the cooperation of all the Members 
 
 of the Church of England, on account of the Scriptural princi- 
 
 ples of that Church, and its obhgations to spread the light of 
 
38 
 
 revealed truth to the utmost possible extent, then it must be al- 
 lowed that the authors of all that lamentable disunion which has 
 prevailed on this subject, are not those who have joined the Bible 
 Society, but those who have declined all connexion with it. But 
 it is needless to say more on the two first objections brought for- 
 ward by Mr. Perceval, since he himself has declared (p. 6) that 
 these would have no weight in his mind, if the two last can be 
 set aside. Of these, he says, that, “if the constitution of the 
 Society be so altered that his two last objections shall no longer 
 
 apply to it, he shall regard it as an Institution which, in the — 
 
 main, will be desirable.” 
 What then are these weighty reasons to which Mr. Perceval 
 
 attaches so much importance? They are these: He supposes — 
 
 (p. 9—13) that the Society in question confounds all distinction 
 between “ those who have received a lawful call to minister in the 
 congregation of Christians,” and those “ who thrust themselves 
 uncalled into the office of the Christian Priesthood ;” and that 2 
 seems to be ‘the very object of the Bible Society to obliterate this 
 Catholic, Primitive, and Apostolical distinction ;” for, “ according 
 to one of the fundamental rules of that Society, (thirteenth), all, 
 without distinction, who choose to call themselves Christian Minis- 
 
 ters, are admitted, ex-officio, to be Members of the Committee.” 
 
 This is a serious charge; but it may be effectually repelled by 
 one single observation, viz. that the British and Foreign Bible 
 Society has nothing whatever to do, as a Society, with the im- 
 portant question, Who are, and who are not lawfully called to the 
 Christian Ministry? Nor are the acts of any of the Members 
 
 of the Bible Society, either in its Committee or out of it, the 
 
 acts of Christian Ministers as such; and with respect to the thir- 
 teenth law of the Society, thus strongly reprobated, it is almost 
 a repetition word for word of the eleventh law of the Naval and 
 Military Bible Society, whose constitution has been fully approved 
 for nearly seventy years by many of our Royal Family, and 
 many other personages of the highest rank and character, both in 
 the Church and State! The last objection advanced, (p. 13—20), 
 and which is considered as the most serious of all, is, that the 
 Bible Society (by admitting Socinians amongst its Members) 
 “receives for Christians those who deny the fundamental doc- 
 trines of our Religion ;” ‘“ bids God speed to those who bring 
 not the doctrine of the Son of God ;” and thus “ undermines the 
 
39 
 
 foundation,” and “ saps the vital principles of Christianity ;” and 
 even “renounces Christianity as the means of promoting it.” 
 Such unwarrantable assertions demand a distinct and unqualified 
 denial of their truth. It is not true that the Bible Society re- 
 eeives Socinians for Christians. As a Society, it receives none 
 of its Members in any other character than that of persons who 
 profess to believe that the Bible contains a Divine revelation, and 
 who desire to make that revelation universally known to all man- 
 kind. As a Society, it does not recognise, much less does it 
 - encourage, any interpretation of the Scriptures, either true or 
 false ; much less is it chargeable with the guilt of aiding and 
 abetting one of the most pernicious heresies that ever infested 
 the Christian Church. 
 
 Tn this part of his Pamphlet, Mr. Perceval appears to have 
 entirely forgotten the sentence with which he began, viz. “‘ These 
 _ pages are not intended for attack, but defence ;” for the motive 
 
 which he has imputed to the Members of the Bible Society in 
 their union with Socinians, is certainly (although probably 
 not intended) a very unjustifiable attack of the characters of 
 others. It is actually asserted, p. 16, (Jam sure [could not have 
 believed it if I had not first read it) that the nature of the con- 
 tract between the Bible Society and Socinians is this :—that the 
 Socinians shall contribute their money on condition that the 
 other Members of the Society “ will forbear to supplicate the 
 blessing of God on the undertaking.” If Mr. Perceval had 
 taken proper means to obtain more accurate information, he 
 would have known, that there is no religious Society in exist- 
 ence whose members are more sensible of the value of prayer 
 for the blessing of God on the work in which they are engaged 
 than the Members of the Bible Society, and that their forbear- 
 ance publickly to supplicate the blessing of Almighty God is no 
 more an act of forbearance towards Socinians than towards any 
 other Members of the Bible Society.- This is, in fact, an act of 
 universal mutual forbearance, arising from fear lest difference of 
 opinion, as to the manner of worshipping God, should interrupt 
 that harmony and unanimity which prevails in the promotion of 
 that one simple and great object in which they are engaged. 
 It is not surprising that, when once Mr. Perceval had given 
 credit to what he had heard on this subject, he should be 
 able to discern evident marks of the Almighty’s displeasure on 
 
all the proceedings of such an unholy alliance, and that he should 
 broadly assert, as a’ well-known fact, that, “in proportion to its 
 resources, The British and Foreign Bible Society is notoriously 
 the most inefficient which ever existed.”* But as that Society has 
 now circulated BETWEEN SIX AND SEVEN MILLION COPIES OF THE 
 Scriprurss, before its total inefficiency can be credited we must 
 be convinced that Mr. Perceval possesses the attribute of omni= 
 science, by which he is able fally to discover all that has hap- 
 pened to each sacred volume, from the time it left the press —by 
 which he discerns the movement of every eye and every mind — 
 turned to the sacred page, or from it, together with every 
 thought, feeling, and desire which the perusal of it may havé 
 called forth. This can only be known when the Lord “shall © 
 bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will make 
 manifest the counsels of the heart.” Then, indeed, the final dis- 4 
 closure will be made, whether the true character of the British 
 and Foreign Bible Society has been that of a mischievous anti- 
 christian confederacy, or an institution productive of incaleulable 4 
 benefits to the “ee race. al 
 
 = | theca! 3 : q 
 - *This assertion is ably refuted by an appeal to fect in Mr, Payne 4 
 Pamphlet, p. 47—59. 
 
 gee 
 
 FINIS. 
 
 R. CLAY, PRINTER, BREAD-STREET-HILL, LONDON. 
 
REASONS 
 
 WHY I AM A MEMBER 
 
 BIBLE SOCIETY. 
 
 RESPECTFULLY ADDRESSED TO 
 
 THE HON. AND REV. A. P. PERCEVAL, B.C.L. 
 
 CHAPLAIN IN ORDINARY TO HIS MAJESTY, &e. 
 
 IN ANSWER TO HIS PAMPHLET, ENTITLED, ‘“ REASONS 
 WHY I AM NOT A MEMBER OF THE BIBLE SOCIETY.” 
 
 BY 
 
 JOHN POYNDER, ESQ. 
 
 ONE OF THE COMMITTEE OF THE SOCIETY. 
 
 LONDON: 
 
 J. HATCHARD AND SON, 187, PICCADILLY. 
 1830. 
 
. 
 
 ; 
 ‘| 
 xt 
 ‘ 
 j 
 + 
 iy 
 \ 
 f 
 ” he 
 f 
 ' 
 hy ' 
 " 
 ‘ 
 ; ; 
 4 
 evs 
 7 
 iS ) 
 
 oe teat * 
 7) gs ee be LS ap) ie Eo 
 : eit MONDON D+ tie OL hak 
 IBOTSON AND PALMER, PRINTERS, SAVOY STREET 
 
REASONS WHY I AM A MEMBER 
 
 OF THE 
 
 BIBLE SOCIETY. 
 
 RevereEnpD Sir, 
 
 You have lately thought proper, 
 as a minister of the Church of England, to publish 
 “< Reasons why” you are “not a Member of the 
 Bible Society.” As no one had publicly preferred 
 this inquiry, it does not clearly appear why a ques- 
 tion which had not been publicly propounded 
 should have received so public an answer; and we 
 are naturally reminded, by an attempt so purely 
 gratuitous on your part, of the French proverb, 
 “Qui s’excuse s’accuse.” Had you, however, con- 
 tented yourself with merely defending some sup- 
 posed charge of inconsistency, in refusing, as a 
 Divine, to join the Bible Society ; you might have 
 remained, for me, in quiet possession of the field, 
 ito which you had thus advanced, without a chal- 
 lenge ; but the pamphlet in question being, in point 
 of fact, much less an apology for yourself, who had 
 no assailant, than an-open attack upon every 
 church member of the Bible Society, I hope to be 
 
 A2 
 
4 
 
 excused, as a member of that society from its ori- 
 gin—although not, like yourself, a clerical, but only 
 a lay member of the Church of England, to assign 
 some ‘‘ Reasons” for conceiving that I neither re- 
 nounce my allegiance to our common Church, nor 
 relinquish my duty to the State with which it is 
 connected, by supporting the Bible Society. 
 
 If these Reasons should unhappily fail of their 
 weight with yourself, it is still possible that they 
 may not be without their use, in the case of some 
 junior member of the national establishment, who 
 might otherwise be deterred from joming the 
 Society ; more especially if, being ministers of that 
 church, the elevated titles of “ Reverend,” “ Ho- 
 nourable,” and “ Chaplain in Ordinary to His Ma- 
 jesty,” which are severally borne by yourself, 
 should seem to demand a respect which might pos- 
 sibly not be found equally to appertain to the argu- 
 ments employed by a person so distinguished by 
 the accident of birth, or the appendage of office ; 
 but even should no advantage of this kind accrue, 
 T apprehend that a churchman like myself, who 
 did not join the Bible Society without due consi- 
 deration of its character, and who continues to ad- 
 here to it from a deep conviction of its usefulness, 
 owes, if not to bis fellow-countrymen, yet, at least, 
 to his own children, some attempt to show thata 
 man does not necessarily cease to be a churchman, 
 nor begin to be an unbeliever, merely because he 
 belongs to the Bible Society. 
 
 The “Reasons” for withholding your support 
 
5 
 
 from the Bible Society, do not, at first, present 
 themselves in the close phalanx of a logical argu- 
 ment, but open with the sharp-shooting of an ad- 
 vanced platoon, in the form of a Note to page 2, 
 in which you state that ‘‘The Bible Society, 
 like the Dissenters and Home Missionaries, thrusts 
 its emissaries ‘into another man’s line,’ contrary 
 to St. Paul’s example ; and thus, regardless of ec- 
 clesiastical order, it intrudes its labours in countries 
 in direct opposition to the wishes of those to whose 
 care God, in those places, has committed the mi- 
 nistry of reconciliation, making the people in those 
 countries disobedient to the directions, and regard- 
 less of the advice of those whom God has placed 
 over them:” to which it may be replied, that pre- 
 suming the “ countries’ here mentioned, to be 
 intended of any parts of England, the Society’s 
 agents for the formation or encouragement of 
 Branch and Auxiliary Societies only oppose, by 
 these Home Missions of their Society, the wishes 
 and feelings of those ministers of the church, who, 
 like yourself, are opposed to the Bible Society, but 
 not the wishes of those ministers of that church 
 who both belong to these Provincial Societies— 
 attend their public meetings,—and conduct their 
 daily business; and, therefore, until it can be 
 shown that your own dislike of the Bible Society 
 is founded in wisdom, and can be justified upon 
 biblical principles, our agents are no more respon- 
 sible for doing what we consider their duty in the 
 country, than we are for doing what we think our 
 
6 
 
 own duty in London ; and it does not appear that 
 either they, or ourselves, are chargeable with any 
 such interference as the apostle alludes to. In the 
 passage which you cite from the Corinthians, to 
 show that we thrust into “another man’s line,” I 
 take the liberty, as a Layman, to observe that St. 
 Paul is only intending the actual invaders of 
 « ecclesiastical order,” and the real disturbers of 
 parochial instruction— having reference alone to the 
 preaching of the gospel, an office which neither the 
 Parent Committee in London, nor any who are 
 sent by it, assume. When, therefore, you charge 
 our agents with disobeying the apostolic: injunc- 
 tion, not to “ boast of things without our measure, 
 that is, of other men’s labours,” and ‘‘ not to boast, 
 in another man’s line, of things made ready to our 
 hand,” you do not appear to distinguish between 
 the simple distribution of the Scriptures without 
 note or comment, and the oral instruction which is 
 intended by the apostle, under the express terms 
 of “preaching the gospel.” Had your premises 
 been good, your conclusion would have followed ; 
 but wntil you can show that the distribution of the 
 Bible itself has a necessary tendency to “make 
 people disobedient to the directions, and regard- 
 less of the advice of those whom God has placed 
 over them ;” you will fail in proving against our 
 agents, that they <“‘ stretch themselves beyond 
 their measure,” or “ boast in another man’s line.” 
 It is possible, however, that by the word * coun- 
 tries,” which you consider to be so unduly trou- 
 
q 
 
 bled by our agents, you may intend a reference to 
 the countries of the continent; in which case I 
 would observe, that the Protestant parts of the 
 continent are invariably most happy to receive our 
 agents, and partake our funds, and that they are 
 constantly crying to us to come over and help 
 them; but if you refer to the Popish countries of 
 the world, as thus disturbed by the Bible Society, 
 and sympathize with the ministers of those parts 
 as annoyed and obstructed in their repose by the 
 emissaries of our Society—in other words, by the 
 distribution of the Bible—we do not shrink from 
 any responsibility of this kind, but honestly avow 
 that our object is, that the word of God should 
 << have free course, and be glorified,” however the 
 priests of the Romish faith may deem it an un- 
 courteous interference with their prescriptive right 
 to keep the people in ignorance and sin, and to 
 prevent the light of truth from shining in those 
 dark corners of the earth. If such be the “ eccle- 
 siastical order” which you consider to be violated 
 by the Bible Society, we plead guilty at once to 
 the charge of doing Luther’s work in a new way ; 
 but, like him, we cannot desist from our work be- 
 cause it does not happen to please his holiness the 
 Pope. If the people in those countries are, in 
 consequence of this aggressive system, (as you 
 complain,) “‘ made disobedient to the directions, 
 and regardless of the advice of those placed over 
 them,” is this the fault of those who give, or of 
 those who withhold, the best gift of God to a fallen 
 
8 
 
 world—of those who would forward the purposes 
 and designs of the Almighty towards his creatures, 
 by extending the knowledge of his own Revela- 
 tion, or of those who are such sticklers for eccle- 
 siastical discipline, and such admirers of antiquity, 
 as to leave the world in all the undisturbed repose of 
 the “ strong man armed,” rather than disturb a 
 false peace by invading “ ecclesiastical order,” 
 and opposing the wishes of “ false teachers,” and 
 ‘* the blind leaders of the blind 2” 
 
 After having availed yourself of the services of 
 this light artillery of annotation, you fall back on 
 the main body of your text, and advance, as your 
 leading argument, the assertion, that the Bible 
 Society is unnecessary, ‘ because when it was in- 
 stituted, there had existed, for above a century, 
 the Propagation Society, and the Society for Pro- 
 moting Christian Knowledge ; both which,” you 
 say, “ were in intimate union and connexion with 
 the Catholic Church in England, and had, there- 
 fore, claims upon every member of it for his sup- 
 port; so that,” you add, ‘‘ the establishment of 
 the Bible Society did not arise from necessity, but 
 there is fair reason to conclude, from a spirit of 
 rivalry—such a spirit as St. Paul says actuated 
 some who preached Christ of envy, and strife, and 
 contention.” Now, Sir, it is impossible you could 
 have referred to this last quotation, without ob- 
 serving, that in spite of such an alloy as the apos- 
 tle deplores, he adds, “ Notwithstanding every 
 way, whether in pretence or in truth, Christ is 
 
9 
 
 preached, and I therein do rejoice, yea, and will 
 rejoice.” 
 
 As a pastor of the true flock, and as solicitous 
 to recover the lost sheep, ought not somewhat of 
 this feeling to have also operated upon you? 
 Even could you establish (which I more than 
 doubt) the alledged fact of the Society having 
 originated in a spirit of rivalry, might not the 
 good unquestionably resulting from its labours 
 have been admitted as some indemnity for the im- 
 perfection (could it be proved) of its early his- 
 tory? Shall] even a wise heathen have said, ‘‘ Uéz 
 plura nitent, non ego paucis offendar maculis 
 gquas humana parum cavit natura ;” and shall 
 any one really in earnest for the good of souls 
 be content to depreciate the disinterested labours 
 of so many years by denying the existence of ex- 
 tensive good, because the birth of the Bible So- 
 ciety was not precisely. after his own mind ? 
 
 But I believe the Society may fearlessly take 
 higher grounds than the ‘‘ argumentum ad vere- 
 cundiam,” and show not only that the little spirit 
 of rivalry formed no ingredient in its early com- 
 position, but that a deep sense of the spiritual 
 wants of this country, and of the world, was the 
 great and only motive which influenced its first 
 projectors. Not to enter at large into facts re- 
 peatedly before the public, it may sutfice to remind 
 them that the deplorable want of the Scriptures m 
 Wales, which the Society for promoting Christian 
 Knowledge honestly admitted its inability to sup- 
 
10 
 
 ply, first led to the inquiry whether a very consi- 
 derable want did not also prevail in England, and 
 especially in Ireland ; and that, when the existence 
 of such necessity had been ascertained beyond all 
 doubt, some inquiries were as naturally induced 
 upon the state of the continent, both Protestant 
 and Papist, and thence as to the wretched condi- 
 tion of the dark places of the earth, those “ habi- 
 tations of cruelty,” where the very name of Christ 
 had never been heard, and where millions were 
 then, and are yet, sacrificing to “ them that are no 
 gods—that have eyes and see not, and ears and 
 hear not.” The result of all this was, a positive 
 conviction, founded on the clearest evidence, 
 which neither our early friends could escape, nor 
 our present opponents can deny, that vast multi- 
 tudes ‘“‘ who call themselves Christians,” as well as 
 entire countries of ignorant and unenlightened 
 Heathens, were in the most urgent need of the 
 Scriptures of eternal truth, many portions even of 
 the civilized world knowing the Bible only by 
 name, and others never having so much as heard 
 of its existence.* The two Societies mentioned 
 
 * Tt has been ascertained, from satisfactory data, that in Asia 
 nearly one half of our species exists involved in all the darkness 
 of Paganism, or the licentious delusion of the false Prophet. 
 
 In China alone, there are computed to be three hundred and 
 thirty millions of people, all Pagans. 
 
 Almost all Africa is similarly circumstanced; and at least 
 half the inhabitants of the great western continent of America 
 may be presumed to be Pagans. 
 
 In Christendom, so called, what corruptions prevail! These, 
 
{1 
 
 by you as already in existence, so far from ade- 
 quately remedying this want of the Holy Scrip- 
 tures, were precluded by their very nature from 
 even attempting it upon any scale of supply in 
 any degree proportionate to the exigency, prin- 
 cipally from the very circumstance boasted of by 
 yourself, namely, their exclusive Churchmanship, 
 and partly from their constitution having assigned 
 to each of them other and very different objects. 
 The Propagation Society had reference princi- 
 pally to missions; the Religious Knowledge So- 
 ciety, partly to missions, but chiefly to the circu- 
 ~ lation (in addition to the Scriptures) of the Church 
 Liturgy, and of such Religious Tracts as were in 
 accordance with Church discipline. Not only did 
 these two Societies exclude Dissenters, in terms, 
 from joiming their ranks, but such was the deter- 
 
 however, have been mainly produced and continued by the want 
 of the Scriptures, diffused among the people in their own 
 tongues. 
 
 On the whole, it is computed, that if the eight or nine hun- 
 dred millions of people which exist on the face of the globe, be 
 divided into thirty parts, nineteen of those parts will be found 
 Pagans, six of those which remain, Mahomedans and Jews, and 
 only five parts nominally Christian, including the Greek, the 
 Papal, and the Protestant communions. 
 
 Well, therefore, may the Reverend Chancellor and Preben- 
 dary of Winchester (Dr. Dealtry) observe, “ Let any man who 
 feels as he ought for the interests of Christianity, and the welfare 
 of his fellow-creatures, look upon the map of the world, and his 
 heart must sicken at the sight of kingdoms and continents im- 
 mersed in the profoundest ignorance, ‘having no hope, and with- 
 
 out God in the world.’ ”— Vindication of Bible Society, p. 35. 
 
12 
 
 mination (especially in the case of the Religious 
 Knowledge Society) to confine even their own 
 Members (so far as was possible) to persons whose 
 views and opinions coincided with those of certain 
 leaders of the Society, that several estimable mem- 
 bers of the National Church, of unquestionable 
 orthodoxy, loyalty, and piety, (and so certified,) 
 were actually refused admittance by the invidious 
 practice of black-balling. Will it be said, that 
 Societies thus circumstanced could, im the nature 
 of things, provide for the wants of a world, when 
 they never did, and never could, satisfy the de- 
 mands of the United Kingdom alone? You have 
 indeed affirmed, that ‘‘ the activity of these So- 
 cieties was only limited by their means, and that 
 with the money subscribed to the Bible Society, 
 they would have been equally extensive im their 
 operations ;” but who does not see that Dissenters 
 must have renounced their first principles, before 
 they could ever have supported ecclesiastical ob- 
 jects, and therefore that (however devoutly such a 
 consummation might be wished) their money never 
 could have flowed in the channel you would pre- 
 scribe, until they had all become churchmen ; 
 while, in the mean time, and pending the exertions 
 to make them churchmen, the world at large was 
 actually perishing for lack of knowledge, and suf- 
 fermg a famine of the Bread of Life. You are 
 able, indeed, to find matter for panegyric, not only 
 in the limited and exclusive constitution of these 
 Societies, but in what you term “ the caution and 
 
13 
 
 deliberation which mark their proceedings ;” but 
 you need hardly be informed, that while the qua- 
 lities you recommend are only estimable as they 
 keep their places, so it has been repeatedly ob- 
 jected to these Societies, and not always, or only, 
 by their enemies, that their “ caution” has some- 
 times become irresolution, and that their “ deli- 
 beration” has not always issued in action. Without 
 presuming to decide to what extent this charge 
 may have been proved, must it not, at least, be 
 conceded, that with a constitution and practice 
 admitted to be exclusive, and a caution and deli- 
 beration alledged to be excessive on the part of 
 the ancient institutions, there was sufficient justi- 
 fication for supplying their lack of service; and 
 that so far from viewing the attempt with jealousy, 
 and assailing it with reproach, it would have been 
 more becoming in the regular Ministers of the 
 Gospel to have extended to such efforts the right 
 hand of fellowship, and to have wished them 
 ** good luck in the name of the Lord.” 
 
 Your second objection is, that “the Bible So- 
 ciety is injurious to the Church of England, its 
 practical effect having been, to introduce disunion 
 into the Church of England to a great and la- 
 mentable extent, while it has sought to produce an 
 apparent, but most hollow and unreal union be- 
 tween one party in the Church, and the various 
 sects of Dissenters and Schismatics; to please 
 whom, all Church of England views, as such, must 
 necessarily be given up.” 
 
14 
 
 Now, J shall first notice the disunion alledged to 
 have been effected by the Bible Society in the 
 Church ; and secondly, the union supposed to be 
 ‘* sought,” between a party in the Church and the 
 Dissenters and Schismatics ; and in the first place, 
 let us see to what the disunion of which you charge 
 the Society as the author, amounts. It is, then, 
 neither more nor less than that difference of opi- 
 nion which leads one minister of the Establishment 
 to hold that the Society may be consistently sup- 
 ported and advocated by him, and which leads 
 another minister of the same Church to think the 
 contrary. Now, I apprehend that each of these 
 persons may conscientiously consent to differ upon 
 this particular question, without such ditference in 
 any degree affecting their union, or necessitating 
 their division upon any great fundamental princi- 
 ples, either of their common Christianity, or their 
 particular Churchmanship, inasmuch as the single 
 object of the Society being the wider dispersion 
 of a book which they both hold to be true, no 
 question is necessarily raised—from the circum- 
 stance of all sorts of persons being joined in the 
 distribution—which need to affect the union of the 
 two ministers in question; and if not of them, then 
 not of the larger divisions of their own body, which 
 they may be supposed to represent. Let it even 
 be conceded that those Church ministers who 
 deemed it perfectly consistent with their principles, 
 and even an essential part of their duty, to sup- 
 port the Bible Society, were the first to propose 
 
15 
 
 to their brethren a plan savouring, perhaps, more 
 or less of novelty, but rendered necessary, as the 
 proposers affirmed, by the wants of the world, and 
 the circumstances of the times ; it does not follow 
 that this invitation was wrong because it was new, 
 and should it happen to be right, still less does it 
 follow that the proposers are the parties fairly 
 chargeable with producing disunion; since it is 
 evident that if both the necessity of the scheme 
 and their own duty could once be demonstrated, 
 the onus of a refusal to co-operate with them, and 
 consequently the odium of any disunion which 
 might follow, would lie with the objectors, and 
 not with the proposers of the scheme in question. 
 First, then, I deny that such a disunion has 
 resulted from the establishment of the Bible So- 
 ciety, as in any sense either to affect the integrity, 
 or to impair the usefulness, of the national Establish- 
 ment; and secondly, I submit that the mere disunion 
 of sentiment which has arisen among Churchmen re- 
 specting the expediency of the Bible Society, can- 
 not fairly be made a matter of charge against those 
 of its patrons and friends who are of the Church of 
 England, whether Clergy or Laity, until such of 
 the Clergy of that Church as oppose the Society 
 can be fully justified in their rejection of its instru- 
 mentality, as militating against their own Liturgy, 
 Articles, and Homilies. Now, believing, as a 
 Churchman, that the invaluable Formularies of our 
 Church are all founded on the Bible, and can be 
 fully proved from it, I have always thought that he 
 
16 
 
 is the best friend of that Church, who has most at 
 heart the circulation of the Holy Scriptures at home 
 and abroad. It was upon this principle that, 
 although I have been a member of the Christian 
 Knowledge Society for nearly thirty years, I first 
 joined, and still adhere to the Bible Society; and, 
 therefore, when in your Dedication you ‘‘ espe- 
 cially” address me, (among other “ supporters of 
 the Bible Society,”) as “‘ a member of the English 
 Catholic Church,” I respond to the call thus made, 
 by informing you that it is “ especially” because 
 I am a member of the English Catholic Church 
 that I love the Bible Society ; nor can I possibly 
 understand upon what adequate grounds any one 
 who is not a member of the Roman Catholic 
 Church can refuse to co-operate in such a godlike 
 scheme. 
 
 It is true, that in a Pamphlet now lying before 
 me, addressed by a Romish priest to Sir Oswald 
 Mosley, the President of the Manchester Bible 
 Association, he expressly states, that “the Bible 
 is not designed to be the groundwork of a Chris- 
 tian’s faith”—that ‘the result of the fashionable 
 system of Bible reading in this country, since she 
 forsook the religion of her forefathers, has been 
 that there are almost as many religions as there 
 are different judgments among men”—that “ the 
 shepherd is forsaken,” (viz. the Romish priest)— 
 “ the one fold is destroyed,” (viz. the one true and 
 infallible Church,) ‘ and the sheep are scattered,” 
 (viz. the members of the Popish Church.) But 
 
17 
 
 although this may be the language we should ex- 
 pect from the disciples of a master who has issued 
 a modern bull of anathema against the Bible So- 
 ciety, and denounced its several supporters as the 
 worst of Heretics, sure I am, as a Layman of the 
 Church of England, (and I will add, as knowing a 
 little of the sentiments by which some of the most 
 valuable and influential Laymen of that Church 
 are guided,) that it would better befit the Clergy 
 of our own pure, because Reformed, Church, (espe- 
 cially at so perilous a moment as the present,) to 
 keep at the utmost possible distance from that 
 species of reasoning which, not merely content 
 with referring the origin of the Bible Society to 
 “a spirit of rivalry,” connects, though perhaps in 
 more measured terms than the priests of Ro- 
 manism observe, the continued support of that So- 
 ciety by Churchmen, with the infusion of a spirit of 
 disunion into that Church, to which they are not 
 more bound by obligation, than attached by af- 
 fection. ; 
 
 But, secondly, I am to consider your assertion, 
 that the “effect of the Bible Society has been to 
 produce a hollow and unreal union between a party 
 in the church and the various sects of Dissenters 
 and Schismatics, to please whom,” (you add,) “all 
 Church of England views as such must necessarily 
 be given up.” It is evident that this supposed 
 ‘party in the Church” can only be intended by 
 you to designate those of its members who choose 
 to support the Bible Society, to whom it is thus 
 
 B 
 
18 
 
 imputed, that for the mere purpose of pleasing the 
 Dissenters and Schismatics, they are content to 
 abandon their own avowed principles, and, with 
 them, to sacrifice the interests of their own Church 
 —a charge I will venture to affirm as destitute of 
 all foundation as the many other reflexions on their 
 supposed erroneous sense of duty with which your 
 pamphlet abounds. 
 
 But let us examine the charge a little in detail. 
 For the purpose of establishing it, you observe 
 that “if the doctrines and discipline of the Church 
 of England be the best for the purposes they are 
 intended for; the best as having divine or apos- 
 tolical authority in their behalf, and the experience 
 of ages to attest their expediency, then, certainly 
 every departure from her doctrine and discipline 
 must be so far an evil, and injurious to the cause 
 professed to be sought,” all which reasoning de- 
 pends of course upon the solution of the primary 
 question, whether the support afforded to the Bible 
 Society by Churchmen be, or be not, such a de- 
 parture as yuu represent it, from their own doc- 
 trines and discipline; and such a departure as 
 necessarily involves the abandonment by them of 
 “all Church of England views ;” and, first, with 
 regard to the doctrines of the Church of England, 
 I deny, in the face of the public, that a single 
 doctrine of the National Establishment is, or need 
 be, renounced, or I will add, is even brought into 
 question by an association with Dissenters, or (if 
 you will,) even with Schismatics, who merely as- 
 
i9 
 
 semble for the specific design of distributing the 
 Bible without note or comment. Our sole object, 
 whether in larger or more select meetings, is this 
 work, and no other; nor does any discussion or 
 conversation, by possibility arise, in reference to 
 our different opinions upon any other point. The 
 great mistake into which you have fallen in this 
 particular, (and in which you by no means stand 
 alone,) is, that the Bible Society is a Rettcrovs 
 Society, and arguing from such mistaken premises, 
 you thence conclude, as a Churchman, that because 
 it is not entirely composed of Churchmen, and 
 sends out no Church of England Tracts, it must 
 therefore needs be injurious to the Ecclesiastical 
 Establishment, and ought not to be countenanced 
 by Churchmen; but the Bible Society is, in fact, 
 no more a religious society than an Institution for 
 education—an Hospital for the Sick—or a Sav- 
 ings Bank for the poor.—In no one of these cases 
 would you, or any other Churchman of benevolent 
 feelings, ever think of inquiring whether Societies 
 having for their specific object the instruction of 
 the mind, the healing of disease, or the improve- 
 ment of the condition of the poor, numbered among 
 their Subscribers and Directors, Churchmen or 
 Dissenters, or both; at all events, you would make 
 it no ground of public objection and censure that 
 they were composed of both these classes, nor 
 deem that their well-meant services were to be 
 deprecated as injurious to the Church of England, 
 and discarded as subversive of her doctrines and 
 B 2 
 
20 
 
 discipline. Permit me to say, without offence, that 
 if after having passed through a British University, 
 you could be supposed to argue so inconsequenti- 
 ally respecting any of our great charitable institu- 
 tions, there is scarcely a candidate for the office of 
 the Christian ministry, though only at present oc- 
 cupying the upper form of one of our public 
 seminaries for education, who would not at once 
 detect the fallacy of such an argument—for how 
 in fact, does the case of our great charities in ge- 
 neral, differ from the great charity of the Bible 
 Society, in particular? The definite and prescribed 
 object of the Bible Society, instead of administer- 
 ing to bodily affliction, or mental improvement, 
 happens to be the distribution of that great specific 
 for the moral and spiritual woes of all who are 
 diseased by sin; without the personal application 
 of which remedy, we profess as Churchmen, to be- 
 lieve that—since all are so diseased—all must in- 
 evitably come short of salvation. In the prosecu- 
 tion of this exclusive object, as the Society no more 
 meddles with questions of ecclesiastical polity, or po- 
 litical expediency, than the governors of the several 
 public hospitals, so we leave those questions, pre- 
 cisely as they do, that is to say, where we found 
 them. As we profess to settle nothimg upon any 
 great controverted points, either in Church or 
 State, so the Church and the public have the best 
 pledge, that we shall unsettle nothing. Perhaps, 
 Sir, you will think the experience of twenty-one 
 years ought to pass for something; and I can 
 
21 
 
 assure you, that having been for that period a 
 Member of the Parent Committee in London, I 
 am enabled to state, that we have not only, as a 
 Society, abstained from interfering, in any way, 
 with the Church of England, but that we never 
 even interfere with each other. 
 
 It is possible, you may think, that during so 
 long a period I ought to have attempted to bring 
 over the Quakers, and other Dissidents, to my 
 own Church; and, so far as I ought, through the 
 medium of the press, or otherwise, to have done 
 something for those whom I conscientiously believe 
 to be in error, I am willing to share all the blame 
 I deserve for having done little or nothing; but 
 still, since no such attempts could have been 
 made by me in the meetings of a Society, whose 
 Members were only pledged to disperse the Bible, 
 and not to change each other’s opinions, on any 
 part of its contents, you will at least enjoy the 
 satisfaction, as a Churchman, of learning, that any 
 Dissenters or Schismatics of the Society have been 
 equally precluded in the same way, and upon the 
 same principles, from attempting to bring our 
 Church Members over from the National Esta- 
 blishment. In the mean time, our work for the 
 British public, and for the world at large, has 
 been going on without interruption; which work 
 would, probably, have stood still, had the consti- 
 tution of the Society permitted us to discuss our 
 mutual differences. 
 
 The broad principle upon which we originally 
 
22 
 
 met was, that although great and acknowledged 
 differences of opinion certainly did exist, and 
 might possibly continue to exist, between us; yet 
 that there was still one principle upon which both 
 the best and the worst of us (without pretending 
 to decide to which among us, in particular, these 
 titles applied) could unequivocally and decidedly 
 agree; and that principle was, the necessity of the 
 Bible to the world, and the duty of distributing 
 it. In this single position, upon which we cozld 
 agree, we consented to merge all the many, and 
 almost endless points, in which we could zoé 
 agree, and hence arose the Society which you are 
 pleased to designate as more or less unnecessary 
 and useless, in its professed object, and which you 
 unequivocally pronounce to be ‘‘ injurious to the 
 Church of England.” 
 
 But, since my humble authority on the sub- 
 ject of danger to the Church may pass (as it de- 
 serves) for little, let us hear the mature judgment 
 of the late Earl of Liverpool upon this particular 
 point: a man whose sincere attachment to the 
 Church of England, and whose perfect knowledge 
 of our political interests entitle him to attention 
 and respect. At the formation of the Isle of 
 Thanet Bible Society (17th October, 1821,) his 
 Lordship said, “he had no hesitation m avowing 
 that the object of the Bible Society was in per- 
 fect accordance with his principles—if for a mo- 
 ment he could consider either the principles or 
 proceedings of that Society as hostile to the re- 
 
23 
 
 ligion of his country, as by law established, he 
 would be the last man in the kingdom to yield 
 it his support, but believing as he did, that the 
 labours of the Bible Society tended to promote 
 Christianity in general throughout the world, and 
 ultimately the pure principles of the Church of 
 England, he felt it his duty to promote its success 
 by all the means in his power. 
 
 ** He was a member of the Society for pro- 
 moting Christian Knowledge. As a member of 
 the Established Church, he felt it his duty to sup- 
 port that Establishment; and he should he most 
 happy if the Liturgy of the Church could always be 
 circulated together with the Bible, because it was 
 his sincere opinion that the Liturgy was the best 
 of all human compositions; but were there not cir- 
 cumstances which rendered the attainment of such 
 an object absolutely impracticable? The opera- 
 tion of the Christian Knowledge Society was 
 limited. The Bible may be circulated where the 
 Prayer Book will not be received, but the Bible 
 may be circulated among all sects and descriptions 
 of persons in Great Britain ; and should we with- 
 hold the Scriptures from any part of our fellow- 
 subjects because they are not at this time prepared 
 to receive the Prayer Book which is founded upon 
 them ? 
 
 “* In Ireland it is quite clear that religious pre- 
 judices must in most cases prevent the Prayer 
 Book being received together with the Bible ; and 
 shall we forego the advantage of circulating the 
 word of God among all classes and all sects in that 
 
24 
 
 country, thus giving them an opportunity of form- 
 ing their conscientious opinions on the Bible, and 
 thereby affording, perhaps, hereafter, the most 
 simple and most effectual remedy to those evils 
 which we all equally deplore? The principles of 
 this Society adapt it, indeed, to convey the word 
 of life to the whole world. Britons have a duty, 
 an important duty, to perform, arising out of their 
 extensive colonies and foreign possessions. As- 
 Christians, we ought to deplore that this duty has 
 been so long neglected! The Bible Society, so 
 far from injuring other Societies which had the 
 same object in view, had been proved to have ma- 
 terially benefited them, and by its exertions the 
 Scriptures had been translated into numerous lan- 
 guages, with even the names of some of which, we 
 were scarcely acquainted. 
 
 ‘« Tf, upon so solemn and important a subject, it 
 could be allowed to feel pride, he should say that 
 he felt a national pride that so extensive—so be- 
 nevolent an institution—an institution which con- 
 veyed the best of blessings to every nation, and to 
 every people, had originated in this country. It was 
 a duty we owed to God who had so benefited this 
 country, by bestowing upon us such innumerable 
 and unparalleled blessings—who enabled us to 
 weather the storm which had so long hovered over 
 us, to surmount the difficulties of one of the most 
 momentous periods in our history, and who had 
 crowned the nation with a glorious peace; it was 
 a duty we owed to Divine Providence, to make all 
 mankind feel that in acknowledging the favours God 
 
25 
 
 had so bountifully bestowed upon us, we were anxi- 
 ous to convey to them the greatest blessing we 
 can bestow, by circulating as extensively as possi- 
 ble the word of eternal life.” 
 
 It appears, Sir, from this extract, that Lord 
 Liverpool did not participate in your fears for the 
 Church of England ; indeed, that so far from ima- 
 gining the Bible Society could do it any harm, he 
 
 anticipates only unmixed advantage to that Church, 
 
 its Liturgy, and its Ordinancés, from the pros- 
 perity of the Bible Society; and deems it an 
 honour to the land of his birth and affections, that 
 it should have raised an institution which he says 
 had been loudly demanded—had been only too 
 long delayed—but was now, in his best judgment, 
 calculated to prove at once a national and universal 
 blessing. 
 
 Your third objection has been, in substance, 
 met by me already. It alledges that “it seems the 
 very object of the Bible Society to obliterate the 
 Catholic primitive and apostolical distinction be- 
 tween those who take upon themselves the office of 
 Christian Ministers, and those who, according to 
 Divine appointment, have had ‘the ministry of 
 reconciliation’ rightly committed to them.” And 
 in a note, you add, that “ Calvin and Knox con- 
 fessedly did not derive their pretended authority 
 for conferring Orders from God, either ordinarily, 
 or extraordinarily,”—notwithstanding all which, 
 you observe, that “ according to one of the funda- 
 mental rules of the Bible Society, all, without dis- 
 
26 
 
 tinction, who choose to call themselves Christian 
 Ministers, are admitted ex-oficzo to be Members 
 of the Committee.” I must, of course, consign 
 the task of discussing the general question of 
 Apostolic Ordination, or the want of it, to those 
 who are in every way better qualified for it; but 
 it should seem to me, that in the natural desire of 
 exalting Episcopal Ordination, you have been led 
 to the employment of terms which cannot be justi- 
 fied upon the principles of truth or courtesy. 
 When, for instance, you speak of all such Minis- 
 ters as want Episcopal Ordination, as “ thrusting 
 themselves wncalled into the office of the Christian 
 Priesthood,” “ taking upon themselves the office 
 of Christian Ministers,” and “ choosing to call 
 themselves Christian Ministers,” it is evident that 
 no stronger terms could be employed of those who 
 without any previous education for the purpose, 
 any separation from secular pursuits, or any de- 
 signation to clerical functions, should at once 
 assume the sacred office, and minister in holy 
 things—a charge which would in no way apply to 
 the great majority of English Dissenters, unless, 
 upon the anathematizing principle which you seem 
 to have adopted from one of the Fathers, you are 
 resolved to hold, that all and every ordination in- 
 ferior to your own, involves what he calls “ the 
 atrocious guilt of schism ;” while he asserts, that 
 “ those who are thus guilty, cannot have valid sa- 
 craments, and that all their acts are nullified.” 
 
 Without-entering upon the general question of 
 
27 
 
 the validity of other Orders than our own, I con- 
 ceive that you are in no way justified in this at- 
 tempt to unchristianize the Churches of Geneva 
 and Scotland, by inveighing, in such unmeasured 
 terms, against what you term “the pretended au- 
 thority”.of Calvin and Knox; and still less, when 
 you choose to take for granted, that such authority 
 was “not derived from God, either ordinarily or 
 extraordinarily,” a ban of exclusion, which would 
 equally apply to Lutheran ordination, and indeed 
 to every other species of orders not strictly in 
 the direct line of Episcopal succession. There 
 is a hardness about this decision in our own fa- 
 vour, to the contempt and exclusion of all others, 
 which must equally, if followed to its necessary 
 conclusions, close the door against such names 
 as Watts and Baxter, Doddridge and Calamy, 
 Henry and Howe, in former times; and Hall, 
 Winter, Jay, Chalmers, Gregory, and a multi- 
 tude of ministers of undoubted piety in our own 
 times, whose labours have been too manifestly 
 blessed by the Almighty in the conversion of 
 lost sheep, and in the edification of the true 
 fold, to permit us for a moment to come to your 
 conclusions, either as to the character of their 
 commission, or the value of their services, when 
 you deliberately class all those, who are not ex- 
 pressly appointed to the sacred office, precisely in 
 the same way as yourself, among the ancient He- 
 resiarchs, ‘‘ Corah, Dathan, and Abiram.” When 
 you are pleased to esteem their call unholy, and 
 
28 
 
 their labours invalid, we must be permitted to 
 pause before we can adopt conclusions so strongly 
 savouring of the pharisaical language of “ Stand 
 by thyself, I am holier than thou,” and so calculated 
 to remind us of the ancient interrogatory, ““ Who 
 art thou, that judgest another man’s servant?” Re- 
 membering the numerous instances which occur 
 both m sacred and profane history, to prove that 
 authority, however legitimate, may become a mat- 
 ter of vain confidence, and utter uselessness, 
 equally to the discredit of him who holds so re- 
 sponsible a trust, and to the injury of those for 
 whom it is administered, we must needs consider 
 such undue glorying as neither befitting the place 
 from which it emanates, nor the times in which it 
 is preferred. I contend, however, that, whether 
 your views as to dissenting orders be correct or 
 not, the subject of their validity or invalidity is 
 not brought into question by the Bible Society ; 
 no one of whose members, whether clerical or lay, 
 is called to pronounce, or does in fact pronounce, 
 upon the point in dispute. There is indeed, at 
 first sight, something specious in the position, that 
 in calling a Dissenting Minister by the title of 
 “¢ Reverend,” the Pastor of the National Esta- 
 blishment does, zpso facto, recognize his claim to 
 the ministerial office, so as to preclude himself 
 from the power of afterwards disputing it; but 
 this is a sophism which will not bear a minute 
 examination. It may be true, that the common 
 courtesies of civilized life require that one exer- 
 
29 
 
 cising ministerial functions, however appointed to 
 them, should receive a different designation than 
 the generality of his neighbours, but it does not 
 therefore follow, that any one who may concede 
 the title of “ Reverend,” in compliance with the 
 ordinary usages of society, does therefore any 
 more bind and pledge himself to the validity of 
 Dissenting Orders, than he does to prove that 
 every man to whom he addresses a letter is an 
 Esquire, because he calls him so. A scholar, who 
 looks to the etymology of words, will not require 
 to be informed that the term “ Reverend” does not 
 necessarily describe the nature of the call under 
 which Ministers may be acting, but is simply, as 
 Dr. Johnson defines it, ‘‘ the honorary epithet of 
 the Clergy.” Indeed, the primary sense of the 
 term is stated by our great Lexicographer, as 
 ‘“< venerable, or deserving reverence ;” in proof of 
 which senses, he quotes Shakspeare, who both 
 speaks of holding a person “ in reverend esti- 
 mation,” and also of ‘‘ REVEREND and gracious 
 senators,” neither of which personages could have 
 been supposed by Shakspeare to have taken Or- 
 ders either in or out of the Church of England ; 
 and in further confirmation of this view, Johnson 
 quotes Milton’s lines— 
 
 “ A Reverend Sire among them came, 
 Who preach’d conversion and repentance.” 
 
 But it nowhere appears that the Sire so described 
 by Milton had any better title to the term of “ Re- 
 
30 
 
 verend,” than that he “ preached conversion and 
 repentance ;” and certainly Dr. Johnson did not 
 understand the term as descriptive of the character 
 of his ordination. 
 
 Perhaps a little anecdote which was once com- 
 municated to me, may serve to illustrate the point 
 in hand. In a parish, not far from London, lived 
 two ministers, each named Brown, one bemg a 
 Dissenter, the other of the Establishment. The 
 Churchman one day received a letter, directed to 
 the “Reverend J. Brown,” but really mtended for 
 the Dissenter, and discovering, on opening it, that 
 it was not meant for himself, he immediately sent 
 it to the Dissenting minister, with the following 
 note :—“ Sir, If you had not assumed the title of 
 ‘ Reverenp,’ to which you have no lawful claim, I 
 should not have been troubled with this letter.— 
 I remain, Sir, &c.” The unfortunate Dissenter 
 took no notice of this untoward event, at the time, 
 but soon afterwards, receiving, by mistake, a parcel 
 of manuscript sermons, which were evidently in- 
 tended for the use of his learned brother, he trans- 
 mitted them to him, with the following note :— 
 «« Reverend Sir, If you had not assumed an office 
 for which, it should seem, you are not entirely qua- 
 lified, I should not have been troubled with these 
 Sermons. I am, Reverend Sir, &c.” Now, 
 while I cannot altogether justify a retort which 
 savours too much of the spirit of returning evil for 
 evil, I suppose you will as little desire to justify 
 the attack which occasioned it, and may, perhaps, 
 
31 
 
 from so simple a story, learn to estimate the incon- 
 venience inseparable from some of the statements 
 which you have thought it necessary to advance 
 against those whom you consider the “ Corahs, 
 Dathans, and Abirams,” of the present age. 
 
 As a further reason for feeling such alarm at 
 the association of those whom you term soz-disant 
 ministers with the ministers of the Church of Eng- 
 land for a specific object of Christian charity— 
 you state that the Bible Society “ professes chiefly 
 to have in view the conversion of the Heathen,” 
 and thence contend that “all such advantages 
 must at once be given up by a Society which 
 admits the unauthorized teachers of Quakers, Bap- 
 tists, Independents, and the thousand and one 
 varieties of Dissenters, to an equal footing and 
 authority with a lawful and Apostolical Minis- 
 try,” and you express your surprise that any 
 Ministers, “ rightly ordained,” (especially our 
 Bishops,) can submit to such “‘a degrading amal- 
 gamation.” The short reply to this is, that even 
 if the Society could be proved by its association 
 with all classes of persons, to stand in the way of 
 converting the Heathen, (an effect so little likely to 
 follow from the plan of the Society, that the direct 
 reverse might be rather anticipated, and has ac- 
 tually happened,) still the Society has only to 
 point to its original constitution, and to inform 
 you, that you are (however unintentionally) en- 
 tirely misrepresenting its object, when you affirm 
 that object to be “chiefly the conversion of the 
 
32 
 
 Heathen :” its chief object is the circulation of 
 the Bible; and all other good, of whatever kind, 
 (whether the conversion of the Heathen or of no- 
 minal Christians,) is purely incidental and colla- 
 teral. Never, of course, losing sight of the im- 
 perative call and claims of the unenlightened 
 Heathen, who are without the Scriptures, and 
 for whom the Bible Society has provided with 
 unexampled liberality ; that Society is yet in no 
 primary sense a Missionary Society, and only 
 so far partakes of such a character as it may 
 please the Great Head of the Church to bless 
 the dispersion of the Bible abroad as well as at 
 home. With regard to those few Bishops of our 
 Protestant Church, (and would they were more nu- 
 merous!) whom you suppose to be degraded by 
 presiding at the meetings, or forwarding the objects 
 of this Society, they may be safely left to a better 
 defender than myself; but as Dr. Hodgson, the 
 Dean of Carlisle, and Rector of St. George, Han- 
 over Square, (himself a lover of the Society,) ap- 
 pears to me to have so described thesentiments of the 
 late Bishop of London, (Dr. Porteus,) as to supply 
 the best defence of all successive Bishops who may 
 patronize the Bible Society, I will here transcribe 
 his remarks: “ The Bshop saw” (says his_ bio- 
 grapher) “ that a design of such magnitude, which 
 aimed at nothing less than the dispersion of the 
 Bible over every accessible part of the world, could 
 only be accomplished by men of all religious per- 
 suasions; and he looked forward to great results 
 
33 
 
 from such a combination of efforts. He enter- 
 tained the hope that it might operate as a bond of 
 union between contending parties, and that by 
 bringing them together in one point of yast mo- 
 ment, about which there could hardly be a diversity 
 of opinion, it might gradually allay that bitterness 
 of dispute, and put an end to those unhappy divi- 
 sions which have so long tarnished the credit of 
 the Christian world.* Whilst, therefore, he re- 
 mained firmly attached to the original Society for 
 Promoting Christian Knowledge, whose exertions, 
 as far as its limited sphere allowed, no one ever 
 held in higher estimation, he gave, at the same 
 time, the sanction of his influence, without scruple, 
 to the new one; and the more he considered its 
 object, and the longer experience he had of the 
 spirit and principles on which it was conducted, 
 the more deeply he was convinced that it merited 
 all the support which the Church of England could 
 give it.” 
 
 * As I have always been led, with the late excellent Bishop, 
 to regard this collateral effect of the Bible Society—the union of 
 parties—as one of very considerable importance to the nation at 
 large, I would remind our Reverend opponent that even profane 
 history may supply us with a hint illustrative of so desirable an 
 object. When Persia invaded Greece, Aristides and Themis- 
 tocles postponed to a future day the adjustment of their respec- . 
 tive differences. Both went in union to the plain of Marathon, 
 
 and went to victory ! 
 
 «« While yet we live—scarce one short hour perhaps; 
 Between us two—let there be peace.”—Milton. 
 i c 
 
34 
 
 After this, can it be necessary to remind you 
 and your younger readers, that the Society has (in 
 addition to Bishop Porteus) enjoyed the unqua- 
 lified support of such Prelates as the late Bishops 
 of Durham, Bangor, Bristol, Sodor and Man, Sa- 
 lisbury, Kildare, Meath, and Cloyne; and of the 
 present Bishops of Salisbury, Lichfield and Co- 
 ventry, Chester, Winchester, and Norwich; a list 
 which, I suppose, might be easily enlarged, did 
 my time for reference permit? Or will it still be 
 contended by you, that these distimguished men 
 were so ignorant of their own duty, and so regard- 
 less of the interests of their own Church, as to 
 merit the public stigma which cannot but attach to 
 their names, if the arguments of your pamphlet 
 are tenable ? 
 
 I now come to your fourth objection, which you 
 state yourself to “ urge simply as a Christian, 
 against a Society which, though professing Chris- 
 tian objects, can so far forget its principles, as to 
 receive for Christzans those who deny the funda- 
 mental doctrines of our religion, and admit to the 
 honour of the Christian ministry the self-appointed 
 teachers of Infidels ;” and you then (most correctly) 
 profess yourself to have “learnt from the Word of 
 God to believe, and to hold dearer than life, the 
 fundamental articles of the Christian faith: to wit, 
 the existence, in the unity of the Godhead, of three 
 persons of one substance, power, and eternity, 
 Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; and the incarnation 
 of the Son of God, and the divinity of the Sa- 
 
35 
 
 viour of mankind, which alone could make his 
 vicarious sufferings available for the sins of the 
 world ;” in which profession of your creed, I most 
 entirely and unequivocally agree with you. The 
 only difference between us, in this particular, is, 
 that you persist in regarding the Bible Society as 
 intended to establish a test of orthodox doctrine, 
 which it assuredly never professed to do, but only 
 to circulate the Bible; and you equally persist in 
 deeming those persons of your own communion, 
 the enemies of the true Church, and the abettors 
 of heterodoxy, who join such persons as may be of 
 unsound faith, in forwarding that circulation ; 
 while I maintain, that in uniting for such a pur- 
 pose, there is no compromise of principle, on the 
 part of real believers, so Jong as they possess the 
 undoubted security that the pure and unmixed 
 word of God alone (without note or comment) is 
 all that the Society can distribute. It is here, I 
 apprehend, that the fallacy of your argument must 
 at once appear. You suppose the necessity of a 
 test, which never was intended to exist in the case 
 of the Bible Society ; and not finding that test in 
 action, you unreasonably complain that the Society 
 is opposed to the fundamental doctrines of the 
 Bible, while its Church members are equally op- 
 posed to their own recorded principles. The So- 
 ciety never meant to provide the test in question, 
 because it no more set itself to oppose Socinianism, 
 eo nomine, than to oppose Popery; no more in- 
 tended, as a Society, to set up the Church of Eng- 
 c2 
 
36 
 
 land, or any other Church, than to put down any 
 modification of dissent; and never even designed 
 the inculcation of any particular truths, however 
 essential or momentous in themselves, except as 
 the Sacred Records might impart them to all. 
 
 The Bible Society took a specific ground from 
 its commencement, and that was, to disperse the 
 Word of God himself, not only without deciding 
 upon any part of its contents, but with the most 
 positive and irreversible prohibition against any 
 human comment which could ever accompany it. It 
 is evident that no pretence can be alledged for the 
 Society having violated this its origmal pledge in 
 any degree, nor indeed do you attempt to establish 
 such a charge; but only to show that having been 
 wrong, ab znztio, in not adopting such restrictive 
 laws as, we believe, must have crippled its ener- 
 gies, and limited its operations; therefore, all its 
 Church members must be wrong also, while only 
 those Churchmen who avoid and oppose it can be 
 right. 
 
 In reference to the doctrine of the ever-blessed 
 Trinity, it is impossible that you can regard it as 
 more essentially necessary to salvation than my- 
 self. It was my happiness, in early life, indepen- 
 dently of ecclesiastical and parental instruction, to 
 meet with the invaluable Treatise of Mr. Jones, on 
 “The Catholic Doctrine of the Trinity ;”* whose 
 
 * A cheap form of this Tract is published at Rivington’s, by 
 the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge. 
 
37 
 
 object was far less to state his own opinions, or 
 those of others, than to let the Scriptures speak 
 for themselves by the most felicitous and unanswer- 
 able assemblage of passages, in juxta-position, 
 that was perhaps ever offered to the public. I 
 feel with you, Sir, that this is a doctrine which lies 
 at the root of all vital religion, and hope, with you, 
 to “hold it dearer than life.” It is, however, 
 precisely because I thus esteem it, that I am at 
 least as anxious as yourself for the extended circu- 
 lation of the Bible, although 1 feel less solicitous 
 than you do about the channel through which the 
 precious boon is conveyed to a lost and perishing 
 world. So far from being terrified that some few 
 Socinians (and few, indeed, comparatively they 
 are!) can be found to join in this work, or deterred 
 from pursuing it on their account, I am only asto- 
 nished at their manifest inconsistency, and induced 
 to admire the overruling and restraining provi- 
 dence of God in bringing so much good out of 
 evil, by permitting these unlikely instruments to 
 publish such a testimony against themselves, as is 
 furnished by the only perfect refutation of their 
 own heresy. 
 
 Perhaps there is hardly a more singular phe- 
 nomenon in the history of the Bible Society, 
 than the unexpected consent of certain Socinians, 
 scattered throughout England, to the distribution 
 of the authorized version of Holy Scripture ; 
 but so long as it is, and can be, no other ver 
 sion, I not only behold without emotion, the case 
 of an individual thus committing a species of 
 
38 
 
 moral felo-de-se on his own infidelity; but can 
 even contemplate, with as little anxiety, a case 
 recently denounced by another alarmist, among 
 our more professed friends,* namely, that of a 
 Socinian actually holding office as the Secretary of 
 an Auxiliary Bible Association. Far, indeed, from 
 saying that I should have concurred in his election, 
 or that I would not readily have joined in effect- 
 ing his retirement; (which, I believe, in the case 
 alluded to, actually took place ;) yet what, I would 
 ask, at the worst, could have happened, in such a 
 case? Why, that a professed unbeliever had, by 
 attaining office, acquired more extensive means of 
 overthrowing his own abominations, than he pos- 
 sessed before; and while he professed to hold 
 that the Articles and Liturgy of our Church had 
 no right to maintain the essential Deity and atone- 
 ment of the Saviour, was infatuated enough to 
 outrun his fellow Socinians in circulating the very 
 Book, which you and I alike believe, does fully 
 prove the Church formularies to be according to 
 truth, and all Socinianism to be “a lie,” and from 
 ‘* the father of lies.” . 
 
 When you further apply to the general Associa- 
 tion of Churchmen with Socinians for the circulation 
 of the Scriptures, the text of St. John, “If there. 
 come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, 
 receive him not into your house, neither bid him 
 God speed ; for he that biddeth him God speed, is 
 partaker of his evil deeds ;” I must be permitted 
 to doubt how far this application can be justified. 
 
 * The Rev. H. M‘Neile. 
 
39 
 
 LT humbly venture, as a Layman, to suppose an es- 
 sential difference to exist between the intimacy of 
 domestic intercourse, and the merely official asso- 
 ciation which is required for the public purpose of 
 promoting some definite object which parties may 
 have in common, without knowing much, or per- 
 haps any thing, about each other elsewhere, and 
 without maintaining any such familiar intercourse 
 as is prohibited by the Apostle. Permit me to 
 add, without offence, that the chief mistake into 
 which you appear to have fallen, is neglecting to 
 distinguish between public duty, and social com- 
 munication—_between the official connexion of per- 
 sons who never meet out of a committee-room, and 
 of those who are in the constant habit of personal 
 friendship and communion. I may join, and in 
 point of fact, do join, with others for the promotion 
 of an object, in the accomplishment of which we 
 can both completely unite, while we probably could 
 hardly agree as cordially upon any other topic, and 
 while we even amicably avoid a nearer acquaint- 
 ance, not in any unkindness, and much less in any 
 hostility, but as mutually conscious that our gene-- 
 ral sentiments and habits of thinking are entirely 
 dissimilar. Until, therefore, you can show that 
 your brethren of the Church of England are ac- 
 tually receiving all sorts of people to their houses, 
 and bidding them ‘‘ God speed,” you have no 
 right to conclude them to be “partakers of their 
 evil deeds.” Be assured, Sir, that your brethren 
 of the Church of England, (both lay and clerical,) 
 
40 
 
 have learnt to distinguish (although you may not) 
 between three distinct classes which compose the 
 Bible Society. Ist. Their own colleagues of the 
 Church of England, who maintain the Scripture 
 doctrine of the Trinity. 2dly. The Orthodox 
 Dissenters, who equally hold fast this fandamen- 
 tal article of our common faith. And, 3dly, the 
 truly pitiable Socinian, who “< rejects the counsel of 
 God against himself.” To the two first of these, 
 we gladly aecord the right hand of Christian fel- 
 lowship, without hesitation, it being only necessary, 
 in those cases, to distinguish between doctrine and 
 discipline, but not necessary, on account of a mere 
 difference in discipline, to set at nought our bro- 
 ther, who “holds the head,” and is equally a par- 
 taker with us of the free grace of God in Christ 
 Jesus. To the third class, we do no more than 
 award those ordinary courtesies of life which are 
 necessary to the very existence of society; but we 
 hold no such union as you would represent; we 
 abandon no principle in deference to error, and 
 indeed are so far removed from partaking in the 
 evil deeds of others, that we are not merely con- 
 tent with propagating the truth we love, but, by 
 means of the very association which you condemn, 
 do more effectually neutralize and diminish the 
 error we deplore. 
 
 I humbly apprehend that the other text which 
 is quoted by you against our official associating for 
 the distribution of the Bible, will as little bear the 
 interpretation for which you contend, since the 
 
4l 
 
 passage, “‘what concord hath Christ with Belial, 
 or what part hath he that believeth with an in- 
 fidel?” can, it should seem, be abundantly shown 
 from the context, and parallel passages, to intend, 
 at all events in its primary sense, associations with 
 Idolaters and Heathens for religious purposes, and 
 all such affinities and connexions with them as are 
 so often denounced in the Word of God. Hence 
 the Apostle goes on to ask, “‘ What agreement hath 
 the temple of God with idols ?” which is again fol- 
 lowed by the charge, “‘ Wherefore come out from 
 among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, 
 and touch not the unclean thing.” Should it, 
 therefore, even be conceded to you, that “ to him 
 that esteemeth” our particular Association to be 
 thus “unclean, to him it is unclean,” we should 
 still have a right to claim for ourselves, that the 
 peculiar circumstances of difference between these 
 cases be fairly appreciated, before we are con- 
 demned as abettors of infidelity ; and that the con- 
 sideration on which I have found it necessary to 
 dwell so long, of our holding no further fellowship 
 or friendship with the advocates of error, than is 
 necessary to the dispersion of truth, should be al- 
 lowed to possess its full weight in the scale of 
 argument. 
 
 I would further suggest, that it is not a fair 
 statement of that argument, when you assert that 
 the ‘‘ principle of getting the Socinian’s money to 
 be employed against them is a base principle, and 
 finds no countenance in the Bible;” for, “when” 
 
42 
 
 (you ask) ‘‘ was it ever known that the association 
 with evil men, or the money of sinners, brought a 
 blessing with it, and not a curse?” To which I an- 
 swer, that if my views of the real character and 
 extent of the “association” really subsisting with 
 Socinians be correct, and can be justified upon 
 Scripture principles, this question will already 
 have been abundantly answered; and with regard 
 to any supposed baseness in employing ‘the money 
 of sinners” against themselves—a short maxim of 
 our law affords an effectual answer—“ Volenti et 
 scienti non fit injuria.” Our Society is purely 
 voluntary—no man is taken by surprise, or allured 
 by false colours—he knows the terms on which he 
 becomes a member, and when a Socinian, after 
 paying his guinea, finds our Bible, and not his 
 Bible, in circulation—he knows that we do him no 
 wrong, because the terms of our original contract 
 permitted no other employment of his contribution, 
 I apprehend that the same principles of reasoning 
 will apply with equal force to the well-known case, 
 which you cite from Eusebius, of St. Jobn imme- 
 diately quitting the bath in which Cerinthus the 
 heretic was found; for—not to observe upon the 
 ‘superior obligation which might appear to render 
 so public a protest necessary, on the part of St, 
 John, in the very infancy of the Church, and in the 
 case of so early a heretic,—the example you ad- 
 duce appears in no way analogous to the instance 
 to which you would apply it; because there is no 
 evidence of any desire existing on the partof 
 
43 
 
 Cerinthus, or his abettors, to disperse the Scrip- 
 tures, or to aid those who were so minded. Ad- 
 mitting, therefore, the truth of the anecdote— 
 which I am far from disputing—we have in it, so 
 far as appears, a case of unmixed and unques- 
 tionable evil, with no redeeming quality to recom- 
 mend (I will not say evil,—for that must continue 
 the same, and be alike pernicious, and equally 
 to be shunned,—but to recommend) such a secular, 
 and as I think legitimate, use of an evil man, as 
 we all admit to be justifiable when we take his 
 subscription to an hospital for the sick, an asylum 
 for the houseless, or, for aught I know, for the 
 building of a new church. 
 
 Under these obvious circumstances of distinction 
 between the two cases, I apprehend it may be 
 quite possible that St. John was abundantly justi- 
 fied in the public protest he is supposed to have 
 made against the first heresy, without such a fact 
 necessarily proving that modern heretics are not 
 to be permitted to assist in the righteous cause of 
 dispersing the Bible; or that they who so permit 
 them, are, at the same time, abettors of their 
 heresy, and unmindful of their own obligations. 
 
 But you further ask, “ At what price is the 
 money of Socinians to be obtained?” And you 
 answer your own question, by alledging that, “ the 
 price of the condition is forbearing to supplicate 
 the blessing of the Almighty upon the under- 
 taking, because, forsooth, the prayer which a 
 Christian might offer would be offensive to the un- 
 
44 
 
 believing brethren. So that,” you add, “ the 
 Bible Society would rather go without asking 
 God's blessing, than lose the pounds, shillings, and 
 pence of those who blaspheme Christ, and begins 
 by renouncing Christianity-as the means of pro- 
 moting it.” This paragraph has reference to a 
 late attempt on the part of some of our most 
 esteemed members of the Establishment, to intro- 
 duce prayer at our meetings, although no such 
 custom is enjoined, or has prevailed, from the 
 origin of the Society; to which proposal some ob- 
 jection has certainly been intimated on the part of 
 other members, but without any decision having as 
 yet been adopted on the subject. It is not, how- 
 ever, a fair statement of the question to affirm that 
 the objection to the introduction of prayer at this 
 late period of the Society’s existence (if such ob- 
 jection should eventually be deemed valid) has its 
 source in any unchristian deference to unbelievers, 
 so much as that it is founded upon an opinion that 
 -while such a practice is not enjoined by the con- 
 stitution of the Society, so neither is it justified by 
 precedent, and therefore may be more or less re- 
 garded as an innovation upon an existing system. 
 Individually, I feel no hesitation in adopting the 
 practice of prayer as good in itself, and in accord- 
 ance with the practice of kindred institutions; but 
 I claim for myself, and for other Churchimen, that 
 if, in the future discussion of this subject, we should 
 see cause to think, that, upon the whole, more evil 
 than good would be likely to arise to the Institu- 
 
45 
 
 tion, and to the cause it advocates, by adopting 
 the proposed alteration, we may not be considered 
 as objecting to the proposal in consequence of any 
 unworthy abandonment of principle, or any un- 
 christian compromise with error, but simply be- 
 cause we deem it more correct and more safe, 
 under all circumstances, to adhere to our original 
 regulations, and our uniform practice, than to 
 hazard the peace of the Society by a change which 
 no one will deny to be the introduction of a new 
 measure, and which, as such, (however otherwise 
 desirable,) may possibly, if adopted, produce an 
 injurious effect upon the Society at large. If, 
 upon the mature deliberation of this interesting 
 question, the result of our best judgment should 
 happen to be, that it would not be adviseable to 
 alter a practice of some twenty-five years’ stand- 
 ing, you will have no right, either upon the princi- 
 ples of Scripture, or of sound logic, to predicate of 
 any of the members of the Bible Society, that they 
 “‘ would rather go without God’s blessing, than 
 lose the pounds, shillings, and pence, of those who 
 blaspheme Christ ;” and quite as little right to 
 charge us with the non-sequitur of “ renouncing 
 Christianity as the means of promoting Chris- 
 tianity.” With what colour of justice, or regard to 
 decency, I would ask, does a Minister of the Church 
 of England thus denounce myself and others, in 
 the face of the world, as abandoning the religious 
 profession which we hold in common with himself, 
 
16 
 
 and as apostatizing from the faith of the Reformed 
 Churches in general, by our conscientious support 
 of the Bible Society? Let him assure himself, 
 that, as the tolerant principles of his own Church, 
 when rightly understood, will not bear him out in 
 such unmeasured assertions, so neither must he 
 louk for any support or sympathy on the part of 
 the nation at large, with whom the cause of the 
 Bible Society is deservedly a popular one, and 
 whose attachment to the national Establishment is 
 far more likely to be weakened than mereased, by 
 the pursuit of such a mistaken policy on the part 
 of its professed adherents. 
 
 Having satisfied yourself that the association of 
 Churchmen with any others than those of their 
 own communion is indefensible, you next imagine 
 that you see, in what you suppose the impotence 
 and inefficiency of the Bible Society, a proof of 
 the wrath of God being in actual operation against 
 those who are thus joined with Infidels; and you 
 deem it no matter of surprise, but rather a neces- 
 sary consequence, that ‘“‘ when Christians join 
 themselves to those who deny the divinity of the 
 Saviour, and neglect God for their sakes, the 
 anger of the Lord should be kindled, and he should 
 refuse to bless their endeavours—that where they 
 look for much, it should come to little, and that 
 the Lord of Hosts should blow upon a Society, 
 whose apparent object, and practical effect, are to 
 undermine the foundations of Christianity, by an 
 
AT 
 
 unholy league with Freethinkers and Infidels.”* 
 And you add, “ Surely, when we know these 
 things, we have got a clue to the otherwise unac- 
 countable fact, that, in proportion to its resources, 
 this Society is notoriously the most inefficient that 
 ever existed. There is much talk, but little busi- 
 ness, great show and parade, with really scarcely 
 any thing effected,” &c. Now, perhaps, if there 
 be any one part of your work less tenable than 
 another, it is this gratuitous assumption—for it 
 makes no pretences to proof—that the Bible So- 
 ciety is almost inefficient, and all but effete; and 
 that all this is the necessary consequence of its 
 having fallen under the weight of the Divine dis- 
 pleasure. 
 
 Let us now see how the fact really stands. The 
 Society is actually engaged at the present moment 
 im promoting the translation, printing, or distri- 
 bution of the Scriptures, or portions of them, in 
 more than one hundred and forty different lan- 
 guages and dialects. During the twenty-five years 
 of its existence, it has circulated above six millions 
 of copies of the Scriptures, and expended upwards 
 of one million six hundred thousand pounds. In 
 England the Society has published, at its own 
 expense, the Bible, or integral parts of it, in thirty- 
 one languages. One edition of the Irish Bible, in 
 
 * «<The Bishop,” (Parker) “shows great heat against all 
 those who are of a different way of thinking from himself, without 
 considering that they have as good a right to differ from him, as 
 he has to differ from them.”—Calamy’s Life and Times. 
 
48 
 
 the vernacular character, has been completed, and 
 another is about to be commenced. It has also 
 printed, or extensively aided in printing, the Holy 
 Scriptures on the Continent of Europe, in the 
 French, Basque, Breton, Flemish, Spanish, Jewish- 
 Spanish, Italian, Romanese, German, Bohemian, 
 Wendish, Hungarian, Polish, Lithuanian, Danish, 
 Swedish, Finnish, Lapponese, Icelandic, Samo- 
 gitian, Esthonian, Lettish, Slavonian, Wallachian, 
 Albanian, Russian, Turkish, Tartar-Turkish, Cal- 
 muc, Buriat, Mongolian, Modern Armenian, Car- 
 shun, Syriac, Georgian, Turco-Armenian, and Ar- 
 menian languages. In Asia it has promoted, by 
 liberal and repeated contributions, the translation 
 
 and publication of the Holy Scriptures in Persian, — 
 Arabic, Hindoostanee, Bengalee, Sanscrit, Teloo- 
 goo, Tamul, Malay, Mahratta, Malayalim, Orissa, 
 Seik, Burman, Carnatica, and several other dia- 
 lects: together with two versions of the whole 
 Scriptures in the Chinese, a language understood 
 by, perhaps, one-fifth of the population of the 
 globe, many of whom are resident within the Bri- 
 tish dominions in the East. At Madagascar, a 
 translation of the Scriptures into the Malagasse, 
 has just been completed. In the Society and 
 Georgian Islands, it has aided in printing the 
 Scriptures in the Tahitian language, by repeated 
 supplies of paper; and prospects are opening for 
 the general distribution of the Scriptures through- 
 out the surrounding Islands. In Africa, although 
 the operations of the Society have been chiefly 
 
49 
 
 confined to distributing copies of the Scriptures, 
 furnished from its domestic depository, it has also 
 had the satisfaction of supplying the ancient Church 
 of Abyssinia with an edition of the Ethiopic 
 Psalter, and the Gospels; while the providential 
 acquisition of the version of the entire Scriptures 
 in the Amharic, the vulgar dialect of a larger por- 
 tion of Abyssinia, (of which the New Testament, 
 edited by the Honorary Librarian of this Society, 
 is already printed,) must prove the source of in- 
 estimable blessings to that Christian community. 
 For the use of the inhabitants of Egypt, the 
 Psalter has also been printed in Coptic, and the 
 four Gospels are in the press. A portion of the 
 inhabitants of Western Africa have been furnished 
 with a part of the Scriptures in the Bullom dialect. 
 The Society has also recently taken measures for 
 printing the Gospels in the Namacqua dialect, for 
 the use of tribes inhabiting South Africa. In 
 South America and Mexico, numerous supplies of 
 the Scriptures have been disposed of. At Labra- 
 dor, the New Testament, translated into the Esqui- 
 maux language by the Moravian Missionaries, has 
 been received with gratitude, and is producing 
 abundant fruit. In the language of Greenland, 
 the New Testament has been printed at the charge 
 of this Society, and the copies dispatched to that 
 country have been received by the baptized 
 Greenlanders with delight. 
 
 The principal translations of the Scriptures now 
 carrying on under the auspices, and with the aid 
 
 D 
 
50 
 
 of this Society, are, the Surinam, the Persian, the 
 Curdish, and various dialects of the peninsula of 
 Hindoostan; in the South Sea Islands, the Tahi- 
 tian; in America, the Peruvian, the Mexican, and 
 the Esquimaux ; and in South America, the Na- 
 macqua. : 
 
 The Society has been the means of producing 
 kindred institutions on the continent of Europe, 
 and in the United States of America. These are 
 conducted under the highest patronage, and are 
 supported by individuals of different Christian de- 
 nominations, many of them eminent for piety, 
 learning, and station, in the capitals of Prussia, 
 Sweden, Denmark, Hanover, Saxony, War- 
 temburg, the Netherlands, France, the princi- 
 pal cantons of Switzerland, and in the Ionian 
 Islands. ; 
 
 A Protestant Bible Society in France now occu- 
 pies a distinguished station among similar institu- 
 tions on the continent; and the recent revival of 
 true religion in that great empire is, perhaps, 
 chiefly owing to its exertions. 
 
 According to the latest accounts, the Russian 
 Bible Society had, with its 289 Auxiliaries, 
 Branches, and Associations, undertaken the print- 
 ing of the Scriptures in twenty-seven different 
 languages, of which 861,105 copies of entire Bibles 
 and Testaments, or of separate books thereof, 
 have left the press. An edition of 10,000 
 copies of the Pentateuch, in modern Russ; 
 145,600 copies of the Psalms, and above 100,000 
 
51 
 
 copies of the entire Testament, in the same dialect, 
 (including those of the Slavonic,) have been print- 
 ed: thus have the inhabitants of the vast empire 
 of Russia received, for the first time, a translation 
 of the Scriptures in their native dialect; a work, 
 the benefit of which it is impossible to calculate. 
 In the United States, a National Society has 
 been established at New York, under the title of 
 the American Bible Society, with which no fewer 
 than 598 Auxiliaries are now connected. At Phila- 
 delphia, a similar institution, with various branches, 
 successfully prosecutes the same great object. 
 Turning our eye towards the East, we find 
 that the Society has established itself at Malta, 
 as a central point of great and increasing 
 importance, embracing the Mediterranean, the 
 whole of Greece and its islands, and the once 
 “ Holy Land” itself. In Asia, its cause is 
 aided by the Calcutta, Madras, Bombay, Co- 
 lombo, and New South Wales Auxiliary Socie- 
 ties, and their various branches. In Africa, simi- 
 lar institutions are established at Sierra Leone, 
 the Cape of Good Hope, and the Mauritius ; also, 
 in the British colonies of North America, in Nova 
 Scotia, at Halifax, Liverpool, in Queen’s County, 
 at Pictou, Yarmouth, and Argyle; in New Bruns- 
 wick, at Saint John’s, Saint Andrew’s, in Charlotte 
 County, Fredericton, and Miramichi; and in the 
 Canadas, at Quebec, Montreal, York, Ernest 
 Town, Amherstburgh, and Kingston; and like- 
 wise in the West Indies, at Jamaica, Antigua, 
 Dp 2 
 
52 
 
 Barbadoes, Montserrat; at Berbice, and in the 
 Bermudas.* 
 
 Either, Sir, you cannot have been informed upon 
 what is, and has been thus doing for England and 
 the world, or you have chosen to estimate it for 
 nothing, but I think the Public will not so judge; 
 although these services have not been performed 
 by the two older Societies, because the thing was 
 impossible. “* Non quis sed quals,” will be rather 
 the maxim of general observers ; and should they 
 be disposed to think that the course of unkind 
 reflection, and undue disparagement, which you 
 
 * In reference to the literary services of the Dissenters, com- 
 mon justice requires it to be stated, that the versions into the 
 Chinese language were made by Dr. Morrison and Dr. Marsh- 
 man, who are Dissenters ; that the versions into Sanscrit and 
 Bengalée were by Dr. Carey, a Baptist Missionary; and the 
 versions into several other Oriental dialects, by the same esti- 
 mable man, and his Missionary colleagues, while the London 
 Missionary Society, chiefly composed of Dissenters, conducted 
 the translation into the Otaheitan language. 
 
 We may remember the disparaging inquiry which was once 
 made, “ What do these feeble Jews?” and the conclusion to 
 which the same inquirers afterwards unwillingly came—that the 
 work “ was wrought of God.” (Nehemiah, ch. iv. and vi.) And 
 thence learn that ‘“‘ God hath chosen the foolish things of the 
 world to confound the wise, and the weak things of the world to 
 confound the things which are mighty; and base * things of the 
 world, and things which are despised, yea, and things which are 
 not, to bring to nought things that are; that no flesh should 
 glory in His presence.” (1 Cor. i. 27.) 
 
 * Base, ayevy, kinless things, or such as have lost caste, and 
 are disowned by their fellows as of a meaner stock. 
 
53 
 
 have adopted, is neither just to the Bible Society 
 nor honourable to yourself, I fear you would find 
 it difficult to repel the charge—as having too little 
 observed the injunction, ““ Speak of me as I am— 
 nothing extenuate, nor set down aught im malice” 
 After the enumeration I have given of the success- 
 ful labours of this truly Catholic Association, will” 
 you still assure the British Public that “ there is 
 much talk, but little busmess, great show and 
 parade, with really scarcely any thing effected,” 
 or, after stating its “ operations to be, after all, so 
 nugatory,” will you yet persist im referrmg the 
 alledged failure to the righteous judgment of God, 
 because “ Israel hath jomed himself to Baal Peor,” 
 and thence contend (as you do) that the anger of 
 the Lord has been kindled agaimst such am unholy 
 alliance? Will you still mvite “ the supporters 
 of this Society,” that under the sanctiow of a 
 < Thus saith the Lord of hosts,” to “ consider 
 their ways,” or assert that your objections “ are 
 enough to stagger any man, and to deter him 
 from joming such an Association?” It is under 
 a mature consideration of the proceedings and 
 progress of this Society, and a full conviction 
 that the blessmg of the Almighty has emmently 
 and manifestly rested upor it, from its commence- 
 ment—and, I will add, upon the nation, for its 
 sake,—that I feel assured you cam no more esta 
 blish your statement as to the desertion of the 
 Almighty, than you cam prove such desertion to 
 have been merited. Be assured, Sir, that alle- 
 
54 
 
 gations so destitute of correctness, and so inca- 
 pable of proof, will “ stagger” no man as you 
 expect, and still less (as you anticipate) “ deter 
 him from joining the Association,” unless, in order 
 to spare himself the trouble of inquiry, he should 
 resolve to receive your assurances upon trust. 
 
 The few instances which you select, as evidences 
 of the inutility, or mischief, of the Society's labours, 
 shall now be noticed. 
 
 Ist. You say, we publish <‘ accounts of suc- 
 cessful Missions, where, except the Missionary, 
 there is hardly a Christian to be found.” I have 
 endeavoured to understand the censure intended 
 to be here conveyed, but am not quite sure that I 
 have succeeded. We are no Missionary Society, 
 and, therefore, have no Missions, except you chuse 
 to consider our agency for the specific object of 
 dispersing the Bible, a species of Mission. In 
 pursuing this object, we neither invade the place, 
 nor usurp the functions, of Missionaries, properly 
 so called; and, therefore, we pretend to publish 
 no accounts of the number of Christians in the 
 countries visited, and still less do we adopt such a 
 conclusion as yours, that there is “ hardly a Chris- 
 tian to be found.” We know that many have be- 
 come Christians in every land, from the perusal of 
 the Scriptures, and doubt not that many more will 
 follow ; but we do not affect accuracy as to their 
 numbers, and least of all do we desire to become 
 their judges, and decide’ that there is ‘ hardly a 
 Christian to be found.” 
 
55 
 
 2ndly. You state, that we publish “ accounts of 
 books in large quantities circulated, where, as in 
 the case of those sent to Lisbon, not one was suf- 
 fered to remain.” This bill of indictment may be 
 thus briefly returned, “ not found.” In the year 
 1827, 200 Portuguese Bibles were sent to Lisbon 
 to the care of three persons, one being the Rev. 
 Mr. Payne, the Chaplain of one of His Majesty’s 
 ships: 95 of these were issued, but as they were 
 a Protestant edition, (the Society having then no 
 other,) they were found unsuitable for their parti- 
 cular destination, and the remaining 105 were, in 
 consequence, returned to England. In the course 
 of the same year, there were also sent out to the 
 same individuals, 1400 Testaments of the Roman 
 Catholic version, all of which were duly distri- 
 buted, or sold upon the terms of the Society. 
 And is this, 1 would ask, a fit subject for triumph 
 against the Bible Society, namely, that a few Pro- 
 testant Bibles were necessarily returned from Lis- 
 bon, for no other reason than that they were not 
 such editions as the Roman Catholics prefer? I 
 am willing, Sir, to believe, that had you been 
 aware of this simple fact, you could not have ap- 
 plied it to so perverse a use as you have; but I 
 think I have a right to complain that, with no better 
 information upon a point so easily explained, you 
 should have proved yourself, what Shakspeare 
 somewhere calls, ‘‘ a snapper up of unconsidered 
 trifles,” and that you should have chosen (in your 
 haste to convict the Society) to adjudicate a ques- 
 
56 
 
 tion of this kind without sufficient evidence.* 
 From your statement, as it stands, the inference is 
 unavoidable, that the Portuguese threw back upon 
 us our proffered bounty, because they were in no 
 need of the Scriptures; while, in point of fact, 
 they only rejected a particular edition of the Scrip- 
 tures, which they were precluded from admitting ; 
 but received with open arms, in the very same year, 
 just seven times the number of another edition, 
 more suited to their particular wants, or, if you 
 please, to their particular prejudices. 
 
 drdly. You object, that “ translations of the 
 Scriptures have been undertaken, which, on ac- 
 count of the Unitarian, and other leaven incor- 
 porated into them, are worse than useless;” and 
 you refer, in a note, more particularly to “ the 
 Turkish and Danish translations.” 
 
 With regard to the Turkish translation, it has 
 been abundantly proved, (see “ Facts respecting 
 certain Versions of Holy Scripture, by T. P. Platt, 
 M.A. Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge,”) 
 that not more than a hundred Testaments, at most, 
 had been issued, when certain errors having been 
 discovered, the circulation was suspended, and 
 Professor Kieffer (the Paris editor) was desired to 
 revise the text. He furnished a list of errata, 
 drawn up with scrupulous minuteness, which list 
 was immediately referred by the Society to a Sub- 
 
 * It is a remark of the late Rev. John Newton, that “ zeal 
 without knowledge, is like expedition {o a man in the dark.” 
 
57 
 
 Committee, assisted by a well-known Biblical 
 critic, the Rev. T. H. Horne, the distinguished 
 Author of the “ Introduction to the Critical Study 
 of the Holy Scriptures.” This Sub-Committee 
 found the greater part of the faults pointed out, to 
 be so utterly insignificant, that it would have been 
 quite useless to disfigure the work by noticing 
 them, and a table was drawn up, to be appended 
 to the Testament, containing all that could be con- 
 sidered of the least importance, in number, 49; 
 but even of these, there was not one that appeared 
 directly to affect any single point of faith or prac- 
 tice. Those that appeared to do so, were reme- 
 died in another, and more effectual way, by can- 
 celling the leaves in which they occurred. The 
 leaves so cancelled, were in number, eight. Scarcely 
 any copies having at that time been issued, the ab- 
 surd story which first appeared in the 71st No. of the 
 Quarterly Review, (and to which you would now 
 give fresh importance,) about bundles of leaves 
 having been sent to Turkey to be inserted in copies 
 already in circulation, is neither more nor less than 
 a pure fiction, the falsehood of which is as gross, 
 as the charge which it conveys, is unjust. Inde- 
 pendently of the merit of the Translator of this 
 version, Ali Bey, its style has been elaborately 
 defended by Mr. Lee, the Professor of Arabic in 
 the University of Cambridge. (See “ Remarks 
 on Dr. Henderson’s Appeal on the Subject of the 
 Turkish Version,” 1824.) It is very gratifying 
 to be able to add, that Dr. Henderson himself, who 
 
58 
 
 had thus publicly attacked this translation, ex- 
 presses, in his last pamphlet, his perfect satisfaction 
 with the amended edition of it, which was after- 
 wards published in Paris. It would have been 
 more gratifying, Sir, on your.own account, as well 
 as on ours, had you been acquainted with this fact, 
 before you had gathered up the “ imbelle telum 
 sine actu,” which had already rebounded from the 
 shield of the Bible Society. 
 
 With regard to the Danish teonslaiienl which 
 you instance for the purpose of proving that the 
 “* Unitarian and other leaven incorporated into it, 
 rendered it worse than useless,” the answer is 
 quite as easy as in the case of the Turkish Testa- 
 ment. The Danish Testament was printed at Co- 
 penhagen, and the Committee of the Bible Society 
 in London had no more controul over it, than they 
 had over the Editor of the Quarterly Review, or 
 over yourself, who have inadvertently accredited 
 his statements, after they had been completely an- 
 swered. The Testament in question was printed 
 by the Society at Copenhagen, altogether at their 
 own expense, and according to their own direc- 
 tions. Supposing, therefore, that it had ever been 
 designedly corrupted, still the Bible Society were 
 in no way answerable for it: so far, indeed, was 
 this from being the case, that they ordered a new 
 edition of the Danish Bible to be printed from a 
 copy of the old and standard Danish version, which 
 was transmitted, for the purpose, from their Cor- 
 respondents at Norway. 
 
59 
 
 You also deem it advantageous to your purpose 
 to advert to “ Mr. Haffner’s Preface ;” but it is 
 only with utter astonishment that I observe such 
 an allusion, after the full and satisfactory vindica- 
 tion, which was published in 1826, by the Com- 
 mittee of the London Bible Society, entitled 
 ** Minutes relating to the publication of an edition 
 of the Holy Scriptures, with an Introduction pre- 
 fixed by the Strasburg Bible Society,” under 
 which explanation of the scrupulous caution, and 
 strict adherence to rule, observed by the London 
 Committee, in that matter, I venture to believe that 
 even you would admit, had that defence ever fallen 
 under your notice, that the Bible Society not only 
 stands completely exonerated from all culpability, 
 but may justly prefer a claim to the approbation of 
 the public for the course she pursued during a ne- 
 gociation of no ordinary delicacy and danger. 
 
 I now come to your concluding summary, in 
 which you declare that it is because you are “de- 
 voted to the Church of England, and consider her 
 the purest branch of the Catholic Church, that you 
 forbear from entering a Society which seems both 
 directly and indirectly so injurious to her ;” adding, 
 that you even “feel bound to expose yourself to 
 attack and reproach, by bringing forward these 
 objections to a Society, the tendency of which, it 
 seems to you, is to sap the vital principles of Chris- 
 tianity.” Allowing the fullest credit which you can 
 yourself desire for an opposition, which I am bound 
 to suppose is conscientiously pursued against the 
 
60 
 
 Bible Society, I would yet remind you, that how- 
 ever pure the Church of England may be, she 
 neither claims infallibility for herself, nor recog- 
 nizes the claim in her ministers, or members—that 
 there may be a zeal for Establishments which is 
 “not according to knowledge ;” and therefore that 
 mere zeal for the purest Church on earth, is of 
 itself no certain criterion of attachment to true re- 
 ligion,* and even that many hard things have, ere 
 now, been said and done, ignorantly and in unbe- 
 lief, against the cause of truth, and the people of 
 God, from an overweening attachment to the in- 
 terests of a particular profession, which have sub- 
 sequently appeared, even to the individual objector 
 himself, to have proceeded from a bad spirit, or 
 an erroneous judgment, and to have been con- 
 nected with insensibility to the spiritual necessities 
 and moral interests of mankind. It cannot have 
 escaped you, Sir, that the great apostle of the 
 Gentiles, himself, acknowledges, after his conver- 
 sion, that at a former period he “ verily thought 
 
 * Lord Clarendon, in describing Lord Conway, says, “ He 
 was well able to speak in the affairs of the Church, and took care 
 to be thought, by Archbishop Laud, a very zealous defender of 
 it, when they who knew him better, knew he had no kind of 
 sense of religion.” And the same accurate observer remarks of 
 the Marquis of Newcastle, that “he loved monarchy as it was 
 the foundation and support of his own greatness; and the Church, 
 as it was well instituted for the splendour and security of the 
 Crown; and Religion, as it cherished and maintained that order 
 and obedience that were necessary to both.”—History of Rebel- 
 lion, i. 142. and ii. 508. 
 
61 
 
 with himself, that he ought to do many things con- 
 trary to the name of Jesus of Nazareth;” (Acts 
 xxvi. 9;) nor will you have forgotten that our 
 Lord himself foretold.of those who indulged, to the 
 utmost, their enmity to himself and his cause, that 
 they would actually “ think that they did God ser- 
 vice.” (John xvi. 2.) We cannot forget that, 
 under the ancient dispensation, they who exclaimed 
 most loudly, “The temple of the Lord —the temple 
 of the Lord, are we,” were just any thing but spiri- 
 tual worshippers in that edifice, of whose external 
 beauty and goodly proportions they made so loud 
 a boast, at the very moment when both the temple 
 and themselves were on the verge of ruin; and we 
 cannot but recognize it as a character of the same 
 unhappy individuals, that while they “‘ would not 
 go in themselves, neither would they suffer them 
 that were entering, to go in.” It would, therefore, 
 be well, if every one who is indisposed, from 
 whatever alledged cause, to the Bible Society, 
 would endeavour honestly to ascertain, whether at 
 the bottom of all this indisposition, there do not 
 lurk a latent, though, perhaps, unsuspected, por- 
 tion of indifference to that cause which the Bible 
 Society has most at heart, namely, the conversion 
 of every human soul to God; and, in order to it, 
 the extension of the Redeemer’s kingdom through- 
 out the world. If this, Sir, should appear some- 
 what plain language, let it be remembered, that 
 the occasion which has called for it is peculiar. I 
 think it can be shown that such an attempt as 
 
62 
 
 yours is wholly inconsistent with that Article of our 
 Church, which holds that “ Holy Scripture con- 
 taineth all things necessary to salvation,” that it is 
 equally opposed to the entire Homily, entitled «A 
 fruitful exhortation to the reading and knowledge 
 of Holy Scripture ;” and that it is quite as much at 
 variance with the inestimable prayer of our blessed 
 Lord, that his “ kingdom may come, and his will 
 be done in earth, as it is in heaven,” as well as 
 with the several supplications in the Liturgy—that 
 « His way may be known upon earth, his saving 
 health among all nations,” and that ‘“ the people 
 may praise him; yea, that a@// the people may 
 praise him,”-——that “it may please him to have 
 mercy upon all men, and to bring into the way of 
 truth all such as have erred and are deceived.” 
 That he will be pleased to hear us for “all sorts 
 and conditions of men; tu make his ways known 
 unto them, and his saving health unto all nations,” 
 —and, further, that he may ‘‘ have merey upon all 
 Jews, Turks, Infidels, and Heretics, and take from 
 them all ignorance, hardness of heart, and con- 
 tempt of his word, and so fetch them home to his 
 flock, that they may be saved among the remnant 
 of true Israelites, and become one fold under one 
 shepherd ;” and, finally, that he would “accom- 
 plish the number of his elect, and hasten his 
 kingdom.” 
 
 You affirm, indeed, with all gravity, that you 
 ‘< have no hostility to the Bible Society,” and ask 
 “whence could it arise?” I apprehend that it 
 
63 
 
 would be in vain to deny that such hostility exists, 
 when it can have given birth to a pamphlet, not 
 merely describing the Bible Society as useless to 
 the world, subversive of Christianity, and injurious 
 to the National Establishment, but representing 
 every Churchman, who belongs to that Society, as 
 the associate of Infidels, the abettor of disunion, 
 and the promoter of false doctrine, heresy, and 
 schism. Presuming, then, that your hostility to 
 the Bible Society has unhappily been, by this time, 
 but too well established; without which, indeed, 
 the present attempt to defend that Protestant so- 
 ciety, would be worse than a work of Popish su- 
 pererogation, I would now offer a few suggestions 
 on some of the general causes of opposition to 
 the Bible Society on the part of a certain portion 
 of the Church of England; but without feeling 
 myself called upon to answer, more distinctly, your 
 inquiry as to whence your own opposition in 
 particular may arise. And, first, I apprehend, 
 that mean and derogatory thoughts of the Bible 
 Society primarily spring from an inadequate sense 
 of the value of the blessing it conveys. That 
 blessing, be it remembered, is nothing less than 
 the inspired word of God as opposed to all the 
 errors and traditions of man, whether found in the 
 midnight abominations of heathenism, or the noon- 
 day corruptions of Popery. Let a man once esta- 
 blish it in his mind, that a personal and practical 
 belief in the Revelation of the one living and true 
 God, manifested in a Trinity of Persons, is essen- 
 
64 
 
 tially necessary to the salvation of his creatures; 
 no matter who may be the mediam of their ob- 
 taining it; and he willcome to understand, as he 
 could not do before, that the possession of the 
 Divine testimony is of more indispensable im- 
 portance to a “ world lying in wickedness,” than 
 any subordinate or secondary considerations as to 
 the particular mode or channel through which 
 that Revelation may be conveyed. 
 
 Secondly, Connected with this indifference to the 
 general diffusion of Divine revelation, it is to be 
 feared, there is too often found on the part of those 
 accredited teachers who are opposed to the Bible 
 Society, an inadequate sense of the importance of 
 individual conversion. The change of heart so 
 constantly described in Scripture as the ‘‘ one thing 
 needful,” while all that comes short of it, or can 
 be put in competition with it, sinks into absolute 
 insignificance—the baptism of the spirit—and the 
 being born again*—the being spiritually-minded— 
 and becoming a new creature in Christ Jesus ;—all 
 these designations of character, descriptive, as they 
 severally are, of one and the same supernatural 
 state of things, the effect of that living faith alone, 
 which is of the operation of the Spirit of God.— 
 This doctrine, I say, of the life of God in the soul 
 of man, so far from being universally held and re- 
 cognized, or receiving the prominence to which it 
 
 * “ Better it were never to be born, than not to be born 
 twice.” —Jeremy Taylor. 
 
65 
 
 is entitled, is either never inculcated at all, or re- 
 pudiated at once as so much enthusiasm, by many 
 opponents of the Bible Society. To enlarge on 
 this head would, of course, carry me far beyond 
 my limits; but “ I speak as to wise men,—judge 
 ye what [ say.” 
 
 Thirdly. An incorrect estimate of the importance 
 of the Bible Society may, I apprehend, be traced 
 to an undue exaltation of a national Church, and 
 a standing priesthood, even where that Church 
 may be uncorrupt in doctrine, and, in the main, 
 correct in practice. Most unequivocally as I ad- 
 mit, that, ““ he that believeth and is baptized, shall 
 be saved,” I yet learn from the same passage of 
 holy writ, that, “ he that believeth not,” (whether 
 he be baptized or not,) “ shall be damned.” My 
 feelings of affection towards our own apostolic 
 Church, and my sense of the allegiance I owe her, 
 may, I apprehend, still consist with a conviction, 
 that while neither her sacraments nor ordinances 
 are, of themselves, and of necessity, saving; so, 
 on the other hand, that multitudes will be saved, 
 who, though not of her communion, are yet 
 members of the mystical, spiritual, and invisible 
 Church, for which Christ died. I am not pre- 
 pared so to esteem, even of the pure and reformed 
 Church, of which I have the privilege and happi- 
 ness to form an unworthy part, as to hold with 
 an ancient writer, (except in a very qualified sense,) 
 *< Non habet Deum Patrem, qui non habet Eccle- 
 siam Matrem ;” nor can I believe, with the last 
 
 E 
 
66 
 
 Pope, in reference to my own Church, what he 
 declared to be true of his, namely, that, out of 
 it, there was no hope of salvation, (“ della quale, 
 non vi € speranza di salute.”—See “ Relation de 
 ce qui s’est passé entre le Pape et le Governement 
 Frangois.”—(Keating & Co. 1812.) 
 
 If such are my deliberate convictions, (and I be- 
 lieve those of far better and wiser Churchmen than 
 myself,) as to Church membership generally, you 
 will the better understand why I cannot adopt the 
 summary conclusion which you appear to have 
 formed, that episcopal ordination, (however pri- 
 mitive or apostolical I admit it to be,) is yet the 
 only and the exclusive way, in which God has pro- 
 vided, or is at present providing, pastors and 
 teachers “‘ for the perfecting of the Saints, for the 
 work of the Ministry, for the edifying of the body 
 of Christ ;” because, while the Scriptures have not 
 decided this question, so our Articles (with their 
 characteristic caution on points unsettled in Scrip- 
 ture) have forborne to decide it also; and be- 
 cause the legal establishment of the Church of 
 Scotland, by the Act of Union, has virtually de- 
 cided it against you. Indeed, were it otherwise, 
 as I have already observed, not only would the 
 Scotch and other reformed Churches be at once 
 unchurched, but we must assign the character of 
 pretenders and false-teachers to men on whom 
 God has been pleased to fix the broad seal of his 
 sanction and authority, as well as consign over a 
 large portion of our present population, to what 
 
67 
 
 Dr. Daubeny, in his book against Dissenters, 
 modestly called “ the uncovenanted mercies of 
 God.” 
 
 I acknowledge myself with gratitude indebted, 
 as a layman, to the Rev. Edward Cooper, the 
 Rector of Yoxall, for more than one of the above 
 suggestions, who adds (in his defence of the Bible 
 Society, 1818,) so much to the same purpose, (and, 
 as I think, so ably) that I beg leave to transcribe 
 it.—‘‘ If there be other lawful modes of ordaining 
 Ministers, than that which our Church retains; 
 and if, as the 23d Article of that Church declares, 
 ‘we ought to judge those lawfully called and 
 sent, who are chosen and called to this work by 
 men who have public authority given to them in 
 the congregation to call and send Ministers into 
 the Lord’s vineyard;’ then, I would ask, who is 
 to be judge in these matters? Wéethin the pale of 
 our own Church, we know who are the persons 
 that have public authority given to them for this 
 work; and hence we are confident that such as 
 they ordain to the office of public preaching, or 
 ministering of the sacraments in the congregation, 
 are lawfully called and sent to execute the same. 
 But with respect to those who are without this 
 pale, who, I ask, is to be the judge.’ Who is to 
 decide on the lawfulness or unlawfalness of those 
 proceedings by which any individual who dissents 
 from the form and discipline of our Church, claims 
 to have been chosen and called to the work of the 
 ministry? I know, that if he has separated him- 
 
 E2 
 
68 
 
 self from us without a sufficient plea, and has 
 thrust himself into the sacred office without a law- 
 ful callmg, he is, on these accounts, a sinner be- 
 fore God. But who is to decide on his plea, or 
 on his calling? Am I to erect myself into a judge, 
 and to summon him to the tribunal of my feeble, 
 and perhaps prejudiced, judgment; and having 
 condemned him for a sin, of which God who seeth 
 the heart, may possibly acquit him ; am I, in proof 
 and vindication of my dignity, as a Minister epis- 
 copally ordained, to say, ‘ Stand by thyself; come 
 not near to me, for I am holier than thou ?” 
 
 “Tam not advocating the cause of dissent; I 
 wish from my heart that there were no divisions in 
 the body of Christ, but that all were ‘ of one 
 spirit, and of one mind, striving together for the 
 faith of the Gospel.’ But these things cannot yet be : 
 and since God has thought fit, in his providence, 
 to place me in these troublous times, and to call 
 me to the high and important office of a Minister 
 of his Gospel, in our apostolical Church; I would 
 endeavour, as much as in me lie, to live consis-. 
 tently with that sacred character, and in reference 
 to it, ‘with simplicity and godly sincerity, to have 
 my conversation in the world.’ I wish so to steer 
 my perilous and difficult course, that while, on the 
 one hand, I magnify my office, I may not, on the 
 other hand, degrade the exalted character of my 
 religion. I would not seek needlessly to associate 
 in public with those who differ; but, in the way 
 of duty, I would not shun all occasion of inter- 
 
69 
 
 course with them. And such an occasion the Bible 
 Society presents to me, and enforces upon my 
 conscience. In giving my feeble support to this 
 Society, I believe that I am doing a work pleasing 
 to the Almighty. I believe that I am fulfilling a 
 duty which I owe to my Church, to my country, 
 and to the world at large. In the course of dis- 
 charging this duty, I occasionally associate, for a 
 short time, with those who profess themselves 
 Ministers of Christ, but not of the calling with which 
 I am called. On such occasions, I regard them 
 in the character in which the laws of our country, 
 and, consequently, the laws of our Church, regard 
 them, as persons laying claim to holy orders, 
 tolerated by our statutes, and licensed by them to 
 the office of Ministers. Whether these claims be 
 right or otherwise, falls not within my province, 
 or my power, to decide. If they are erroneously 
 made, my presence cannot sanction an error, ina 
 point on which I am wholly incompetent to de- 
 termine ; and the determination of which, has not 
 the most distant connexion with the objects on 
 "which I have met them. 
 
 “* No imputation is cast on the validity of my 
 episcopal ordination ; no recognition is required 
 from me of the validity of their ordination. On 
 going to the committee room, or to the hall, I 
 make no compromise of principle, even in ap- 
 pearance, in any way. I offend not, either in letter 
 or in spirit, against any one article of my Church. 
 I break no Jaw, or canon which I have subscribed. 
 
70 
 
 I violate no duty which I owe to my ecclesiastical 
 rulers. Iam countenanced by many of my supe- 
 riors, by some of the highest authority in my 
 Church. And when I have transacted the business 
 on which I have attended, I leave the assembly, I 
 trust, uncontaminated by the work in which I have 
 been engaged, or by the persons with whom I 
 have associated. My feelings of affection and 
 gratitude towards my own apostolic Church, and 
 of the duty and allegiance which I owe to her, 
 are not diminished by the circumstance of having 
 been, for a season, in the company of those who 
 dissent from her communion; perhaps they are 
 strengthened and increased by a tacit comparison, 
 suggested by this very circumstance, to my mind, 
 of the superior privileges which, through the 
 mercy of God, I enjoy within the precincts of the 
 Established Church; and of the authorized and 
 undisputed right which she confers on me, to 
 preach the Gospel of the grace of God. 
 
 ““ Judge, then, whether a Clergyman of the 
 Established Church necessarily commits sin, by 
 associating with Dissenters in the Bible Society.” 
 
 4, Another cause of objection to the Bible So- 
 ciety may, perhaps, arise from the want of all due 
 discernment, on the part of its opponents, of the 
 signs of the present times—manifesting itself in a 
 determined adherence to the maxims and habits of 
 thinking which belonged rather to a period of com- 
 parative darkness, both in the Church and the 
 world, than to the present era; and connected 
 
71 
 
 with an inattention to the rapid strides of general 
 knowledge, and the scorching influence of Infi- 
 delity—too often, alas! the result of a high state 
 of mental cultivation, when not under the controul 
 of religious principle; to which considerations 
 may be added, the absence of adequate alarm and 
 anxiety respecting the silent inroads and increasing 
 influence of Popery—that ancient “ enemy of all 
 good”’—and as such, that uncompromising foe to 
 the distribution of the Bible. 
 
 Little more than hints can be thrown out upon 
 these particulars; but it must needs be deplored, 
 that at a period when the great corruption of 
 Christianity has been again brought into counte- 
 nance and credit in the State, and is evidently 
 availing herself (as when did she fail to do?) of 
 her secular advantages, in order to her religious 
 exaltation-—that when the infidel power is more 
 active than ever, in the form of Socinianism, within 
 the visible Church, and of Deism, out of it—that 
 when, with multitudes, a “ philosophy, falsely so 
 called,” is deemed sufficient for themselves, as im- 
 mortal and accountable agents, as well as for the 
 wants of those who are to follow them,—there 
 should, notwithstanding, be found in the midst of 
 such abounding evil, far less care and anxiety on 
 the part of certain Ministers of the Establishment 
 for the revival of true religion, for a larger out- 
 pouring of the Spirit of God, and for the more 
 faithful dispensing of the evangelical doctrines of 
 our Church, than a marked disposition to wage war 
 
72 
 
 with the Bible Society—to designate her Dissent- 
 ing supporters as little, if at all, better than He- 
 retics, and her Church Members as so many Schis- 
 matics in league with others against the national 
 faith | * 
 
 If this should seem too much like the language 
 of recrimination, I can honestly affirm that it is 
 stated much “ more in sorrow than in anger ;” but 
 ‘am I your enemy because I tell you the truth?” 
 Is the proper remedy for the woes and wants of 
 Christendom, an attempt to bring the Bible So- 
 ciety into disrepute with the people of England, 
 after its long and disinterested services at home 
 and abroad? And even supposing that, from con- 
 scientious scruples, any Church Minister should 
 not feel able to co-operate with that Society, would 
 not a decent silence better become him; would not 
 the faithful and affectionate exposition of the Bible 
 itself, accompanied by a practical illustration of its 
 precepts, be more in harmony with his public 
 vocation, than the language of distrust, suspicion, 
 and vituperation, in reference to this Society? 
 
 Denunciations of this nature, when pronounced 
 ex cathedrd, assume an importance with the multi- 
 tude, which, although it may be found on inquiry 
 that they do not deserve, are yet likely to mislead, 
 to no ordinary extent, in a world where inquiry 
 
 * « Generally” (says Matthew Pole, the learned Author of the 
 Synopsis) ‘“ where there is least light, site is most heat”.— 
 Sermon at Cripplegate. 
 
73 
 
 does not always follow assertion, and where many 
 are so much disposed to defer to rank and station, 
 as to imagine that whatever appears with the stamp 
 and impress of authority, is entitled to assent and 
 applause. ‘‘ Most men” (says Lord Clarendon) 
 “< consider more the person that speaks, than the 
 things he says.” ‘The mistakes, therefore, (when 
 they occur,) of persons, who, like yourself, are 
 distinguished by birth or place, are not so harmless 
 as the mistakes of humble individuals of the Laity. 
 «¢ When a man’s pocket watch is in error,” (says 
 Mr. Burkitt,) “it only affects the wearer, but when 
 the town clock goes wrong, it misleads a multi- 
 tude ;” and you, Sir, may perhaps remember that 
 this particular case has not escaped the purview of 
 more classical authority, “ Ita nati estis, ut bona 
 malaque vestra ad rempublicam pertineant.”—— 
 Tac. Ann. 
 
 5. Another cause which some, not inattentive, 
 observers of men and things are disposed to assign 
 for clerical opposition to the Bible Society, may 
 possibly be found in the patronage afforded to 
 those in the Church who have publicly entered 
 the lists against that Society. Certainly the 
 cases, if not numerous, are yet not few, in which 
 a vigorous, and often unprovoked, attack upon 
 our Society has been promptly followed by pre- 
 ferment in the Church, which—however it may 
 have been really referable to other causes—such, 
 for instance, as Sermons against Calvinism,* or 
 
 * The fashion of condemning Calvinism (and frequently what 
 
74 
 
 Pamphlets against Sectaries, has been generally 
 attributed, by public consent, to services of this 
 description. Now, although, the maxim of “ Vox 
 populh, vox Dez,” is far from infallible, yet it was 
 an accurate observer of mankind who said, “ In- 
 
 the objectors choose to call by that name) may be best exposed 
 by an extract from Bishop Horstey. 
 
 «Take care, before you aim your shafts at Calvinism, that 
 you know what is Calvinism, and what is not :—that in that mass 
 of doctrine which it is of late become the fashion to abuse} under 
 the name of Calvinism, you can distinguish with certainty be- 
 tween that part of it which is nothing better than Calvinism, and 
 that which belongs to our common Christianity, and the general 
 faith of the Reformed Churches; lest when you mean only to 
 fall foul of Calvinism, you should unwarily attack something 
 more sacred, and of higher origin. I have found great want of 
 this discrimination in some late controversial writings on the side 
 of the Church (as they were meant to be) against the Methodists, 
 the authors of which, have acquired much applause and reputa- 
 tion, but with so little real knowledge of their subject, that give 
 me the principles upon which these writers argue, and I will 
 undertake to convict of Calvinism—-I will not say Arminius only, 
 and Archbishop Laud,—but the fathers of the Council of Trent: 
 so closely is a great part of that which is now ignorantly called 
 Calvinism, interwoven with the very rudiments of Christianity. 
 Better were it for the Church, if such apologists would withhold 
 their services.”—Charge at St. Asaph, 1806. 
 
 T will add to this, a short extract from the judicious Hooker’s 
 Preface to his Ecclesiastical Polity :— 
 
 « I think” (says he) ‘* Calvin was incomparably the wisest 
 man, the French Church has from his time possessed.” —“ Two 
 things have deservedly enhanced his reputation—his Christian 
 Institutes, and his corresponding expositions of Scripture. In 
 these two points ; whoever laboured after, him, he gained the ad- 
 vantage of prejudice against them, if they gainsayed, and of 
 
75 
 
 terdum vulzus rectum videt ;?* and if it can be 
 shown, that encouragement of this kind has often, 
 or ever, been afforded to those who have chosen 
 to make the Bible Society a stepping-stone to 
 emolument or fame, it is quite in the nature of 
 things that such an incentive should operate as a 
 sort of ‘‘ premium virtutis” to other adventurers 
 in the same field of action.+ I would hope, in- 
 deed, for the credit of my own Church, and of 
 those who are the distributors of its honours and 
 advantages, that a supposition of this nature re- 
 quires better evidence than I profess to have 
 found, or am anxious to discover; but surely the 
 bare probability of subjecting himself to such an 
 imputation, may reasonably be expected to put a 
 minister of our Church upon a very minute inves- 
 tigation of his motives, before he is found combat- 
 ing on the same side with the Popish Priest, to 
 whom I have referred at page 16,—or rowing in 
 the same boat with his master the Pope, who has 
 exhausted all the powers of vituperation, in his 
 celebrated Bull of Anathema against the Bible 
 Society. 
 
 6. Another cause of opposition to the Society 
 
 glory above them, if they consented. What the master of sen- 
 tences (Peter Lambard) was in the Church of Rome, such, and 
 more, was Calvin among the Reformed Churches. Those were 
 judged the most perfect Divines who were skilled in his writings. 
 His books were a canon—his authority was law.” 
 
 * Horace, Ab. ii. Ep. 1. 
 
 + “He had a view” (says Calamy) “of Lambeth, from West- 
 minster; and that was a great temptation !”—Life and Tunes. 
 
76 
 
 may, perhaps, be more certainly found in the ope- 
 ration of prejudice, inducing its opponents to dwell 
 on some minute and inconsiderable inconveniences 
 necessarily attending the management of a Society 
 and its auxiliaries, now nearly covering the face of 
 the globe, but which adventitious and petty cir- 
 cumstances do in no way affect, or touch, the great 
 paramount principles involved in the origin and 
 progress of such an Institution. And all this, 
 alas! to the utter extinction, in their minds, of all 
 adequate sense of the inestimable benefit of such 
 an Institution to the souls of men, and the interests 
 of society. I do not claim for the Society, perfec- 
 tion or infallibility. It is enough to say, that it 
 has men for its conductors and agents—and this 
 alone will be, at once, to charge it with more or less 
 of infirmity; but it shares this disability m com- 
 mon with every human institutiou: and while even 
 a heathen poet has said of our species in general, 
 that he is not the best man who is exempt from 
 faults, but he who has the fewest,* I believe the 
 Society need not fear to institute a comparison, in 
 this particular, with any other Society, of equal 
 age and extent, in any other period, or country, in 
 the world. To exaggerate and inflame such acci- 
 dents and errors as are inseparable from our com- 
 mon frailty, is not the part ofa friend; to rejoice 
 in them, would be the part of an enemy;+ and an 
 
 * «« Nam vitlis nemo, &c.’°—~Hor. Saé. iii. 
 + «For thus saith the Lord God, Because thou hast clapped 
 thine hands, and stamped with thy feet, and rejorced in heart, 
 
aa 
 
 enemy, not of the Bible Society merely, but of all 
 the good which it is atchieving, and of every human 
 being whom it is benefiting. I wish to believe, 
 Sir, that you would not willingly incur so terrible 
 a responsibility: we know where it is declared 
 that the final adjudication will turn upon the good 
 done, or neglected to be done, to others, in this state 
 of probation; and we know who has said, “ Inas- 
 much as ye have done it,” or “ did it not, to one 
 of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it,” 
 or “ did it not, unto me.” 
 
 _ Briefly, then, in recapitulation of my Reasons, 
 as a Layman, for belonging to the Bible Society— 
 and (with all possible respect for your station and 
 character) for thinking that you ought to belong 
 to it also—I observe, in conclusion, that I rejoice, 
 as a Churchman, and an Englishman, in the diffu- 
 sion of the Bible, because I believe, with Lord 
 Bacon, that ‘‘ the Scriptures are the fountains of 
 the waters of life;” and with our Church Article, 
 that “‘ Holy Scripture containeth all things neces- 
 sary to salvation; so that whatsoever is not read 
 therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be 
 required of any man to be believed, as an article 
 of faith, or be thought requisite, or necessary to 
 salvation.” I think, also, that asa general question, 
 the Scriptures should be left to speak for them- 
 selves; although I hope that I am as duly sensible 
 of, and as deeply grateful for, the commentaries of 
 
 with all thy despite, against the. land of Israel. Behold, there- 
 fore, I will stretch out my hand upon thee, &c.”—Ezek. xxv. 6,7. 
 
78 
 
 the learned, and the pious, as any one. And this 
 consideration appears important, not merely be- 
 cause no general Society could ever agree upon 
 what Notes should appear, but because the Church 
 of England, both in her Articles and Formularies, 
 disdains the trammels of any exclusive system ; 
 for as the late Rev. W. Richardson (of York) 
 observed, “ In the perpetual controversy between 
 Calvinists and Arminians, both sides go beyond 
 the line of simple truth, in order to make their 
 respective systems complete ; but the Church of 
 England, agreeably to Scripture, holds the Cal- 
 vinistic doctrine of Election, and the Arminian 
 doctrine of General Redemption, as is plain from 
 her explanation of the Creed, in the Catechism, 
 where ‘I learn to believe in God the Son who 
 hath redeemed me, and all mankind, and in God 
 the Holy Ghost who sanctifieth me, and all the 
 elect people of God.’” 
 
 I further believe, that no efforts made by the 
 Christian world, even at the present moment, (and 
 how much less before the Bible Society com- 
 menced!) are, in any degree, adequate to the 
 grievous want of the Scriptures; and, therefore, 
 if a Heathen could say, even of human wisdom, 
 that “‘ as long as we are ignorant of any thing, so 
 long we must be learners,”* shall not Christians 
 hold, that as long as a single Bible be wanting, so 
 long is exertion a duty; nor indeed do I see how 
 
 “ Tam diu discendum est, quam diu nescias.” 
 2 
 Seneca. 
 
79 
 
 any man can be justified in forming any other con- 
 clusion, who really believes that “ there is more 
 joy in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, than 
 over ninety and nine just persons who need no 
 repentance.” 
 
 I further think, that we are not merely —_ as 
 Churchmen, to join that Society which most largely 
 distributes the Bible, as thereby most effectually 
 supporting and extending that Church which is 
 founded on the Bible, but I apprehend that any 
 other course must needs wear an ill appearance to 
 the nation at large, as seeming to evince some such 
 apprehension of danger to the national Church, 
 even from the dispersion of truth itself, as the Ro- 
 man Catholics feel, for their supposed infallible, 
 but really corrupt, Church. It is quite in harmony 
 with a system opposed to truth, that it should feel 
 alarm at the influx of light. The Church of Eng- 
 land, however, has nothing to fear from the largest 
 diffusion of scriptural truth. Both our Articles, 
 and what Jeremy Taylor calls “ that storehouse of 
 rare divinity”—our Liturgy—are based upon the 
 Scriptures of eternal truth. If, as the Papists 
 affirm, our Articles and Liturgy cannot be vindi- 
 cated from Scripture, they are only “ wise in their 
 generation,” when, upon their own principles, 
 they oppose the Bible Society; but if both the 
 one and the other have, as we assert, the Scrip- 
 tures for their basis, then the conclusion of Church- 
 men against the Bible Society is more or less at 
 variance with their own declared conviction, that 
 
80 
 
 the national Church is founded on the Scriptures 
 —the obvious consequence of such admitted pre- 
 mises on our part, should rather be, that the largest 
 dispersion of the Bible, so far from injuring the 
 Church of England, must both multiply her con- 
 verts, and increase their piety; and therefore the 
 Bible Society ought to form no subject for the dis- 
 quietude and alarm of her ordained ministers. 
 
 A further recommendation of the Bible Society, 
 to my mind, arises from the conviction that it is 
 only as they who have authority and influence shall 
 bestir themselves, to meet the public demand for 
 scriptural instruction, that the nation can be saved 
 from the overwhelming floods of Popery and In- 
 fidelity. The Bible is at once the sovereign anti- 
 dote for that anti-scriptural creed, which is a 
 refined modification of the ancient idolatry ; and 
 for that atheistical renunciation of all creeds which 
 is how Common among us. 
 
 The highest glory, and best defence, of the Re- 
 formed Church, is the free circulation of the unso- 
 phisticated Word of God—and that word is 
 equally the scourge and terror of Infidelity. With 
 regard to Popery; since the fatal hour when we 
 consented to “ embarrass the progress of truth, by 
 investing religious error with political power,” * it 
 behoves the Church of England to avail herself of 
 every resource within her reach, if she would stem 
 
 * Dr. Miller’s Letter to Mr. Plunket on the Roman Catholic 
 
 Claims. 
 
81 
 
 the torrent of corrupt doctrine, and save her peo- 
 ple from returning to the palatable abominations 
 which must ever recommend such a creed to the 
 natural heart of man; and as to the plague of In- 
 fidelity, the general education which is now con- 
 ferred upon the lower classes will be only a curse, 
 instead of a blessing, if a proper direction be not 
 given to the appetite for knowledge which has 
 been now excited, and if some exertions, propor- 
 tioned to the exigency, be not made, to protect our 
 increasing population from the blasphemous Tracts 
 which are industriously circulated through the coun- 
 try, and obtruded upon us in the streets of London. 
 I look, with that illustrious Layman, the late Lord 
 Liverpool, to the Bible, as (under its Divine Author) 
 the great hope of the nation, and highly as I may, 
 in common with him, esteem of the Church which 
 is built upon the Bible, I can never forget, that no 
 less a man than Hooker has said, “ All receive not 
 the grace of God who receive the sacraments of his 
 grace ;” and therefore that there is much more to 
 be done by us who are Churchmen, for ourselves, 
 for the public, and for posterity, than idly to vaunt 
 of our religious privileges, and, as an evidence of 
 our orthodoxy, to oppose the Bible Society, espe- 
 cially at a moment when the uncircumcised Phi- 
 listines of Popery and Infidelity are making such 
 havoc in the camp of Israel. 
 
 But, lastly, I am not merely moved, asa member 
 of the Establishment, to advocate the claims of 
 sound doctrine, but as a Christian, to do what in 
 
 F 
 
82 
 
 me lies, for the promotion of piety m practice. As 
 a man, sustaining the relations of a husband, a 
 father, and a brother, I have an interest in the 
 preservation and protection of the best charities, 
 and highest endearments of human life; and as an 
 Englishman, I find a further motive in the princi- 
 ples of patriotism, inducing me, as I love my coun- 
 try, to desire that immorality and vice may not 
 prove her ruin. Now, without wishing to institute 
 any invidious comparison between the aggregate 
 amount of evil at the present, and any preceding 
 period (because if the balance could be ever so 
 accurately struck, it would not affect my argument) 
 I apprehend that no one, of whatever Church, or 
 creed, can honestly contemplate the public vices 
 which do indisputably abound among us, and not 
 say that there is abundant need of the Bible. 
 Let any man, regarding us as a people, perhaps 
 more eminently privileged, and therefore more 
 deeply responsible, than any other nation under 
 heaven, ask himself,—as he may expect to answer 
 it,—whether the most painful reflections do not 
 arise from a consideration of the Sabbath-breaking 
 prevalent among the higher and lower classes, (in- 
 cluding, more especially, the Sunday Newspapers, ) 
 the gaming, prize-fighting, and other less odious, 
 but not therefore harmless, kinds of public dissipa- 
 tion and amusement,*—the increased consumption 
 
 * Among the latter, Horse-racing may be classed, which, quite 
 
 independantly of its inhumanity, is the fertile source of the most 
 desperate stakes of hazard, and all-the collateral evils of promis- 
 
83 
 
 of ardent spirits, the prevalence of profanity, the 
 toleration invariably afforded to duelling by our 
 Juries, in spite of our Judges and our Laws—the 
 frequency of suicide, the various frauds of com- 
 mercial intercourse, and the extent of sensual pro- 
 fligacy in all its varieties, too endless, and too 
 offensive to particularize, but too obvious, alas ! 
 to be demied. Let a man, I say, reflect only on 
 these particulars, which form but a slight enume- 
 ration of the sins under which the nation lan- 
 guishes; while, as the head and front of our 
 offending, I, doubtless, ought to have placed the 
 general neglect and contempt of the pure and ever- 
 lasting Gospel of our Lord and Saviour Jesus 
 Christ, both in public and private ;—let any one, 
 I say, really anxious for the honour and happiness 
 of his beloved country, consider these things, and 
 say whether there is no need of a Society, whose 
 simple and godlike object is to distribute the Bible 
 in ail lands and languages, without note or com- 
 ment. 
 
 I believe that the best friend of his country is he 
 who desires her moral perfection, because while 
 
 cuous association, and subsequent immorality. Iam assured by 
 an eye-witness, of perfect credit, that at the last Epsom Races 
 there were between fifty and one hundred booths for general 
 gaming, exclusively of the extensive betting goimg on upon the 
 horses. Of this, the magistrates could not be ignorant, but they 
 cannot but know that the system itself necessarily involves such 
 an evil, as well as many others which are equally tolerated at 
 these sports, but are less fit fur public notice. There is no reason 
 to suppose that other races are purer than that alluded to. 
 
 F2 
 
84 
 
 “Righteousness exalteth a nation, sin is a re- 
 proach to any people ;” and because all history, 
 sacred and profane, alike unites in the testimony 
 that vice and profligacy have a natural and neces- 
 sary tendency to effect the downfall of empires. 
 «“ Whatever” (says Mr. Burke) “ separates man 
 from God, disunites man from man.” 
 
 Under these circumstances, he will ever be the 
 best Patriot, who is the best Christian; and the 
 man who does most to curtail the empire of the 
 Prince of Darkness, and to abridge the dominion 
 of sin, will infallibly do more to diminish the sum 
 of human misery, than the bravest warrior, or the 
 subtlest statesman, who ever figured in our annals ; 
 since, ‘‘ they do it that they may obtain a cor- 
 ruptible crown, but we an incorruptible ;” for “ the 
 weapons of our warfare are spiritual,” and surely 
 the weapon of the highest temper and greatest 
 power among them, is “ the sword of the Spirit, 
 which is the Worp oF Gop.” 
 
 It is, however, time that these remarks—already 
 extended far beyond my original purpose-—should 
 be brought to a close; and I know not that I can 
 better conclude them, than by giving an extract 
 from a Letter of the illustrious Dr. Johnson, to his’ 
 friend Mr. Drummond, on occasion of some Mem- 
 bers of the Scotch Society for Propagating Chris- 
 tian Knowledge, having opposed the project of 
 translating the Holy Scriptures into the Gaelic 
 language. ‘‘I did not expect” (says he) ‘ to 
 hear that it could be, in an assembly convened for 
 
85 
 
 the Propagation of Christian Knowledge, a ques- 
 tion whether any nation uninstructed in religion 
 should receive instruction, or whether that mstruc- 
 tion should be imparted to them by a translation of 
 the holy books into their own language. If obe- 
 dience to the will of God be necessary to happi- 
 ness, and knowledge of his will be necessary to 
 obedience, I know not how he that withholds this 
 knowledge, or delays it, can be said to love his 
 neighbour as himself. He, that voluntarily con- 
 tinues ignorance, is guilty of all the crimes which 
 ignorance produces ; as, to him that should extin- 
 guish the tapers of a lighthouse, might justly be 
 imputed the calamities of shipwrecks. Christianity 
 is the highest perfection of humanity; and as no 
 man is good, but as he wishes the good of others, 
 no man can be good, in the highest degree, who 
 wishes not to others the largest measures of the 
 greatest good. To omit for a year, or for a day, 
 the most efficacious method of advancing Chris- 
 tianity, in compliance with any purposes that ter- 
 minate on this side of the grave, is a crime of 
 which I know not that the world has yet had an 
 example; except in the practice of the planters of 
 America, a race of mortals whom, I suppose, no 
 other man wishes to resemble.” 
 
 I have the honour to be, 
 Reverend Sir, 
 Your most obedient and faithful servant, 
 
 THE AUTHOR. 
 
86 
 
 POSTCRIPT. | 
 
 Since the preceding observations went to press, I 
 have met with a remark of the learned and pious 
 Sir Matthew Hale, which appears so illustrative 
 of my own views on the impropriety of attempting 
 to unchurch other Christians, (as expressed in p. 
 28, and elsewhere, of the present pamphlet,) that 
 I am induced to think the extract will be accept- 
 able to my readers. 
 
 “If we observe” (says this eminent Judge) 
 “many persons in the world, we shall find some so 
 highly devoted to this or that particular form of 
 government, as if all the weight of Christian Reli- 
 gion lay in it. Though the wise and sober sort of 
 conformists know and profess this, yet there be 
 some rash people that will presently unchurch all 
 the Reformed Churches beyond the seas, which are 
 not under Episcopal Government; so that if they 
 see a man otherwise of orthodox principles, of a 
 pious and religious life, yet if scrupling some points 
 of Ecclesiastical Government, though peaceable, 
 they will esteem him little better than a heathen, 
 or publican, a schismatic, heretic, and what not: 
 on the other side, if they see a man of great fervour 
 i asserting the Ecclesiastical Government, ob- 
 servant of external ceremonies, though otherwise 
 of a loose and dissolute life, yet they will be ready 
 to applaud him with the style of a Son of the 
 
87 
 
 Church, and upon that account overlook the mis- 
 carriages of his life, as if the essence and life of 
 Christian Religion lay in the bare asserting of the 
 best form of Ecclesiastical Government.” — Str 
 Matthew Hale, Life and smaller Works, vol. i. 
 p. 297. edit. 1805.* 
 
 I also beg leave to avail myself of the oppor- 
 tunity here afforded, by adding another extract 
 from the pamphlet of the Rev. Edward Cooper, 
 . (before referred to,) in confirmation of my argu- 
 ment, in pp. 19 and 20, relative to the Bible So- 
 ciety being rather a Charitable Society, than (as 
 has been contended) a Religious Society ; and, as 
 such, amenable to the general laws affecting Reli- 
 gious Societies. 
 
 “This Society” (says Mr. Cooper) ‘‘ is not as- 
 sociated on any religious ground, properly so 
 called. She does not meet for purposes of reli- 
 gious worship, communion, or instruction. She 
 does not meet to explain, or even to read, the 
 Scriptures, but simply to distribute them. The 
 Bible Society is formed for the one exclusive ob- 
 ject of promoting a larger circulation of the Bible 
 in the authorized version, without note or com- 
 ment. And this is not, in the correct sense of the 
 word, a religious, but a charitable object. The 
 Society which proposes to herself this object, is as 
 really a charitable society, and as directly insti- 
 tuted for a charitable purpose, as any society which 
 
 "It is recorded of Ithacus, that the only virtue he possessed, 
 was the hatred of the Priscillian heresy. 
 
88 
 
 is formed with the design of alleviating the sor- 
 rows, or supplying the necessities, of mankind. 
 The only difference between the Bible Society, and 
 other charitable Societies, consists in the nature 
 and value of the gift which it bestows. While 
 other charitable institutions provide for the tem- 
 poral and bodily wants of mankind, this endeavours 
 to assist them in providing for their souls, by 
 putting into their hands the Word of God. Reli- 
 gion, it is true, will be promoted by the gift; but 
 the mere act of conferring the gift, is not a reli- 
 gious act, nor partakes of any of the characters of 
 a religious act: except, indeed, that as all chari- 
 table acts, of whatever description, ought to flow 
 from religious motives, so this may, and ought, to 
 spring from a pious wish of doing good to the 
 souls of others, and be accompanied with a secret 
 desire, that it may be productive of spiritual bene- 
 fits. But in itself it is altogether a charitable 
 work.”—Conduct of the Clergy in supporting the 
 Bible Society, Vindicated. By the Rev. Edward 
 Cooper, Rector of Hamstall Ridware, and Yoxall, 
 in Staffordshire; and late Fellow of All Souls 
 College, Oxford. p.5. London. 1818. 
 
 LONDON: 
 IBOTSON AND PALMER, PRINTERS, SAVOY-STREET, STRAND. 
 
A PROTEST 
 
 AGAINST 
 
 THE JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED BY THE WRITER 
 OF AN ARTICLE 
 
 IN THE 
 Quarterip Review 
 UPON THE 
 
 CHARACTER AND CONDUCT 
 
 OF THE 
 
 British and foreign Bible Society. 
 
 BY ANOTHER REVIEWER. 
 
 TWO remarkable changes have taken place, within the last few years, in 
 the character as wellas conduct of our reviews. The older reviews really 
 answered to their name: however dry they might occasionally be in their 
 details, they put the reader into possession of the substance of the 
 work before them, and gave their judgment upon the nature of its prin- 
 ciples, and the merits of its composition. But, upon the present system, 
 the title of an author’s work is not unfrequently used as a mere intro- 
 duction to an original essay upon the subject on which it treats. 
 Reviewers, who are themselves authors, have in this way often given to 
 the public their first thoughts and sketches of works, which have 
 afterwards been submitted to it, in a matured and finished form. At 
 other times, to an elaborate disquisition upon some popular topic of the 
 day, a long list is prefixed of all the publications that have issued from 
 the press upon the subject, of the contents and character of which, 
 however, scarcely any further notice is taken, or information given, 
 We are by no means averse from reading such productions; on the 
 contrary, we think that a dissertation, dictated by an able mind, after 
 the careful reading of all that his contemporaries have produced upon 
 the subject, (if the matter has been duly digested by meditation,) may 
 prove much more enlightening and profitable to the common reader, 
 than the perusal of larger works. At the same time it is obvious, that 
 A 
 
2 
 
 the publication, in which such writings appear, ought to assume the 
 title of “‘a Magazine” rather than “ a Review.” We think also 
 that the writers, thus set in array before the public, are not very fairly 
 dealt by, since the impression left upon the reader’s mind generally is, 
 that their works are scarcely worth perusing. Neither can it be denied, 
 that these self-styled Reviews are often made to serve the purposes of a 
 party, instead of being the calm judgment of a mind, which, having 
 compared many conflicting opinions together, has extricated the subject 
 from the peculiarities of each, rejected what is irrelevant to it, and 
 finally arrived at the decision of sound, practical, common sense. 
 
 These however are blemishes of minor importance, compared with 
 the very reprehensible modern practice of turning reviews of works into 
 libels upon their authors. If a writer venture to give his sentiments 
 to the world upon an important subject, and his work from the ability 
 displayed in it, is likely to attract public attention—should his senti- 
 ments be founded upon views and principles, which are in strong 
 contrast with those of any established Review; he must expect—not 
 merely that his work will be tried by the scrutiny of severe criticism, 
 its principles contested, and his opinions ridiculed ;—but, he must expect 
 that the secrets of his private life will be dragged into public view, and 
 subjected to all the cruelty of a self-constituted inquisitorial power, 
 which is seldom amenableto any law. Nor is this system pursued merely 
 in respect of individuals, who can sometimes claim relief from the statutes 
 of the land; but it is practised against whole bodies and communities 
 of men, whose principles and conduct are equally made the object of these 
 unscrupulous attacks, which, as they are always anonymous, may be 
 repeated without fear of retaliation. We have no doubt that such 
 practices aida Review, for there is an appetite in human nature for 
 slander ; but it leaves the traduced parties without a remedy, for there 
 is an extraordinary indifference and slothfulness in that same human 
 nature, which forbid it to attend to any statement that might redress 
 the wrong. Surely it ought to be the study of every friend of literature 
 to maintain the purity of her character. If men will have their appetites 
 thus indulged, let them go to the public papers of the day; there will 
 always be enough of malignity in such writings to satiate their desires, 
 but let not the very guardians of the public taste prostitute their talents 
 to gratify the basest desires of our depraved nature. 
 
 We are led to these remarks from the consideration of an article, 
 which appeared in the last number of the Quarterly Review—that for 
 June, 1827. The writer heads it with a list of eleven publications, and 
 under cover of this array, introduces—a discussion we cannot call it, 
 but a libellous statement respecting the conduct and character of the 
 British and Foreign Bible Society. His design is evidently to detach 
 as many of its friends as possible, from the Society, and to effect this 
 he does not scruple attributing to the Conductors of the Institution— 
 the Officers, managing Committee, and Agents—principles as well as 
 practices, which, if verified, would necessarily entail upon the whole 
 body the reprobation of every honest mind. 
 
 It is the object of the present publication to meet his assertions, to 
 expose his mis-statements, and show his incompetency to judge of 
 
3 
 
 the question, on which he has ventured to decide. In doing this, we 
 ‘shall reverse the order which the Reviewer has observed in his attack, 
 and commence with the consideration of what has been advanced 
 against the Society in respect of its translations. That we may impress 
 our readers with a just sense of the importance of the case before 
 us, we beg to introduce the discussion of it with a statement of the 
 following facts. 
 
 In the year 1800, the whole number of existing translations of the 
 Scriptures, either of parts of them, or of the whole, into the various 
 languages and dialects of the world, amounted to about seventy. Of 
 these, some had never been printed,—others contained only a few 
 fragments of the inspired writings, such as the seven penitential psalms, 
 &c., and others were in languages which had ceased to be vernacular. 
 The whole number however, with all these deductions, did not exceed 
 seventy translations. Now, of such of these versions as had been 
 before printed, the Society has reprinted forty-two; of five others of 
 this class, it has printed new translations: and it has printed, or aided 
 the printing and circulation of the Holy Scriptures in fifty-seven other 
 languages or dialects, in which no part of the Word of God had ever 
 been printed, before the existence of the Bible Society; besides being 
 now engaged in carrying on and promoting the translation of the 
 Scriptures into forty-five other languages or dialects, into none of which 
 had any part of them been before rendered. Without employing then, 
 any extravagance of language upon the subject, it may surely excite 
 eur astonishment, that during the short space of twenty-three years, 
 much more should have been effected, towards the universal dissemina- 
 tion of the word of God in all the languages of the earth, than had 
 been previously effected from the beginning of the Christian -zra. 
 Previously, the Scriptures did not circulate in fifty languages, they are 
 now circulated in above one hundred; and whilst no translation of the 
 Bible had been effected, ancient or modern, in more than seventy 
 languages ; it is now rendered into above one hundred and forty. 
 
 But the subject deserves to be viewed in another light. Abstractedly 
 considered, each translation is of equal importance, for the importance 
 of all is founded upon this, that they render. the Word of God 
 accessible to those, to whom it must otherwise be as a sealed book— 
 they enable men to read for themselves the wonderful works of God, 
 each one in the tongue wherein he was born. In this view, the import- 
 ance of every translation is the same; but upon other grounds the 
 importance is comparative, and varies according the number of readers 
 which can use them. While therefore there is the same substantial 
 value in them all, and while every man’s vernacular version is to him 
 the most important of all; yet the persons engaged in the formation 
 of these translations, will justly estimate the importance of each, in 
 proportion to the number of those who may possibly be benefited by it,— 
 that is, the number of persons to whom the language, into which the Bible 
 is tendered, is vernacular. For example, the Manks translation unlocks 
 the Word of God only to forty thousand of our fellow creatures. The 
 Welsh opens it to half a million; the Irish to two millions; but the 
 English version opens the same Scriptures to at least thirty millions of 
 
 A 2 
 
4 
 
 our fellow creatures in different parts of the world. We naturally view 
 therefore the English version as of far greater importance than either of 
 the others. Now, the population of the whole world has been stated 
 at one thousand millions. Of these 175,000,000 are assigned to 
 Christians; 160,000,000 to Mahomedans; and the remainder to Jews 
 and Heathens. _If we say that previous to the year 1800, the Scriptures 
 were open to 250,000,000, we probably overrate the number, but now 
 we may safely affirm that the Word of God has been opened through 
 the instrumentality of the Society to nearly 500,000,000 in addition to 
 the former number. Here then is a great and splendid fact, which 
 cannot fail to excite the astonishment of all who know it: that, within 
 so short a space of time, such an advance should have been made 
 towards the accomplishment of this great obyect—the rendering of the 
 Bible accessible to all mankind. 
 
 The essential importance, however, of the fact rests on the supposition, 
 that by these translations the truth of God is really communicated to 
 those who speak the languages into which the Word has been thus 
 rendered; or, in other terms, that the translations faithfully render the 
 meaning of the originals, and put it into a form intelligible to those for 
 whose service they are designed; so that by the reading of these books 
 the nations may be instructed in the knowledge of God, as he has revealed 
 himself in Christ Jesus. This then is confessedly a vital point; upon 
 the verification of which the probable usefulness of the Society, in 
 respect of the Heathen, must ultimately be determined. 
 
 It is upon this point, that a most unwarrantable and, we will not 
 scruple to call it, a most wicked, because a most malignant attack, has 
 been made upon the Bible Society, by the writer already alluded to. 
 He opens it with this declaration, ‘‘ After the most careful and patient 
 investigation, we are obliged to state that, without one single excep- 
 tion, the new versions which have appeared, either at the direct 
 expense or under the immediate sanction of the Earl-Street Com- 
 mittee, have been either executed by incompetent translators, or printed 
 without having been subjected toa proper revision.” This uncompro- 
 mising condemnation of the Society’s translations, is followed by an 
 awful denunciation against it. Having charitably assumed that the 
 object of the Society by its translations, is to make a display, and to 
 obtain funds, and not to give a correct version of the Word of God to 
 the nations—having assumed that every translation, which the Society 
 has been the means of sending into the world, is an unfaithful repre- 
 sentation of that Word, the writer makes the following application of 
 one of the most awful passages to be found in the whole Bible. We 
 will first however quote the passage itself: It will enable our readers to 
 discern the spirit by which the Reviewer is actuated. It forms the 18th 
 and 19th verses of the 22d chapter of the Revelation. ‘ For I testify 
 unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, 
 if any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the 
 plagues that are written in this book: and if any man shall take away 
 from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his 
 part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the 
 things which are written in this book.” Referring to this passage, the 
 
5 
 
 Reviewer says, “ the denunciation, which has been expressly uttered 
 against the individual who adds to, or detracts from the contents of the 
 Sacred Volume, must, we imagine, attach to him, who corrupts or 
 misrepresents them by an unfaithful translation.” Of the correctness 
 of the commentary by which the passage is thus applied to the whole 
 Word of God, and of the meaning attached to the words, we now say 
 nothing ; with regard to the imprecation which has been uttered, we 
 are comforted with the assurance of the inspired writer, (Prov. xxvi. 2.) 
 that ‘‘ The curse causeless shall not come.” We are quite certain, that 
 if the denunciation be truly applicable to the case before us, it is in its 
 essence applicable to every translator, from the days of the Seventy to 
 the present moment, and thus it is rendered harmless. 
 
 From the sweeping declaration of the Reviewer, every common 
 reader would suppose, that the translations of the Society had been taken 
 one by one, and patiently examined by persons duly qualified for the 
 work, and that the incompetency of the translators had been proved 
 by the faultiness of their productions. But has this course been pur- 
 sued? By no means. Such an examination has not been carried on 
 in respect of a single version. That an individual should not be able 
 io examine a hundred different translations, can be matter of surprise 
 to no one; but that an individual should have ventured to condemn a 
 hundred translations, without subjecting one of them to a fair trial, is 
 an extraordinary instance, to say the least of it, of excessive folly. For 
 all that we can see to the contrary, the Reviewer is incompetent to 
 examine a single specimen of these translations. We cannot discern in 
 his article any symptom of attainments beyond the ordinary school 
 learning, which the common education of the country affords to all 
 who are designed for any of the learned professions. There is not an 
 expression, or sentiment which indicates any particular acquaintance 
 with modern languages, eastern or western, or any knowledge of the 
 difficulties which a translator must cope with in attempting to render 
 the Scriptures into them. On the contrary, the writer rans into a course 
 of @ priori reasoning, upon a question purely practical, and to be 
 determined only by proof and matter of fact; and undertakes to set 
 aside all the translations of the Society, without examination, upon the 
 following assumed principles. 
 
 I. That no translations ought to. be admitted into circulation which 
 are not perfect exemplars of the inspired Word. 
 
 II. That no translations of the Scriptures ought to be received, or 
 accounted worthy of circulation, which are not made directly from 
 the original Greek and Hebrew. 
 
 III. That no translator is competent to undertake the task of execut- 
 ing such versions who has not a complete knowledge, and critical skill 
 in the original languages. 
 
 IV. There is another assumption, which it were too trifling to notice, 
 but for the cunning it betrays; it is this. That no person can attain 
 the requisite knowledge of the original languages, who has not 
 commenced the study of them in his early years. 
 
 Upon these assumed principles, not broadly put forth, but tacitly 
 implied, or casually hinted at, the whole strength of the Reviewer's 
 
6 
 
 cause depends. How far the assumption of them is warranted by just 
 views of the case, or by the experience and practice of the Church, 
 must now be inquired into. 
 
 et us advert to the first assumption, viz. that no translation ought 
 to be received, which is not a true exemplar of the original in every 
 part. Certainly nothing less than this can be inferred from the appli- 
 cation which the Reviewer has made of the passage from the Revelation. 
 Now we acknowledge that it is most desirable to obtain perfection; and 
 that, in every Christian undertaking, our aim should be to go on to 
 perfection ; but every one must feel, that it is no easy matter to reach 
 this point. 
 
 When men talk of the necessity of such a perfect translation, as the 
 Reviewer’s language implies, we must ask, in reply, ‘ Where is a single 
 specimen of a perfect translation to be found?’ Sir G. Staunton has 
 justly said (see his Letter to T. P. Platt, Esq. inserted in Platt’s reply, 
 p- 19,) ‘‘ that to require such a degree of perfection, in a first translation, 
 is to postpone the work to an indefinite period.” We may add, it is 
 to preclude it for ever, by rendering the object unattainable. For, unless 
 translations are subjected to public criticism, by being put into cireula- 
 tion, those improvements which they need, and of which they are sus- 
 ceptible, cannot be made; since the faults themselves will not be fully 
 discovered. Upon the principle of the Reviewer, what translation ought 
 not forthwith to be set aside? Certainly the Septuagint, that version 
 which the inspired Apostles, if not the Lord himself, appear sometimes 
 to have used in their quotations from the Old Testament Scriptures, 
 must be rejected ; for, it is not, in every part, and never appears to have 
 been, a just representation of the original. The same may be said 
 of Jerome’s translation—of the Vulgate founded upon it, and, indeed, 
 of every version which has since appeared, and is at present used by 
 the professing Christian nations. But we shall best appreciate the 
 difficulty of meeting the demands of the Reviewer in a first translation, 
 by considering the history of some versions, whose credit has been long 
 and fully established in the Churches. 
 
 Let us, lst, take the case of the Vulgate, the authorized version of the 
 Roman Catholic Church. Among the earliest translations of the Scrip- 
 tures made by Christians, after the preaching of the Gospel to the 
 Gentiles, was one into the Latin tongue. It passed under the name 
 of the Italic Version. No individual appears to have been appointed 
 by the Chureh to execute the work; nor was it, so far as we have 
 been able to learn, the common labour of an associated body of Chris- 
 tians. But various persons seem, from time to time, to have taken it in 
 hand ; and, indeed, from the great differences remarked in some of the 
 copies, it should seem that more translations than one were at the same 
 time in use among the Western Churches. About the close of the 
 fourth century, Jerome undertook to revise this version, of which the 
 Old Testament had not been translated from the Hebrew, but from the 
 Septuagint. In commencing, however, his work, does the venerable 
 Father charge the first translators with the guilt of corrupting the Word 
 of God, or does he brand them, as our Reviewer does, with the curse 
 denounced in the Word against the falsifiers of the truth of Ged ? 
 
~ 
 i 
 
 No; he was of another spirit. He commended their labours, though 
 he knew their work was capable of much improvement; and pleaded, 
 therefore, for the necessity of a complete revisal. Jerome executed his 
 undertaking with a fidelity surpassed, probably, by none; but the work 
 did not obtain universal approbation. While it was warmly advocated 
 by many, it was violently opposed by others; and it was not until the 
 sixth century, that his revision of the Italic New Testament, and his 
 new translation of the Old, from the original Hebrew, obtained from 
 Gregory the Great, the sanction of Papai authority. From that time 
 it was made the basis of the common version, and gradually received 
 into the Churches; though, it does not appear, that the text of what © 
 we call the Vulgate, has, at any time, exactly accorded with the copy 
 which Jerome edited. Such was the labour expended by succeeding 
 generations of Christians, during a period of five hundred years, in the 
 production of this celebrated version. We may further add that, of the 
 Vulgate thus formed, two celebrated reformations have been attempted 
 in the Sixtine and Clementine editions of 1590 and 1592, besides 
 several other revisions which had previously taken place. Notwith- 
 standing, however, all this care, every one knows that it is still far re- 
 moved from perfection. ‘ 
 From the case of the Vulgate, let us advert to that of our authorized 
 English yersion, and consider the progress through which it has arrived 
 at its present state. It is acknowledged, generally, by Papists and 
 Protestants, to be as sound as any existing version. Now Wickliff’s 
 translation of the Bible appeared in 1380. It is indeed evident, that 
 translations of the New Testament, at least, andof some other portions 
 of Scripture, had been made into English before his time. But Wickliff’s 
 translation has been the basis of all that succeeded. Of this version 
 many improved transcripts were made from time to time, till the year 
 1526, a period of a hundred and sixty-six years, when Tindal’s New 
 Testament was first published. In the year 1535, Coverdale’s Bible 
 appeared; in 1560, the English Genevan Bible was first published; in 
 1568, the Bishop’s Bible, under the auspices of Archbishop Parker ; 
 and, in 1611, appeared our present authorized version. It required, 
 therefore, not less than two hundred and fifty years, to bring our 
 yersion to its present state; during the last eighty years of which period, 
 many amended translations of the Word appeared besides those already 
 enumerated ; each professing to improve upen the former; each, there- 
 fore, acknowledging that the former needed improvement. Nevertheless, 
 with al] this care and labour, who will pretend to affirm that the English 
 version is not susceptible of considerable improvement ? What common 
 scholar, in comparing it with the originals, does not discover, not only 
 that amended forms of expression might oftentimes be introduced, but 
 that more just renderings also of the meaning of the sacred text might 
 be exhibited? Who, that is acquainted with any of the late translations 
 of the Psalms—with Lowth’s Isaiah—Blaney’s Jeremiah—Horsley’s 
 Hosea—Newcome’s Minor Prophets—or the translations of the New 
 Testament by Doddridge, Campbell, and M‘Knight, is not aware of the 
 fact? But, should this queen of versions be, therefore, set aside? On 
 the contrary, does not every one prize it as an invaluable exhibition 
 
8 
 
 of the truth of God ? And, surely, no one, who understands the nature 
 of the work, will speak with contempt, much less with reprobation, 
 of the labours of those pious men who produced the less perfect versions 
 that preceded it. Less perfect they were, but not, therefore, unnecessary, 
 and far less injurious; for had they not preceded, our translation had 
 never advanced to that degree of perfection, which it has now reached. 
 We have gone into this history to show the exceeding difficulty of attain- 
 ing, even ultimately, what the Reviewer demands as a preliminary, and to 
 prove what has been the practice of the Church from the beginning. 
 Her wisdom has been clearly manifested in availing herself of such 
 translations as could be procured, provided the translators were honest 
 men, and had a spiritual understanding of the truth. When the errors 
 of these translations have become apparent, she has laboured diligently to 
 reform them, by procuring improved versions grounded upon the first 
 attempts. But, it is evident, from the very nature of the case, that 
 while the improvement of translations is, of necessity, the progressive 
 work of time, a perfect version must ever be an unknown production. 
 It implies, in the translator, a perfect comprehension of the mind of the 
 Spirit in the original revelation. That version only. can be accounted 
 perfect, which exhibits the original in such terms, in any given language, 
 as the inspired penmen would have used, had they been called to declare 
 the Spirit’s mind in that language, instead of Greek and Hebrew. But 
 how can this achievement be possibly predicated of any version whatever ? 
 A perfect version then, is impossible; and the experience of the Church 
 proves, that our best translations had their very imperfect beginnings. 
 The position, therefore, of the Reviewer is clearly untenable ; for, he 
 requires what it is impossible to afford him, and sets himself in opposi- 
 tion to the common sense and judgment of the Church in all ages. 
 
 We pass on to the'consideration of his second position, viz. that no 
 translation ought to be circulated which has not been made from the 
 original Greek and Hebrew; and, it is further intimated, that the oppo- 
 site practice is altogether a novelty. Here, again, the judgment of the 
 Reviewer is at variance with the judgment of the Church, not only in 
 modern, but in primitive times. It has been already stated that the Old 
 Testament Scriptures of the Italic version were translated from the 
 Septuagint translation, and not from the original Hebrew. The Reviewer 
 either does not or will not distinguish between what is perfect and what 
 is essential, what is desirable and what is practicable. Unquestionably, 
 it is very desirable, that every version should be made from the original, 
 because in this case, there is less danger of the sense of the Scriptures 
 being inadvertently wrested from its true import, than when one version 
 is made from another version. But ought we, in the mean time, to forego 
 all advantages to be derived from the only practicable resource. Upon 
 the principle of the Reviewer all translations from our English version and 
 other modern versions ought to be discarded; and upon the same prin- 
 ciple all translations, which at any time have been made from the 
 Vulgate. Now before the reformation, almost all the translations of the 
 sacred Scriptures were made from the Vulgate. Such was the French 
 translation of Raoul de Presles which appeared about the year 1377. 
 Such was the Dutch Bible of 1300, the Swedish, by Matthew of Cracow, 
 
9 
 
 1350—1400. As also the Polish and Danish Bibles. Such was the Italian 
 version of Nicholas de Malermi about 1450, and the Spanish translation 
 of Boniface Ferrar, 1410. But, will any man of common sense believe, 
 that these were useless; that they did not operate, in various ways, to 
 produce that state of mind, which rendered Europe capable of receiving 
 the light, which was to be vouchsafed to it at the Reformation? By 
 this access, which many had to the Word of God, and the comparison 
 of its truths with the practices they beheld in the Romish Church, an 
 excitement was given to the public mind, which, with the operation 
 of other causes, enabled it to rise into vigorous action upon the more 
 open exhibition of Papal corruption, in its scandalous patronage of ini- 
 quity by the sale of indulgences. 
 
 Again, every one knows, that at the time of the Reformation, several 
 of the first Protestant Bibles were simply versions from Luther’s trans- 
 lation in the High German dialect. Such was the Saxon in the Low 
 German dialect. Such the Pomeranian in a kindred dialect of the same 
 tongue. Such were the Belgic and Dutch. Such, for the most part, 
 were the Danish and Swedish, and the Low German Swiss. Afterwards, 
 by the aid of these first attempts, improved versions were obtained in 
 the Belgic, the Swedish, and the Danish, from the original Greek and 
 Hebrew. The former, however, served their purpose, and proved a 
 blessing to those who had them, until they were superseded by the 
 introduction of a greater blessing. We have an instance of the same 
 plan having been adopted in our own country, in the case of the Irish 
 Scriptures, and by men very capable of judging what was profitable for 
 the people, and fit for themselves to do. At the commencement of the 
 seventeenth century, Dr. Daniel, or O'Donnell, Archbishop of Tuam, 
 translated the New Testament from the Greek, into Irish: this trans- 
 lation was printed at Dublin, in 1602. About the year 1635, Dr. 
 Bedale, Bishop of Kilmore, projected a translation of the Old Testament 
 into Irish ; and, by the advice of the Primate, Archbishop Usher, engaged 
 for the work a Mr. King, a native of Ireland, and a convert from Popery, 
 then about seventy years of age, whom the Bishop had admitted into 
 holy orders, and preferred to a benefice. The manuscript was completed 
 in 1640; but it met with great opposition in its progress, and upon the 
 very principles of the Reviewer, that the translator was incompetent to 
 perform the task, inasmuch as he knew nothing of Hebrew. The version 
 was published in 1685, or 1686, at the expense of the Hon. Robert 
 Boyle. It still constitutes, with Archbishop Daniel’s Testament, the 
 Irish Bible; and is, at this time, reprinting in a revised form. It appears 
 then, that not only Bishop Bedale thought a sound translation might be 
 made from the English version, by a person unskilled in Hebrew, but 
 that the great luminary of his age, the most learned Usher, was of the 
 same opinion. 
 
 The unsoundness, however, of the assumed principle will more clearly 
 appear from the consideration of the third assumption of the Reviewer ; 
 viz. “ that no person is competent to make the required translation, who 
 has not a complete and critical knowledge of the original languages, the 
 Greek and Hebrew; ” and why not add (to tissue out the matter a little 
 more), the cognate dialects of the Hebrew—the Arabic, the Svriac, and 
 
10 
 
 Chaldee—without a competent knowledge of which; no person is to be 
 esteemed, we apprehend, a finished Hebrew scholar. . It is an easy 
 matter to talk of a complete knowledge of Greek and Hebrew, but we 
 shall find very few, if any, of the first translators who possessed either. 
 When we apply these terms, as descriptive of the attainments of an 
 individual, we must take into the account the age in which he lived. 
 Wickliff was a learned man in his day, and superior, perhaps, to most 
 of his contemporaries ; but, whatever might be his acquirement in Hebrew, 
 his knowledge of Greek must have been inferior to that of our common- 
 rate scholars, such as the Universities dismiss every year to their various 
 employments, The same may be said of Luther, who did not commence. 
 the study of Greek or Hebrew, until he had passed his twenty-second 
 year. A fair Greek scholar of the present time, furnished with the 
 lexicons, concordances, and critical apparatus belonging to every 
 classical library, would be more competent (so far as such things could 
 make him competent) to undertake a translation of the New Testament 
 into any language, which he understood, and could familiarly speak, than 
 were many of our first Protestant Reformers. Nevertheless, indifferent 
 scholars as they might be now esteemed, they furnished versions, which 
 God was pleased to bless to the enlightening and salvation of thousands. 
 
 In point of fact, whatever importance some men may attach to verbal 
 criticism, and the nice rendering of phrases, and desirable as it is to use 
 the utmost caution and exactness in the version of every passage; yet, 
 it is not on these things that the usefulness of any translation depends. 
 The end, sought for in a translation, cannot be different from that 
 designed by the original Scriptures. But the objeet of the Word itself 
 is clearly to lead men to the knowledge of God in Christ, that they may 
 come to the enjoyment of him, and be made conformable to that express 
 image of himself, which he has exhibited in Christ Jesus. Take the 
 following Scriptures in proof of this statement, “‘ This is life eternal, that 
 they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou 
 hast sent,” John xvii. 3. ‘‘ God, who commanded the light to shine out 
 of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge 
 of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.” 2 Cor, iv. 6, “That 
 which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen 
 with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, 
 of the word of life; (for the life was manifested, and we have seen it, 
 and bear witness, and show unto you that eternal life, which was with 
 the Father, and was manifested unto us:) that which we have seen and 
 heard, declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: 
 and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus 
 Christ.” 1 John i. 1—3. ‘‘ For whom he did foreknow, he also did 
 predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son.” Rom. viii. 29. 
 *« But we all, with open face beholding, as in a glass, the glory of the 
 Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by 
 the Spirit of the Lord.” 2 Cor. iii, 18, Now, this knowledge and these 
 effects are not derived from any translation, by virtue of that happy 
 idiomatic rendering, which marks the skill of the translator, but from 
 the just exhibition, which it affords of the broad facts of the Gospel. 
 The Gospel is a record of facts. It is a record of God’s dealings with 
 
1] 
 
 mankind in their rejection as sinners, and of his dealings with them in 
 Christ, for their salvation, The great end of all revelation, from the 
 first declaration concerning the seed of the woman, has been to exhibit 
 Christ Jesus the Lord to sinners, that master-piece of God’s wisdom 
 and power; and thereby to exhibit God himself to sinners, the Father, 
 the Son, and the Holy Spirit—the one, living, and true God—that they 
 may know, love, and enjoy him. But these things are made known by 
 arecord of facts; the facts, which respect the person of the Lord, and his 
 headship oyer the Church, and ministrations to it previous to his incarna- 
 tion ;—the facts connected with his incarnation and personal ministry 
 of the truth in the world, and his final sacrifice of himself upon the cross, 
 for ihe redemption of our souls ;—the facts respecting the same gracious 
 Lord, as he now sits at the right hand of the Father, ever living to make 
 intercession for his people, to rule over all things for his Church, and 
 to bring his enemies into subjection to himself ;—and the facts (for so 
 we must term them, because of the certainty of their accomplishment, 
 the facts predicted concerning him, which are to receive their fulfilment 
 at his second coming, and in the day of judgment. In the revelation 
 of these facts God is made known, adored, glorified, and enjoyed by 
 believers. The person of the Father is manifested in the origination, 
 arrangement, and progressive advancement of his own holy purposes ; 
 the person of the Eternal Son is exhibited in the actual perfecting of his 
 heavenly Father’s will; and the person of the Holy Spirit is evidenced 
 by that light and power, whereby he not only reveals to sinners the 
 knowledge of these things, but makes also that revelation effectual to 
 the uniting of their souls to God, and bringing them into the enjoyment 
 of that blessed fellowship, which believers have with the Father and the 
 Son, through the Spirit. In the production of this effect in us, the 
 principal end designed by the Gospel, in reference to our salvation, is 
 accomplished. But the effect is produced only by the revelation and 
 belief of the facts, in which the work of God is exhibited to us. 
 
 We acknowledge that the truths or doctrines of the Gospel are often 
 expressed in detached and abstract propositions, especially in the 
 Epistles, which may not unfitly be termed for the most part com- 
 mentaries upon the Gospels and Old Testament Scriptures; but they 
 are all drawn out of the facts recorded in Scripture, and have no foun- 
 dation, but as substantiated by those facts, nor can they be proved, but 
 by an appeal to them. Take, for example, the abstract proposition, 
 ‘God is love.” It may be confirmed by many other portions of the 
 word, and still further established by various considerations drawn from 
 the essential nature of God; but the way in which God gives us a 
 knowledge of himself as love, so as to profit by it, is in the revelation 
 of this plain and convincing fact, that ‘‘ God so loved the world that 
 he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him 
 should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son 
 into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him 
 might be saved.” John iii, 16,17. ‘‘ Herein is love, not that we loved 
 God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for 
 our sins.” 1 John iv. 10. Now, the history of this fact, with all its 
 attending circumstances, is broadly written upon every page of the 
 
12 
 
 Gospel, so that he, who runs, may read it. The same may be said 
 of the great truth of God’s election, of the justification of his people by 
 faith, and their final salvation by grace. These truths are unequivocally 
 expressed in distinct propositions, but they rest upon, and are substan- 
 tiated by a large body of incontrovertible facts, so that they can never be 
 overthrown. We confess we see much of the goodness of God in such 
 an arrangement of the Word; and it were easy to point out many 
 advantages resulting from it. We will mention one, which we have 
 often witnessed, viz. the security afforded by it to plain and simple 
 believers against the arts of seducers. We have seen such persons, 
 when unable to contend with the reasoning of a subtle disputant, betake 
 themselves to a plain, broad, and obvious fact recorded in the Word, 
 and settling down upon it, hold fast to the truth, unmoved by all the 
 logical power of their adversary. 
 
 But we must hasten to show the bearing of these observations on 
 translations. It is no less beneficial here than in the former case. 
 If the truths of the Gospel were taught us in abstract propositions only, 
 the terms in which they are conceived, might possibly be so varied by a 
 translator, as to affect very materially their meaning, and without any 
 sinister design on his part; but he cannot, in this way, break down, 
 without the grossest dishonesty, and interpolation of the Word, the 
 nature and character of a fact. There may be inaccuracies im his 
 rendering of phrases, but still it will speak the same language, and 
 present the same view of God, as it did before ; and in this lies its value, 
 and the profit to be derived from it. Hence, a translator, of an honest 
 mind and sound in the faith, possessing a spiritual taste and relish for 
 heavenly things, if he be capable of giving a fair exhibition of God’s 
 dealings with sinners in Christ, or the recorded facts of the sacred 
 writers respecting the Lord Jesus, in the language of any Heathen 
 nation, is capable of producing a translation very profitable for those, 
 who from their situation need to be instructed in the very elements 
 of divine truth. Speaking of Luke’s Gospel, Irenzeus says, ‘‘ Luke put 
 into his book the Gospel which Paul preached.” He, therefore, who 
 translates that Gospel intelligibly for the use of any people, preaches 
 Paul’s Gospel to them; and that Gospel applied by the Holy Ghost to 
 the illustration of the true character of God, shall convert the sinner’s 
 soul to God in love, delight, and stedfast confidence. For the execution, 
 however, of such a work, it is clear, that the complete knowledge and 
 critical skill in the original languages, of which the Reviewer talks, 
 (however desirable for other purposes, for which translations are re- 
 quired,) are not essential; neither is it essential, that the translation 
 should be made from the original Scriptures; for the true character 
 of the facts must in every sound version be the same as in the originals 
 themselves. d 
 
 In estimating the value of a first translation, we must ever consider 
 the object of it, and the use to which it is to be applied; viz. the 
 instruction of mere babes in knowledge, or the enlightening of those 
 who sit in absolute darkness. If it were to be submitted merely to the 
 judgment of Philologists, every word must be weighed in the nicest 
 balance : or were it designed to be a standard of appeal in controversy, 
 
13 
 
 ‘all that the Reviewer demands would be indispensable in its formation. 
 And yet, could a perfect exemplar of the originals be thus produced, 
 what Philologist would cease to cavil at it? or what controversialist 
 would choose to rest his cause upon the authority of any translation, 
 however deservedly high its reputation might stand? For such pur- 
 poses, therefore, no translation would be accepted, and the labour, in 
 this view, would be useless. Or, again, were a translation intended for 
 the use of a people, that had long professed the Christian faith, and had 
 their senses, therefore, somewhat exercised in discerning the things that 
 differ, the strictest accuracy would justly be required. But, when the 
 object is to convey to nations emerging out of barbarism, or to civilized 
 Heathens abandoning idolatry, a popular knowledge of divine truth, 
 i. e. a knowledce of the first rudiments of the Gospel, then a translation, 
 which faithfully records its facts, the dealings of God with sinners in 
 Christ, is abundantly sufficient; though it may be too literal on the one 
 hand, or too paraphrastic on the other, and though many inaccuracies 
 may adhere to it. We affirm also, that to the formation of such a work, 
 the complete knowledge and critical skill so much vaunted, is not 
 absolutely necessary. He is best qualified for the undertaking, who, 
 possessing an honest heart, a correct judgment, and a real taste and 
 relish for heavenly things, is possessed at the same time of an accurate 
 and vernacular acquaintance with an authenticated and sound version ; 
 joined with a vernacular knowledge of the language into which that 
 version is to be rendered ; specially, if he adds to these qualifications a 
 natural talent for languages, so as to enter into and take pleasure in the 
 comparison of their differences of stracture—a talent very different from 
 any, of which the minute Philologist can boast, and far more efficient. 
 But an example will more fully explain our meaning; it will show also 
 the difficulties to be encountered in forming first translations for the 
 Heathen, and their slow progress toward perfection; and will, at the 
 same time, prove that the practice now pursued by the Bible Society, 
 in conjunction with Missionary translators, is in exact accordance with 
 the practice of those, who have never been accused of being deficient in 
 caution and prudence in any of their undertakings : we allude to the 
 translations executed by the Lutheran Missionaries in Tranquebar, 
 and printed at the expense of the Society for Promoting Christian 
 Knowledge. 
 
 In 1705 Bartholomew Ziegenbalg and John Earnest Grundler sailed 
 from England, and arrived at the Danish settlement in Tranquebar in 
 1706. In 1708 Ziegenbalg had so far acquired the knowledge of the 
 Tamul language, as to commence the translation of the New Testament 
 into it. This translation was completed in 1711; and having been 
 revised by his fellow-labourer, Grundler, was printed in 1714 at Tran- 
 quebar, at the press and on paper provided by the Society for Promoting 
 Christian Knowledge. In 1717 Ziegenbalg began the translation of the 
 Old Testament, which, in 1719, he had carried on to the end of the 
 book of Judges, when his labours were terminated by death. During 
 the same year, Benjamin Schultze, another Missionary, patronized by 
 the same Society, arrived in India, and undertook to pursue the work 
 
14 
 
 begun by Ziegenbalg. What Ziegenbalg had executed was tevised by 
 Schultze, and printed under his superintendence in 1723. Having pro- 
 ceeded with the translation, he printed from Ruth to Solomon’s Song, 
 inclusive, in 1726, All the prophetical books in 1727, and the Apocrypha 
 in 1728. A second edition of the Tamul New Testament, revised by 
 Schultze, was also put to the press in 1722, and finished in 1724. The 
 great fault of this translation appears to have been, that it was too 
 literal (the common fault of all first translations); and therefore it could 
 not be very intelligible to those who were unacquainted with the idioms 
 of the originals, from which it was made. Whether it was founded upon 
 Luther’s German version, or upon the Greek and Hebrew Scriptures, 
 is not certain. 
 
 To correct the error of this version, another translation was made by 
 Philip John Fabricius, and printed in 1777. He was one of Schultze’s 
 successors in the Danish Mission in India. This translation was formed 
 more on the paraphrastic principle, and obtained the character of being 
 a classical and elegant version. Having published his new version 
 of the New Testament, he undertook a revision of the former translation 
 of the Old Testament, which he completed between the years 1777 and 
 1782, in two vols. 4to. under the same patronage as his predecessor, the 
 Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, and chiefly at their expense. 
 In 1814 a new edition of 5000 copies of the Tamul New Testament 
 (from the text of Fabricius) was printed at the Serampore press, for the 
 Calcutta Bible Society, and sent to Madras, to be dispersed among the 
 native Christians in that presidency, aud those speaking the Tamul 
 language in Ceylon. In 1816 the Calcutta Bible Society undertook to 
 print 2000 copies of the Tamul Bible, from the text of Fabricius’ revised 
 edition. But, upon mature consideration, it was found necessary to 
 revise the text of both Testaments throughout; and, in fact, to execute 
 a new version founded upon the old. This thorough revision was 
 accordingly committed to Mr. Rhenius, under the superintendence 
 of Dr. Rottler, and the inspection of the Missionaries at Trichinopoly, 
 Tanjore, and Tranquebar. Of this revised version, the Gospel of St. 
 Matthew has already been printed. Those of Mark, Luke, and John, 
 have now probably also left the press, and the revision of the whole New 
 Testament is nearly completed. In the meantime, however, 2500 copies 
 of Fabricius’s New Testament, and 2500 extra copies of the Gospel and 
 Acts, together with 1000 copies of Fabricius’ revised edition of the 
 Pentateuch, Psalms, and Isaiah, have been struck off, and dispersed in 
 order to meet the present pressing demand for these Seriptures by the 
 native population. The language of the Committee of the Madras Bible 
 Society, m announcing these reprints of parts of the old versions, 
 deserves our notice. ‘“ Although,” they say, “ it is an object of para- 
 mount importance with your Society to obtain and circulate the purest 
 and most faithful translations of the sacred Scriptures; nevertheless, as 
 long as it is the only existing source from which the spiritual wants 
 of native Christians can be supplied, it is assuredly its duty, as it 
 doubtless will ever be its earnest desire, to provide them with such 
 means of nourishment as it has pleased Almighty God to place in its 
 
15 
 
 hands.” Such were the views and feelings of the Christian Knowledge 
 Society in patronizing the translation, first of Ziegenbalg, and then 
 of Fabricius, Such will be the views and feelings of every man guided 
 by common sense, and a compassionate heart. The mere theorist may 
 sit in his study, trifling over his twenty editions of the Scriptures, 
 and speculate upon optimism; but the practical Christian, living in 
 the midst of Heathens, and pitying the thousands who are perishing 
 around him for lack of knowledge, must do the best he can for their 
 relief. 
 
 Having thus discussed the first three assumptions of the Reviewer, 
 but little need be said upon the fourth, which, in fact, is virtually answered 
 in the replies to the former. He assumes that no persons are capable 
 of acquiring the requisite knowledge of Greek and Hebrew, who have 
 not applied to the study of them in their earlier years. The object 
 of the remark is, clearly, to get rid of a set of men, of whose acknow- 
 ledged merits, the Reviewer feels that it would be very difficalt to enter 
 into an examination, and maintain his cause. Our readers will readily 
 understand, that we refer to the Serampore translators, Dr. Morrison, 
 and Professor Lee, and indeed, to every other person engaged in the 
 work of translating the Scriptures, who, by the force of genius, has been 
 enabled to overcome the obstacles which have opposed his acquisition 
 of learning. By taking this preliminary objection, the Reviewer hopes 
 dexterously to set these gentlemen on one side, and thus prevent the 
 necessity of any actual inquiry into their fitness for the works, in which 
 they are employed. Whether such men are thus to be discussed and 
 put down by an arbitrary postulate, remains to be seen; we confess that 
 the attempt appears to us exceedingly ludicrous. We admit, however, 
 the fact, by which he would put these gentlemen aside. We acknow- 
 ledge that none of these admirable men have enjoyed (to use the 
 significant phrase) the benefit of a regular education. We know that 
 one of them handled the saw; that another worked at the last; and we 
 almost wish, that we could prove the rest to have been apprenticed to 
 some manual trade, that we might pour the more complete contempt on 
 those conceited seventh-form boys (as the author of the Parsuits of Lite- 
 rature justly calls them,) who fancy that no learning can be derived but 
 from some of our great public schools. We respect, we admire the man 
 of real learning, of deep and extensive knowledge in any department 
 of science or literature. He is always a modest man. He does not 
 determine, off-hand, intricate questions ; for, he is aware of the difficul- 
 ties, by which they are embarrassed. Neither is he keen in remarking 
 deficiencies in great undertakings, for he knows the obstacles which 
 must be overcome in their execution. But inferior common-place minds 
 are of another stamp. To return, however, to the point before us— 
 when the Reviewer intimates the necessity of an early initiation into the 
 study of Hebrew and Greek, we are surprised that he should forget how 
 few of our great Hebrew scholars have ever attempted the language 
 until they had completed at least their regular University education ; 
 and as for that ten years’ apprenticeship to Latin and Greek, to which 
 it is the hard lot of all educated in our English seminaries to be 
 
16 
 
 subjected, we are persuaded that much of the time might be far 
 better employed in the acquisition of general knowledge, which, even 
 to a translator, is fully as important as an acquaintance with all the 
 niceties of the Greek tongue. We are quite sure, that if he has no 
 further competency for his work, than what is derived from critical 
 skill in the original languages, he is very indifferently furnished for its 
 execution. 
 
 It is not within our purpose, however, to undertake the defence 
 of such men as we have mentioned; it would be an insult to their 
 well-earned reputation, did we pretend to do so. They need no 
 other defence than what their own works afford them. But this much 
 we will say to any one who asks, Who is Professor Lee ?—that he is a 
 man whom God has been pleased to endow, above most other men, with 
 peculiar talents to understand Janguages, and whom, in his overruling 
 Providence, he has caused to occupy a very important sphere in pro- 
 moting the translation of his Holy Scriptures. Further, we would 
 inform him, that to secure the accession of so talented an individual to 
 their learned body, the University of Cambridge (no mean judges, we 
 presume, of such matters,) have broken through the common order 
 of their proceedings, and elected him to fill the office of their Arabic 
 professor. We add, lastly, that from the time of his election to this 
 office, unto the present moment, his reputation has progressively in- 
 creased, and his character and conduct commanded the esteem of the 
 whole body. Need we ask, in conclusion, whether such a man is incom- 
 petent to execute a translation of the Scriptures, or to edit the trans- 
 lations of others, merely because he was not sent to a grammar-school, 
 when eight years. old? Possibly, however, the Reviewer will think it 
 prudent to wave all canvassing of the pretensions of Professor Lee to 
 the character of a translator. But will he still maintain the incom- 
 petency of the rest? and, in the very spirit of a literary Pharisee, ask— 
 What learned body, or learned individual, has borne testimony to them ? 
 We will answer his inquiry, and present to him testimonials which 
 pethaps he little expects to receive ;—testimonials from one, who, as he 
 stands pre-eminent among us for critical skill in the sacred Scriptures, 
 and as a general Biblical scholar, can never be supposed to undervalue 
 these acquirements, or lightly regard the want of them in another. The 
 person, to whom we refer, is Dr. Herbert Marsh, the present Bishop 
 of Peterborough. About the year 1812, Dr. Marsh, then Lady Marga- 
 retv’s Professor of Divinity in the University of Cambridge, thought it his 
 duty to publish a pamphlet in opposition to the British and Foreign 
 Bible Society. He considered the constitution of the Society unfayour- 
 able to the interests of the Established Church; and hence he earnestly 
 wished to separate all the members of that Church from any connexion 
 with it, To such, therefore, as had joined the Society to aid the circu- 
 lation of the Scriptures at home, he advised a junction, in preference, 
 with the Christian Knowledge Society; from whose depository the 
 Prayer Book would issue, together with the Bible, to instruct the people 
 in the understanding and use of it: and to such as had joined it in order 
 to promote new translations of the Word of God into the languages 
 
17 
 
 of Heathen nations, he recommended the patronage, im preference, 
 of the translating fund of the Baptist Missionaries at Serampore, and 
 of the labours of other Missionaries of various denominations of Christians, 
 who were engaged in similar works. His words are very remarkable, 
 but not being able to lay our hands upon a copy of the Appendix, we 
 €an only give a brief extract from pages 75 and 97 of that work. They 
 are enough, however, to show the estimation im which he held the men 
 of whom he speaks. ‘‘ These are the men” he says, (i.e. the Baptist 
 Missionaries at Serampore,) ““ who are best qualified to complete the 
 design so nobly begun, and hitherto so successfully performed.” And 
 again, “‘ Should any attempt be made to translate the New Testament 
 into any modern language or dialect of Africa, no men can be better 
 qualified for the task than the Missionaries who are employed by the 
 London Missionary Society.” But Dr. Marsh did not merely bear this 
 ample testimony to the qualifications of these men for the work, in which 
 they were engaged, but he acted consistently with it, and sent very gene- 
 rously a donation of £10. in aid of their plans. What now, we ask, can 
 the Reviewer object to such testimonials? Surely, if any one is com- 
 petent to decide the question at issue, the Bishop of Peterborough is 
 competent. In his hands then we leave our adversary, and have no 
 doubt that the Bishop will make good his cause, and maintain his 
 Statement against all the exceptions of his opponent, as well as our’s. 
 In this confidence we take our leave of the subject, and proceed to the 
 few remaining points of the Review, which require any notice ; but our 
 zemarks must be very brief. : 
 
 The first concerns the Calmuc New Testament and the Mohawk 
 version of the Gospel of St. John. In opening this subject, the 
 Reviewer seems to feel the absurdity of his own plan, in condemning 
 translations without particularizing their faults. Having, therefore, 
 made his extravagant assertion, ‘‘ That after the most careful and patient 
 investigation,” &c. he professes to produce two instances in support 
 
 _ of his allegation—instances, as he says, taken at a venture, just as they 
 came to hand. There is something very amusing in this free and easy 
 way of dealing with translations displayed by the Reviewer. What a 
 wonderful language-master must he be, to take up one or another trans- 
 lation indifferently, out of a whole hundred, and determime upon their 
 merits with such facility and decision of mind. But we forget ourselves. 
 The object of the Reviewer is not to examine the execution of the work, 
 but to question the workman—to question him, moreover, not upon the 
 principles and peculiarities of the languages in which he has been 
 engaged, and his acquaintance with them, but upon his birth, parentage, 
 and education : as, for example, Where were you born? What were you 
 brought up to? At what age did you go to school, and where? Are you 
 a capital Greek and Hebrew scholar? Is your translation perfect? And 
 when truth and modesty have constrained the poor labourer to answer 
 these interrogatories in a manner unsatisfactory to the questionist, the 
 investigation is closed, and judgment pronounced against him. Thus 
 the Calmuc New Testament is held up to scorn, and the Society together 
 with it. But we can tell the Reviewer, that it was a most unlucky act, 
 
 z 
 
18 
 
 when he ventured to bring forward this translation, in proof of the 
 extreme carelessness of the Society in all the rest: for, in the account 
 which he has given of it, he has managed to comprise as many 
 mis-statements, as could be well crowded into the same quantity 
 of printing and paper. In the first place, The translation was not made 
 by the Moravian Missionaries on the steppes of the Caucasus, but by a 
 Mr. Schmidt at St. Petersburgh. Secondly, The British and Foreign 
 Bible Society was not the immediate patron of the version, but’ the 
 Russian Bible Society, or rather the Russian Government. Thirdly, 
 Instead of being executed by incompetent persons, Mr. Schmidt is 
 acknowledged to be the best Calmuc and Mongolian scholar of his age. 
 And, Fourthly, So far is the translation from being a disgrace to any 
 party concerned in it, it is, on the contrary, held in such estimation, that 
 Mr. Schmidt has received from the Emperor a patent of nobility, as the 
 reward of the talents displayed by him in its execution. So much for 
 the specimen at a venture, and the attempt of the Reviewer to impugn 
 the character of the Calmuc version. 
 
 What shall we say, however, in defence of the Mohawk version 
 of St. John’s Gospel ; has not the Reviewer succeeded in’ exposing this 
 work to the just contempt of all? It is a very easy matter to make any 
 subject ridiculous; and from the barbarism of a long name, to raise a 
 laugh against the individual who bears it. But yet, after all, what are 
 the facts of the case? The translator was a Captain Norton, an officer 
 in the British service. ‘He was by birth a Cherokee Indian, but from his 
 infancy had been naturalized among the Mohawks, or six-nation Indians, 
 so that the language of his adopted tribe (of which he was subsequently 
 elected the chief) was his vernacular tongue. But, further, he had been 
 brought up also in constant intercourse with the English, and had 
 spoken their language from his youth. His knowledge of it had been 
 improved, likewise, by the society which he enjoyed, among the chief 
 officers and agents of the British Army and Government in N. America ; 
 and he had also been educated for two years at a Scotch University. 
 He spoke, therefore, both languages with the same facility; and the 
 assertion may be hazarded without fear of disproval, that he was the 
 individual Indian, who was best qualified for the work: for, to his 
 knowledge of the languages, was added a practical acquaintance with 
 their distinct peculiarities of idiom ; his office of Indian interpreter to the 
 British army having necessarily given him a facility inconverting, with equal 
 ease, the meaning of the one into the other. The work, however, proves 
 the workman. What, therefore, we ask, are the results? What does 
 the translation prove to be? It has now been before the public for 
 nearly twenty years. The only edition printed by the Parent Society 
 consisted of 2000 copies ; but it has since been reprinted by the Ameri- 
 can Bible Society. It appears, that about the year 1822, objections 
 were made to this version, as being inaccurate; and its circulation was 
 ' therefore suspended by that Society, until its true character could be 
 satisfactorily ascertained. Inquiry was accordingly made, when the 
 inaccuracies complained of were found to arise chiefly from orthographical 
 “errors, not affecting the sense, or consequently the usefulness of the 
 
we 
 
 translation. The suspension was therefore removed, and much benefit 
 is.stated to have been derived to these tribes from its cireulation. Other 
 parts of the New Testament have been since translated into the Mohawk, 
 and are now im a state of forwardmess for publication. The Reviewer, 
 therefore, has failed in both his imstances. As for the test to which this 
 version was. subjected by the Secretary of the Seciety, we are free to 
 acknowledge, that * was of no moment, and might as well have been 
 2 a Rl ir ed ie aed a ge ee 
 
 2 ov an 9 ma person is now employed ie ee 
 Gemniad Bests Os dictine aan Was, ae 
 
 have origmated) im carrying the Irish Bible, m the Irish character, 
 
 press. 
 
 From the defence of the Society with respect to its translations, we 
 proceed to make a few remarks on what has dropt from the Reviewer 
 touching the Apocrypha. That the circulation of the Apocrypha has 
 
 has been called im question, discussed, exposed, and publicly put dowa. 
 We simeerely thank our northern brethren for their zealous exertions in 
 effecting this change, and awakening many of us to a more just con- 
 sideration- of the essential difference between inspired and uninspired 
 writings. We hope that the benefit of their labours may be yet extended 
 further, than to the Bible Society. But we deny that the odium of this 
 practice is to be thrown entirely en the managing Committee and 
 Officers. The Society itself must bear the blame. We cannot im honesty 
 deny, that we have beem implicated im the measure, though never con- 
 cerned im the management of the Parent Institution; for certainly we 
 
 The truth is, that, with very many ethers, we did not suffictently feel 
 the importance of the subject, and are really thankful that the contre- 
 Vversy raised upoa it has produced a better state of feeling. We rejoice 
 
 s 
 = 
 
20 
 
 also, that the Society has manifested its soundness by an open and 
 avowed renunciation of its error. But when the Reviewer, from the circu- 
 Jation of the Apocrypha on the continent, insidiously infers'that the Bible 
 Society has departed from the example of the Reformers im England, 
 and the Lutherans abroad, and assimilated herself to the character 
 of Papists, who have formally declared these books to be inspired—that 
 she has lent herself to the most insidious corruption of the Churelr 
 of Rome—we affirm that the inference is most corruptly drawn. For it 
 implies that she has abandoned the practice of the reformed English 
 and J.utherian Churches, and adopted in preference, the corruptions 
 of the Papacy; which is not true in point of fact. Whatever royal 
 and archiepiscopal authority was given, by the publication of Cran- 
 mer's Bible of 1539, to the circulation of the inspired Scriptures without 
 the Apocrypha; all the world knows that the Chureh of England 
 from the accession of Elizabeth has uninterruptedly sanctioned the 
 circulation of the Apocrypha with the mspired Seriptures—that she has 
 incorporated the Apocrypha into that course of publie instruction, which 
 she has provided for her members—and that the translation of the 
 Apocryphal books formed as much a part of the work of King James” 
 translators, as did the inspired Volume. The Reviewer is also well 
 aware that the Society, which claims to itself the glory of exemplifying 
 the true spirit and character of the Church of England, has always 
 offered to its members Bibles, with or without the Apocrypha, as they 
 might choose. It is equally notorious also that, whatever might be the 
 form of Luther’s first German Bible, the Lutheran Church has always 
 sanctioned the reading of the Apocrypha; and that the greater portion 
 of her members, at this very day, will not admit of the circulation of the 
 Bible unaccompanied by that spurious adjunct. The error of the Society 
 has been in assuming as a principle of action, that because the authorized 
 English version, was the stipulated version to be circulated in the United 
 Kingdom; therefore the authorized, or received, versions of other 
 countries were the proper versions to be adopted by the Society, in her 
 foreign operations—a principle, we trust, whieh would not have been 
 admitted, if it had not presented the fewest obstaeles to the prosecution 
 of the work. In reviewing therefore, the conduet of the Society upon 
 this great question, we judge it to have grievously erred, and we 
 acknowledge our own share of the error. It was a departure from the 
 essence of our principles, and a corrupt yielding to that specious, 
 but most dangerous principle of morals—expediency. We thank God 
 that the practice has been effectually stopped. 
 
 Lastly, we must make a few remarks upon the Reviewer’s statement 
 of the scale of expenses incurred by the British and Foreign Bible 
 Society, that we may protest against the absurdity of estimating the 
 ratio of expense by a percentage upon the free fund, instead of its 
 expenditure or its total income; as the common sense of every man 
 of business would necessarily have suggested. Estimated upon either 
 of these principles, the ratio of expense is between 7 and 8 per cent. 
 and will bear a comparison with the corresponding expense of any 
 Kindred Society ; being in fact considerably below what most are obliged 
 
pe | 
 toimeur. We think however that we can discern the grounds of the 
 
 Reviewer's The recespts of the Bible Society are 
 derived from two sorts of payment—one for books sold to its subscribers 
 throughout the and the other derived from free subseripa 
 
 i expense i upon 
 sales; and consequently that all the expenses of the Society are to be 
 charged upon the application of the free fund. He does not, m fact, 
 understand the subject upon which be bas given judement. The cost 
 
 reduced prices. But to setile at once the this point, we 
 will apply to other societies, the principle of the Remiewer's id 
 Let us take the case of the Christian Society 
 
 oe aa Sa Re ee ee 
 
 per cent: m 1813 the free fand bad msen w 214821 the 
 to £3858, or above 25 percent. And for the years 1824, 1825, 1826, 
 the expenses have been somewhat more than 17,16 and 25 per cent 
 
 respectively. The principle of the caleslation is evidently thea improperly 
 
 And bere, we cannot bat remark, on the inconsistency manifested by 
 Some of the adiversanies of the Society, who, while they rail agamst 
 its actual expenses, its salaried officers, clerks, and agents, would 
 
 probity. 
 and sound pnaciples—azgenis, therefore, who are to be paid for thar 
 work = and who, if devoting ali their time to the employment, are, of 
 course to live by i. Now, consider the vast expense which must thus 
 
22 
 
 be entailed upon the circulation, and, how much, that cireulation must, 
 ultimately, be limited by the adoption of this system. Messrs, Leeves and 
 Barker were enabled to distribute in the Levant and Syria, during the last 
 year, about seven thousand and seven hundred copies of the Scriptures ;. 
 but it was done at the expense of £600. Do we regret this expense?) 
 No—not for an instant. It was necessary, inasmuch as the circulation 
 of these copies could not have been effected without it. Upon the, 
 same principle, we do not regret the expense of the agent employed in 
 the Malay Archipelago, nor of those who are, traversing S. America : 
 because, the important work could not be pursued in any of these 
 quarters of the world, without such an agency. But we should deem 
 it a lavish expenditure of money, to carry on the whole of the circula- 
 tion of the Scriptures on the Continent, by means. of agents pervading 
 it in every part, when the object could be obtained by the gratuitous 
 services of Continental Societies; and the influence of the corrupt 
 principles of some of their members prevented by the mode of con- 
 nexion established with them. We are aware, that in some parts of the 
 Continent, agents are necessary, om various grounds; and, in such 
 cases, we would never object to their employment. In this view, we 
 are glad of the employment of Leander Van Ess, because we believe 
 him to be a key to the Catholic population of Germany; though we 
 think that, possibly, his renumeration is disproportionately large—but 
 it isa nice calculation. When, however, the Reviewer produces the 
 language of Dr. Steinkopff, as an outrage upon common sense, because 
 he enlarges upon his disinterestedness and freedom from an earthly 
 mind, while, at the same time, he was receiving a salary, it is a most 
 perverse abuse of that language. The secretary evidently speaks from 
 a judgment previously formed of the individual, when he acted as 
 an un-remunerated agent of the Society—a judgment confirmed by 
 what he saw of the man, and of the spirit which animated him; 
 and, surely, the Reviewer will not say, that when Van Ess’s cireum- 
 stances obliged him to accept a salary, he forfeited all title to his former 
 well-earned reputation? But we drop the subject. What Van Ess 
 is, and what the nature of the Society’s connexion with him, whether. 
 honourable or dishonourable to either party, will soon appear from 
 the investigation which is now carrying on. We will patiently wait for 
 the issue. 
 
 One word more and we close the subject. In the commencement 
 of his article, the Reviewer acknowledges that the Bible Society has 
 come out of all former conflicts uninjured by its assailants, or to use 
 his own antique and racy term, scathless. We thank him for his 
 admission, which is true; and affirm in addition, that the Society has 
 been strengthened by the attacks it has sustained. All these attacks 
 were levelled either at the principles on which it was established—the 
 universal dissemination of the Scriptures without note or comment, or at 
 the combination of all dencminations in this work, who acknowledge 
 the Bible to be the Word of God. The fruit of the diseussions which 
 have arisen, has been the verification of these principles: so that in 
 the judgment of all Protestants, and we may say of all Christendom 
 
23 
 
 ‘with the’exception of the Roman Catholic Church—that great ‘apos- 
 tate from the truth—the Society ‘stands upon av impregnable ‘basis. 
 And we pity the Reviewer, who, writing for a publication which has 
 earned no small meed of praise by its steady opposition to Romanism, 
 could attribute the scathless condition of the Society—not ‘to the Pro- 
 testant principles on which it was founded, and has ever acted, but to 
 that most worthless of all grounds of union, a blind spint of ‘partizan- 
 ship. No doubt the wishes of the writer eagerly anticipated its fall, when 
 ‘he saw that disagreement has been manifested among the friends of the 
 Society, and that partizanship could no longer bind it together; ‘he 
 “flattered himself probably that this last blow would shiver it to pieces. 
 The event will doubtless prove the unsoundness of his expectations, and 
 the rashness of the observation: for ourselves we confess that we do not 
 fear the issue. In the mean time we will undertake to prove that—of all 
 the Societies professedly religious, now existing in England, supported by 
 voluntary contributions, and resting therefore on the basis of character, 
 and the affection of their friends,—the Bible Society derives the least 
 support, from the spirit of partizanship, which the Reviewer holds forth 
 as its only sustaining power. 
 
 The Bible Society enjoys the countenance and support of almost 
 the whole of that body of Christians in the Church of England, which 
 supports the Church Missionary Society. It has the countenance of not 
 afew, who are members of the Christian Knowledge Society; the 
 whole body of Methodists also profess to espouse its cause; we may say 
 the same likewise of dissenters generally, whether Independents, Ge- 
 neral or Particular Baptists, or by whatever name they may be dis- 
 tinguished ;—in their collective character, they openly acknowledge 
 the Bible Society, as that which stands among us, pre-eminent in im- 
 
 ortance and usefulness. But what is the amount of the free fund 
 which the Bible Society draws from the partizanship of all these 
 bodies openly advocating its cause? The Reviewer says it does not 
 exceed £50,000. During the last year it was about £45,000. Now 
 observe, the free fund of the Church Missionary Society is £46,000; 
 of the Methodist Missionary Society £45,000; of the Christian Know- 
 ledge Society £25,000; of the London Missionary Society nearly 
 £30,000; of the two Baptist Societies £20,000; i.e. these several 
 bodies of professing Christians, when separately pursuing an object 
 involving their own peculiarities—an object therefore which allows of - 
 the full display of that spirit of partizanship, of which each is suscep- 
 tible, can contribute no less a sum than £166,000; but when uniting 
 (and with the exception of the Christian Knowledge Society they do 
 profess to unite) in support of the Bible Society, they can only furnish 
 to it a fund of £45,000. If it be upheld by a spirit of partizanship, how 
 comes it that this spirit is so unproductive?..The truth is, the Bible 
 Society favours the interests of no particular body of Christians. It is 
 ~a mighty instrument, and employed by God in support of the genuine 
 cause of his Christ, but it does not look with a favourable eye ‘to the 
 cause’ of any sect or party, to use the cant language, or strictly speaking, 
 the partizan language of the day. Hence, while common sense and 
 
24 
 
 right Christian feeling gain it the approbation of all, it has as yet enjoyed 
 the peculiar favour of none; for, as in the days of the Apostle, so it is 
 now, all seek their own, and not the things of Jesus Christ. All appear 
 ready to assign to the Society the second place in their affections, if 
 they may only advance something of their own to the first. But as the 
 common voice of Greece justly proclaimed the praises of that General, 
 and virtually awarded to him the first honours, to whom a large majority 
 of the confederate chiefs had freely given the second place, whilst each 
 claimed for himself the first; so may the highest importance be rightly 
 attached to that Society, which, apart from all selfish considerations, 
 enjoys the suffrage, and gains the regard of the serious and considerate 
 of all parties. 
 
 THE END. 
 
 PRINTED AND PUBLISHED BY L. B. SEELEY AND SONS, 169 FLEEL-STREET. 
 SOLD ALSO BY HATCHARD AND SON, AND NISBET, LONDON : 
 
 BY T. COMBE, LEICESTER: AND BY H. BUCK, LOUGHBOROUGH. 
 price 6d. or 4s. per dozen. 
 
LETTER 
 
 ADDRESSED TO 
 
 ROBERT HALDANE, Ese. 
 
 CONTAINING 
 
 SOME REMARKS ON HIS STRICTURES RELATIVE 
 TO THE CONTINENT, AND TO CONTINENTAL 
 BIBLE SOCIETIES. 
 
 BY 
 
 C. F. A. STEINKOPFF, D.D. 
 
 MINISTER OF THE GERMAN LUTHERAN CHURCH IN THE SAVOY, LONDON. 
 
 *"Adnbevorres tv ayarn. 
 
 LONDON: 
 
 PUBLISHED BY SEELEY AND SON, FLEET-STREET: 
 
 AND SOLD BY HATCHARD AND SON, PICCADILLY; HAMILTON AND Co., 
 PATERNOSTER ROW; J. AND A. ARCH, CORNHILL: WAUGH AND 
 INNES, EDINBURGH; CHALMERS AND COLLINS, GLASGOW: 
 
 AND OTHER BOOKSELLERS. 
 
 1826. 
 
. ~~. 
 a4 
 i = 
 1) 
 “4 
 vit —* +4 
 He Bee 
 pee : ta 
 4 ee 
 . ‘ 4 Ps = a ms 
 ee EMS. 
 oe | “ ¢ 2 3 
 rma . mts wrkes 
 f teh sreta Pete ghead sesh ‘cay 
 a 4” t a 
 Preys ¥ pdt ay Opty re fap mr 
 DPD Wn Deg aa 
 x Wo &. ya 
 F< 
 | London: qpeinten at ae w 
 BY J. MOYES, BOUVERIE 
 ne ‘fo AAS 
 - , ‘y bd 
 " 
 ; 5 is “ 
 ’ tt es tive ty 
 r *o 4 { wr * 
 r ME Re u wig dG rg 
 a Leave jae pa eer weer 
 ’ i} if LS 
 | ‘ 4 
 : TT fay 
 \ : © 
 wy 4 a 9 
 ul 
 ~ renee 
 i Fis LP 
 ht AF Pau SG 4 J 
 / ‘ 7 sa ; 
 S J8 48 
 : ; "43 ae) j rb: Sa hn 
 ine od ey $7 2 ary 
 mite SF er, 
 ar be SA ves) Sy hy ya 
 as Ma | a2 Peal hia nomi ud 
 
 ee weer = 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 Lazovrtne as I do under considerable bodily 
 indisposition, I shall simply state, that in my reply 
 to Mr. Haldane it was my sincere endeavour to 
 
 write in the spirit of my motto: 
 “ Speaking the truth in love.” 
 
 It is my earnest wish and prayer, that the remarks 
 which I have submitted to his consideration and 
 that of the British public may be received with 
 candour and kindness; that, instead of widening 
 the breach of Christian charity, they may tend 
 to heal it, and contribute, in some measure, to 
 the restoration of that peace and harmony which 
 are so desirable among all the members and 
 friends of the British and Foreign Bible Society, 
 both at home and abroad. 
 
 I have only to add, that these remarks have 
 not been written at the request of the Committee 
 
1V PREFACE. 
 
 of the British and Foreign Bible Society. They 
 are entirely my own, without any official sanc- 
 tion and authority; I am, therefore, alone re- 
 
 sponsible. 
 C.F, A, ie: 
 
 Tottenham, March 6, 1826. 
 
A LETTER, 
 
 &e. &e, 
 
 SIR, 
 
 I wave often trembled when, either in public 
 or private, I have heard the British and 
 Foreign Bible Society extravagantly praised. 
 I feel deeply that the Society is but one of 
 many instruments employed by a God of in- 
 finite wisdom and mercy, and that, far from 
 superseding other Christian institutions,— 
 whether previously existing, or formed sub- 
 sequently to its establishment,—it can per- 
 form ut a certain proportion of work, and 
 accomplish only a certain quantum of good. 
 I may sincerely add, that I have felt grieved 
 when flattering compliments have been paid to 
 human agents, fully persuaded as I am that 
 the only language which becomes weak, mor- 
 tal creatures, is, “ Not unto us, O Lord, not 
 unto us, but unto thy name, give glory.” 
 Besides, I was aware that amidst the vast 
 accumulation of business, the administrators 
 and officers of the Society could not, with all 
 their exertion, in every instance, allot such a 
 B 
 
2 
 
 portion of their time and consideration to 
 every particular as its importance required. 
 If, therefore, any gentleman, influenced by a 
 sincere desire to promote the sacred interests 
 of truth and religion, should consider it his 
 duty to point out what he conceived to be 
 defects in the system or practice of the So- 
 ciety, or to call the attention of its members 
 to any real or apparent deviation’ from its 
 fundamental rules, so far from entertaining 
 any unfriendly feeling towards such an indi- 
 vidual, I should feel and acknowledge my 
 obligation, and adopt the language of the 
 royal Psalmist: “ Let the righteous smite me, 
 it shall be a kindness; and let him reprove 
 me, it shall be an excellent oil, which shall 
 not break my head.” But surely, Sir, I do 
 not require too much, when I expect that 
 such strictures be characterised by that “ wis- 
 dom which is from above,” and which “is 
 first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to 
 be intreated ; full of mercy and good fruits.” 
 
 With regard to the great point in question, 
 the propriety of circulating on the Continent 
 editions of the Scriptures which contain the 
 Apocrypha*, it appears to me so momentous 
 a question, and involving so many considera- 
 
 * It may not, perhaps, be improper to remark, that all the 
 copies of the Bible which have been printed, by order and 
 
3 
 
 tions of the gravest import, that I shall not 
 presume to enter upon it, but simply state my 
 
 at the expense of the British and Foreign Bible Society, in the 
 languages of the United Kingdom, to the extent of upwards of 
 1,600,000, are without the Apocryphal writings: neither have 
 these been introduced into any one of the new versions in which the 
 Scriptures have been translated for the first time. The only appa- 
 rent exception is in the long primer Bible, printed on fine paper, by 
 Eyre and Strachan, in 1817, In this edition the Apocrypha and 
 index, &c. were inserted, contrary to an express order of the Com- 
 mittee, given by minute, dated 17 April, 1815. When this edi- 
 tion of 5000 copies was printed, it was considered to be too ex- 
 pensive for the Society’s use, and an arrangement was made with 
 the printers that only 500 copies should be delivered to the So- 
 ciety, Messrs. Eyre and Strachan agreeing to take the remainder 
 on their own risk. These 500 copies were delivered in August 
 1817. _A few were sent out before it was discovered that they 
 contained the Apocrypha. On that fact, however, being an- 
 nounced to the Committee on the 3d of November, 1817, they 
 immediately resolved that no more copies should be issued; and 
 none have been subsequently sold with the Apocrypha, except 
 some few copies (probably not exceeding twenty or thirty) 
 which some Gentlemen, chiefly members of the Committee, 
 desired to have for their own private use. An agreement 
 was moreover made with the printers, that the Apocryphal 
 sheets should be returned, and allowed for in the next edition ; 
 it has, however, happened, that another edition has not yet 
 been called for——The Society has also published in England 
 large editions of the Bible in the German, Dutch, French, and 
 other European languages, without the Apocrypha, which were 
 distributed chiefly among the foreign soldiers and prisoners of 
 war, as well as in some of the British colonies abroad. Itsagents 
 moreover prevailed on some Continental Bible Societies to un- 
 dertake editions of the Holy Scriptures without the Apocrypha ; 
 but the difficulties which this omission occasioned, compelled 
 those Societies to add in, subsequent editions the very books 
 which they had attempted to leave out. It is my mature conyic- 
 tion, that the Parent institution could not have accomplished the 
 
4. 
 
 own honest conviction. Jam certainly bound 
 to admit, that there are many and most 
 weighty and powerful arguments against an 
 intermingled and undistinguished Apocrypha: 
 on the other hand, I never could, nor do I 
 now, feel the least conscientious objection to 
 the practice of the Protestant churches, ac- 
 cording to which the Apocryphal books are 
 separated from the canonical, and marked by 
 a broad line of distinction, as mere human 
 compositions, not to be held in equal autho- 
 rity with the inspired volume, and to be read 
 with a constant reference to that apostolical 
 injunction : “ Prove all things; hold fast that 
 which is good.” You, and our other Edin- 
 burgh brethren, will allow that the Reformers 
 
 immense good which its operations have produced on the Conti- 
 nent of Europe, had the Foreign Bible Societies not been left at 
 perfect liberty to print their own authorised versions, which in- 
 clude the Apocrypha. 
 
 The Resolution adopted on the 28th of November last will 
 entirely prevent the Committee of the British and Foreign Bible 
 Society from applying its funds towards printing any edition of 
 the Scriptures which contains the Apocrypha; nor can they any 
 longer assist foreign Societies in the publication of any such edi- 
 tion. At the same time, the above resolution carefully avoids 
 interfering with those funds which the foreign Bible Societies 
 themselves collect. 
 
 I may also add, that out of more than two millions of Bibles 
 and Testaments, to the circulation of which the Parent institu- 
 tion has, directly or indirectly, contributed in various parts of 
 the Continent, far the greater proportion consists of copies of the 
 New fans 
 
5 
 
 were bold men, possessed of holy courage, and 
 determined rather to lay down their lives 
 than shrink from what they considered their 
 clear and positive duty. Now, they consi- 
 dered it their duty to separate what they 
 conscientiously deemed the divine from the 
 human, the wheat from the chaff; but they 
 did not go so far as to say, “ the Apocryphal 
 books must not be circulated at all.” They 
 translated and appended them to the sacred 
 volume; and, thus annexed and appended, 
 these books have been handed down from 
 generation to generation in the Protestant 
 churches on the Continent, as well as in the 
 national church of England. To insist on 
 their entire exclusion is, therefore, going far- 
 ther than the Reformers have done, and will 
 be attended with many and most serious 
 practical difficulties. ‘The determination to 
 which the Committee of the Parent institu- 
 tion came on the 28th of November is of a 
 most restrictive nature; and there were many 
 who, with myself, consented to its adoption 
 in the fervent wish and hope, that, by these 
 means, the peace of the Society might be 
 preserved, and the unity of its operations be 
 maintained. I cannot, therefore, sufficiently 
 express the disappointment and sorrow which 
 filled my inmost soul, when information 
 reached the parent Committee that our Edin- 
 
6 
 
 burgh brethren were not yet satisfied, and 
 felt indisposed to renew their friendly inter- 
 course with the British and Foreign Bible. 
 Society, till the principle laid down by them 
 should be carried into full effect; namely, 
 that “ grants of money or books should be 
 given only to those Societies which profess to 
 circulate the inspired books alone.” 
 
 After these introductory remarks, allow me 
 to express my deep regret, that, whilst some 
 have lavished extravagant praises on the Bri- 
 tish and Foreign Bible Society, you should 
 have fallen into the opposite extreme. Losing 
 sight of the incalculable good accomplished 
 by the labours of that institution, you bestow 
 only censure; and may I not put it to your 
 own unbiassed judgment and Christian feel- 
 ing, whether you do not, with regard to the 
 state of the Continent and the foreign Bible 
 Societies, indulge in too general assertions, 
 which cannot be read without sensations of a 
 most painful nature? In some instances you 
 have been misled, and induced to state facts 
 incorrectly ; and where you point out actual 
 deviations from the fundamental rules of the 
 British and Foreign Bible Society, on the 
 part of any of the foreign Bible Societies, 
 there is just reason to complain that you do 
 not exercise that candour and justice towards © 
 the Committee of the Parent institution to 
 
“4 
 
 which their general conduct is fairly entitled. 
 You almost seem to apply to the British and 
 Foreign Bible Society that severe denuncia- 
 tion, “ Cut it down; why cumbereth it the 
 ground ?” instead of joining with heart and 
 voice in the friendly intercession: ‘* Destroy 
 it not, for there is a blessing therein.” 
 
 Let me now proceed to an examination of 
 some of the principal statements contained 
 in your “ Review.” And, first, I shall make 
 a few remarks on your general assertions. I 
 scarcely expected to find in a publication of 
 your’s such a passage as the following: “ From 
 the Continent of Europe the light of divine 
 truth, with which it was once eminently fa- 
 voured, has been withdrawn.” Having re- 
 sided twenty-four years in Great Britain, I 
 am fully sensible of the distinguished privi- 
 leges and blessings which it enjoys in a civil 
 and religious point of view ; nor can any one 
 lament more than myself the incalculable 
 mischief which infidel writers like Voltaire, 
 Rousseau, and others, have produced in many 
 parts of the Continent; and still more am I 
 concerned, that even at the present moment 
 men are to be-found who dare to attack the 
 fundamental truths of Christianity. But, 
 while I make these concessions, I would as 
 distinctly maintain that the lght of the 
 Gospel has. not been “ withdrawn from the 
 
8 
 
 Continent.” No, blessed be God! pure and 
 undefiled religion has not fled from it; the 
 Gospel of Christ is still proclaimed, and the 
 principles of the Reformation are still upheld 
 in many places. There are still in our uni- 
 versities men who are as much distinguished 
 by their strict adherence to pure and scrip- 
 tural doctrine as by the lustre of their talents, 
 and the extent and solidity of their learning. 
 There are still thousands of noblemen, clergy- 
 men, and gentlemen, in continental Europe, 
 as well as tens of thousands and hundreds 
 of thousands of industrious mechanics and 
 honest peasants, who are decided friends of 
 the Bible; who, with angels and archangels, 
 and all the company of heaven, fall prostrate 
 at the feet of a crucified, risen, and glorified 
 Redeemer, and confess with their tongues 
 that “Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of 
 God the Father.” These sincere followers of 
 the Lamb of God joyfully adopt the language 
 of the apostle, “ By grace are ye saved, 
 through faith; and that not of yourselves : it 
 is the gift of God : not of works, lest any man 
 should boast. For we are his workmanship, 
 created in Christ Jesus unto good works, 
 which God hath beforeordained that we should 
 walk in them.” Convinced in their inmost 
 souls, that “ God is a Spirit,” they “ worship 
 him in spirit and in truth;” they “ honour 
 
9 
 
 all men, fear God, honour the king,’ and 
 continually pray for grace and strength to 
 “adorn the doctrine of God their Saviour in 
 all things.” 
 
 I am confident no truly enlightened and 
 candid Briton, who is acquainted with the real 
 state of his own country, as well as with that 
 of the Continent, will approve of an unquali- 
 fied assertion like this,—“ Britain, like the 
 fleece of Gideon, has been watered with the 
 dew of heaven, while all the nations around. 
 have been parched and scorched. In all its 
 dwellings there has been light, while thick 
 darkness brooded over other lands.” Is there, 
 indeed, on the Continent no fruitful spot 
 remaining irrigated by the waters of the river 
 of life? Is no dwelling to be found illumi- 
 nated by the rays of the Sun of Righteous- 
 ness? Is all covered with deep Egyptian 
 darkness ?—I recollect, about ten or twelve 
 years ago, I paid a visit to a large sea-port in 
 this country. A man of war had just been 
 paid off, and I witnessed such a scene of riot 
 and profaneness, that I was grieved to the 
 soul. Had I immediately quitted the town, 
 what an impression of the state of its morals 
 and religion might I have carried away with 
 me! But, my residence in it having been 
 prolonged, I was introduced to a number of 
 truly excellent families: I saw churches 
 
10 
 
 thronged with devout and attentive hearers, 
 and found myself in the midst of Christian 
 assemblies; and thus, by contrasting both 
 scenes, was enabled to form a correct estimate 
 of the true state of things. Another in- 
 stance, shewing the fallacy of too general 
 assertions, occurs to me equally in point. A 
 Dutch banker, on his recent return from 
 London, being asked by a friend what he 
 thought of the state of religion in England, 
 gravely replied, “that the inhabitants had no 
 religion at all.” Surprised at this, his friend 
 desired to know the grounds which led him 
 to hazard so unqualified an opinion. “ It is 
 founded on my own individual experience,” 
 said the banker : “ during my stay in London 
 I visited several of their churches every Sun- 
 day morning, and found them nearly empty. 
 But the way the English spend Sunday is, to 
 drive into the country, where they enjoy a 
 good dinner, and amuse themselves with a 
 game at chess.” In like manner* an English 
 traveller may visit the Continent; he may 
 witness at inns and at places of public resort 
 
 * The following passage, corroborative of the sentiment here 
 expressed, is to be found in a printed letter of the Rev. Dr. J. 
 P. Smith:—‘ The English tourist, rapidly moving along the 
 high roads, and living at hotels, is likely to meet with little more 
 than the froth and foam which floats on the surface of society. 
 The retirement of private families —the usual abodes of morality 
 and religion — is not readily thrown open to passing strangers.” 
 
11 
 
 things which are disgusting and painful to 
 his best feelings. Under such circumstances, 
 he may be warranted in expressing himself 
 in terms of just indignation; but he would 
 not be acting fairly were he to draw a conclu- 
 sion from these instances, numerous as they 
 may be, prejudicial to the general character 
 of a whole nation with regard to religion. Is 
 England, may I ask, highly favoured as she 
 is, entirely free from the contagion of infi- 
 delity ? What friend of religion has not been 
 wounded by the horrid blasphemies lately 
 uttered in the very heart of the metropolis ? 
 But, would it not be the height of injustice 
 to charge the British nation with the insults 
 offered to the Majesty of Heaven by deluded 
 men, who are “ the enemies of the cross of 
 Christ,” and “whose glory is in their shame?” 
 
 There is another general assertion in your 
 work, which refers to Bible Societies on the 
 Continent. “ Their state,’ you say, p. 119, 
 “is truly deplorable. A well-informed fo- 
 reigner, who has lately been travelling among 
 them, to ascertain in what state they are, 
 gives it as his decided opinion, that Christians 
 have very little weight in the several com- 
 mittees, which, in general, are wholly under 
 the direction of Freethinkers. Such is his 
 report of them from one end of the Continent 
 to the other.” And here it may be fairly 
 
12 
 
 asked, what can be the object of Freethinkers 
 (if infidels are meant by the term) in be- 
 stowing their time, and labour, and expense 
 in promoting the distribution of the Bible? 
 Besides this, am I not entitled to inquire, 
 who is this “ well-informed foreigner ?” Has 
 he indeed travelled “from one end of the 
 Continent to the other?” Has he been in 
 France, Germany, Switzerland, Holland, 
 Prussia, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, and the 
 ‘Russian empire? Has he actually visited 
 all the Bible Societies established in those 
 countries? Has he had access to their auxi- 
 liaries, branches, and committees, and thus 
 enabled himself to form a full and correct 
 judgment on their spirit and conduct? I 
 may truly say, that, if there is any thing 
 which, more than another, has engaged the - 
 serious attention of the committee of the 
 British and Foreign Bible Society, as well as 
 that of its officers and agents, it is this,—to 
 open a communication with truly enlight- 
 ened and respectable persons in the Pro- 
 testant, Catholic, Greek, and other Christian 
 churches. In the earlier period of the So- 
 ciety’s history, the correspondence was almost 
 entirely confined to a few religious indivi- 
 duals and communities. Let the letters and 
 documents annexed to the reports, and many 
 hundred others which are in the Society’s 
 
13 
 
 archives, not printed, attest this fact. It is 
 fully admitted, that, when in later years, 
 large societies were formed for whole king- 
 doms or provinces, and presidents, vice-presi- 
 dents, committees, treasurers, and secretaries 
 were appointed (who were of course chosen 
 by the body of their constituents, and with- 
 out any interference on the part of the 
 British and Foreign Bible Society), there 
 was unavoidably a greater mixture of charac- 
 ters, differing as well in their religious views 
 as in their rank and station. But, I would 
 ask, is it possible, in the present state of the 
 world, and of the Christian church, entirely 
 to avoid an admixture of this kind? Tell 
 me of a religious establishment or society in 
 this or any other Christian country, however 
 sound in its constitution, and distinguished 
 by the moral excellence of its members, in 
 which the gold of Christian Faith, Hope, and 
 Charity, is to be found in all its purity and 
 brightness, without any alloy of baser metal ? 
 Did the primitive churches remain untainted 
 with error and heresy ? And was not a Judas 
 Iscariot to be found even in the number of 
 the twelve? One of the rules of the British 
 and Foreign Bible Society is, that each sub- 
 scriber of one guinea annually shall be a 
 member: the continental Bible Societies 
 have adopted a similar regulation. Can they, 
 
14 
 
 therefore, prevent any person, of: whatever 
 religious view or moral character he may be; 
 from contributing his money to the eircula- 
 tion of the Bible? If persons of a certain 
 class only are to be admitted into such a 
 society, who is to sit in judgment? And 
 who is finally to determine upon those who 
 are truly religious, and who are not; upon 
 those who deserve the name of Christian, 
 and those who deserve it not? While some 
 would be pronounced truly religious’ by one 
 class of Christians, they would be denounced 
 as the very reverse by another. Mistake me 
 not, Sir; Iam not for confounding right and 
 wrong: I am not advocating the cause of 
 latitudinarian indifference. I bearin mind 
 what the prophet. says, “ Woe. unto. them 
 that call evil good, and good evil; that put 
 darkness for light, and light for darkness ; 
 that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for 
 bitter.” But I would also remind you, that, 
 in this imperfect state, you:cannot completely 
 preclude the admixture of corruption from 
 any merely human institution; and that if 
 the servants of Christ in our day should 
 endeavour to go and gather up all the tares 
 which are to be found in the field of the 
 church, the answer of our blessed Lord and 
 Master would still be applicable to’ them; 
 “ Nay, lest while ye gather up the tares, ye 
 
15 
 
 root up also the wheat with them.” But, 
 to come nearer to the point; my late invalu- 
 able friend Mr. Owen, as well as Drs. Pater- 
 ‘son, Henderson, and Pinkerton, Mr. Leeves 
 and myself, have extensively visited the Con- 
 tinent, and, more or less, contributed to the 
 establishment of Bible Societies there; and 
 we can sincerely say, that we have considered 
 it both our duty and privilege to associate 
 with such persons as were, in our judgment, 
 the most decided friends of revealed religion, 
 and to engage their active co-operation. We 
 can also testify, that, in almost every part of 
 Europe, more especially the Protestant, we 
 have met with many who received us for 
 Christ’s sake, who welcomed us to their hearts 
 and. to their houses in his name; and who, 
 constrained by the love of a crucified Saviour, 
 cheerfully came forward offering their ta- 
 lents, their influence, their money, and their 
 active exertions in aid of the establishment 
 of Bible Societies, which they have since 
 continued to support with indefatigable zeal, 
 perseverance, and success. Such Christian 
 zeal we have not only feund in the cottage 
 of the peasant, but also in the mansion of 
 the noble, and the palace of the prince. We 
 do not deny that sometimes we have met 
 with painful disappointments, and have be- 
 come personally acquainted with men of very 
 
16 
 
 different views and principles; but, after all 
 these deductions, we are confident in the 
 persuasion, that the operations of the conti- 
 nental Bible Societies have most essentially 
 promoted the interests of real religion; that 
 many of these Societies have been, and still 
 are, under the conduct of truly excellent and 
 devoted individuals ; that they have cherished 
 a spirit of Christian charity ; that they have 
 given a powerful check to infidelity; that 
 they have led to the formation of many other 
 benevolent and Christian institutions ; while, 
 under the fostering care of the British and 
 Foreign Bible Society, they have contributed 
 to the circulation of more than 1,500,000 
 Bibles and Testaments, in almost every Eu- 
 ropean language. In addition to this, it may 
 be stated, from a variety of authentic docu- 
 ments, that this abundant dissemination of 
 the seed of the word has not been sown in 
 vain; that many, through an attentive and 
 devout perusal of the sacred volume, under 
 the influence of the Spirit of God, have been 
 rescued from the abyss of scepticism and 
 infidelity, and converted to God; that profli- 
 gates have been reclaimed, drunkards made 
 sober, thieves honest, and the licentious pure; 
 that mourners have been comforted, the sick 
 and the wounded directed to the great Phy- 
 sician of body and soul, and the dying re- 
 
17 
 
 freshed in the last conflict of expiring nature. 
 You yourself state, in your pamphlet, “that 
 a single tract has been the means of the cir- 
 culation of 1100 New Testaments, several 
 thousand tracts, the conversion of at léast 
 one individual, and the awakening of two 
 priests.” Is it unreasonable, then, for me to 
 infer that the 1100, yea, I may say without 
 exaggeration, the 1,100,000 New Testaments 
 which have been circulated by the conti- 
 nental Bible Societies; or by such distin- 
 guished individuals as Leander Van Ess, Goss- 
 ner, and others, with the aid and encourage- 
 ment of the British and Foreign Bible So- 
 ciety, have led to the conversion of many 
 souls? I am personally acquainted with a 
 Catholic clergyman who became a sincére 
 convert to pure Christianity by the reading 
 of a copy of the New Testament, and was, in 
 the sequel, the honoured instrument of en- 
 lightening hundreds of his own communion. 
 
 You imtimate (page 139) that the foreign 
 - Bible Societies, “ composed,” as you repre- 
 sent them, “of the enemies of the Gospel,” 
 (page 135,) do harm rather than good. Whe- 
 ther such a charge against foreign Bible 
 Societies can be justly maintained or not, let 
 all well-informed, sober, and candid observers, 
 who are really acquainted with their true 
 state, impartially decide. If they were, in- 
 
 c 
 
18 
 
 deed, composed of “ enemies of the Gospel,” 
 how is it to be accounted for, that the avowed 
 adversaries of Christianity, the bold advocates 
 of infidel principles, and the zealous friends 
 of superstition, do actually unite in opposing 
 them? “ Every kingdom,” says our blessed 
 Lord, “ divided against itself is brought to 
 desolation; and every city or house divided 
 against itself shall not stand. And if Satan 
 cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; 
 how shall then his kingdom stand ?” 
 
 With reference to another general asser- 
 tion, (p. 136,) “ the receiving of Arian depu- 
 ties, or men of no religion, from the foreign 
 Bible Societies by the Bible Society, at its 
 annual meetings, has given the greatest dis- 
 gust to. pious Catholics abroad.” I should 
 consider it the height of presumption to, pro- 
 nounce judgment upon the precise state of 
 the religious views and opinions of any noble- 
 man, .clergyman, or gentleman who may 
 attend the anniversaries of the British and 
 Foreign Bible Society as a visitor, or act as 
 the representative of a foreign society. _ This 
 would require an intimacy of acquaintance, 
 and an insight into the sanctuary of the 
 heart, to which I make not the smallest pre- 
 tension. At the same time it affords me the 
 most lively satisfaction to be able to state, 
 that the greater part of the deputies from ~ 
 
19 
 
 the foreign Bible Societies, both on the Con- 
 tinent of Europe and in America, so far from 
 their being justly denominated “ Arian de- 
 puties, or men of no religion,” are men known 
 in their respective countries and stations as 
 the determined friends and defenders of the 
 great fundamental truths of the Bible, and 
 who recommended themselves, during their 
 stay in this country, to their British fellow 
 Christians, by their excellent spirit and con- 
 duct. 
 
 To notice only one more assertion of a 
 general character, but which it is equally 
 painful to read; you observe, (p. 122,) that 
 “ there are large depots of Bibles at different 
 places (in France and Germany), but that 
 there is so little zeal on the part of the ma 
 nagers, that they remained locked up,” &c.; 
 and again, (p. 133,) “the checking of the cir- 
 culation of the Scriptures, by their being 
 buried in the depéots in which they are stored, 
 is not the only evil,” &c. 
 
 That there is a difference between the 
 various Bible Societies on the Continent in 
 point of exertion, and that while some have 
 been distinguished by their activity, others 
 have been comparatively languid, is fully 
 admitted; but I may also add, with equal 
 truth, that in England, Scotland, and Ireland, 
 you will find, on more minute investigation, 
 
20 
 
 that the various auxiliaries, branches, and 
 associations greatly vary in their zeal and 
 usefulness. Among the continental Bible 
 Societies which I have visited, there is not 
 one which has not contributed, in a greater 
 or less degree, to the circulation of the Serip- 
 tures. Many have been eminently blessed 
 in their labours, as a note subjoined specify- 
 ing the total of their issues, according to the 
 latest reports received, will sufficiently prove*. 
 
 * The following is a statement of the total of Bibles and 
 Testaments issued by some of the Continental Bible Societies 
 since their establishment, viz. 
 
 Protestant ‘Paris Bible Society ...)<1s.. = s « «:isgete iene 49,573 
 Wiurtemberg). . 2.005 sc cs eps sence © a eee 135,786 
 Saxon Soot Soe ck ees Gee ene 41,257 
 Netherlands: £1...) 05. S)2. 2 sickens | taierae cette ee 50,000 
 PrgsSian'.. ssj-<. of bicakevesa, 5. « bscte ey 4 optex aye soko eee 85,797 
 Auxiliaries of do., about =... 2)... -- «+c tere 100,000 
 Danish and Sleswig' Holstem 22°)... 0. os oe eee eee 143,500 
 Swedidh: "225 0.5...005 5S ERI Se 204,645 
 FRUSSHADY 5. .a) eye, gjace ade plore leidtars ee olde eee ee $427,704 
 Basle Bible Soeiety 5.23.2. 62 ss oinkie 3: 1 146,670 
 Zurich. eee ee ee eee . 21,540 
 St. GaHieo ret. YORE. cae RS 25,000 
 Benny 24 nc betetye tua igs, + = eiteroeeaes 3) ses aac og aie 20,477 
 Francfort: 2000's ots feiss comm © nue n> sane 61,329 
 Hambargy 9 s2e a eee ree dete resi, oe 27,516 
 Herrmhut, (chiefly: Testaments) ... 0.5.02. cece 48,004 
 Hanover and its auxiliaries, about 35,000 
 
 * + The Russian Bible Society has printed or purchased, according to the 
 latest Report, no less than 704,831 copies of the sacred Seriptures in different 
 languages ; but I have here confined myself to the number of copies put into 
 circulation by it. ; 
 
a 
 
 During a visit paid by Dr. Pinkerton, in the 
 course of last year, to Bible Societies con- 
 nected with no fewer than seven kingdoms in 
 Europe, he had many opportunities of in- 
 specting their depositories; but.so far from 
 finding that they contained Bibles “ locked 
 up and buried,” he ascertained, in many in 
 stances, that they were nearly empty, and, 
 on that account, strongly recommended to 
 the Committee of the British and Foreign 
 Bible Society to send out additional supplies; 
 a recommendation to which they promptly 
 and cheerfully attended *. 
 
 * In reply to some strictures made on the Bible Societies in 
 France, the observations contained in the following extract from 
 a letter very recently received, appear to me deserving of atten- 
 tion :-— 
 
 ““ The Committee of the Paris Bible Society have always 
 endeavoured, and are still exerting themselves, both by circulars 
 and in their correspondence with their auxiliary Societies, to 
 excite the latter to extend the distribution of the sacred volume 
 as much as possible. As soon-as a new society is formed, a 
 grant of copies of the Scriptures is also made to it. We con- 
 stantly urge the auxiliary Societies to visit every Protestant 
 family, in order to ascertain if any are in want of the Scrip- 
 tures, and to supply them accordingly. Two journeys have 
 been undertaken at the desire of the Committee during the 
 past year; the object of one of which was to visit the west of 
 France from the Pyrennees to La Vendée, and of the other to 
 visit the department of Ardéche. Two most respectable gen- 
 tlemen, who travelled in the South of France last year on private 
 business, and at their own expense, were likewise requested to 
 avail themselves of every opportunity of stimulating the auxili- 
 ary Societies. The reports of these gentlemen were, generally 
 
22 
 
 Let me now come to some specific charges. 
 And first, with regard to Professor Hafner’s 
 preface, annexed to the edition of the German 
 Bible, printed by the Strasburg Bible Society. 
 I assert, without the fear of contradiction, 
 that the preface was added without the 
 knowledge and consent of the Committee of 
 the Parent institution. I may likewise add, 
 that the very next day after a communication 
 on this subject had been made to the print- 
 ing sub-committee, a letter of remonstrance 
 was addressed to the Strasburg Bible Society, 
 and that the Committee and its revered Pre- 
 
 speaking, satisfactory. What should induce the Paris Com- 
 mittee to take all these steps, if it were not an earnest desire for 
 the distribution of the sacred volume? If there should exist 
 some auxiliary Societies which do not appear to possess all the 
 activity that might be wished, can it be fair to impute this to the 
 Paris Committee? They have no concern in the appointment of 
 the members of the Committees of the different Bible Societies 
 in France, nor have they ever wished to assume to themselves the 
 right of influencing their choice. It is for those who are the 
 most warmly interested in the prosperity of the Biblical cause, 
 to stand forward, and give proof of their zeal, in order to inspire 
 their fellow Protestants with confidence in choosing them as 
 members of the different Committees. 
 
 “« As to the accusation that the depositories of the Saniaee 
 are ‘ locked up,’ I have never heard it asserted here, nor -haye 
 any of my correspondents ever. apprised me of such a circum- 
 stance having taken place, or of the Scriptures having been re- 
 fused to those who asked for them. Some extraordinary reasons 
 alone could occasion such a proceeding ; but no such thing has 
 ever come to our knowledge.” 
 
23 
 
 sident did not cease from these remonstrances 
 until Professor Hafner’s preface was with- 
 drawn. Youcomplain that more prompt and 
 decisive measures were not adopted ; but it 
 should be recollected that the Committee of 
 the British and Foreign Bible Society neither 
 have, nor wish to have, any ecclesiastical ju- 
 risdiction, the only weapons which they can 
 employ being those of sound argument, mild 
 persuasion, and Christian expostulation. 
 Secondly, the Lausanne quarto Bible in 
 French is not a new version, but merely a 
 revision of that commonly called Ostervald’s. 
 This revision was undertaken by the Lau- 
 sanne Bible Society, without any interference 
 on the part of the Parent institution. Five 
 professors and clergymen freely offered their 
 services to the Lausanne Committee; to 
 this latter body they were accountable, and 
 their services were entirely gratuitous. The 
 Committee of the British and Foreign Bible 
 Society felt certainly much disappointed, and 
 unfeignedly grieved, when one of their Secre- 
 taries produced a copy of that edition, and 
 pointed out to them a number of notes and 
 comments. A letter expressive of their as- 
 tonishment and disapprobation was imme- 
 diately addressed to the President of the 
 Lausanne Bible Society, who acknowledged, 
 in terms of the sincerest concern, the error 
 
24 
 
 into which he and his colleagues had fallen, 
 and even engaged, under forfeiture of £500 
 sterling, that in the next edition all notes 
 and comments whatsoever should be omitted, 
 With regard to the erroneous renderings which 
 you point out in the Lausanne quarto Bible, 
 your “review” induced me to examine it in 
 this respect. I compared many chapters both 
 of the Old and New Testament, not only 
 with the version of which it is a revision, but 
 also with the Hebrew and Greek originals, 
 and with the English authorised version. 
 The result of this examination is shortly 
 this: there are whole chapters which are 
 almost word for word reprinted from the 
 version commonly called Ostervald’s version ; 
 and the same is the case with many hundred 
 entire verses both in the Old and New Testa- 
 ment. With respect to many other verses 
 and sentences, the alterations consist of a 
 mere transposition of words or change of con- 
 struction, terms, and expressions, which in 
 nowise affect the sense or alter the meaning. 
 There are, also, in almost every chapter which 
 Ihave inspected, passages in which not only the 
 style has been greatly improved, but wherein, 
 the revised, translation is much more simple 
 and faithful than the version which it gene- 
 rally follows, approaching much nearer to, the 
 Hebrew and Greek text, and also correspond. 
 
25 
 
 ing exactly with the English version. To 
 these changes for the better you do not refer 
 even with a single word of commendation, 
 but you dwell exclusively upon the changes 
 for the worse. That there are too many of 
 the latter, let me at once fully and fairly 
 admit. To observe such deviations from the 
 simplicity and purity of Scripture ideas and 
 Scripture language, could not have grieved 
 you more than it did me. That I previously 
 did not entertain even the most distant sus- 
 picion of this, you will do me, I am confident, 
 the candour and justice to believe. That 
 this was actually the case, I assert as in 
 the presence of Him who is the searcher 
 of hearts. It afforded some consolation 
 to my distressed mind, on examination, to 
 find the following statement of my friend, 
 the Rev. Mr. Scholl, (Minister of a French 
 church in London,) confirmed :—“ I know of 
 no one passage respecting the Trinity, the 
 Divinity of our Saviour, and that of the Holy 
 Spirit, unfaithfully translated: I know the 
 views of the Translators to have been quite 
 orthodox upon these important points.” That 
 this opinion is correct, no one can deny who 
 will take the trouble to compare the follow- 
 ing passages from the Lausanne Bible with 
 
 the English authorised version, or the original 
 Greek :— 
 
26 
 
 Trinity. 1 John, v. 7. 
 
 Car il y en a trois qui rendent témoignage dans 
 le ciel, le Pere, la Parole, et le Saint Esprit; et 
 ces trois-la sont un. 
 
 For there are three that bear record in ipsa 
 the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and 
 these three are one. 
 
 Divinity of Jesus Christ. 1'Tim. ii. 16. 
 
 Et certainement le mystére de piété est grand ; 
 Dieu a été-manifesté en chair, justifié par Esprit, 
 vu des anges, préché aux Gentils, cru dans le 
 monde, et élevé dans la gloire. 
 
 And, without controversy, great is the padiehe 
 of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, jus- 
 tified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto 
 the Gentiles, believed on in the world, and re- 
 ceived up into glory. 
 
 1 John, v. 20. Mais nous savons que le Fils 
 de Dieu est venu, et il nous a donné l’intelligence 
 pour connoitre le vrai Dieu ; et nous sommes en 
 ce vrai Dieu, étant dans son Fils Jésus-Christ ; 
 cest lui qui est le vrai Dieu, et la vie éternelle. 
 
 And we know thatthe Son of God is come, and 
 hath given us an understanding that we may know 
 him that is true, and we are in him that is true, 
 even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, 
 and eternal life. 
 
27 
 
 Divinity of the Holy Spirit. Acts, v. 3, 4. 
 
 Mais Pierre lui dit: Ananias, pourquoi Satan 
 s’est;il tellement emparé de ton cceur, que tu aies 
 menti au Saint Esprit, et détourné une partie du 
 prix de ce fonds deterre? Ne pouvois—tu pas le 
 garder puisqu’il t’appartenoit? et l’ayant vendu, 
 nétoit il pas en ton pouvoir d’en garder le prix ? 
 Comment une telle pensée a-t-elle pu entrer dans 
 ton coeur? ce n’est pas aux hommes que tu as 
 menti, mais c’est A Dieu. 
 
 But Peter said: Ananias, why hath Satan filled 
 thine heart to lie unto the Holy Ghost, and to 
 keep back part of the price of the land? whiles it 
 remained, was it not thine own? and after it was 
 sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast 
 thou conceived this thing in thine heart ? thou hast 
 not lied unto men, but unto God. 
 
 I may add, that other passages of Scripture, 
 which establish great and fundamental points 
 of Christian doctrine, are to be found in the 
 Lausanne edition, in all their simplicity and 
 truth. Let me select a few :— 
 
 1. Justification by Faith. Rom. v. 1. 
 
 Etant donc justifiés par la foi, nous avons la 
 paix avec Dieu, par notre Seigneur Jésus-Christ. 
 
 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace 
 with God, through our Lord Jesus Christ. 
 
28 
 
 2. Being justified freely by Grace. Rom. iii. 23. 
 
 Et quils sont justifiés gratuitement par sa grace, 
 par la redemption qui est en Jésus-Christ. 
 
 Being justified freely by his grace, through the 
 redemption which is in Christ Jesus. 
 
 3. Salvation by Grace, through Faith, not of Works. 
 Ephes. ii. 8—10. 
 
 Car vous étes sauvés par grace par la foi; et 
 cela ne vient pas de vous; c’est un don de Dieu: 
 ce n'est point par les ceuvres, afin que personne 
 ne se glorifie. Nous sommes son ouvrage, ayant 
 été créés en Jésus-Christ, pour les bonnes ceuvres 
 que Dieu a préparées, afin que nous y marchions. 
 
 For by grace ye are saved through faith, and 
 that not of yourselves ; it is the gift of God: not 
 -of works, lest any man should boast; for we are 
 his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto 
 good works, which God has before ordained that 
 we should walk in them. 
 
 4, Election. Ephes. i. 4. 
 
 Comme il nous avoit élus en Christ, avant la 
 création du monde, afin que nous fussions saints 
 et irrépréhensibles devant lui, par la charité. 
 
 According as he hath chosen us in him, before 
 the foundation of the world, that we should be 
 holy and without blame before him in love. 
 
 5. Preservation of Believers to the end. 
 MP CRIN Ss 
 
 A nous, dis-je, qui sommes gardés par la puis- 
 
29 
 
 sance de Dieu par la foi, pour obtenir le salut qui 
 va étre manifesté dans les derniers temps. 
 
 Who are kept by the power of God through 
 faith unto salvation, ready to be revealed in the 
 last time. 
 
 6. Final Judgment. Matt. xxv. 31, 32. 
 
 Or quand le Fils de ’Homme viendra dans sa 
 gloire, accompagné de tous les saints anges, alors 
 il s'asseyera sur le troéne de sa gloire. Et toutes 
 les nations seront assemblées devant lui; puis il 
 séparera les uns d’avec les autres, comme un ber- 
 ger sépare les brebis d’avec les boucs. 
 
 When the Son of Man shall come in his glory, 
 and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit 
 upon the throne of his glory: and before him shall 
 be gathered all nations: and he shall separate 
 them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his 
 sheep from the goats. 
 
 I might multiply similar quotations, but 
 the above may here suffice. | 
 That the revisors had no leaning towards 
 infidel principles, appears certain to my mind. 
 There are important passages in which they 
 might have manifested such a bias, if it had 
 existed. They might, for instance, in the cele- 
 brated passage, 1 Tim. iii. 16, have preferred 
 the reading 4; to that of Ozo-, but they adopted 
 the latter, and translated: “ Dieu a été mani- 
 
30 
 
 fésté en chair, God was manifest in the flesh.” 
 They might have omitted the much-disputed 
 passage respecting the Trinity, 1 John, v. 7, 
 instead of which they retained it. Indeed, 
 their bias seems to have been the very re- 
 verse of scepticism on this most important 
 point. They translate the first sentence of 
 the twelfth verse in the second Psalm, which 
 is in Hebrew 727, in the English version, 
 Kiss the Son, and in Ostervald’s, Rendez 
 homage au Fils (render homage to the Son), 
 Adorez le Fils (adore the Son). But, notwith- 
 standing all this, I fully concede that it would 
 have been far preferable if the Lausanne 
 Committee had simply reprinted Ostervald’s 
 version, with all its defects, instead of intro- 
 ducing alterations, many of which cannot be 
 approved. 
 
 Thirdly, as to the introduction to the Old 
 Testament of Professor L.Van Ess, of which you 
 represent the Society to have purchased 8000 
 copies, it is quite sufficient to state, that no 
 pecuniary aid whatever has been afforded by 
 the British and Foreign Bible Society to either 
 that introduction or the version of the Old 
 Testament itself, and that no such purchase 
 has been made. The Committee of the 
 British and Foreign Bible Society declared 
 to the Professor their readiness to defray the 
 entire expense of printing and binding 8000 
 
31 
 
 copies of his Old Testament, without note and 
 comment, provided he would engage to print 
 wt without the Apocrypha. 'This proposition 
 on the part of the Committee, produced that 
 affecting letter, dated Darmstadt, June 28, 
 1824, to which you allude. The consequence 
 of this appeal was a vote of £500 to L. Van 
 Kss, in aid of printing the canonical books 
 only of his version of the Old Testament; but 
 this vote being afterwards rescinded, the 
 sum in question was never sent. 
 
 EF ourthly, with regard to your serine 
 versions on the letter of the Swedish noble- 
 man, allow_me to remark, that the nobleman - 
 here alluded to is no other than Count 
 Rosenblad, one of the most distinguished 
 ministers of state in Sweden, who has for 
 many years been the President of the National 
 Bible Society at Stockholm, and to whom, 
 under God, that institution is greatly indebted 
 for its present prosperous condition. Can-the 
 opinion of such a man be pronounced “vague 
 and unauthenticated” ? Or, rather, can any 
 other individual be named better qualified to 
 form a correct view of the state of the king- 
 dom, and the religious feelings of the people? 
 In addition to this, it should be distinctly 
 understood, that our Swedish brethren, in- 
 fluenced by grateful affection towards the 
 British and Foreign Bible Society, and from 
 
32 
 
 a strong desire to make a fair trial, actually 
 printed an edition of the Swedish Bible, to 
 the extent of 10,000 copies, without the Apo- 
 erypha; but it was no sooner brought into 
 circulation, than such was the clamour raised 
 against it, owing to the omission of the 
 Apocrypha, that the Stockholm Society was 
 obliged to print extra copies of the latter for 
 insertion in these Bibles. It is not my wish 
 here to justify the strong predilection for the 
 Apocrypha, but simply to notice the fact of 
 such predilection actually existing. 
 
 Fifthly : with respect to your observations 
 on Professor Kieffer’s letter, it is fully con- 
 ceded that there are highly respectable cler- 
 gymen and gentlemen, connected with the 
 reformed (Presbyterian) churches in Franee 
 and other parts of the Continent, who not 
 only feel no objection to the circulation of 
 the sacred Scriptures without the Apocrypha, 
 but who would rather prefer them without 
 that addition. So far from wishing to con- 
 ceal circumstances favourable to your view of 
 the question, I have stated to the Committee 
 the sentiments of our reformed brethren on 
 this point, and also referred to them in a 
 letter addressed to our revered President. At 
 the same time it is undeniable, that many 
 members, even of the reformed churches, 
 have been so long accustomed to the use of 
 
33 
 
 Bibles with the Apocrypha, that they are 
 reluctant to purchase, or even gratuitously 
 to receive, copies without it. After making 
 every possible deduction, the experience of 
 the Paris Bible Society, referred to by Pro- 
 fessor Kieffer, will still establish this latter 
 point. It should also be clearly understood, 
 that the Committee of the Paris Bible So- 
 ciety would never have determined to add 
 the Apocrypha to the Toulouse and Montau- 
 ban editions, had they not received many 
 letters, not only from clergymen and other 
 respectable individuals, but also from Aux- 
 iliary and Branch Societies, containing their 
 earnest desires for such addition, and repre- 
 senting that copies of the sacred Scriptures 
 without the Apocryphal books, could not be 
 sold in many places. The practical difficul- 
 ties in this respect among the members of the 
 Lutheran, Greek, and Armenian Churches, (not 
 to mention Roman Catholics) are still greater. 
 That such difficulties actually exist, may be 
 proved not only by the concurrent testimony 
 of the foreign clergymen resident in London, 
 belonging to different churches and nations, 
 but also by that of many respectable minis- 
 ters and gentlemen in various parts of the 
 Continent, who are decided friends of the 
 British and Foreign Bible Society, and whose 
 character places them above the suspicion of 
 D 
 
34 
 
 exaggeration*™. And here I may remind you, 
 that the British and Foreign Bible Society 
 itself cannot circulate any English Bibles 
 
 except those of the authorised version, with-— 
 
 out note and comment, and all these must 
 be printed either at the presses of the two 
 Universities, or by. the king’s printer. At 
 present no such Bibles printed in England 
 are admitted into Scotland, because the 
 king’s printer there claims an exclusive pri- 
 vilege of printing them for that part of the 
 
 British empire. Suppose, then, that Bibles. 
 
 in the English language, according to the au- 
 thorised version, and without note and com- 
 ment, should-be printed abroad and imported 
 into this country, the law would unques- 
 tionably be put in force against those who 
 imported and circulated them. Let me apply 
 this to foreign parts. Certain rights and 
 privileges are also enjoyed there: thus, for 
 instance, the Orphan House at Copenhagen 
 has the exclusive privilege of printing Bibles 
 
 * A late letter from the Secretary of the Danish Bible Society 
 in Copenhagen, contains the distinct declaration, that neither the 
 Government nor the people will allow the Danish Bible to be 
 circulated except in the authorised version, which includes the 
 Apocrypha. 
 
 Letters recently received from Saxony, Wiirtemberg, Nassau- 
 Usingen, and other parts of Germany and Switzerland, all concur 
 in representing the difficulties which would attend the distribu- 
 tion of the German Bible without the Apocrypha. . 
 
35 
 
 and Testaments for Denmark, and though in 
 other parts of the Continent any printer may 
 print the Scriptures of the authorised version, 
 yet if an attempt should be made to publish 
 and circulate editions from which the Apo- 
 cryphal books are excluded, without the 
 sanction of the civil and ecclesiastical autho- 
 rities, and without the friendly consent and 
 active co-operation of the Continental Bible 
 Societies, which enjoy the patronage of the 
 Government, such a measure might, I appre- 
 hend, eventually lead to the prohibition and 
 confiscation of such unauthorised editions, 
 and the very persons who print, import, or 
 circulate them, would be liable to prosecu- 
 tions at law. But, admitting even that in- 
 dividuals were at liberty to circulate Bibles 
 without the Apocrypha, and there were found 
 persons also willing to receive them, such cir- 
 culation would still be very limited without 
 the co-operation of national, provincial, and 
 district Societies.* Those who are correctly 
 
 * The great importance of national and provincial Bible 
 Societies appears from this cireumstance, that in the kingdoms 
 of Sweden, Saxony, and Hanover, a general collection in aid of 
 the funds of their respective Bible Societies, has been made in 
 every Protestant congregation. A similar collection is annually 
 to take place im all the Protestant churches m the Prussian 
 dominions, for the benefit of the Prussian Bible Society. Could 
 all this have been accomplished without the sanction of the 
 highest civil and ecclesiastical authorities? Assuredly not! 
 
36 
 
 acquainted with the state of the Continent 
 must be aware, that all institutions, including 
 those of a moral and religious nature, are, 
 generally speaking, placed under the inspec- 
 tion of some department of the state. What, 
 then, let me ask, is the duty of the Christian 
 philanthropist ? Surely not to oppose himself 
 to the established regulations of those states 
 whose ‘subjects he proposes to benefit; not to 
 maintain, with unyielding pertinacity, his: 
 own peculiar views, and refuse to do good in 
 any way but that which he deems to be the 
 best ; not to adopt measures which would, in 
 many cases, inevitably close the door against 
 him, and preclude the admittance of the - 
 benefits he proposes to confer. Surely if 
 there be any line of conduct pointed out 
 more distinctly than another to our institu- 
 tion, it is this: to follow the leadings and 
 the openings of Divine Providence;—to avoid 
 all needless occasion of offence ;—to preserve 
 that encouragement and protection which is 
 now extended by the civil and ecclesiastical 
 authorities of Protestant States ;— and care- 
 fully to avoid provoking, without necessity, 
 the opposition of those countries wherein the 
 Society has not yet been recognised and ap- 
 proved. And you must allow me to add, 
 that as it is by following this line the British 
 and Foreign Bible Society has, under the 
 
37 
 
 divine blessing, conferred incalculable benefits 
 on mankind, so it is by pursuing the same 
 path we may expect continued and increas- 
 ing facilities. It is not by indiscriminate 
 obloquy and reproach that either individuals 
 or nations can be benefited; nor is it by 
 arrogating to ourselves, exclusively, the cha- 
 racter of the people of God, that we are most 
 likely to convince others of our claim to the 
 title, or to lead them into the path of peace 
 and safety. Not only does it appear to me per- 
 fectly consistent with Christian principles to 
 adopt all prudent and honest means of con- 
 ciliation, but such conduct seems to be dis- 
 tinctly enjoined by that heavenly charity 
 which “ suffereth long and is kind.” 
 
 We are not in these days to expect mira- 
 cles in our favour, even in a cause where the 
 dissemination of the Gospel is the only object. 
 The Almighty seems now to be accomplishing 
 the designs of his wisdom and _ beneficence 
 by means within the ordinary course of Pro- 
 vidence, and he has hitherto abundantly 
 blessed those means. It is alike our duty 
 and our privilege to conform ourselves to 
 what appears to be his will, and to employ 
 in his service, and for the promotion of his 
 glory, the property, the influence, and the 
 talents which he has conferred. May these 
 be ever applied in holy faith, and the work 
 
38 
 
 be carried on in the spirit of humility, bro- 
 therly kindness, and Christian prudence ! 
 
 Under the influence of the circumstances 
 and considerations which I have thus endea- 
 voured to describe, and of many others which 
 I might mention, let me, in conclusion, ear- 
 nestly entreat our British friends to refrain 
 from any thing which might have even the 
 semblance of a spirit of dictation or dog- 
 matism. A bond of mutual affection has 
 hitherto subsisted between British and Con- 
 tinental Christians, which has been attended 
 with the happiest effects to the cause of real 
 religion and vital Christianity. May this 
 union be maintained in its full energy! 
 And let it be recollected, that, if once it . 
 be broken, it cannot easily be restored. If 
 you feel conscientious scruples against the 
 addition of the Apocrypha in any shape or 
 form whatever, other Christians, no less sin- 
 cere, may entertain equally conscientious 
 scruples against its entire exclusion. If you 
 are strong, bear with the infirmities of the 
 weak. Every one of us shall give an account 
 of himself to God; “ let us not, therefore, 
 judge one another any more, but judge rather 
 this, that no man put a stumbling-block, or an. 
 occasion to fall in his brother’s way.” 
 
 FINIS. 
 
LONDON: 
 PRINTED BY J, MOYES, ROUVERIE STREET. 
 
TWO LETTERS 
 
 ON THE SUBJECT OF THE 
 
 FRENCH BIBLE, 
 
 PUBLISHED BY THE 
 
 British and foreign Bible Society, 
 WITH A 
 POSTSCRIPT, 
 CONTAINING REMARKS ON THE CONCLUDING OBSERVATIONS 
 
 OF THE 
 
 vitor of the Christian Remembrancer, 
 
 ON THE WHOLE CORRESPONDENCE. 
 
 = 
 
 BY THE 
 Rev. JOHN OWEN, A. M. 
 
 LATE FELLOW OF CORPUS CHRISTI COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE ; 
 RECTOR OF PAGLESHAM, ESSEX ; 
 AND ONE OF THE SECRETARIES OF THE BRITISH AND FOREIGN BIBLE SOCIETY, 
 
 es 
 
 London : 
 
 PRINTED BY J. 8. HUGHES, 66, PATERNOSTER ROW ; 
 
 AND SOLD BY HATCHARD AND SON, 187, PICCADILLY; 
 L. B. SEELEY, 169, FLEET STREET; 
 AND J. AND A. ARCH, CORNHILL. 
 
 1822. 
 [ Price One Shilling.} 
 
\ OR a Bisibicth 
 
 tir QO Trodtaue wey 
 on Le ee: tt Oi 
 = io BUS: Fea Tuas tes 
 
 Vee aides NNO tt 
 
 eu Try 
 
 ‘a28.0 6 te 
 
 eMOITA THRRRO AAIASINKOO ANT AS 
 
 aT WO) .) 
 ail dich initoiyeT "a 
 ADMITMOUT PAH FLOW j 
 
 p 
 
 ' eur va 
 
 die wh SOM Ate 
 
 FHA MAME AAL AO it 
 ‘y dd (iw Woke ROIRHOW GA Berra wk roto 
 
 Pare et ee 
 pureed: it dy) 
 a Weta: save sui wat 
 
ADVERTISEMENT. 
 
 As the causes which occasioned the publication 
 of the following Letters have not ceased to ope- 
 rate, it has been judged expedient to reprint 
 them for general circulation. That no ground 
 might be afforded to the charge of unfairness, 
 the Author has given them (with the correction 
 of a single misprint, and the omission of a single 
 word) precisely as they appeared in the Journals 
 from which they have been extracted. The author 
 trusts he shall not be construed, from any thing 
 he has been compelled to say, in his own and 
 the Bible Society’s defence, as taking pleasure 
 in animadverting on any error which may have 
 occurred in the proceedings of the Society for 
 Promoting Christian Knowledge. Of that So- 
 ciety he has ever written and spoken (as those 
 
 who know him, and have done him the honour 
 
iv ADVERTISEMENT. 
 
 LAL Bes ae 
 to read his publications) ith the respect which 
 
 it deserves. It may i excused him, if, on an 
 occasion like the present, he adds, that he has 
 personally assisted in forming two Auxiliaries 
 to that Society, and for many years been an 
 annual subscriber to one of them ; and that 
 nothing which has transpired in this contro- 
 versy, will prevent him from continuing to tes- 
 tify his friendship for an Institution so nearly 
 allied to the best interests of the Church in which 
 he has the happiness to minister; and ‘to seek, 
 by all the humble means in his power, to pro- 
 mote its prosperity. | 
 
 Fulham, February 4, 1822. 
 
 ———————————— ee a 
 
TWO LETTERS, 
 
 ON THE SUBJECT OF THE 
 
 FRENCH BIBLE, 
 
 PUBLISHED BY THE | 
 British x forrign Bible Society. 
 
 (Extracted from the Daily Papers.) 
 
 1. TO THE EDITOR,* &c. 
 
 « Fulham, December 27, 1821. 
 « Sir, mi i 
 
 I sHALL feel obliged to you, if you will give 
 insertion to the following letter. It was addressed, as you will 
 perceive, to one of the Episcopal Patrons of the British and 
 Foreign Bible Society, and was intended for the private satis- 
 faction of his Lordship, and of those to whom he might think 
 proper to communicate it: but, as the charge which it was meant 
 to refute (and which has since been revived, with additional mat- 
 ter of accusation equally unfounded) is said to be producing an 
 impression unfavourable to the character of the Society, I have 
 found myself compelled, most reluctantly, to adopt the only 
 expedient by which it appeared to me that the injurious conse- 
 quences of such an impression could be generally and effectually 
 
 counteracted. 
 “ I am, Sir, your humble Servant, 
 
 « JOHN OWEN.” 
 
 * The first Letter was addressed to the Editors of both the New Times, 
 
 and the Times papers: the second, being a reply to a Letter which had 
 
 appeared in the former, was accordingly addressed to the Editor of that 
 paper only. 
 
 J. S. Hughes, Printer, 66, Paternoster-row, London. 
 
2 
 « TO THE LORD BISHOP OF 
 
 ‘© Fulham, November 29, 1821. 
 
 *«* My Lorp; 
 
 “ Your Lordship having obligingly drawn my attention to an 
 article in the Christian Remembrancer for October last, in which 
 the conduct of the British and Foreign Bible Society, in a par- 
 ticular instance, has been gravely impugned; I lose no time in 
 laying before your Lordship such observations as will, I trust, 
 make it appear, that the Society has been wrongfully accused, 
 and that the reproach attempted to be fastened upon it is alto- 
 gether undeserved. ay 
 
 «* In the article referred to by your Lordship, a writer, who 
 signs himself L., and dates his letter from Caen, distinctly 
 charges the British and Foreign Bible Society with having sent 
 forth to the world, under its authority, ‘ a corrupted translation 
 of the Bible’ into French, and in no very covert way insinuates, 
 that this has been done to favour the cause of ‘ Socinianism.’ 
 The circumstance on which the writer professes, to found both 
 the accusation and the inference, is, that having been led to 
 consult the French translation published by the Bible Society, 
 ‘ for the purpose of quoting texts in proof of the Divine na- 
 ture of Jesus Christ,’ he was greatly surprised, on meeting with 
 @ passage of the utmost importance to his purpose, to find it 
 rendered in a way which corresponded neither with the origi- 
 nal, nor with the English authorized version. The passage 
 referred to, is contained in the 19th verse of the Second 
 Epistle to the Corinthians, chapter 5; and it appeared that the 
 
 words, which in the original are “Q¢ ors Oxic ay i Xegicd xoopor 
 
 xaTa\Aacowy iauTo, and in the authorized English version are 
 translated, ‘ that God was in Christ reconciling the world unto, 
 himself,’ are rendered in the Bible Society’s French translation, 
 
 thus: ‘ Car Dieu a réconcilié le monde avec soi-méme, par Christ. 
 * Now,’ observes the writer, ‘ the Bible Society’s translation is 
 
 said to be printed from the Paris edition of 1805, and was doubt- 
 
 less selected by the Society in preference to other editions, 
 notwithstanding it is well known that the French Protestants — 
 
 consider the best. French version of the Bible to be that of Martin, 
 
 | 
 ; 
 ' 
 | 
 
3 
 
 in which the words, ‘Q; ar Osis  & Xpru, &e- ‘ To wit, that 
 God was im Christ,’ &e. are literally translated,“ Car Dieu 
 étoit en Christ réeorciliant le monde avec Ini-méme.’ 
 
 ** Such, my Lord, is the substance of the charge itself. The 
 writer who brings it forward, describes it as a ‘ circumsianee 
 which appears to him to demand explanation’ on the part of the 
 British and Foreign Bible Society; and that explanation, not 
 as their official organ, fap niet ceenints-ofemte Se 
 now make it my endeavour to give. 
 
 «< 1. In the first place, the ground of the accusation against the 
 Bible Society is laid in am assumption, that the French trans- 
 lation printed by them, is either a version originally vicious, 
 or that they have so corrupted it by their ‘ revision and corree- 
 tion,’ as to have made it substantially and responsibly their own ; 
 whereas it is, in fact, the version of Ostervald, and the ren- 
 dering complained of, is to be found in every edition of Ostervald’s 
 Bible which I have seen, from the year 1716, whem the 
 first. edition of that Bible appeared, down to the year 1818, 
 when the latest was printed at Basle. The words ‘* care- 
 fully revised and corrected according to the Hebrew and Greek 
 texts,’ (‘ revue et corrigée avee soin d apres les textes Hebreu et 
 Grec,’) which are placed on the title-page, and by whieh it 
 seems probable that the writer was misled, were adopted om 
 the principle of general usage, and meant to be understood 
 im the sense m which they are knowm to be customarily 
 employed. The Editors of the Basle impression abeve-men- 
 tioned, have im their title page, ‘revue et corrigée sur le texte 
 originel, though they did not profess to alter, but simply to 
 correct the version which they printed ; and the same was the 
 ease in the edition of the French Bible, primted by the Bible 
 Society. The revision and correction so deseribed, were made 
 by a collation of the edition printed at Paris im 1805, with 
 the original, and with several former editions ; not with the 
 design or the profession of making alterations im the version 
 itself, but of rectifyimg the errors, and removing the ble- 
 mishes, by which it had beem rendered, im not a few places, 
 embarrassed or obscure. 
 
 “<2. The accusation further assumes, that the Society were 
 
4 
 
 influenced by a feeling of unjustifiable partiality in selecting 
 the version printed in 1805: they are represented by the 
 writer, as giving it the preference, ‘ notwithstanding it is well 
 ’ known, that the French Protestants consider the best French 
 version of the Bible to be that of Martin.’ How little ground 
 there is for the insinuation conveyed through the first part of 
 this assumption, will be made sufficiently to appear from the 
 following brief and uncommented statement of facts.) — 
 
 ‘«* At the close of the year 1805, the attention’ of the Bible 
 Society having been seriously turned to the state of religious 
 destitution of the numerous prisoners of war at that time in 
 this country, it was determined to employ the most prompt 
 and effectual measures for supplying them with the Holy 
 Scriptures, in the languages of their respective nations.. In 
 -proceeding to take the necessary steps to print an edition 
 of the Bible for the use of the French prisoners, amounting 
 to 20,000, .the Society experienced considerable embarrass- 
 ment in fixing upon a copy from which their edition should 
 be printed. Opinions on this subject were greatly divided, both 
 abroad and at home. The war having prohibited all direct — 
 intercourse with France, the only means which the Society pos- 
 sessed of obtaining information from that country, were those 
 which were furnished through the medium of their correspon- 
 dents in Switzerland. For this purpose, many letters were ad- 
 dressed to their friends at Basle ; and similar applications were 
 made to such individuals resident in London as were thought 
 competent to give an opinion on. the subject. After a delay of 
 nearly twelve months, during which these inquiries were inces- 
 santly pursuing, it was at length determined, on the recom- 
 mendation of the late Rev. Mr. Mercier, (Minister of the French 
 Church in London,) and Mr. Des Carriéres, (Author: of the 
 French Dictionary, &c.) that the version of Ostervald should 
 be adopted ; and accordingly a copy of the Paris reprint of it in 
 1805, was, after a collation of it by the Rev. Dr. Adam Clarke, 
 with the edition printed at Bienne, in 1771, selected as that which 
 should be used in executing the Society’s impression. The very 
 inaccurate manner in which it afterwards appeared the Paris edi- 
 tion of 1805 had been printed, added greatly to the labour 
 
5 
 
 of revision and correction requisite to prepare it for the press; 
 and this circumstance may be considered to have had some 
 influence in occasioning the employment of that strong language 
 im which, on the title page of the work, the revision and cor- 
 rection are represented to have been made. 
 
 _ To the unqualified assertion, that ‘ the French Protestants 
 consider the best French version of the Bible to be that of Martin,’ 
 I must beg leave to oppose both the judgment and the practice of 
 the French Protestants in Switzerland. Among them the version 
 of Martin has been very partially, if at all received. Certam it is 
 that that of Ostervaldis m general use; and when, in the year 
 1816, the Bible Society made an offer of a very liberal grant to 
 the three Bible Societies of Lausanne, Geneva, and Neufchatel. 
 on condition of their printing an edition of 10,000 Bibles accord- 
 ing to the version of either Ostervald or Martm, leaving it to 
 them to adopt whichever of the two they might prefer, they 
 accepted the grant with the greatest thankfulness, and uaazi- 
 moutly decided in facour of Ostervald. It is true, that the Pro- 
 testants in the South of France, of which Martin was a maiive, and 
 those of Holland, in which he exercised his ministry durimg the 
 latter years of his life, use by preference the version which bears 
 his mame; and, accordingly, on ascertaiming the predommancy 
 of this attachment im the former of those countries, the Bible So- 
 ciety will be found to have shown no backwardness to consalt it, 
 and no parsimony in providing for it the means of gratification. 
 By their aid and encouragement four editions of this version have 
 already been executed at Toulouse, Montauban, and Paris, three 
 of which consist of 26,000 copies, and the fourth is on stereotype. 
 and therefore capable of bemg carried to an indefinite amoant. 
 It should at the same time be stated, that the Paris Bible Society 
 (whose competency to judge of the disposition of the Protestants 
 im France will not be disputed) are by no means inclined to sacri- 
 fice the version of Ostervald to that of Martim ; they possess both, 
 circulate both, and m the Catalogue of Bibles and Testaments on 
 sale at their depository, editions of both, in various forms, are 
 equally to be found. 
 
 ** 3. Though I am far from approving the terms in which the 
 passage under consideration is translated, yet, from the known 
 
6 
 
 character of the eminent theologian, from whom the translation, 
 of which they form a part, proceeded, and on whose authority 
 they were adopted by the Bible Society, I cannot but think they 
 have been construed in a lower and less orthodox sense than that 
 in which he employed them, and intended them to be understood. 
 The name of Ostervald has long been held in high and deserved 
 estimation ; and his writings on the Holy Scriptures have been, 
 for nearly a century past, and continue still to be, recommended 
 and circulated by that venerable body, the Society for Promoting 
 Christian Knowledge, which would certainly be among the 
 last to sanction the opinions of a writer who could be capable of 
 perverting any passage of the Bible in order to fayour the tenets 
 of Socinianism. The fact, however, is, that, in rendering the 
 important passage in the manner complained of, Ostervald has 
 gone little, if at all, beyond many of the most orthodox transla- 
 tors and interpreters of Scripture, in the paraphrastic liberty 
 which he has allowed himself to use. Diodati, who has never 
 been suspected of a leaning towards Socinianism, translates the 
 passage thus :—‘ Conciosiacosaché Iddio habbia riconciliato i 
 mondo a se in Christo,’ §c. Archbishop Martini has:—‘ Dap- 
 poiché Iddio era, che riconciliava con seco il mondo in Christo ? 
 and Maitre de Sacy, of whose translation the Archbishop made 
 considerable use in preparing his own, renders it as follows — 
 ‘ Car c'est Dieu, qui a reconcilié le monde avec soi, en Christ.’ 
 It is true, the two latter were Catholics, though of a very 
 enlightened class in that communion; but whatever may be 
 thought of their opinion on certain dogmas of our holy faith, 
 they will not be suspected of dissatisfaction to that of ‘ the Divine 
 nature of Christ, nor, consequently,’ of an intention to weaken 
 ‘the scriptural proofs’ by which it is supported. There is in 
 Poole’s Synopsis a criticism so fully to the purpose of my present 
 remarks, that I hope to be excused if I add it to the foregoing 
 quotations. 
 
 “« « Deus erat reconcilians sibi mundum, in Christo; h. e. per 
 Christum. Hic commentarius congruit tum phrasi Pauline, tum 
 precedentibus et sequentibus.—Pol. Syn. in Loco. 
 
 «« Haying thus, my Lord, considered the different particulars 
 of which the charge against the British and Foreign Bible 
 
7 
 
 Society is composed, and done my best to furnish, in reference to 
 each, the required explanation, I will not detain your Lordship, 
 after having already drawn so largely upon your patience, by 
 animadverting, as in justice I might do, on the tone in which 
 the article which has occasioned these remarks, is written, and 
 in which more especially it concludes. If, as the writer affirms, 
 ‘the boast of the Bible Society has been that they circulate 
 the authorized translation of the Bible;? I may venture to 
 assure him, if he has not by this time discovered it, that this 
 is a boast of which they cannot be deprived. He bids them 
 ‘look well to the revision and correction of their foreign ver- 
 sions ;’ on this point also I can give him the amplest satisfaction. 
 No body of men can take more pains than they do, to procure 
 suitable editors for such foreign versions as they have occasion 
 to print, or look more closely into the principles and qualifications 
 of those to whom the editing of them is intrusted. But, in fact, 
 the Bible Society has outlived the state in which it was neces- 
 sary for them to do that for foreigners, which foreigners are 
 capable of doing so much better for themselves. Wherever 
 kindred Institutions have been established, (and where have 
 . they not ?) the Clergy, as it became them, have undertaken the 
 responsibility of directing the printing of the Scriptures for the 
 members of those communions, and subjects of those countries 
 to which they respectively belong. The revision and correction 
 of the Society’s foreign versions have thus, in a great measure, 
 happily changed hands; and what was formerly attempted on 
 a narrow scale and with scanty means, in the Capital of Great 
 Britain, is now performing on a scale of suitable grandeur, and 
 with every advantage of local knowledge and local superintend- 
 ance, in most of the capitals, and not a few of the principal cities, 
 throughout the largest portion of the world. 
 
 «© And now, my Lord, I have only in conclusion to state, that 
 nothing will be more acceptable to the officers of the Bible 
 Society, and I am sure I may add, to all concerned -in its 
 management, than to be made acquainted with the circum- 
 stances in which it may be thought that their proceedings are 
 liable to any just animadversion. We have, my Lord, no 
 religious partialities to gratify; and if we had, the composition 
 
2 8 
 
 of our body would render the ¢ 
 cable. It is our wish and our endeavour 
 we are too conscious . Se a 
 shall always be successful. To those, + 
 us of our errors, whether real or i 
 ready to pay a becoming attention; and if, 
 pr Arcot eto 
 Se te ee 
 seman sc oR oS 
 ee 
 ilk Andale deal 
 
 My ta 
 
 sk ab tl + Your Leda 
 
 n 
 ee SD S| # . a 
 T2TS las bg ‘ 
 . 
 - - y * , - 
 : 
 i 1g) 278 3 
 4 - ’ ie. 
 > att 
 tre <> 
 2353 : 
 = 
 ia . 23 é : 
 > a 
 = . 
 e J 
 . ~ 
 - - $. 
 a ¢ s > 
 . a 4 es V6, ane : & SS 
 Side, Sw iv e>ame 2% 
 ae > ee a s om a Ma. fa 
 i r <# >. . nok ot 
 ‘ 
 iG. spar" Salk,< 2° 5, Jk Biles FMB es 2S 
 
2. TO THE EDITOR, &c. 
 
 <6 Fulham, January 21, 1822. 
 «« SIR, 
 
 «« J RELY upon your candour for permitting me to offer, through 
 the medium of your Journal, a few remarks on a letter signed 
 « The Editor of the Christian Remembrancer, which appeared 
 in your Paper of the 5th instant, and to which I have been 
 hitherto prevented, by a variety of intervening occupations, from 
 paying the requisite attention. 
 
 *« In defending the British and Foreign Bible Society against 
 the charge of having printed a French Bible, which, from the 
 translation given of a particular passage, was suspected to have 
 been corrupted in order to favour the tenets of Socinianism, I 
 asserted, that the version thus printed, was not the Bible Society’s, 
 but Ostervald’s version ; and that the translation of the passage 
 complained of, was to be found in every edition of Ostervald’s 
 Bible, which I had seen, from the year 1716, (misprinted in my 
 letter, 1816,) when the first edition of that Bible was published, 
 down to the year 1818, when the last edition of it was printed at 
 Basle. In making this assertion, I was substantially correct : 
 for the version adopted by the Bible Society in this case was that 
 which is currently ascribed to Ostervald ; of which, as such, re- 
 peated editions have been printed during the last half century ; 
 and in all of them (so far as my knowledge extends) the trans- 
 lation of the passage objected to, is invariably found. The 
 uniformity with which I had been accustomed to hear this 
 version spoken of in Switzerland, in France, and in England, 
 as Ostervald’s version, left not a suspicion on my mind, that 
 there could ‘be any error in making QOstervald accountable for 
 what was attributed to him by common consent. In the con- 
 fidence of this persuasion, and with little means of historical 
 research, and still less. time to bestow upon it, I was inad- 
 vertently betrayed into some inaccuracies in point of fact, which, 
 
10 
 
 though they do not affect the credit of the main position on 
 which the justification of the Bible Society rests, I consider it 
 my duty, after this account of the origin of them, to acknowledge 
 and correct. 
 
 «« From a knowledge of Ostervald’s arguments, &c. to the 
 Bible, having been printed in London, in 1716, I was led to mis- 
 take this for the date of the first edition of whatis generally called 
 Ostervald’s Bible; the Editor of the Christian Remembrancer 
 has, however, convinced me of my error: that Bible, as he truly 
 says, was not printed till 1724. Having had an opportunity of 
 consulting it, since it was thus pointed out.to my notice, I have 
 verified the statement of that gentleman, that the text employed 
 in this first edition, was the received Geneva version, in which 
 the passage under consideration is (to use his own language) 
 “correctly rendered.’ But it appears, that in the year 1726, 
 the Pastors and Professors of Geneva published a revised edition 
 of this version (which, in their preface to their Bible of 1805, 
 
 is said to have been réimprimée pour la derniére fois, avec quel- . 
 
 ques corrections, en 1712,) and among the alterations introduced 
 on that occasion into the text, is that which has given rise to the 
 present discussion. Now the only question that remaiiis is, 
 whether, in the editions of Ostervald’s Bible posterior to the 
 year 1726 and antecedent to that of his death, (which, if the 
 Biographical Dictionary is to be credited, did not happen till 
 1747,) this alteration of the passage was adopted. To me, I 
 confess, it seems prebable at least, that such was the case: for, 
 as in the first edition of his Bible, Ostervald used the received 
 version of Geneva, it is fair to presume that he would continue to 
 do so in subsequent impressions, and that he would accordingly 
 avail himself of the improvement which this version must have 
 been considered to have derived from a revision on the part of 
 those authorities to which he seems to have deferred. This pro~ 
 bability applies very strongly to the edition of 1744; for by that 
 ‘time, at least, the text of 1712 would be likely to have been 
 generally superseded by that of 1726. Should this reasoning be 
 confirmed by the testimony of the edition of 1744, (and in the 
 impossibility of procuring a sight of it, nothing certain ean be 
 determined,) then, not, ‘ within a few months of his death,’ but 
 
tl 
 
 three years before that event, Ostervald will be shown to have 
 accredited that rendering, which, from 1764 downwards, seems 
 uniformly to have constituted a part of the version which bears 
 his name, and which is so discriminated from the version of 
 Martin, and the Modern Geneva version of 1805. If, however, 
 no advantage were taken of this assumed probability, and the 
 authority of Ostervald for the disputed translation were left 
 wholly out of the account, there would still remain, besides the 
 authorities mentioned in my former letter, (to which the intelligent 
 and accurate defender of the Society in the Christian Remem- 
 brancer adds ‘ Calmet, the Zurich version, and others,’) that of 
 the Pastors and Professors of Geneva, as above quoted; not in 
 the period of their doctrinal degeneracy, but in the most orthodox 
 era of their religious history ; when their Chair of Theology was 
 filled successively by a Turretini, a Pictet, and a Maurice; 
 and the divinity of Christ was authoritatively required to 
 be sustained in their schools of disputation, as an essential 
 article of the Christian Faith. Now, as it would be manifestly 
 unjust to charge such a body of men with having admitted into 
 their Bible what they deemed to be favourable to the tenets of 
 Socinianism, it were certainly nét less so to insinuate such an 
 accusation against the Bible Society, which, if it has erred at 
 all, has been seduced into this error by following implicitly these: 
 orthodox guides, and printing a version of the Scriptures which 
 had received the sanction of their authority. If any thing further 
 were required to satisfy those who have questioned the propriety 
 of the Society’s conduct, I would refer them to the difficulty,— 
 a difficulty which no one can conceive who has not turned his 
 attention to the subject,—of fixing upon any edition of a Frencly 
 Protestant Bible, which can be thoroughly depended upon. 
 Scarcely any two editions of the same version, when carefully 
 collated, are found to agree. ~ The fact is, that from the want of 
 a competent authority to fix the standard of the text, individuals 
 as well as religious bodies have taken the liberty of making 
 discretionary alterations either in the sentiment or the language, 
 almost as often as new editions have been printed. The Editor 
 of the Christian Remembrancer has mentioned a London edition 
 of Martin by Durand, in which the rendering complained of is. 
 
12 
 
 introduced: and I have now before me a much eatlier edition 
 of this version, that of Hamburg and Leipsick in 1727, in which 
 also the same rendering appears. Whether this be the case in 
 any of the earlier editions printed during the life time of Martin, 
 I am not qualified to say ; but I may be permitted to observe, 
 that if the Bible Society had been recommended to print Martin 
 rather than Ostervald, and had adopted for that purpose, (as they 
 might very innocently have done,) the text of either the London 
 edition by Durand, or the Hamburg and Leipsick, of 1727, they 
 would, with as little consciousness of doing wrong, have done 
 precisely that which they have done in following the presumed 
 guidance of Ostervald, and subjected themselves to the same 
 condemnation. After all, however, that has been adduced in vin- 
 dication of the Society’s conduct, and of the objected construction 
 of the passage itself, I retain unaltered the preference I ex- 
 pressed in my former letter, of the literal rendering, as at once the 
 safest and the best. In this preference, the Committee of the 
 Bible Society entirely concur ; and as it has been proved to their 
 satisfaction, that this was the translation employed in his first 
 edition by Ostervald, whose authority they professed and in- 
 tended to follow, they have given directions that it shall be 
 adopted accordingly in all future editions of that version which 
 may be printed under their direction. 
 
 But what will the Editor of the Christian Remembrancer say, 
 when [inform him, (for of course he could not have known it when 
 he wrote his letter,) that, in the only copies of the French Tes- 
 tament now issuing by the Society for Promoting Christian 
 Knowledge, (one of which, printed in 1808, and bearing 
 on its cover the stamp of that Society, is at this moment 
 before me,) the passage, of which so much has been said, is 
 not rendered ‘ Car Dieu étoit en Christ réconciliant le monde,’ 
 &c., but ‘ Car c’est Dieu qui a réconcilié le monde avec soi en 
 Jésus Christ. Nor will he find this to be the gravest deviation 
 which that edition exhibits. For in the 1st of John, y. 20, 
 which in the Greek, is Odrds tors & cArnbsvds Osos nati 7 Con alonos; 
 in our authorized English version, ‘ This is the true God and 
 eternal life;’ and in the Bible Society’s version, « C'est lué 
 qui est le vrai Dieu et la vie eternelle; is, in that of the 
 
13 
 
 Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge,‘ C'est lui qui est la 
 vie éternelle.’. How important this passage is, as a proof of the 
 Divinity of Christ, I need scarcely say. Martin (whose text has 
 thus been corrupted) has on the passage, as it stands in one of 
 the editions antecedent to this alteration, the following note :— 
 < Ces mots ne se peuvent rapporter selon la nature de la con- 
 struction des termes, qu’ a Jésus Christ ; et sont une preuve for- 
 melle de la verité de sa nature divine,’ §:c.—‘ These words, according 
 to the natural construction of the terms, can only be referred to 
 Jesus Christ ; and are a formal proof of the truth of his Divine 
 nature.’ : 
 
 « And here, Sir, I would gladly take leave of the subject ; 
 but as certain particulars in my former letter have been referred 
 to in a manner which shows that I have not been correctly under- 
 stood, I miust request the indulgence of yourself and your 
 readers, while I offer a brief explanation. 
 
 «¢ 1. Thad stated that Ostervald’s version was adopted on the 
 recommendation of the late Rev. Mr. Mercier, and Mr. Des 
 Carriéres ; the propriety of this step is questioned, because the 
 former was ‘ a Socinian,’ and the latter, ‘ neither a Clergyman 
 nor a Scholar.’’ Now it is to be observed, that these individuals 
 were not consulted till the Society had accumulated much infor- 
 mation on the subject, by long and extensive inquiries; their 
 business was only to determine between two versions deemed 
 equally orthodox, but differing in style and expression, and they 
 decided in favour of Ostervald. In doubting which of these ver- 
 sions was most likely to be acceptable to the French Protest- 
 aunts, itwas both natural and decorous to defer to the Pastor of 
 the French Church in London ; and as the question on which he 
 had to decide, involved no particularities of religious opinion, 
 his Socinianism, had it been as well known to the Society as it 
 was unknown, would scarcely have disqualified him for the 
 limited office which he had to perform. Of Mr. Des Carrierés, it 
 is sufficient to say, that he possessed the information which the 
 Society looked for in a man of his character; he is admitted to 
 have been ‘ a clever and respectable French teacher,’ he must, 
 therefore, be presumed to have understood grammatically the 
 idiom and structure of his language; and as it was in reference 
 
14 
 
 to these points, and not to matters of Biblical criticism, that his 
 opinion was required, it will scarcely be denied, that, though ¢ nei- 
 thera Clergyman nor a Scholar,’ he was a piegen person to be 
 consulted on such an occasion. 
 
 «« 2. I thought I had said enough to show, that in notifying on 
 the title page, that the Bible had been revised and corrected 
 with care, according to the Hebrew and Greek texts, the Bible 
 Society did not mean to take credit for more than had really been 
 done. It seems, however, that I was not explicit enough to 
 escape a somewhat unceremonious reproof.* I would state then 
 yet further, that in a language so phraseological as the French, 
 it is extremely difficult to discriminate, in a translation of the 
 Bible, the words which correspond to the sacred text, from those 
 which are supplied for the purpose merely of completing the 
 sense. The confusion which exists of roman for italic, and 
 italic for roman characters, in many of the best printed editions. 
 of the French Bible, are notorious to all who have had occasion 
 to examine the subject. To adjust, among other things, these 
 important distinctions, the diligent and conscientious Editor of 
 the Society’s French Bible collated every part of the translation 
 with the Hebrew and Greek originals; and as the labour of 
 this collation was greatly increased by the imcorrectness of 
 the copy, which, in the scarcity of French Bibles at the time, 
 was perhaps excusably, but certainly, as it turned out, most 
 unfortunately chosen, and to which reference was made in the 
 title page, (reimprimée sur Uedition de Paris de Vannée 1805, ) 
 there was nothing asserted concerning the revision and correction, 
 but what was substantially true, and conformable to the aca a 
 usually adopted in similar cases. | 
 
 « 3, As I had stated that the Foreign Clergy have now for the 
 most part undertaken the responsibility of directing: the printing 
 of the Scriptures for the members of their respective communions, 
 it is therefore inferred, that ‘on Mr. Owen’s principles, the Ge- 
 neva version of 1805 ought to have been adopted for the use of 
 the Genevese, because it was published by the Pastors and 
 
 *< Mr, Owen admits that the notice in the title-page of the Society’s French 
 Bible ‘ revised and corrected from the Hebrew and Greek Texts,’ is a mere 
 
 Purr.” Editor of the Christian Remembraneer’s Letter. 
 
15 
 
 Professors of the Academy of Geneva.’ Now the answer to this 
 is, that, although the Bible Society, on a priuciple which has 
 ever governed its conduct, in all its transactions both abroad 
 and at home, (and which the Editor of the Christian Remem- 
 brancer would eertainly not wish to discountenance,) defers 
 generally to the authorities in Church and State, as to the ver- 
 sions of the Scriptures in the circulation of which .it assists, yet 
 it does not pledge itself to carry this principle so far as not to 
 reserve to itself the privilege of a discretionary exception. In the 
 ease of Geneva this exception was made; and though it has not 
 been possible altogether to prevent the circulation of the edition 
 of 1805, not a little has been done to check and discourage it. 
 When a new impression of it was projected in the year 1806, and 
 the Bible Society was applied to for pecuniary assistance, that 
 assistance was peremptorily refused; the project was accord- 
 ingly renounced, and the Geneva Bible Society, very much to 
 its credit, consented, in lieu of it, to co-operate with the Lau- 
 sanne and Neufchatel Bible Societies, m the edition of 10,000 
 copies of Ostervald’s version, as specified in my former Letier. I 
 might adduce other instances of a similar discrimination exer- 
 cised by the Bible Society in their dealings with other Protestant 
 States, where the spirit of neology and rationalism had been at 
 work in corrupting, by spurious refinements, the sober text of 
 their forefathers. In all these cases, encouragement has been 
 withheld, and grants of money refused, till, by a better judgment 
 on the part of the proper authorities, a sufficient security had 
 been given, that nothing should be done but what was consistent 
 with the acknowledged dogmas of orthodox Christianity. 
 
 ** 4. One more point remains to be considered, and that 
 respects the character of the Paris Bible Society. Speaking of 
 this Society, the Editor of the Christian Remembrancer says, that 
 * no one will believe that Socinianism is excluded from it.’ Now, 
 if by fhis assertion be meant that Socinianism exercises a sensible 
 influence in its councils, I must beg leave to appeal from such 
 an insinuation to the matter of fact. The Paris Bible Society 
 has been three years in existence, and during the whole of this 
 period, it has issued no copies of the Bible, but in the versions 
 received and accredited by the orthodox French Protestant 
 
16 
 
 Churches ; and in its Second Report, (many thousand copies of 
 which have been circulated in different parts of the Continent,) 
 the doctrines ‘oppugned by Socinianism are, asserted with such 
 distinctness of statement, and such force of demonstration, as to 
 evince, that, whatever may be the sentiments of private indivi- 
 duals, they in no degree affect the religious principles of the 
 Society, or interfere with the correctness of its Biblical opera- 
 tions. 
 
 «© Having thus acquitted myself of a task, which, however 
 repugnant to my feelings and injurious to my convenience, I 
 felt that I could not with propriety decline, I have only to express 
 my hope, that nothing has escaped me in the course of per- 
 forming it, which can be fairly construed as intemperate or dis- 
 respectful. In the pursuit of the same end, men equally wise 
 and equally good will differ in the choice of their means. In no 
 case has this been more strikingly verified than in the controversy 
 about the Bible Society; and it would have been well if it had 
 been borne more distinctly in mind by the disputants on the one 
 side and the other. For my own part, I desire, as I ought, to. 
 advocate the cause of the Bible Society (when called upon to do 
 so) in the spirit which its object and its connexions prescribe; 
 and I trust I shall never so far forget what is due to its cha- 
 racter, when prosecuting its defence, as to afford just. opeagion 
 of regret to its friends or of triumph to its enemies. - 
 
 «« J am, Sir, your humble Servant, — 
 
 “ JOHN OWEN.” 
 
 J. S. Hughes, Printer, 66, Paternoster-Row, London: 
 
 i 
 
POSTSCRIPT. 
 
 February 2, 1822. 
 
 As Tue CHRISTIAN REMEMBRANCER, for this month, con- 
 tains a Letter from the Rev. Dr. Luscombe, (avowing himself 
 the author of the Letter from Caen,) and some observations from 
 the Editor himself on the whole of the correspondence, I cannot, 
 in justice to myself, or the Society I have undertaken to defend, 
 suffer these Letters to go into the hands of those at whose in- 
 stance they have been re-printed in their present form, and 
 still less to appear before the public, without offering a few 
 concluding remarks. 
 
 Dr.Luscombe (the original complainant against the BibleSociety, 
 under the signature L.) has, it seems, been so little moved by the 
 authorities cited in my first Letter in vindication of the objected ren- 
 dering of 2Corinthians, 5th chapter, and 19th verse, as to allow him- 
 self to use, in the face of them, the following rather confident 
 language :—“‘ The words speak for themselves ; and, ] REPEAT, that 
 they are not a correct translation of the Greek passage.” Whether the 
 authorities referred to in my second Letter will have better success, 
 is, from the apparent disposition of Dr. Luscombe’s mind, some- 
 what doubtful. However, that the Doctor may have as little ex- 
 cuse as possible for being positive where others have thought it 
 prudent to be modest, I will add another authority, that of the 
 learned and orthodox Dr. Hammond. His paraphrase on the 
 words, “ That God was in Christ reconciling the world unto 
 himself,” runs thus ;—‘“‘ That God hath used Christ as a means 
 to make peace between him and the greater and worser part of the 
 
18 
 
 world,” &c. How perfectly this coincides with the translation 
 which Dr. Luscombe pronounces in so authoritative a tone to 
 be “ not correct,” I need scarcely insist. 
 
 Of Dr. Luscombe I wish to speak with all due respect; and 
 if I construed the tone of his Letter from Caen as implying 
 a hostility which he did not feel, I am willing to give him 
 the benefit of his own disavowal; and to believe that, though 
 his conduct was precipitate, his motives were pure. Of himself 
 he says; ‘‘ Retired most probably for ever from a discharge 
 of my professional duties in my native country, my endeavour 
 is still to be useful.” Such a resolution, at the close of 
 life, is truly laudable; and the sincerity with which it is 
 made ought not to be questioned, I should be sorry to judge 
 of the recluse at Caen, by the resident at Hertford :* but from the 
 intimation which the Doctor has given of his intention, if he can 
 find leisure to go through the Bible Society’s version of the 
 French Bible, to search for more paraphrastic liberties, with a 
 view to expose it; I am tempted to fear that old prejudices are 
 not quite worn off.—I would venture, therefore, to suggest to 
 Dr. Luscombe, that, in order to be useful, particularly in such 
 a country as France, something more is necessary than merely 
 finding fault with those who are labouring to benefit it, and 
 that he may make his election between doing his utmost 
 to depreciate and embarrass the operations of the British and 
 Foreign Bible Society, and employing similar exertions to im- 
 prove and advance them: in choosing the former course, he will 
 have indeed the thanks of Jesuits and Freethinkers on one side 
 the water, and of some whom he is pleased to discriminate 
 from their brethren as ‘‘ sound members of our truly Christian 
 Church,” on the other: in adopting the latter course, he will 
 bring upon himself the blessing of those who were ready to 
 perish for lack of spiritual knowledge, in his adopted country; 
 
 * Dr. Luscombe will understand me to refer to the distingaished part he 
 some years ago acted, in opposing the formation of an Auxiliary Bible Society 
 for the County of Hertford. 
 
19 
 
 and, if he should find a grave there, his name will be had in 
 honourable and lasting remembrance. 
 
 In the observations of the Editor of the Christian Remem- 
 brancer on the whole of the correspondence, I find certain par- 
 ticulars, on which some remarks from me are indispensibly 
 required ; and I will endeavour to dispatch, as briefly as pos- 
 sible, what I have to say upon each of them. 
 
 I. The first respects the corrupted French Testament circulated 
 by the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge. On this 
 subject the Editor thus expresses himself. 
 
 « The corraptions which have been introduced into the text 
 of the French Testament distributed by the Society for Pro- 
 moting Christian Knowledge, were not unknown to us, when 
 our Letter was inserted in the newspaper, and the following 
 circumstances will explain our reasons for taking no notice of 
 the fact. We were sufficiently acquainted with the practice of 
 the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, to be certain 
 that it did not publish the work in question. It is accustomed 
 merely to select books of which it approves, purchase them of 
 a bookseller, and distribute them at reduced prices. This is 
 a matter of notoriety to its members and the public; and we 
 presume that the errors which have been pointed out by Mr. 
 Owen, got admittance through this channel. The version ori- 
 ginally selected was that of Martin, and the Society’s book- 
 sellers were directed to procure and circulate that book. The 
 Testament now sent out by them purports to be that book. 
 It is published, not by or for the Society, but by respectable 
 private individuals ;* and the title is, Le Nouveau Testament 
 de notre Seigneur Jesus Christ. Nouvelle Edition. Exactement 
 revue, sur le Texte de M. Martin, par D. Durand, Min. de la 
 Savoye. The truth therefore appears to be this. The Society, 
 
 * “ F, Wingrave; J. Scatcherd and ©. J. Letterman; C. Law; 
 Longman, Hurst, Rees, and Orme;'T. Boosey ; and Dulau and Co,” 
 
20 
 
 or rather its booksellers, have been misled by a deceitful title- 
 page; and, intending to circulate Martin’s text, have been 
 trepanned into the use of a corrupted edition of it. The dis- 
 cussion in which we are now engaged, led to the discovery of 
 the imposition ; and, as it evidently was an imposition, and 
 such an imposition as might mislead any man, or any society 
 of men, there appeared no necessity for bringing it before the 
 public uncalled for.” 
 
 Now, to all this, it may be replied :— 
 
 1. That the distinction between purchasing a book for cir- 
 culation, and printing it for that purpose, is merely formal and 
 technical. In the language of Dr. Luscombe, (as directed 
 against the Bible Society,) it may be fairly said of the other 
 Institution; ‘‘ They have made this vicious translation their 
 own by circulating it.” 
 
 2. If the Bible ‘Society were thought worthy of so much 
 blame, because a passage deemed favourable to Socinianism 
 had crept into their French Testament without their knowledge, 
 ought another Institution (which has confessedly so much less 
 work on its hands) to be pronounced blameless, after being 
 convicted of circulating a Testament in the same language, 
 defaced with the most palpable corruptions in favour of that 
 heresy 2* 
 
 3. That the Editor of the Christian Remembrancer should have 
 known, when he was publicly accusing the Bible Society of a 
 particular fault, that the Society for Promoting Christian Know- 
 
 * Among the passages which (in addition to that cited in my second Letter) 
 answer to this description, are the following. 
 1 Timothy iii. 16.‘ Un Dieu manifesté en chair.” 
 “ A God manifest in the flesh.” 
 And Titus ii, 18. “ En attendant la bienheureuse espérance et l’apparition 
 du grand Dieu, et de notre Sauveur Jésus-Christ.” 
 “ Looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearance of the great God 
 and of our Saviour Jesus Christ.” 
 
21 
 
 ledge, was engaged at that very time in the commission of a 
 similar one, but of a still more aggravated character, is an 
 admission, which must, I think, give pain to every friend to 
 truth and fair dealing. Nor is it immaterial to observe, that 
 the Bible Society lost no time in removing what was consi- 
 dered the mote in their eye: whereas, for ought that appears 
 to the contrary, the beam in the eye of the other Society has been 
 suffered to remain where it was.* 
 
 _ 4. The seriousness with which the Bible Society’s offence 
 was treated, has been seen : the dark shades employed to repre- 
 sent the one, are strikingly contrasted by the light colours in 
 which the other is depicted. ‘‘ The Society, or rather its book- 
 sellers, have been misled by a deceitful title page ; and, intending 
 to circulate Martin’s Version, have been trepanned into the use 
 of a corrupted edition of it.” And does that Society, then, 
 (which has been represented again and again, as sufficient 
 for all the purposes of the Bible Society,) do its business 
 with so little regard to what it sends forth in a foreign 
 tongue, as to leave to the booksellers the undivided task 
 of ascertaining, which are proper copies to carry the stamp, 
 and to go forth under the nominal sanction, of so venerable 
 and important an Institution? If the fault imputed to the 
 Bible Society be thought “‘ to prove the wisdom and propriety” 
 of the advice given to it,—‘‘ to look well to the revision and 
 correction of their Foreign Versions ;” surely, the fault de- 
 tected in another quarter, ought, on every principle of equity, 
 to be admitted to prove, that they stand in need of a similar 
 admonition, and, as far as it is so intended, of a similar reproof. 
 
 Now, that no attention whatever has been paid by the one 
 Society to that which, in the case of the other{ is represented to 
 be a matter of such indispensible obligation,—the Editor of the 
 Christian Remembrancer unhesitatingly admits ; and although the 
 
 * For more than a fortnight after the appearance of the Editor's Letter 
 in the New Times, copies were on sale as usual: mine was purchased on the 
 twenty-first of January, The Editor's Letter was dated January 2, 
 
22 
 
 consequence of such inattention has been the issue of copies of 
 a socinianized French Testament, for perhaps ten or twelve 
 years,* he thinks it so venial a fault,—a mere “ imposition” 
 on the booksellers, and through them on the Society, and 
 through that on its subscribers : ‘‘ such an imposition as might 
 mislead any man or any society of men,”—that “ there ap- 
 peared no necessity for bringing it before the public uncalled 
 for.” On such an apology for suppressing the discovery of a 
 fact, of which candour and justice required the explicit avowal, 
 
 I offer no comment. 
 % 
 
 But if the Editor might be pardoned for attempting to palliate, 
 in the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, a fault which 
 he had in vain attempted to conceal, might it not, at least, have 
 been supposed, that he would express some regret that this vene-. 
 rable Institution, whether trepanned by artifice, or surprized by 
 neglect, had been for a series of years the unintentional instrument 
 of propagating the worst of errors? Could less have been ex- 
 pected from the conducter of an unprovoked attack upon the 
 character of the Bible Society, and who has suspended over 
 their heads the following denunciation. 
 
 «« At a time when Socinianism is supposed to be making 
 rapid strides through the ranks of the self-conceited, and 
 superficially learned, is it not incumbent upon members of 
 the Church of England, who compose part of a Society, by 
 whose authority, a corrupted translation of the Bible is sent 
 forth into the world, to consider the awful responsibility 
 which. they have incurred, and the evil consequences of 
 their being thus instrumental in the circulation of error ?”+ 
 
 “In a copy furnished me by a friend, -and purchased in 1815, I find 
 attached, a note from Messrs. Rivington to the purchaser, (in answer to a 
 question from him,) stating, ‘‘ that the Edition of the French Testament now 
 sold by them, is the same as has been for many years supplied.” 
 
 + Extract of the Letter from Caen. 
 
23 
 
 I. Having sueceeded, as he presumes, by a feat of dex- 
 terity, in extricating both himself and the Society for Pro- 
 moting Christian Knowledge out of the embarrassment into 
 which the unexpected detection of the corruptness of the French 
 Testament, issued by that body, had plunged them, the Editor 
 of the Christian Remembrancer proceeds to give judgment 
 agaimst the Bible Society; and this he does in the following 
 terms. | 
 
 “ Now, if there is so much difficulty, ignorance, and error, in 
 a work of such comparative facility as the French translation 
 of the Bible, we ask, what security the Bible Society has to give, 
 that in other cases, where there must necessarily be greater 
 difficulties and more ignorance, there shall not also be more 
 ‘numerous and more important errors? If the Committee are so 
 much perplexed by the most familiar of all foreign languages, 
 may they not be much more misled, when they advance into 
 Asia, Africa, and America? Weare assured,” adds the Editor, 
 “‘ from various respectable quarters, that similar circumstances 
 occur daily in the East.” 
 
 Now, to this I answer :-— 
 
 1. The French language, though “‘ the most familiar of all 
 foreign languages,” is one of the most difficult, as a vehicle of 
 theological ideas; and all translators and editors of the 
 Scriptures in this language have found themselves embar- 
 rassed between the choice of a literal version, which makes 
 the language barbarous, and an idiomatical one, which degene- 
 tates into paraphrase. The preparation, therefore, of a French 
 translation of the Bible was any thing rather “‘ than a work of 
 comparative facility.” For the truth of this I appeal to every 
 French scholar who has mae Biblical literature any part of his 
 
 study. 
 2. The state of the Bible Society, as to its means of executing 
 
 the works for which it becomes either directly or indirectly 
 responsible, is (as I stated in my first Letter) so different now 
 
24 
 
 trom what it was; when it issued its first foreign version,—that 
 of the French Bible in question; that no conclusion drawn from 
 that period, can, with justice, be applied to the present. The 
 progress of fifteen years has made all the difference of infancy 
 and maturity. 
 
 3. From the manner in which the Editor speaks of the Society’s 
 “‘ advancing into Asia, Africa, and America,” it would almost 
 appear as though he was perfectly ignorant of those facts and 
 documents which he might have consulted, and which, by 
 describing by whom and in what manner the translations 
 for those several countries are executed, would have shown 
 him, that there is no such danger of its being misled, as he 
 seems to apprehend. Referring him for this information. to 
 the Society’s Annual Reports, I would only here observe 
 in general, that the versions which the Society issues, or to 
 the production of which it contributes, are edited by Pro- 
 fessors in our own and Foreign Universities, or learned 
 
 individuals of acknowledged reputation ;* by Translators con- 
 
 nected with those religious Societies, on whose competency to 
 the task, Bishop Marsh has himself unequivocally pronounced ;+ 
 and by Foreign Bible Societies, administered for the most part 
 (as stated in my first Letter) by the highest authorities, both in 
 Church and State. 
 
 * Such are the Arabic Bible, editing by Professors Lee, of Cambridge, and 
 
 Macbride, of Oxford; the Malay, the Syriac, the Persian, the Ethiopic, 
 and Amharic, &c. all which are under the direction of Professor Lee; the 
 ‘Turkish, by Professor Kieffer, the Carshun, by M, Quatremére, both of 
 Paris ; and the Modern Greek, by Hilarion, late of Constantinople, and now 
 
 Bishop of Ternovo, in Bessarabia. 
 
 + Of the Baptist Translators.at Serampore, (through whom the greatest 
 
 number of Oriental translations, aided by the Bible Society, are prodnced,) 
 Bishop Marsh says ; “ ‘These are the men who are best qualified to complete 
 
 the design (the Translation of the Scriptures) so nobly begun, and hitherto so _ 
 
 successfully performed.” History of Translations, page 75. 
 
 See also what his Lordship says (page 97 of the same work) of the Lon- 
 don Missionary Society’s Translators, and of those of the Unitas Fratrum, 
 or Moravians; both of whom are liberally aided by the Bible Society, in 
 their Translations fur Greenland, Labrador, the South Sea Islands, &c. 
 
 ee 
 
25 
 
 4. As the intelligence which the Editor professes to have 
 received “ from various respectable quarters, that similar cir- 
 cumstances occur daily in the East,” may lead those of his 
 readers, who are unacquainted with the facts of the case, to 
 conclude that all due pains are not taken to render the Oriental 
 Versions, patronized by the Bible Society, as correct as 
 possible, I would just observe; —that both Dr. Marshman; 
 at Serampore, and Dr. Morrison, at Canton, have repeat- 
 edly and most ‘sedulously revised their Chinese Transla- 
 tions ; that the Calcutta Bible Society has had both Martyn’s 
 Hindoosianee Testament, (of which all India has spoken 
 well,) and the Malay Bible, in the Arabic character, very ably 
 and carefully revised before: the last editions of them respec- 
 tively were printed ; that one of the first measures of the recently- 
 formed Madras Bible Society, was the institution of a board for 
 the express purpose of examining translations; and, finally, that 
 the Baptist Translators of Serampore, (to whom,’ besides very 
 liberal contributions to all their translations, the’ Bible Society 
 have granted premiums of five hundred ‘pounds. each, for five 
 versions of the Testament into as many new Oriental dialects,): 
 on the publication of the three first of those productions,’ issued: 
 a circular, ‘requesting any gentleman, throughout India, ‘ac-: 
 quainted with either of these languages, to furnish remarks on’ 
 these translations, as to the style, the structure, andthe rendering’ 
 of the passages, with a view to a second and improved edition.” 
 As these conscientious and indefatigable labourers are extending 
 this practice to all their translations, (of: which, fifteen have 
 been published, and sixteen more are in the press,) they properly 
 observe, that “‘ by thus ‘combining: all the help procurable, in’ 
 examining the various versions, as editions are successively’ 
 printed, most of the translations of the Scriptures will, they 
 trust, ultimately be brought to a happy’ state of perfection.” 
 Through such agents, it will, E-think, be admitted, that the’ 
 Bible Society have the best possible security to give for the 
 correct execution of the works they encourage; and when the 
 translation department of the Episcopal College of. Calcutta, 
 (to which. the Bible Society have voted five thousand pounds,) 
 shall have been completed, the hope before expressed will be: 
 
26 
 
 likely to be fully realized; and the Oriental —— ‘be 
 brought to a happy degree of oA 
 
 III. The Editor concludes his observations, by suggesting » 
 remedy for the evil, which he thinks inseparable from the present 
 system;—the Society having, in his judgment, undertaken a task 
 which they are not able to perform. His words are as follow :— 
 
 “ The evil admits but of one remedy : contract the sphere of 
 the Society’s operations; sacrifice a little magnificence and a 
 great deal of declamation to practical and permanent utility; 
 publish a few correct translations; and those who disapprove of 
 the constitution of the Bible Society, will then be ready to ad- 
 mit that some benefits may result from its operations.” : 
 
 Now, as it is some consolation to learn, after all, that the 
 Bible Society, whose “‘ ignoranceand error.” have been so posted 
 and proclaimed, is not so incurably weak and unsound, but that 
 some benefits may yet result from its operations, I have only to 
 regret that the terms on which this admission is to be obtained 
 from those who ‘* disapproye of its constitution,” cannot be fully 
 complied with. So far as “sacrificing a little magnificence and 
 a great deal of declamation to practical and permanent utility,” is 
 concerned, I regard the advice as neither unsound nor unseason- 
 able. But I cannot consent, that the sphere of the Society's ope- 
 rations should be contracted, and its foreign work be limited to 
 the publication of a few correct versions. The extent of that sphere 
 
 was not of the Society’s seeking; it was created by cireum-’ 
 
 stances, to which the Society could not do otherwise than yield: 
 and while its contraction does not appear to be required by any 
 thing which has been demonstrated to its prejudice, there is 
 
 every thing in the pledges it has given, in the instruments it 
 
 possesses, and in the applications it receives, to render such a 
 measure in the highest degree inexpedient. The Editor of the 
 Christian Remembrancer has indeed said, there is but one 
 remedy for the evil he apprehends : I will take the liberty of 
 
 pointing- out to him another; and one which I will venture to- 
 
27 
 
 pronounce more likely to prove efficacious, and in every way 
 more worthy of being tried :—that remedy is, an accession to 
 the Society, of the Biblical learning which is alienated from it, 
 and of the clerical zeal and talent and influence which are so 
 unhappily employed against it. 
 
 Let, then, its secret friends in the Church be permitted with impu- 
 nity to avow their attachment, and its open enemies be persuaded 
 to moderate their hostility. Let the real admirers of the Society 
 for Promoting Christian Knowledge disclaim those pretenders 
 to that character, who are ever forcing it into collision witha 
 Society, the Church-members of which are among its warmest 
 advocates and its most liberal supporters: let our English 
 residents in France lend the benefit of their countenance and 
 their aid to the friends of religion in that country, in order to 
 counteract the prevalence of superstition and infidelity, by 
 the dissemination of the Holy Scriptures. Let Periodical 
 Journals forbear to encourage rash accusation, to aggravate 
 minor faults, and to dissemble altogether the services and the 
 merits by which they are redeemed. Let these and similar steps 
 be taken to heal our divisions, on a question and in an under- 
 taking in which we ought to be united :--and then, though the 
 sphere of the Bible Society’s operations should not be con- 
 tracted ; though it should even be indefinitely extended, none 
 of the consequences apprehended by the writer whom I have 
 had occasion so often to quote, and of whom I now respectfully 
 take leave, will be actually realized. ‘* Secretaries and Com- 
 mittees will not have corresponded and laboured; Editors will not 
 have collated, revised, and corrected; nor will the Church of 
 England have been divided and endangered—for nothing :” but, 
 on the contrary, the errors and imperfections of the Bible 
 Society’s works will progressively diminish, the mighty Polyglott 
 will in due time be accomplished, and the crown of having 
 presided overan undertaking of unparalleled difficulty and un- 
 limited beneficence, be placed, where it has ever been, and 
 to my dying hour will be, my wish and endeavour to see it 
 placed,— on the head of the CHURCH oF ENGLAND. 
 
 J. S. Hughes, Printer, 66, Paternoster-Row, London. 
 
vow 719713, si bas, wupigagiiy evorq! oem 
 os sie ode ost (el whem dae Loh 
 ae ce 
 
 Ji avort (bodsnoils et, doldveanitrigal beat 
 
 a ae hy i v 
 o2 ote font congue Bie taal She leat 
 
 -pyud din honinweaed dod) ontai ab 
 hohevdisy 2 Lately Published, by. 
 visioo® sift to erotinhe loot edt tol, 2, 
 exsbaslory seodk pp pp HIST 
 #niiw nopiligs oni at yaisol va verem 
 fasimic eli proms ote sold le. 
 
 feign a0 Sef Selnicaie vice Ieiodif 9 
 
 Ki SAM: ana Fo orcign 3 
 
 GF Wei ft Citas 
 
 ‘4 oi 
 yd .ylilobitat aN THR EE ‘You oes 
 4 en 
 ie sihor 79h: SE -eoTUIY oe pink . 
 
 SIEVE VIB OR noitmenoen ant sgendo 
 
 sd} atMe B. i TN ole 
 
 3 
 
 “hes gest baa Roueaap athe alah 
 ads divods: nods hag): 2 aimir od OF 
 sity ed don" kigona” ead nToga Fe ae - 
 suo bolussdre viotiniabat '¢ a * ty hls 
 it ak toe Wy Bits BLE WORLD 
 
 rLtlsS wid oy tel 
 
 weare, BDIrioN, ‘Sa 
 
 YJ 
 
 y" ty res ry vpn An ‘t bal gro ty Kira ‘ houe 
 
 F 
 F Pits i Hotes te Tis Deby ey 
 ‘ q a . % . y . 
 ‘ le te (neat aah yen brs” Ores ane 
 of { | 
 a ye , SRI Hye ioe yf awe Oh ye 
 Oe ea ores ale ae ee FER ESTO Tee iis 
 
 Vs pi Cs Ws Bes 68 6 08 ayly fia, Soto eee 9 Oy 
 
 og fore usted Haloifmiaciw 24 nid eee 
 . be to? 
 “ahah sero, aR ME sonebee houale gM 
 } @t | ies art Fae yad {hiv 
 LIKE 18 (oR M OP sir te 
 fie } i j 
 
A DEFENCE 
 
 oF THE 
 
 SERAMPORE MAHRATTA VERSION 
 
 oF THs 
 
 NEW TESTAMENT: 
 
 IN REPLY 
 
 TS 
 
 THE ANIMADVERSIONS OF AN ANONYMOUS WRITER 
 
 ™™ 
 
 THE ASIATIC JOURNAL 
 FOR SEPTEMBER, 1929. 
 
 = BY 
 
 WILLIAM GREENFIELD, 
 
 EDITOR OF BAGSTER’S SYRIAC NEW TESTaMeENT, Ee. 
 
 Modesté tamen et cireumspecto judicio de tantis viris pronunciandum est, ne, quod pleris- 
 que aceidit,, pic que now intelligunt.—Quivriran. 
 
 LONDON: © 
 
 PRINTED FOR SAMUEL BAGSTER, 
 No. 15, PATERNOSTER ROW; 
 
 AT THE WAREHOUSE FOR BIBLES, NEW TESTAMENTS, PRAYER EGOES, AND PSIAETERS, 
 DY £NCIENT AND MODERN LANGUAGES. 
 
 BOAAAL ev Gunrore TAQTTAL, pow F AGavarorow:-—Multe terricolis lingue, ccelestibus une. 
 SLD BY 
 PARBURY, ALLEN AND CO. LEADENHALL STREET > 
 HATCHARD AND SOW, PICCADILLY. 
 
 € 
 M.DCCC,XXX. 
 
 | Prue Tuo Shillings. 
 
: 
 ' 
 ' 
 “ ; 
 i aD 
 i 
 + 
 t 
 a 3 
 one FOE? { j 
 a9 
 pes 
 Bue 5 
 4 
 
 London : Bapter and 1 
 
Pie? Aer 
 
 Tue present pamphlet owes its origin to a friend. Aware of my attach- 
 ment to oriental literature, he put into my hands, about the commencement 
 of December last, the Asiatic Journal, containing the critique on the 
 Oriental Versions of the Scriptures,” accompanied by a request that I 
 would freely and impartially state my opinion upon the subject. I accord- 
 ingly sat down to its perusal, and was struck with the bitter spirit which 
 it betrayed, and the manifest inconsistencies which everywhere appeared. 
 This naturally roused my suspicions of the accuracy of the writer’s state- 
 ments, and the truth of the assertions which he so confidently made. I 
 therefore made notes of every thing which appeared inaccurate or un- 
 founded, in order to assist me in my proposed’ communication. In the 
 meanwhile, however, having accidentally met my friend, I expressed my con- 
 viction of the untenable nature of the charges against the Mahratta ver- 
 sion, and read a few observations in support of my statement. Encouraged 
 by his approbation, and that of another friend who was present, and in 
 compliance with their united request to make public the facts of the case, 
 I commenced my examination de novo, and threw my remarks into their 
 present form. The result of this examination is now before the reader; 
 from which he will perceive the utter falsehood of the accusation, and the 
 consequent accuracy of the Mahratta version. Never was there, perhaps, 
 a case of more complete failure. Every charge has melted away before 
 the rays of truth; and nothing remains apparent but the gross errors and 
 misrepresentations of the accuser. 
 
 In pursuing the investigation, I have strictly adhered to the rule of 
 adyancing nothing without the best possible evidence. While this has 
 had the necessary effect of extending the limits of the discussion, it has 
 obyiously rendered it more satisfactory. Instead of unsupported asser- 
 tions, the reader is presented with the most irrefragable testimony; and is 
 left to deduce his conclusions, not from my bare affirmations, but from 
 indisputable facts. The subject is therefore placed on a basis wholly inde- 
 pendent of the writer, and which is as immutable as truth itself. The only 
 apparent exception is the translations from the Mahratta; but even in this 
 case the interlinear versions supply the very best evidence of which they 
 are capable. From the adoption of this mode even the mere English reader 
 
2 A DEFENCE OF THE 
 
 ever, with the Serampore Missionaries, and not directly con- 
 
 ‘nected with the British and Foreign Bible Society, though 
 
 warmly attached to its cause; it is not my intention to enlist 
 
 myself in defence of either, except so far as it is necessarily 
 
 involved in the succeeding remarks. This may safely be 
 
 resigned into the hands of the officers of these respective 
 
 Societies; who will doubtless satisfactorily vindicate their 
 
 conduct, as they have heretofore done, if they should judge 
 such a vindication necessary. My object is simply to eX- 
 pose the gross errors and misrepresentations contained in a _ 
 critique on the “ Oriental Translations of the Scriptures, ” 
 
 published in the Asiatic Journal for September, 1829; and _ 
 to evince the accuracy of the version attacked, the ground- 
 
 lessness of the objections, and the consequent incapacity 
 
 of the writer. Truth, not literary triumph, is my aim; and 
 
 I seek to serve, not the interest of a party, but the sacred 
 
 cause of justice and religion. 
 
 Before, however, proceeding to an examination of the 
 direct charges preferred by the author of the critique, I beg 
 leave to offer a few general remarks, which I conceive will 
 tend materially to place the subject in a proper point of 
 view, and supply some strong presumptions of the unsound- 
 ness of his cause, and also of the correctness of the Seram- 
 pore versions in general, and of the Mahratta translation 
 in particular. In the first place, I think it cannot have es- 
 caped notice, that the manner in which that writer’s remarks 
 are introduced, and the spzit which they exhibit, indicate 
 something radically wrong. They possess a coarseness and 
 asperity utterly unworthy a gentleman and a scholar, more 
 especially a Christian and a clergyman; and naturally lead 
 us to suppose him actuated by improper personal feeling, 
 rather than by the love of truth, or an anxiety for the dis- 
 semination of pure religion. This is perfectly evident 
 throughout the whole of the following paragraph : 
 
 “ The public at home, and the religious public in particular, would learn 
 with no little indignation (could they believe it), that the British and 
 
SERAMPORE MAHRATTA VERSION. 3 
 
 Foreign Bible Society has been lavishing the liberal contributions on their be- 
 nevolent charity, during so many years past, in circulating (in India, at least) 
 copies—multiplied copies—of our Holy Books, in translations, dignified as 
 such, which swarm with every fault of taste and criticism, shock common 
 sense, and are at this moment, after multiplied editions, exactly fit for— 
 the worms. In these too, the pedobaptist public (forty-nine out of fifty 
 of the contributors, at least) have been made, unconsciously, to all intents 
 and purposes, to circulate the translations of a set of narrow-minded, 
 tasteless, money-making bigots, in direct counteraction of all which they 
 believe of the institutions of the Saviour by which introduction is given 
 into his church. I hesitate not to arraign the British and Foreign Bible 
 Society as guilty of gross and unpardonable dereliction of duty, and a 
 practical imposition on the religious gullibility of John Bull, in thus 
 acting,” &c. &c. 
 
 And yet this is the man who professes, in page 302, 
 to offer his remarks, “ without intending the slightest dis- 
 respect to the Missionaries at Serampore!” ere we clearly 
 recognise calumny envenomed by affected candour. Of 
 the elegant taste displayed in this paragraph I need not 
 say a word—de gustibus non est disputandum ; but I would 
 have the reader remark another gross inconsistency 
 with a subsequent statement, which completely nullifies 
 his sweeping sentence of the utter worthlessness of the 
 Serampore versions, and renders it perfectly innocuous. 
 In order to make this apparent, it is merely necessary to 
 place them in juxtaposition. Here he asserts, that there 
 have been “ circulating (in India, at least) copies—multi- 
 plied copies—of our Holy Books, in ‘TRANSLATIONS, dig- 
 nified as such, which swarm with every fault of taste and 
 criticism,” &e.; but in p. 302, after condemning the manner 
 in which the Mahratta version has been executed, he ex- 
 presses his “ FEAR, THAT WERE THE OTHER VERSIONS of 
 Serampore also examined, they would all be found to have 
 been executed in exactly the same manner.”* According to 
 
 * If it be objected that the former part was really the last written, and 
 that he might therefore have made these discoveries subsequently : I reply, 
 that had such been the case, he would not have left it hypothetically, as it 
 was sent to England, (after having been published in the Oriental Magazine 
 of Calcutta,) “ with corrections in MS. by the author.” 
 
4 A DEFENCE OF THE 
 
 his own shewing, therefore, he has pronounced judgment 
 unheard, and condemned without examination! How much 
 credit is due, after this, to his unsupported assertions, I 
 may safely leave the reader to determine. But the motive 
 of the attack is sufficiently clear.“ Who can stand before 
 
 envy!” Jealous of the success which has crowned the — 
 
 efforts of the Serampore Missionaries, who are not of his 
 communion, and galled at the patronage and encourage- 
 
 ment afforded them, he would elevate himself, and the noble — 
 
 institution to which he belongs, on the ruins of his opponents. 
 Though now “ entered into their labours,” and reaping the 
 fruits of the seed which they sowed, he would fain persuade 
 
 ‘ 
 . 
 1 
 
 his readers that they are all of his own culture, and the pro-— 
 duce of his own labours. I take leave of this ungrateful 
 
 subject by whispering in the ear of our opponent (for 
 the regulation of his future conduct) the Chinese proverb : 
 HAYA iG “Qui capit in ore sanguinem ex- 
 
 puere alteri, os suum primim inquinat.” 
 
 Another remark, which has also doubtless occurred to 
 
 the mind of the intelligent reader, is, that the high character 
 
 and literary qualifications of the translators, and the mode 
 in which the translations were effected, as well as the length 
 
 of time devoted to each, furnish strong presumptive evidence | 
 of their substantial accuracy ; which the slender evidence 
 
 and the unsupported assertions of an anonymous writer ap- 
 pear utterly insufficient to impugn. The following account 
 of the persons employed, and the manner in which the work 
 of translation was conducted, is drawn from the Reports of 
 the Missionaries; which, though already published else- 
 where, I feel it would be doing injustice to this subject to 
 withhold. The first is an extract of a letter from the Rev. 
 Dr. Carey, dated Serampore, April 20, 1808; in which he 
 says: 
 
 “You mentioned some objections that have been made to our Translations, 
 
 as if they were the work of graceless Brahmans. We certainly do employ 
 all the helps we can obtain—Brahmans, Musselmans, and others, who 
 
SERAMPORE MAHRATTA VERSION. 5 
 
 both translate, and sometimes write out rough copies; and should think it 
 criminal not to do so. But we never print any Translation till every word 
 has been revised, and re-revised. Whatever helps we employ, I have never 
 yet suffered a single word, or a single mode of construction, to pass, with- 
 out examining it, and seeing through it. I read every proof-sheet twice 
 ov thrice myself, and correct every letter with my own hand. Brother 
 Marshman and I compare with the Greek or Hebrew, and brother Ward 
 reads every sheet. Three of the Translations, viz. the Bengalee, Hindos- 
 tanee, and Sungscrit, I translate with my own hand: the two last imme- 
 diately from the Greek; and the Hebrew Bible is before me while [ trans- 
 late the Bengalee. Whatever helps I use, I commit my judgment to none 
 of them. Brother Marshman does the same with the Chinese, and all 
 that he engages im; and so does Brother Ward.” 
 
 In perfect conformity with this statement, is that furnished 
 by the following extract of a letter from the Rev. William 
 Ward, dated May 10, 1820: 
 
 « The appointment of my beloved colleague (Dr. Carey) to the Profes- 
 sorship im the College of Fort William put him im possession, so far as it 
 Was necessary to his plans, of all the learnmg m India. Learned men 
 from every part crowded to Calcutta, seeking employment im this new 
 College; and the senior Sangskrit Pundit im the College, who attended 
 Dr. Carey constantly im the discharge of his College duties, imformed him 
 from time to time of the arrival of some learned Native, now from Benares, 
 them from Cashmere, then from the Punjab; and thus, im succession, from 
 the different provinces of India; who were, of course, mtroduced to Dr. 
 Carey. The Doctor here saw all India coming to pour all its treasures at 
 his feet ; nor could he be so blind as not to recognise the hand which thus 
 brought him help from afar. 
 
 “Tm that spirit of faith which has distmguished his missionary life, he 
 engaged these learned mem as fast as they were brought; and put the 
 Simgskrit Bible, as the original from which they were to translate, mto 
 the hands of each. Each Pundit, thus furnished, and mstructed also m 
 the nature of the work of translation, now sat down, and begam to render 
 the divine word into his mative dialect. He was assisted for some time by 
 hints and directions from two learned Hindoos, prepared by Dr- Carey, 
 and familiarized to the work of translation by having read the proofs of the 
 Sungskrit and Pengalee with the Doctor; and then, from day to day, he 
 was able to go on alone with his work. At am early period, his first 
 attempts were brought to the test; for, after he had advanced some way, his: 
 manuscript was put to press, and the first sheet was examined by one of 
 the initiated Native Assistants, sitting by the side of this original Native 
 Translator. The first and second proofs were thas corrected, which brought 
 
6 A DEFENCE OF THE 
 
 the sheet as near as they could bring it to the original Sungskrit. The 
 third proof was then carried to Dr. Carey by the Translator himself; and 
 they went over it together, and over as many more proofs of the same 
 sheet as the Doctor thought necessary, sometimes more and sometimes 
 less; and after this, the sheet was ordered to press. This has been the 
 constant and only process in these Translations, from the beginning.” 
 
 Of the time occupied in effecting these versions, the fol- 
 lowing statement, drawn from the ‘‘ Ninth Memoir respecting 
 the Translations and Editions of the Sacred Scriptures con- 
 ducted by the Serampore Missionaries,” will furnish suf- 
 ficient evidence. After giving a list of the versions, with 
 the date of the commencement and of the completion of 
 each, they say, 
 
 ‘“‘ From this view of the Translations, and of the time when they were 
 respectively begun and finished at press, it will be evident that none of 
 them have been brought hastily through the press. Seven years have 
 formed the shortest period which has been occupied, even by those in 
 which the terminations were the nearest akin to those in the neighbouring 
 dialects; and with the exception of the Bengalee, which, as the first, occu- 
 pied almost undivided attention, it was not till those im the chief cognate 
 languages of India (the Bengalee, the Hindee, the Mahratta, &c.) had 
 been finished, that the secondary Versions were suffered to pass through 
 the press even in so small a space as seven years. The chief cognate 
 branches, it will be evident, occupied, in general, above ten years each; 
 and to those wherein the discrepancy was very great, (as, for example, the 
 Chinese, the Telinga, and the Kurnata,) nearly twelve were given. It is 
 however a fact, that above three-fourths of the words in most of the 
 secondary cognate languages were understood, in all their bearings, through 
 the Sungscrit, the Bengalee, and Hindee, before those secondary languages 
 were begun; and in some of them even seven-eighths of the words, to say 
 nothing of the construction, the idiom, and the usual figures of speech, in 
 which there is little variation throughout the whole of the Indian family.”— 
 
 Besides the security which the admirable mode adopted 
 in translating, and the considerable period allotted to the 
 execution of each version afforded, that they should be sub- 
 stantially correct; those versions, which reached a second 
 edition, of which the M/ahratta was one, possessed the addi- 
 tional securities stated in the following extract from the 
 same Memoir: 
 
SERAMPORE MAHRATTA VERSION. 7 
 
 *« An assemblage of Pundits, learned in the various languages of India, 
 and engaged in making new Translations from Versions already existing, 
 afforded (to the Missionaries) advantages for ascertaining the correctness of 
 Versions when made, which are not easily met with elsewhere. Each of 
 those, who carefully perused another Version for the sake of ascertaining 
 the exact meaning of every passage, became a more unexceptionable wit- 
 ness to its accuracy or its incorrectness, than any Native can possibly be 
 who cursorily examines only a few passages. While the latter can do little 
 more than testify to the correctness of the idiom and the general perspi- 
 cuity of the language, the Pundit, after spending month after month in 
 examining it in order to obtain the literal meaning of each sentence for 
 practical purposes, is a voucher for the accuracy of the rendering in a way 
 that no Native beside can be, till he become acquainted with the original 
 text, or at least obtain a very thorough knowledge of the Scriptures in 
 some other way. As it is impossible that any one of these Pundits could 
 guess beforehand what sense the European Translator might wish him to 
 find in the version he examines, (for this would have been equivalent to 
 guessing, in nearly every instance, the exact meaning of the original,) it 
 must follow, that the meaning he brought out of each passage and ex- 
 pressed in his own rough draft was precisely the meaning he found in that 
 Version: and this, brought to the European Translator, enabled him at 
 once to judge of the Versicn thus examined. 
 
 * This may be illustrated by an example. The Bengalee Version of the 
 New Testament being the first that was finished, when the Orissa Pundit 
 commenced his labours some years after, as he understood Bengalee nearly 
 as well as his own vernacular tongue, he of course took the Bengalee Ver- 
 sion to assist him in making his own rough draft for examination. This, 
 brought to Dr. Carey, enabled him at once to see how far he himself had 
 given the exact meaning of the original in the Bengalee Version, and 
 wherein he had failed. This not only assisted him in rectifying the mis- 
 takes in that Version, but enabled him to discern what mistakes were 
 chiefly to be guarded against in future Versions of the Scriptures. Hence, 
 when several of these Pundits have reciprocally read different Versions, 
 and in this way have given undoubted proof of the sense in which they 
 understand them, this has carried more conviction to the mind respecting 
 their accuracy when the sense given has agreed with our own idea of the 
 meaning of these passages, and has assisted us more in discerning those 
 passages which had been inadequately rendered, than all the other helps 
 we have as yet been able to obtain, either from other Natives or Europeans, 
 And as each Version has occupied from seven to twelve years in its forma- 
 tion and its passage through the press, neither time nor means have been 
 wanting, to enable us to make up our own minds respecting the merits of 
 each, long before it has been sent into circulation. We are ready to in- 
 
8 A DEFENCE OF THE 
 
 dulge the hope, therefore, that although all first Versions must necessarily 
 be imperfect, each of these already named is sufficiently accurate and per- 
 spicuous to become, under the Divine Blessing, the means of salvation, as 
 well as the Bengalee, Swugskrit, and Hindee Versions, which God has 
 been pleased already thus to honour. But, while we have this hope, we 
 deem it important to second editions of these Versions, to obtain, from 
 every quarter we are able, the opinions both of other Natives and of Eu- 
 ropeans respecting them; and, if possible, critical remarks on particular 
 passages, in the manner described in the Circular Letter on that subject, 
 published in the Appendix of the Seventh Memoir.” 
 
 From this plain statement of the mode of procedure in 
 effecting and perfecting the various translations by the 
 highly respectable and much honoured Missionaries at 
 Serampore; and from the candour, and modesty, and piety 
 which they display, so far removed from every thing like 
 bigotry or sectarianism; I conceive there arises a very strong 
 presumption that these versions must be, at least, so far cor- 
 rect as to answer every moral and religious purpose. When 
 I thus see opposed to the unsupported assertions of an ano- 
 nymous writer, the talents of Dr. Carey, (twenty-five years 
 Professor of Sanscrit, Bengalee, and MJahratta, in the Col- 
 lege of Fort William,) and those of his able colleagues, 
 together with the learned native Pundits whom they en- 
 gaged ; such a full persuasion of their substantial truth takes 
 possession of my mind, that I feel I might safely leave the 
 issue of the question to be determined by this alone. Lest, 
 however, any one should imagine that the writer of the 
 critique, with all these facts looking him in the face, 
 could not have advanced such grave charges against the 
 Mabhratta version without the most substantial reasons, and 
 may thence be induced to give them credit; I shall now 
 proceed to demonstrate, I trust to the satisfaction of every 
 intelligent and candid reader, the utter groundlessness of 
 his assertions, and leave him without a place on which to 
 rest the basis of his accusation. 
 
 Passing by the illiberal and unjust attack of our opponent 
 on the Mahratta Grammar and Dictionary of Dr. Carey, 
 
 iad 
 
 aa 
 
SERAMPORE MAHRATTA VERSION. 9 
 
 which he declares to be “ extremely defective and erro- 
 neous,” and to have been “in consequence of scarcely any 
 use on this side of India;” I advance to a consideration of 
 the consequence which he most illogically deduces from it: 
 
 “ The language, therefore, into which the Serampore Maratha New 
 Testament is translated, is not Marat’ha, either in all its words, its construc- 
 tion, or its idiom ; and hence it is quite unintelligible to all persons whose 
 vernacular dialect is Marat’ha.” 
 
 Such a charge is much easier made than substantiated ; 
 and this, we shall find, he has completely failed to ac- 
 complish in the “ few examples” which he cites. At the 
 same time, it must be acknowledged to be extremely difficult 
 to convey to an English reader a thorough knowledge of 
 the real facts of the case. That the reader, however, may 
 have a tolerably correct notion of the bearing of his first 
 assertion, that it “is not Marat’ha in al its worps,” I shall 
 present him with a view of the extent of country in which it 
 is spoken, and an exposition of its nature and composition, in 
 the language of a most unexceptionable witness. 
 
 “‘ The country,” says Colonel Vans Kennedy, (in the Preface to his 
 Marat’ha Dictionary) “to which the Marat’ha Language peculiarly belongs, 
 may be described generally as being bounded on the North by the Satpura 
 mountains, and by a line drawn from their Western termination to Daman— 
 on the West from Daman to Goa by the sea, and on the South and East bya 
 line drawn from Goa to Warda near Chanda, and thence along that river to 
 the Satpura mountains.” “ In this extensive country the language is, I 
 believe, every where the same, and merely distinguished in some particular 
 parts by a slight difference in orthography and pronunciation. But, though 
 not divided into dialects, it yet presents three distinct styles which vary 
 considerably from each other. The first, or Pracrit, is employed in books 
 only, and abounds in Sanscrit words. The second is the language spoken 
 by all well-educated natives, and particularly by such as are employed in 
 any situation Civil or Military under Government. It admits less fre- 
 quently of Sanscrit words, but adopts freely such as belong to Arabic, Per- 
 sian, or Hindi. The third style is peculiar to the cultivators and lower 
 classes : in this foreign words are introduced more sparingly, and though 
 it perhaps possesses few common terms unknown to the second style, yet 
 there must be in it many colloquial and technical terms which scarcely ever 
 occur in general intercourse with those who do not belong to the same class 
 
 C 
 
10 A DEFENCE OF THE 
 
 or trade.” ‘‘ But it must be observed that the Marat’ha, [i. e. of the third 
 style] is merely a spoken language, and that it has never been cultivated 
 or refined by authors either in prose or verse. Its formation took place 
 amongst a people solely engaged in agriculture; and as all terms re- 
 lating to science, law, and religion were adopted from another language, 
 and as the vernacular tongue was not employed in composition, it will be 
 obvious under such circumstances a language could never become copious. 
 The Marat’ha dialect, therefore, exhibits one stage of the progress by which 
 it is probable that language has in some countries attained to so great a 
 perfection. For it is entirely material, every word being the representative 
 of some sensible object or impression, and scarcely a single term being 
 expressive of the operations of the mind. To think, to reflect, to fancy, 
 and such ideas have no corresponding terms in Marat’ha; and to express 
 them even adequately, it is necessary to join the words im the mind to a 
 verb having in its meaning some supposed resemblance to the act intended. 
 Thus, to bring into the mind is employed to signify to reflect or to consider. 
 That all improved languages laboured at some time under the same poverty 
 seems evident from the number of words now expressive of the operations 
 of the mind which still can be traced to a sensible object or impression. 
 But in most cases the primitive idea has became obscured or obliterated by 
 a restriction of the term, and particularly by a slight change in the form of. 
 the word or by its composition with another. In pure Marat’ha, however, 
 there is not a single compound word, nor a single abstract term, and the 
 primitive admits im common use of only one variation. In some few in- 
 stances, indeed, it may be still more changed, and an abstract term formed, 
 but this term is scarcely, if ever, used in conversation.” 
 
 From the preceding ample and clear developement of 
 the nature and composition of the Mahratta, the reader 
 will immediately perceive the immense difficulties which a 
 translator of the Scriptures into that language must have 
 to encounter, and, at the same time, the precise course 
 he must necessarily adopt. It is obvious, that in order to 
 express religious notions, or even in some cases mental ope- 
 rations, he must assimilate his language to that of the jist 
 style, by the adoption of terms expressive of those ideas 
 from the Sanscrit, the learned and theological language 
 throughout India. But to affirm that therefore his language 
 is not Mahratta, because all the words he employs are 
 not pure Mahratta, or belonging to the third class, but it 
 may be Sanscrit, Persian, Arabic, or Hindi, would be quite 
 
SERAMPORE MAHRATTA VERSION. 1] 
 
 as absurd as to affirm that a word was not English, because 
 it was not of the pure Saxon stock, but derived from the 
 Greek, or the Latin, or some other language. Yet this is 
 in reality the true sense to be attached to the words of our 
 opponent, when he affirms that the words are not all 
 Mahratta; and is all that the examples he produces, as we 
 shall see hereafter, are intended to establish. To say more 
 upon the subject would be superfluous. 
 
 The same remarks are equally applicable to his assertion 
 that the language of the Serampore Mahratta New Testa- 
 ment is not Mahratta in “its construction, or its idiom.” 
 From the necessary introduction of Sanscrit terms, the con- 
 struction and idiom, even though they were substantially 
 that of the second style, or that of polite conversation, must 
 assimilate in some measure to those of the first style, or that 
 of books. But it may fairly be presumed, that the differ- 
 ence would not be much greater than that between the 
 ordinary style of conversation and that of books among 
 ourselves ; as it is expressly affirmed by Vans Kennedy in 
 the above quotation, that though the three styles “ vary con- 
 siderably from each other,” yet the language is “every where 
 the same.” But, to pronounce this construction and idiom 
 “not Marat’ha,” would be manifestly incorrect. This, how- 
 ever, is not a question of mere probabilities; and I shall 
 hereafter evince, from an examination of the evidence our 
 opponent adduces, that both the construction and the idiom 
 are Mahratta. 
 
 But even granting that_all he affirms of the words, 
 idiom, and construction of the Mahratta version were true, 
 I deny the legitimacy of the inference he deduces from it, 
 namely, that ‘‘ hence it is quite unintelligible to all persons 
 whose vernacular dialect is Marat’ha.” Why hence? Does it 
 necessarily and indubitably follow, because the language of 
 the Mahratta Testament may be constructed erroneously and 
 unidiomatically, with an intermixture of foreign terms, that 
 therefore it is unintelligible? I trow not. And I imagine 
 
1p A DEFENCE OF THE 
 
 that our opponent’s logic must be as defective as his philo- 
 logy, or he never would have arrived at this conclusion. 
 The argument, as presented by him, is manifestly incom- 
 plete, as it wants the middle term upon which the whole 
 force of it depends. If this be supplied, it will assume the 
 form of a universal affirmative syllogism, as follows: “ Every 
 composition, &c. which admits foreign words, constructions, 
 and idioms, is unintelligible to all persons to whom the lan- 
 guage in which it is written is vernacular. The Mahratta 
 version is thus composed; ergo, it is unintelligible to all 
 persons whose vernacular dialect is Mahratta.” I con- 
 ceive it will be sufficiently obvious, that the major proposi- 
 tion, or middle term, upon which our opponent has founded 
 the argument, is a perfectly gratuitous assumption, which 
 is equally opposed to fact and to every day’s experience. 
 If it were true, then must the Greek New Testament have 
 been unintelligible to the natives of Attica; for it not only 
 abounds with Hebrew idioms and constructions, but with 
 foreign words, and with senses of words which never occur- 
 red in the pure language of Athens. But that the reverse 
 of this was the fact—that the Greek Testament was not only 
 intelligible but effective for all the purposes it was designed, 
 the prevalence of the Gospel, not only in Palestine and the 
 adjoining countries, where these idioms and constructions © 
 were familiar, but also in the various Grecian states and 
 cities, and even in Athens itself, and throughout the whole 
 of Attica, fully demonstrates. Language may be unidioma- 
 tical, inelegant, or even barbarous, but it does not therefore 
 follow that it is unintelligible; nor are inelegance, or bar- 
 barity, and unintelligibility identical, or convertible terms. 
 Having thus swept away the sandy foundation upon which 
 the argument of our opponent is built, the superstructure 
 he has reared upon it must fall to the ground. Any further 
 evidence may therefore justly be deemed superfluous. But 
 as the following statement furnishes a most unexceptionable 
 proof of the intelligibility of the Mahratta version, in direct 
 
SERAMPORE MAHRATTA VERSION. 13 
 
 contradiction to his unsupported assertion, it is too impor- 
 tant to be omitted. It is extracted from the Ninth Memoir 
 of Translations, and is the testimony of Rung-nath, Chief 
 Moonshee or Pundit in the Mahratta language to the Ho- 
 nourable East India Company, who was then resident at 
 Calcutta. “I have received,” he says, “the copy of the 
 Scriptures. The Holy Book which you have translated into 
 the Mahratta language is correct. All the Manrarras 
 WILL UNDERSTAND IT: “of this there is no doubt.” 
 
 = 
 
 Our opponent, as if conscious of the unsoundness and in- 
 sufficiency of the proofs he was about to produce of the in- 
 accuracy of the Mahratta version, prefaces them by the fol- 
 lowing “ example of (the translator’s) ignorance of the first 
 rudiments of the language ;” than which, however specious 
 it may appear, nothing can be more inaccurate and inane :-— 
 
 *« Tt may be observed, that the nominative and accusative singular of 
 such neuter nouns as end in a vowel, and of the neuter of all declin-’ 
 
 able adjectives and participles, end in = (a few neuter nouns end in §) 
 
 Nive . as ~ ; ’ 
 as GAC) a plantain, great, F rf @) between. The nominative 
 
 and accusative plural of all neuter words, also, end in a vowel with a 
 
 é wt Ne * me A As 
 nasal breathing, as, QC] plantains, APTA AIA good fields. The 
 
 anuswar, or nasal breathing, in particular, is indispensable, as it marks 
 oN 
 
 . \ 
 both the number and the gender; for instance € signifies z#, and] they, 
 2 
 
 masc. plur. ; al she, and at they, neut. plur.; and yet both it, and 
 the final vowel of neuter words, are invariably omitted throughout this 
 translation. Of the effect which such an omission must have on any 
 language, an opinion may be formed, by supposing a work published in 
 Latin or Greek, in which the final terminations of the nominatives and 
 accusatives of the neuters of nouns, adjectives, and participles, were 
 _ curtailed; and then considering how far words so mutilated, particularly 
 when used unskilfully and unidiomatically, could possibly be under- 
 stood.” 
 
 I think it must appear highly improbable to every reflect- 
 ing mind, that Dr. Carey, who has been for twenty-five years 
 professor of Mahratta, and his able native assistants, the 
 
14 A DEFENCE OF THE 
 
 learned pundits, should be so totally ignorant of the very first 
 principles of that language as not to be acquainted with the 
 proper terminations of words, and their correct inflection ; 
 and that there is hence a strong probability that the writer of 
 the critique must be in error. This probability, I imagine, 
 will give place to certainty after the perusal of the subsequent 
 remarks. While, then, it is certain that many neuter nouns 
 ending in a vowel are written with the anuswar, or nasal 
 breathing, it is equally certain, that there are very many such 
 nouns in which it is omitted ; and consequently the position 
 he lays down as a general rule must be substantially false. 
 The following examples, to which many others might be 
 added, will be sufficient to evince the truth of this state- 
 ment. They are drawn from the Mahratta Dictionary of 
 Colonel Vans Kennedy, whose testimony I conceive is every 
 way unexceptionable. ; 
 
 STH an esculent root, arum cam- Aq the eye 
 panulatum aicut moonshine 
 a) ee, aa a skin, leather 
 AGS theiggtralls aie a thick leather glove fast- 
 ST life, life-time ened on the hands of criminals as 
 
 EN 
 STT¢ the swelling of the udder 
 with milk 
 
 oN 
 ACUTE the fruit of the Karonda 
 
 plant 
 
 TAlsit rice water 
 SN 
 He SIT a jet d’eau 
 ~ 
 TTS TUT a complaint to a private 
 
 person,—as to a father of his son’s 
 
 conduct 
 
 JJUTAT thatch 
 
 7 [dT a pen for cattle; a camp 
 
 ~ 
 {UOT a household, family 
 
 a punishment 
 
 faxyqct a pair of pincers 
 air @ an assessor to the head- 
 
 man of a cast 
 
 QAST a kind of carriage 
 QUT & TUT a surprise, unex- 
 
 pected attack 
 
 “TST athletizing 
 That a mendicant 
 AT a flag, standard 
 act a quarrel, dispute 
 aq thread, string 
 
SERAMPORE MAHRATTA VERSION. 15 
 
 ~ 
 qe a poney AIA] washing 
 
 ~N 
 ATTY a cucumber HT¢S] Bhadwa, August and Sep- 
 tember 
 GUAT a loud report ~ 
 3{SGf an earthen pot 
 
 ael &G 3 | sour curds 
 > \ HS a small drum 
 TAIT a tooth pick = 
 
 HAGST the gravel 
 GAN& distilled or fermented liquor ; 
 
 cunpowder 7 ic a demon; the ascending node 
 o 
 = 
 fast cae Ee an outstanding debt 
 : od 
 ual occupation, businéss ag tia beaky 
 ug a mineral, ore ; an element aT} we 
 
 alt the hole of a a door qa a kind of cucumber 
 ae a personal ornament qa [O17] a representation, rela- 
 tion 
 de the bull on which Shiwa rides f@37 insurance 
 =. aaa L- : 
 a IAT a loose cloth worm im different 
 faq a lime ways by men 
 
 aa the quality cilia to created 
 
 a 
 U e the spontaneous springing 
 g P OS, beimes productive of truth and virtue 
 
 forth of milk from a breast or udder «, 
 bey? GT] an army 
 UU] a division of adistrict . 
 
 @ TTA 2 disturbance, insurrection 
 
 TyuIT water 
 2 etal an elephant 
 Ulta the pendulous fibre of a 
 f€SST a eunuch. 
 
 tree, such as the banian 
 
 Not less untenable are the other positions assumed by our 
 opponent. However true they may be in theory, they are 
 certainly not so in practice. In all the MSS. (for printed 
 books are nearly out of the question*) which I have seen, 
 
 ’ * The only printed books which I have yet met with in Mahratta, besides 
 the translations of the Sacred Scriptures, and Grammatical and Lexico- 
 graphical works, are two volumes published at Serampore, by Dr. Carey, 
 entitled, “ Hitopades Maharashtri Bhashent tarjama Vaijanath panditane 
 
16 A DEFENCE OF THE 
 
 the anuswar is used very irregularly, and indeed is con- 
 stantly omitted. It is thus in a MS. Vocabulary, and other 
 Mahratta writings in my possession, and also in several others 
 in the library of the Honourable East India Company. For 
 example, in a MS. which formerly belonged to Dr. Leyden, 
 
 now deposited in that library, instead of aT J, as in Dr. 
 
 Carey and Colonel Vans Kennedy, we have AT, as it is also 
 printed in Dr. Drummond’s Grammatical Illustrations ; and 
 
 instead of TL, thou, as in Drs. Carey and Drummond, we have 
 
 el, as it is also in Vans Kennedy. Thus also in the same 
 ~ 
 
 EN EN 
 
 MS. 7 is put for &, it, that, neut. sing.; and & for this, 
 neut. sing. and these, plur. as in Dr. Carey. But not only 
 do various writers differ in the use of the anuswar, but even 
 the same writer omits or inserts it in the same word in va- 
 rious parts of the same volume. ‘This the following ex- 
 amples, taken promiscuously from the Dictionary of Colonel 
 Vans Kennedy, will be amply sufficient to evince. Those in 
 the first column are given as they occur in the first part of his 
 work, and those in the second column as in the second part. 
 
 apa *\ 
 qT] qT] brinjal, solanum melongena 
 = ~ 
 Gat aiat the dried kernel of the cocoa nut 
 Ni & cotton when cleaned 
 
 alias aia a fowl 
 
 Sot Sut a place, garrison 
 ala aa gold 
 
 fast x fase a hinge 
 ER ET <b 
 
 aT ATI 
 
 Kelz,” and “ Singhasan Battisi Maharashtri Bhashent Sangraha Vaijanath 
 Sarmana Kriyate.” These of course I cannot adduce as evidence. 
 
: 
 
 SERAMPORE MAHRATTA VERSION. 17 
 
 a> diz a standing lamp 
 Hla AleT leather 
 
 TT art merely 
 
 aieut araur moonshine 
 ae 
 
 ala ara relationship by consanguinity 
 Sa Sa a sandal 
 ati 7 atts a ship 
 73 3 a testicle 
 UTtte uprie a turban 
 aie ae a plantain 
 
 The last word, it will be perceived, is one of the exam- 
 ples which our opponent produces. These variations in the 
 use of the anuswar, or nasal breathing, will not appear sur- 
 prising, if the rude and uncultivated state of the Mahratta be 
 taken into consideration, and the difference which must ne- 
 cessarily obtain in a language which extends over such a 
 wide tract of country. The following just remarks of 
 Colonel Vans Kennedy, in the Preface to his Dictionary, 
 will shew that much greater differences do actually prevail, 
 and will tend to place this subject in a proper point of view. 
 
 “ As in all languages that have not been fixed by writers of authority, 
 the pronunciation and orthography of Marat’ha are subject to variation. 
 The system, therefore, which has been adopted in the present Dictionary 
 
 will not be found applicable to all parts of the Marat’ha country. [It is, in 
 consequence necessary to remark, that the only letters, as here used, in 
 
 which a difference will arise, are SIT, TI, UT, 1; q, QT, U, and . 
 For the short a is sometimes used for the long a, +] for TT, © for FT or 
 vice versa, and & is often omitted. In words also beginning with Q and 
 
 HH, a Q is often prefixed; (I have even met with the @ prefixed to 
 D 
 
18 A DEFENCE OF THE’ 
 
 words beginning with & 4) and in the latter case the long vowel is some- 
 times changed into a short. In any instance, therefore, when the word 
 sought for in the dictionary is so written, itis only necessary to look for the 
 
 short a under a long, UT for <1, & for qT, or vice versa, to supply the & 
 when omitted, and to reject the | when prefixed to Q or Hy, and the 
 
 word will be immediately ascertained. In the middle of words, however, 
 
 the & has been used in this dictionary, though it is sometimes omitted in 
 letters, petitions, &c., and its place supplied by the requisite vowel marks, 
 
 or occasionally by §, The Orthography of words is, also, affected by the 
 two characters in which this language is written. One of these is named 
 Balbad, the same as ihe Dewanagari, which for its accuracy may be com- 
 pared to printing, as in it each letter is distinctly formed, and the vowel 
 marks are correctly written. For these reasons its use has been preferred 
 in the following work. The other character is named Mor, or broken, as 
 the letters have been evidently formed from the Balbad, and merely 
 changed from a square into a rounder form, so as to adapt them for con- 
 nection and for quickness of writing. It is this character which is always 
 used, except in Pracrit works, by the Marat’has; but, besides its being 
 subject to all the imperfections of common handwriting, it is scarcely pos- 
 sible to distinguish several of the letters from each other, or to asceriain 
 the particular vowels except from a previous knowledge of the words in 
 which they occur. It is therefore very ill adapted for fixing the orthography 
 of this language, as the variations in spelling the same Marai’ha word, 
 which are so frequently met with, may be justly ascribed not only to the 
 inaccuracies inseparable from a handwriting that is common both to the 
 educated and the uneducated, but also to the defects of the characters 
 employed for this purpose.” 
 
 Having thus shewn the unsoundness of the foundation 
 upon which our critic has built his argument, it cannot be 
 necessary that I should examine his minor proposition— 
 namely, that the anuswar, both in the pronouns and in the 
 final vowel of neuter words, is “ invariably omitted in this 
 version.”” The reader will now, I trust, be able to estimate 
 the effect of its omission much more accurately than has 
 been done by our opponent; and will, I believe, be pre- 
 pared to arrive at a very different conclusion. He will 
 perceive that this omission is a very different thing from 
 the curtailment of “the final termination of nouns, adjec- 
 
SERAMPORE MAHRATTA VERSION. 19 
 
 tives, and participles” in Greek and Latin; and that a 
 writer may uniformly omit it, without subjecting himself to 
 the charge of “ignorance of the first rudiments of this lan- 
 guage.” A parallel case, as far as the nouns are concerned, 
 is the tanwin, or the use of the nasal vowels, among the 
 Arabians ; which, although they point out the case of nouns, 
 are not only constantly omitted in conversation, but also com- 
 monly in writing. The application of the anuswar to pro- 
 nouns may also be paralleled with the Greek o, which when 
 written 6, is the definite article, the, mas. sing. nom. but 
 when written 6 is the relative pronoun, which, neut. sing. 
 nom. But is a person to be stigmatized as ignorant of the 
 very rudiments of these languages, because in one case he 
 may omit the ¢anwin, and in the other the accent? and is a 
 composition in which such an omission occurs to be pro- 
 nounced unintelligible? This, I am certain, no one will 
 affirm. The construction and context effectually prevent 
 any gross misconception, so that no one who really under- 
 stands the language can ever experience any difficulty, as 
 resulting from this cause, in its perusal. The same also 
 may be affirmed, with equal truth, of the Mahratta version. 
 I will therefore leave the reader to determine whether the 
 following remarks, with which our opponent introduces the 
 alleged instances of inaccuracy in this version, be not more 
 applicable to him than to the Mahratta translator. 
 
 “Tt will perhaps be admitted, that when the objection made to a trans- 
 lation is, that it betrays an evident unacquaintance with the first principles 
 of the language which it professes to represent, a detailed examination of 
 it becomes unnecessary. For, though a translator, who brings to his task 
 a competent knowledge of both the languages that are the subject of his 
 labours, will no doubt improve in practice, this cannot be predicated of 
 him who undertakes such a task without the requisite previous preparation. 
 A few remarks, therefore, on the first thirty-six verses of the Gospel of St. 
 John will be sufficient to evince that this translation is neither faithful, nor 
 calculated to produce the effects which were expected from it.” 
 
 I shall, therefore, advance to an examination of these 
 “ remarks,” and hope to evince satisfactorily “that this 
 
20 A DEFENCE OF THE 
 
 translation” 1s “ faithful,” and “calculated to produce,” in 
 the hands of God, all “the effects which were expected 
 from it.” Whether our opponent possessed “ the requisite 
 previous preparation,” and brought “to his task a compe- 
 tent knowledge of both the languages which are the subject 
 of his labours,” will then be no longer doubtful; while it 
 will clearly appear that to “improve by practice” is a ta- 
 lent to which he is a stranger. He thus proceeds: 
 
 ‘« Tt will be best to transcribe the two first verses, on account of the im- 
 
 portant objection which occurs to the translation of them. Tee 
 qa eat ater sya afed sla Ho ater 
 aqt 1 aTaTs 27tTd aféa alata _ On what grounds, 
 
 I must ask, has the second verse, ‘ the same was in the beginning with 
 God,’ been here translated, ruey (or these) at first WERE with God? 
 The use of the masculine plural must convey the idea of a plurality of 
 gods, and ought, therefore, to have been carefully avoided, — Its being 
 allowed to remain must, consequently, shew a culpable negligence in the 
 revision of this version, or a lamentable presumption in thus tampering with 
 the Sacred Scriptures. The important truth contained in the conclusion 
 of the first verse, that ‘ the Word was God,’ is not expressed in the trans- 
 lation, which, in its present form, consisting of two substantiyes, without 
 any word to denote their relation to each other, can convey no meaning 
 
 whatever; GERI, also, can never be considered as equivalent to Aoyoc, 
 
 i 
 and qEele at first, does not sufficiently express ‘in the beginning.’” 
 
 The observations of this writer, on the use of the plural 
 pronouns, betray either the most lamentable and gross ig- 
 norance, or the most wilful and malicious misrepresentation. 
 Charitably imputing it to the former, 1 would recommend 
 to his careful study the following passage from the Mah- 
 ratta Grammar of Dr. Carey, (pp. 40, 41,) which may thus 
 prove, even to him, of some “use on this side of India.” 
 After giving the various pronouns, the Doctor observes : 
 
 “ ue P 
 Wel [we] is commonly used as the plural of HT [1], but qrat 
 aN 
 
 [you] and € [they] are generally used as the honorific personal pronouns 
 
) 
 : 
 
 SERAMPORE MAEHRATTA VERSION. 21 
 
 singular. The plurals of these two words are made by affixing FaSy, ail, 
 to the pronoun. Most of the colloquial languages of India have two sorts of 
 pronouns; the one is expressive of respect, the other conveys an idea of 
 humility in the first person, of familiarity or contempt in the second, and in 
 the third person neither expresses honour nor dishonour. The first sort 
 
 are called honorific, area fs, the other are called mferior 
 
 daraifa. Some condemn this distinction, and assert, that the hono- 
 
 rifie pronouns are the true plurals, but custom has established it m this 
 language.” 
 
 This statement is corroborated by almost every writer on 
 the Indian dialects. Take, for example, the following re- 
 marks on the Hindoostanee, the grand, popular language of 
 India, from the pen of Dr. Gilchrist, in the Introduction to 
 his Hindoostanee Philology, (p. 1.) 
 
 The scholar should here recollect, that as the Asiatics have a great anti- 
 
 pathy to be put in the singular, is, cos, are so much avoided for him, her, that 
 even, in, con, have so far lost their plurality, as absolutely to require the 
 
 -on for the real plural, or to enable any body to be very respectful to one 
 
 personage. In this way we can account for—conhon ne furmaya, he, (his 
 worship) observed ; inhon ko lechulo yuhan se, take them (all, or very 
 respectfully, him,) hence. In these matters so much attention is paid to 
 etiquette among the natives, that a wife seldom mentions her husband, or 
 a dependant his superior, under any other form than we, or conhon, ap, 
 they, viz. my lord, his honour, and so on, though addressing the man’s 
 self im the second person. Nay, even in and cn, though plurals, become 
 degrading expressions, like is or oos to a gentleman, particularly when fol- 
 lowed by ne; whence inhon ne or conhon ne yih juwab meoj,he diya, he 
 or she gave me this answer, would rather be improperly applied to any 
 decent person with is, oos, on, for inhon.” 
 
 Thus also Mr. Anderson, in his Tamul Grammar, (p.31,) 
 observes : 
 
 “The plural affix GoavT is, im the elegant dialect, generally 
 omitted ; but, except in the instance of the first personal pronoun, this lat- 
 ter form of the plural is, in Kodun Tamul, employed only as a substitute, 
 in polite and respectful modes of address, for the singular number.” 
 
 The observations of Mr. Campbell, im his Teloogoo 
 Grammar, (pp. 75—80,) are particularly pomted and cor- 
 
22 A DEFENCE OF THE 
 
 rect upon this subject; and as they will tend still farther to 
 exhibit the true state of the case, I crave the readers in- 
 dulgence for their introduction. 
 
 “The rules of politeness among the Hindoos, although very different 
 from those in use among European nations, are so firmly established, and 
 so scrupulously observed by the people, that the least deviation from the 
 proper mode of address should be studiously avoided. Particular atten- 
 tion is therefore necessary to the correct use of the Teloogoo pronouns.” 
 
 “Men of rank, speaking of themselves, generally use the plural 
 ow We, for the singular “aS I: indeed arrogance often’ induces 
 inferior natives to apply the plural to themselves; but this is understood 
 to be very improper when they address a superior.” 
 
 « Addressing inferiors, or conversing with equals, a) thou, the nomi- 
 native singular of this pronoun, may be used; but, when we speak to 
 superiors, or even to equals or inferiors, with any degree of kindness or 
 respect, the plural QJ °S you, is the only proper term of address. To 
 be called Sa) thou, by a person decidedly his inferior, is an insult not to 
 be borne by the most meek Hindoo: he will resent it as studied disrespect, 
 couched in the most bitter terms of reproach. 
 
 ‘“‘ When much deference is paid to men of superior age, rank, or learn- 
 ing, the speaker uses the words & °x<yy or &Syto they, GXNeoX or 
 SND Lord, which correspond with the English phrases Sir, My Lord, 
 
 &e. &e.” 
 
 Again, after giving the Definite or Demonstrative Pro- 
 nouns of the third person, he remarks : 
 
 “The singular numbers of the foregoing demonstrative pronouns, and 
 their irregular plurals, are never used, except when inferiors or equals are 
 spoken of: when persons of very high rank are the subject of conversation, 
 
 the plurals @°S. [they, those] and D%® [they, these] are used to express 
 the English words he or she. But if the speaker alludes to a person only- 
 in a trifling degree respected by him, instead of the pronoun Q¢ gp, [this, 
 he, or it], he uses Q@&C 2% to denote a male,” &c. 
 
 From the preceding proofs and illustrations it will have 
 been manifest, that the plural pronouns are merely employed 
 as honorific terms in a singular sense; as they so far lose © 
 their plurality as to admit of the addition of another plural 
 termination. They would, therefore, no more convey to the 
 mind of a Mahratta “the idea of a plurality of gods,” than — 
 
SERAMPORE MAHRATTA VERSION. 23 
 
 the plural word oyviby God [lit. Gods] would to the mind 
 of a Hebrew; nor than the employment of the plural 
 ots Jords, in the following passage, would convey the idea 
 of a plurality of persons :nivig mms YIN TIS WT 727 
 “The man the /ords [i. e. lord, viz. Joseph] of the land spake 
 
 ~ oN 
 harsh things with us.” (Gen. xli.8.) The plural pronoun qd 
 should therefore have been construed as a singular; and 
 this verse (the second,) should have been thus rendered : 
 
 a Wolsy FAA wow Az 
 
 This at-first God with was, 
 
 That is, “ This (word) was at first with God.” It will also 
 I imagine be evident, that so far from the reviser or trans- 
 lator shewing “ a culpable negligence,” or “ a lamentable 
 presumption in thus tampering with the Sacred Scriptures,” 
 he has ably effected, what our opponent has so stoutly denied, ' 
 an elegant and zdiomatical translation. Had our learned 
 Critic understood this, he would have spared himself the 
 above querulous strains, and the passionate ebullition in 
 which he has indulged, in a note appended to page 303, of 
 the “ horrid impiety” of this rendering ! 
 
 Equally untrue is his assertion, that “the important truth 
 contained in the conclusion of the first verse, that ‘the word 
 was God,’ is not expressed in the translation, which, in its 
 present form, consisting of two substantives, without any 
 word to denote their relation to each other, can convey no 
 meaning whatever.” Has our learned friend forgotten that 
 there is such a grammatical figure as edlipsis? and is he 
 ignorant of the fact that, in Mahratta and the kindred and 
 other languages, the substantive verb, when not expressive 
 of existence, but when merely the copula of the subject 
 and predicate of a proposition, is frequently omitted by 
 this figure? It is thus omitted in the fourth verse of this 
 chapter, against which our opponent says not a word: 
 
 GING alvat 2 aa wqMrat Ciyt 
 
 In-him life, this __ life of-man _ the-light. 
 
24 A DEFENCE OF THE 
 
 That is, supplying the ellipsis, and arranging’ it accord- 
 ing to the English idiomatic collocation of words, “ In him 
 was life; and this life was the light of man.” Thus also 
 Mr. Anderson observes of the Tamul; (Grammar, p. 70.) 
 
 “« Brevity may be said to constitute, in an eminent degree, particularly in 
 the elegant dialect, the character of the Tamul language. Several instances 
 of abbreviation have been occasionally noticed in former parts of this trea- 
 tise, and a like conciseness of idiom is observable in the frequent ellipsis of 
 the substantive verb. Thus 2} QJ GD S,* who (is) he?’ is used instead 
 of BOIDPOH & SFMor; SHUT ovLO, < this (is) 
 sin,’ is used elegantly for @@LIT ow LOCH GH GLO; and, gene- 
 rally, this ellipsis will be found to take place, unless the substantive verb be 
 used absolutely to denote existence.”’ 
 
 Mr. Campbell also affirms the same of the Teloogoo, 
 (Grammar, p. 189): 
 
 “The verb ¢o be, which so often occurs in the English language, is 
 generally omitted in Teloogoo: it may occasionally be used, but it is 
 thought more elegant to dispense with the use of it. The mode in which 
 it is omitted in Teloogoo when it is placed between an adjective and a sub- 
 stantive noun or pronoun, has been already explained, (see rule 424): 
 where it would intervene in English between a substantive pronoun and a 
 substantive noun, it is also omitted in Teloogoo.” 
 
 The rule referred to by Mr. Campbell is this (p. 163): 
 
 ‘‘In English, when the verb to be, in any of its variations, comes 
 between a substantive and an adjective, the sense may be well expressed in 
 Teloogoo by placing the. adjective after the substantive; but, in this case, 
 the verb to be is not expressed, but only understood in Teloogoo. A 
 BBE So0 [deshyumoo, i. e. belonging to the pure language of the land] 
 
 cd 
 
 adjective has no gender or number, except what it receives from the word 
 to which it is prefixed : it is therefore necessary, when it thus follows itssub- 
 stantive, to add to it the pronouns 5eC g&>, or C58, or Dw, or OH, 
 according to the gender and number of the substantive with which it 
 
 agrees : thus, in the phrases that Bramin is good, (a7) sy fd0C SmMo0f- 
 
 seC M&, those Bramins Mi good, Sw PENVLUW Harm, 
 
 that woman is good, ©(Y~ SOO, these women are good, 
 
 52, 85> LUMI Hew, that horse is good, CBXOH SUMO DA, these 
 2/ es) 
 
SERAMPORE MAHRATTA VERSION. 25 
 
 horses are good EABPWSNWIHODD , no verb is used, the adjec- 
 tive merely follows its substantive, the pronouns in question being at the 
 same time affixed to the adjective, because it belongs to the Gx 
 elass. But BB) SM [tutsumumoo, i. e. Sanscrit] adjectives do not 
 admit of the additions of these pronouns, because they possess within them- 
 selves the distinction of gender and number; thus, using a SH\ Sos 
 adjective, instead of a BRS sos one, we should say that bramin is ree 
 
 Sy BEC Hy SK 1xSyC 2p, that woman is good SSVeO™ 
 that horse is good, EXONS Hs.” 
 
 ' Nor is the use of the ellipsis confined to the dialects of 
 India; but prevails in a greater or less degree in the 
 languages of western Asia, and even in those of Europe. 
 “ The copula,” in Persian, as Professor Lee well remarks, in 
 the last edition of Sir William Jones’s Grammar, (p. 116,) 
 “is often elegantly omitted ;” of which he gives the two fol- 
 
 ~~ Sd z Ge OFF = 
 lowing examples from Sadi: two oJ acl ow £5 UT, 
 -~¥ 4 % = ~ os - zs 
 
 “the impressions of greatness (were) apparent on his fore- 
 
 head,” (Gulistan, chap. 1. tale 5). 
 
 “« There is a difference between him whose beloved (is) in his bosom, 
 With him whose two eyes of expectation (are) upon the door.” 
 (Idem, tale 7.) 
 
 This is the usual practice also in the Arabic lan- 
 guage, of which the es example is an evidence: 
 
 wrtiall 538 45 3 ICG CAS « This (is) the book: 
 
 (there is) no Tare in it: Git is) a direction for the pious.” 
 
 (Koran, sura ii. 2.) Thus also in Hebrew, it is not only 
 
 the most frequent, but also the most elegant mode of con- 
 
 struction; as, cinn ws >> ywm “ a darkness (was) 
 
 upon the face of the deep,” (Gen. i. 2.); yo mir 
 E 
 
26 A DEFENCE OF THE 
 
 “ Jehovah (is) King,” (Psa. x. 16.) irr 28) pw ve 
 “I (am) the first, and I (am) the last,” (Isa. xliv. 6.) Of 
 the truth of this position even the English reader may con- 
 vince himself, by noting how frequently the substantive verb 
 has been supplied in Italic by our translators. 
 
 The occurrence of this ellipsis in the languages of Europe 
 it is unnecessary here to detail; both because it is already 
 so well known to every scholar, and because it is foreign to 
 the argument. I imagine the reader will be rather of opi- 
 nion, that more than sufficient instances have been adduced 
 
 to shew, that so far from the words GIG at, “« in 
 their present form,” conveying “no meaning whatever,” 
 they actually do express “ the important truth contained in 
 the conclusion of the first verse, that ‘the word was God.’” 
 ‘Consisting of two substantives” in the nominative case, 
 the substantive verb ¢o be is necessarily understood; and 
 would be readily supplied by every Mahratta, and even 
 by any reader who really understood the language. It 
 therefore forms a perfect proposition, and clearly enunciates 
 the important truth intended to be conveyed. The reader 
 will also perceive, by the following literal version, with 
 what propriety and elegance the Mahratta translator, in 
 perfect accordance with the preceding statements, has em- 
 ployed the substantive verb; inserting it when denoting 
 existence, and omitting it when merely the copula of the 
 proposition : 
 Tole aw ua am Pay wote Va at aw Fsuz 
 At-first the-word was, the-word God with was, and the-word God. 
 That is, according to the English idiom, “At first was 
 (i. e. existing) the word, avd the word was (i. e. existing) 
 with God, and the word was God.” 
 
 “ 
 
 Though perhaps a better word than Tels at rst, 
 might have been chosen; yet to the mind of a Mahratta, 
 it would probably “sufficiently express ‘in the beginning,’” 
 
 being derived from the Hindee UEC, ‘a beginning. It 
 
SERAMPORE MAHRATTA VERSION. wi 
 
 may, however, be doubted, whether a better word than 
 
 FTAT could have been employed; for though its preva- 
 lent sense in Sanscrit be “a sentence, a rule, or apho- 
 rism,” as defined by Wilson; yet in Mahratta its usual, if 
 not only meaning, is ‘‘a word, speech, discourse,” as it is 
 correctly explained by Vans Kennedy. I may therefore 
 leave the reader to determine whether it may not “be con- 
 sidered as (perfectly) equmvalent to doyoc;” at least, as much 
 
 so as the Arabic da%> the Persian als the Syriac 
 
 JASS, the Latin Verbum, the Spanish and Portuguese 
 Verbo, the Italian Parola, the French Parole, the German 
 Wort, and our Word, which are used by the respective 
 translators into these languages. None of them have pro- 
 perly a personal sense, as in the passage before us; and I 
 imagine a Mahratta would as readily understand it in that 
 sense as an Italian, or an Englishman, &c. 
 
 Notwithstanding the extended nature of these remarks, I 
 cannot quit this subject without animadverting on the man- 
 ner in which our opponent proposes to write these verses. 
 He observes, in a note appended to them, 
 
 ““ These words, without adverting to their construction, ought to be thus 
 written: TSA FTat Slt atat TAI afea aa 
 art qt FIT 1 a ets SIT afer Sa. 
 
 When a noun is in construction with a preposition, the sign of the genitive 
 case is suffixed; but this rule of the language is violated throughout the 
 whole of this version.” 
 
 I am quite at a loss to know to what cause to ascribe the 
 very gross blunders contained in this paragraph ; but it cer- 
 tainly would be a difficult task to produce such another as- 
 semblage within so narrow a compass. In the first place, 
 the reader will perceive, by the extracts from the Mahratta 
 
 =S 
 Testament, that the word, Tele at first, was thus correctly 
 written by the translator, and that our critic himself had 
 
28 A DEFENCE OF THE 
 
 erroneously written it Tee, In the next place, the Mah- 
 ratta New Testament being printed in the Mor, or broken 
 character, in transfusing it into the Balbad, or Dewanagari 
 character, he sliould have written the word ait, and, not 
 
 HUTT, as he has erroneously done in the first instance, 
 but ATT as it is in Dr. Carey’s Grammar, and as he 
 has here corrected it; the letter “& being equivalent 
 not to “A, ad, which is represented in Mor by ®&, but to 
 ST, a; and T in that character representing both TL i, 
 or ee, and a z. This error, therefore, must also be placed 
 to the same account. Again, I have yet to learn why ala 
 may not be written for ela or ale, as I believe them to 
 
 be frequently employed indiscriminately; and as he will 
 now understand at as the honorific plural, he will perhaps 
 comprehend why the last word should be written ; : 
 and not ela. But what is not a little surprising, though 
 
 he correctly states, that ‘“ when a noun is in construc- 
 tion with a preposition, the sign of the genitive case 1s 
 
 suffixed,” yet he here cuts off the syllable q, the sign of 
 the genitive case, from the word SUG, of God, which is 
 followed by the preposition, or rather postposition, ated, 4 
 with ; and erroneously writes it in his emended copy STC, 
 
 leaving merely the SAT suffixed to the nominative 394, 
 which is only employed to prepare it to receive inflection ! ! 
 A simple inspection will convince the reader of the accuracy 
 of this statement; and evince, that not the Mahratta trans- 
 lator, but our learned critic has “‘ violated this rule of the 
 language.” It will now be no difficult matter to decide 
 whether Dr. Carey or the Rev. Mr.* * ** * * are justly charg- 
 able with “ignorance of the first rudiments of this lan- 
 
SERAMPORE MAHRATTA VERSION. 29 
 
 guage.” If any doubt should still remain, I imagine the 
 following monstrous version will effectually remove it. His 
 words are: 
 
 ‘“‘The third verse of this translation, literally re-translated, or at least 
 the meaning of the words used, is as follows: Every thing was formed, 
 the production of THEM, and amongst so many of it formed not one 
 thing, even was formed distinct from tuEM. On such a translation 
 remarks are superfluous.” 
 
 True! “Such'a translation” is absolute nonsense. But 
 the nonsense is only chargeable to the English version of 
 the learned writer of the critique; the Mahratta translator 
 being perfectly free from the slightest imputation of writing 
 such stuff. The gallarene is the Mahratta version, with a 
 verbal translation : 
 
 ad way ares seo ahaa wut aia ate as 
 
 Every thing him by made was, and made was _ what 
 Aa on Vor aa Walaa ahiler Aw aret 
 among, one thing-even him without made was not. 
 
 That is, in the English order of the words, “ Every thing 
 was made by him; and without him was not even one thing 
 made among what was made.” How a translator could 
 make nonsense of words so plain and perspicuous, and so 
 in harmony with the zdiom of the language, would certainly 
 appear not a little extraordinary, if we had not been pre- 
 viously prepared as to what we might expect from our 
 learned opponent. He must certainly have translated it 
 literally in the primitive sense of that term, and rendered 
 letters for words ; or he must be gifted with the most extra- 
 ordinary optics ever enjoyed by man. The lens he employs 
 must possess not only a marvellous magnifying power, but a 
 creative faculty, or we should not have been presented with 
 a “production” of “so many” things so totally “ distinct 
 from” the original Mahratta. We must, however, leave it 
 to him to decide to what cause to attribute it,— whether to 
 his optics, his head, or his heart; and proceed to an exami- 
 nation of his next charge. 
 
30 A DEFENCE OF THE 
 
 “In the seventh verse, and throughout this version (as far as I have 
 observed), the future indicative is used for the conjunctive and potential 
 moods, in utter defiance of the idiom of the language; and hence the 
 meaning of the original is lost, without rendering the translation more in- 
 telligible. The English preposition through is here and elsewhere trans- 
 
 lated by § TCI, which has no such meaning in Marat’ha.” 
 
 According to a subsequent statement of this writer, the 
 Mahratta translator could not do othegwise than employ 
 “the future indicative for the conjunctive and potential 
 moods,” though he here asserts it to be “ im utter defiance — 
 of the idiom of the language.” His words are, in p. 301, 
 
 ‘*To confine myself, however, to Marat’ha, which may, at the same 
 time, be considered as a sufficient example of the other vernacular dialects 
 of India, there is not in this language a SUBJUNCTIVE Or POTENTIAL 
 MOOD, or a passive voice, and scarcely a word denoting the operations of 
 the mind.” 
 
 I will not, however, avail myself of this concession. It 
 would be but a wretched subterfuge, and prove at best “a 
 refuge of lies.” It is equally untrue of the Mahratta, as it 
 is of the other Indian dialects. Dr. Carey would have 
 taught him, if he had deigned to place himself under his 
 tuition, that Mahratta verbs not only have a “ passive 
 
 voice” which “is formed by conjugating the verb ST 
 to go, with the first form of the passive participle,” but that 
 they “have eight modes, viz. the Indicative, Imperative, 
 Subjunctive, Compound Subjunctive, Potential, Optative, In- 
 tensive, and Causal,” with “ eight tenses, viz. the first and 
 second Aorist Present, the Present, the Imperfect, the Im- 
 perfect Definite, the Perfect, the Pluperfect, and the Future,” 
 besides four Participles and a Gerund. A great part of 
 this he might even have learnt from the imperfect tables of 
 Dr. Drummond, had he carefully perused them. Equally 
 unfounded is his charge as applied to the other cognate dia- 
 lects ; as he may perceive by consulting the Grammars of 
 Dr. Gilchrist, Campbell, Anderson, &c. &e. Before pro- 
 ceeding to shew how the Mahratta translator has veadly ren- 
 
SERAMPORE MAHRATTA VERSION. 31 
 
 dered the subjunctive, I shall present the reader with the 
 Mahratta text of this seventh verse, with a verbal translation, 
 that he may fairly judge whether or not “the meaning of the 
 original is lost, without rendering the translation more intel- 
 ligible :” 
 woe as wt Miewre waite =o aaa at GieISTA 
 All him through belief _—shall-do for-the-purpose-that, he of-the-light 
 WAU AMIR ON UTE MATTATOt ELT 
 
 evidence for-giving a witness -for-being came. 
 
 That is, adhering as closely to the Mahratta as the idiom 
 of the English language will permit, ““ He came to be a 
 witness, to give evidence of the light, for the purpose that 
 all should believe through him.” This is the genuine sense 
 of the Mahratta, and precisely that which a native would 
 understand by it; from which the reader will clearly per- 
 ceive that it conveys the true sense of the Greek text. There 
 are in this verse two verbs in the subjunctive mode in the 
 original, and one in the succeeding verse, preceded by the 
 particle iva, that; which will afford a sufficient test of the 
 accuracy of our opponent’s assertion, that “ throughout this 
 version (as far as | have observed) the future indicative is 
 used for the conjunctive and potential moods, in utter 
 defiance of the idiom of the language.” The reader will 
 doubtless feel inclined to question the accuracy of his judg- 
 ment in this matter, when he recollects his denial of the 
 existence of a conjunctive or potential mode in this lan- 
 guage ; and this doubt will be strengthened into an absolute 
 certainty by an examination of the Mahratta text. The 
 verb mioreiows, “ might believe,” it is true, is rendered in the 
 future indicative by Visurg_ Hazity ; but the particle gratat 
 which corresponds to iva, gives it a subjunctive sense; and 
 this usage is so far from being in utter defiance of, that it 
 is in strict accordance with, the idiom, not only of this 
 language, but also of some of the cognate. dialects. But 
 what is quite fatal to his statement, the words iva papruphon 
 
32 A DEFENCE OF THE 
 
 are rendered in the seventh verse by YNIUI ™aqTaTe, and in the 
 eighth verse equivalently by yxtUt Gras Tot; the word 
 ™qTare in the former case being, not the future indicative, 
 
 but the gerund with 4 the sign of the accusative suffixed, 
 and in the latter case being in the same gerund in the geni- 
 tive with the postposition qTSI- These gerunds correspond 
 exactly with the Latin gerunds in do of the dative case; 
 and their use is both elegant and idiomatic. The reader 
 will perceive from this how extended our critic’s observation 
 has been ; and how much weight should be attached to his 
 judgment. 
 
 With respect to the use of the preposition 41€T for aa, 
 through, I shall merely observe, that it has this meaning in 
 Sanscrit, Hindoostanee, &c., and according to Dr. Carey 
 
 in Mahratta; and being derived from the Sanscrit alta 
 door, doorway ; a way, mean, it certainly is its proper sense. 
 Perhaps our opponent, however, will inform us hereafter 
 what is its true “ meaning in Mahratta.” With the expec- 
 tation of being thus favoured, we proceed to the following 
 exquisite morceau of criticism: 
 
 “Jn the fifth verse, the ‘ words comprehended it not,’ are translated 
 NN ~ 
 FaNTaAAaAMTET literally, setzed or took it not! And in the eleventh 
 
 verse the same words again occur, which are there given as equivalent to 
 the words, ‘ received him not.’ So that the reviser of this version must 
 have thought comprehended and received were synonymous terms.” 
 
 This is an inane attempt to render ridiculous a translation 
 which is worthy of all commendation. Being “ not among 
 the worst Sanscrit and Bengali scholars,” our learned oppo- 
 nent must have been aware that the verb, which he has 
 “translated LITERALLY” “ seized or took,” being a deriva- 
 
 tive from the Sanscrit A&, denoted not only to take by 
 seizure, but also by acceptance ; and that therefore the words 
 should have been rendered “ veceived it not,” a sense in 
 
SERAMPORE MAHRATTA VERSION. 33 
 
 which the Mahratta translator correctly uses it in the 
 eleventh verse, although our opponent would insinuate the 
 contrary. Now this is precisely the sense that the best 
 recent lexicographers, translators, and commentators, give 
 to the original word xaradapPivw in this passage. Thus 
 Schleusner explains it by evcipio, admitto, and paraphrases 
 this very passage by ‘“ homines, in tenebris versantes, non 
 admiserunt, potius respuerunt illum doctorem.” So Camp- 
 bell renders, “ but the darkness admitted it not;” and thus 
 also Elsner and Kuinoel, who explain, “ the light could not 
 penetrate the darkness, or dispel it,” i. e., casting aside the 
 metaphor, “the world immersed in ignorance and misery 
 would not admit that great moral teacher.” Of the same opi- 
 nion are Bishop Barrington, Doddridge, Weston, Bloomfield, 
 &c.; and Wetstein fully confirms this sense of caradapfavw 
 by the numerous examples he produces. (Nov. Test. I. 
 p- 837.) The Serampore translator, therefore, instead of 
 being accused of thinking comprehended and received were 
 synonymous terms, and sneered at for “an affectation of fol- 
 lowing the Greek verbally,” should be commended for rightly 
 apprehending, and faithfully expressing the sense of the 
 original. Our opponent has here furnished a fine specimen 
 of hypercriticism, which is perhaps not surpassed by the 
 succeeding attempt : 
 
 “ In the thirteenth verse occurs an instance of the nicety required in the 
 ' Scriptures. The expression in the original, ovdé ék OeAhpatoe capKdc ; in 
 the English translation, ‘ nor of the will of the flesh,’ is evidently figurative : 
 but it is thus coarsely rendered, without even the merit of being literal, 
 
 qe I P| Ta ib za, nor by the wish (or desire) of the body.” 
 
 According to this writer’s own principles of translation, 
 its not being literally rendered cannot detract from its 
 “merit,” if it clearly and correctly conveys the real sense of 
 the original. That it does so, I think will be evident from the 
 consideration, that capt here and elsewhere is used, by a sy- 
 necdoche of a part for the whole, for the whole body con- 
 
 . 
 
34 A DEFENCE OF THE 
 
 sidered as animated,— totum corpus animale, carne et ossi- 
 bus constans,” or “ totum animans, corpore et anima constans, 
 totum corpus humanum,” as defined by Schleusner ; and that 
 therefore 6\nua, When predicated of the body, must neces- 
 sarily denote desire, “ instinctus naturalis ad procreandum so- 
 bolem,” as stated by the same authority. Our opponent’s 
 assertion, that “ the expression is evidently figurative,” re- 
 quires more proof than his mere ipse dixit; and if it be 
 “coarsely rendered,” the same charge might with equal 
 propriety be brought against some of the most accurate and 
 elegant versions. Thus the late amiable and excellent Henry 
 Martyn has rendered it in precisely an equivalent manner in 
 Persian, by slaw islss, “ corporeal desire ;” and the 
 erudite Dr. Campbell has, “the desire of the flesh.” The 
 learned Beza also translates the whole verse thus: “ Qui 
 non ex sanguine, neque ex /ibidine carnis, neque ex lbidine 
 viri, sed ex Deo geniti sunt ;” upon which we have the fol- 
 lowing notes, in the Cambridge edition, pp. 226, 227 : 
 
 « Ex sanguine, é& aiparwy, Heb. O19, middamim. Sic vocat 
 genitale semen et spurcam hominis yéveow gvoxhy: de qua Ezech. 16. 
 Neque verd hee sunt indigna que hoc loco saltem attingantur, cim ab 
 istis non abhorreant ipsi etiam Prophete, ut oculis hominum subjiciant 
 miseram et sordidam ipsorum originem. Hic autem nemo non videt spiri- 
 tualem illam et sanctorum ex gratia in Christo dvayévynow cum impuro 
 illo et naturali hominis ortu conferri : de quo cum loqueretur David, Ecce, 
 inquit, in tniquitate sum formatus, et in peccato concepit me mater mea. 
 Czeterum quod Augustinus de seminis paterni ac materni commistione disse- 
 rit, quasi idcirco Evangelista sit usus multitudinis numero, medicis relinquo,” 
 &c.—“‘ Ex libidine carnis, éx 0ehjparoc capkéc. Annotavimus Mar. 10. 35, 76 
 Gédevv accipi pro érOupety. Itaque cim de cupiditate omnium vehementis- 
 soma hic agatur, Voluntatis nomen, quo usi sunt Vetus interpres et Eras- 
 mus, non dubitavi expungere, tanquam non satis hoc quidem loco expres- 
 sum. Quod autem nonnulli Carnis appellatione- feeminam intelligunt (ni- 
 mirum quia subjecit Joannes, odd éc OeAjparoe &vdpdc) non video cur ap- 
 probem, quamvis nonnihil ejusmodi adferat etiam Theophylactus. Imo 
 vero Carnis nomine intelligitur foeda illa et impura hominis conceptio na- 
 turalis sive carnalis, que spiritui opponitur passim, ac presertim inf. 3. 6. 
 Nam tota illa Christi cum Nicodemo disputatio huc pertinet.” 
 
SERAMPORE MAHRATTA VERSION. aa 
 
 The good sense and sound criticism displayed in this long 
 Latin quotation, as well as its singular appropriateness to the 
 point at issue, will plead my excuse for its insertion ; especi- 
 ally as our learned opponent has not deigned to favour us 
 with the sense which he might suppose was couched under 
 its figurative garb. More authorities might be produced to 
 the same effect, were it needful; but I apprehend that those of 
 Beza, Augustine, Schleusner, Campbell, and Henry Martyn, 
 will far outweigh the unsupported opinion of an anonymous 
 writer; and clearly evince that the Serampore Missionaries 
 have correctly understood, and clearly expressed the sense 
 of this passage. Of coarseness, I imagine, they cannot be 
 accused, eyen upon our opponent’s own shewing; while 
 his “nicety” merits the appellation of egregious fastidious- 
 ness, or something worse. His next charge, to which we 
 now advance, is brief but grave, and pregnant with im- 
 portant consequences. 
 
 *« The translation of the sixteenth verse it is impossible to reduce to any 
 meaning whatever ; and the word ‘truth’ of the original is not rendered.” 
 
 As our critic has not condescended to adduce either the 
 original or the Mahratta version in support of this statement, 
 I shall supply this omission. The Greek, then, of the s1x- 
 TEENTH verse of the first chapter of John is thus written : 
 Kai éx rod rAnpwparoc airov hpetc Tavrec EhaBoper, Kal yap ayTi ya- 
 proc’ Which is thus rendered by the Serampore Mahratta 
 translator : 
 area Witt st metas wan we wot ama 
 
 His fulness-of even we all obtained have, and  of-grace 
 wyAnd FSet way aa 
 by-a-succession grace-even obtained we-have. 
 
 That is, “ Even of his fulness we all have obtained; 
 and bya succession of grace, even grace have we obtained.” 
 Here all is perspicuous and intelligible; nor has any diffi- 
 culty been experienced in eliciting this sense. So much for 
 our opponent’s first assertion, that “it is impossible to reduce 
 
36 A DEFENCE OF THE 
 
 it to any meaning whatever.” But, the reader will naturally 
 inquire, “Where cine truth, the original truth?” Ah! reader, 
 truth is not easily found; nor doled she dwell with the sons 
 of pride. If thou wouldst find her, “seek her as silver, and 
 search for her as for hid treasure.” Take, then, the ponder- 
 oustomes of Mill, of Wetstein, and of Griesbach; and ask 
 the host of ancient translators. But one saith, ‘She 
 is not with me;’ and another saith, ‘She is not with me.’ 
 Suffer me, therefore, gentle Reader, “to lead thee in the way 
 of truth.” Turn thine eyes upon the SEVENTEENTH verse 
 of this chapter, and she will gladden thy sight, and rejoice thy 
 heart; for thus it is written: “Ore 6 rvépoc du Muséwe 2668" f) xa- 
 pic kati) AAHOEIA Ota Inaod Xpiorov éyévero" In Mahratta, 
 
 wat Aes WT UTE Ut Ww wea wa wit 
 
 For of-Moses by-means_ the-law given was, but grace and 
 van orSwers WATS AT 
 
 truth  of-Jesus-Christ by-means came. 
 
 That is, according to the English idiom, “For the law 
 was given by means of Moses; but grace and TruTH 
 came by means of Jesus Christ.” Here, then, we find 
 the word “truth,” which this liberal and learned critic 
 accused the Serampore translators of having omitted. 
 A more gross and palpable blunder it would be difficult 
 to find; which is only equalled by the evil spirit that 
 it betrays. Here we have a man professing himself to 
 be most intimately and critically acquainted with the 
 languages of the East, and proclaiming himself an un- 
 compromising advocate of the integrity and purity of 
 Scripture translation, condemning a version which it is- 
 evident he has not carefully perused; and, perhaps pre- 
 suming upon the ignorance of his readers, stigmatizing as 
 erroneous and imperfect the labours of men who for.a long 
 period have been considered by every competent judge as 
 unrivalled in oriental philology. Yet with all his pro- 
 found learning he seems unable to distinguish between 
 9© and 4%\o! I confess myself at a loss to perceive his 
 
SERAMPORE MAHRATTA VERSION. 37 
 
 “Sanscrit and Bengali” learning; and fear I must leave 
 his staked “ reputation” to the condolence of his prudent 
 friend, whose discretion in concealing the pretender’s “name” 
 cannot be too highly commended. The plain state of 
 the case, then, is obviously this: Our learned oppo- 
 nent having confounded the sixteenth and seventeenth 
 verses, endeavoured to invest the sixteenth with the 
 sense of the seventeenth. Being unable to effect this, 
 and not discovering the “truth” of which he was in 
 search, he imputed the blame to the Mahratta translator, 
 instead of ascribing it to his own stolidity! Nor can he 
 avail himself of the plea that “ sixteenth” is a typogra- 
 phical error for “seventeenth,” for there “TRUTH” 1s found 
 in the Mahratta as well as in the Greek; and both it and 
 the sixteenth verse are correctly and perspicuously rendered, 
 according to the idiom of the layguage. To how large a 
 portion of sagacity and learning he is justly entitled, the 
 reader may now decide; nor will he be surprised at his 
 having made the following marvellous discovery : 
 
 “The first part of the eighteenth verse is thus translated: No one having 
 seen has ever found God. The original is simply, ‘ No man has ever 
 seen God at any time.’ The concluding part of the verse is rendered un- 
 intelligible by bad grammar, as the agent is in a wrong case, and the pro- 
 noun is so placed as to prevent its being discoverable to what antecedent 
 it relates.” 
 
 Here the wheel turns upon the same axis,—the egregious 
 ignorance of the writer of the critique. That the reader 
 himself, however, may pronounce judgment, I shall, as 
 usual, present him with the Mahratta text, with a literal 
 version. 
 
 mica wast wer way seh wena 
 Any-one God at-any-time to-see attained hath-not, of-the-Father 
 
 wawra @ wordy wa Sa aie wa HY WS 
 in-the-bosom he the-only begotten son him revelation made hath. 
 
 That is, in the English idiom, “ Not any one hath at- 
 tained to see God at any time: he, the only begotten son 
 in the bosom of the father, hath revealed him.” That “the 
 
38 A DEFENCE OF THE 
 
 original,” Ocdv ovdeic EWpaxe TwTOTE, which “ is simply,” ‘no 
 
 man has ever seen God at any time,’ has not been correctly — 
 
 rendered in Mahratta, no one I imagine will now affirm; 
 and the version, ‘‘ No one having seen has ever found God,” 
 must be affiliated on. our learned opponent himself, as the 
 genuine offspring of his own brain. The Mahratta trans- 
 lator disclaims all right of paternity, an honour to which 
 our critic alone is entitled. I would beg leave, however, 
 to suggest, for his information, that in order to have elicited 
 this version, the verb Wet to ste, instead of being in the 
 infinitive mood, should have been the adverbial participle 
 uTata, having seen. With respect to “the concluding part 
 of the verse,” he will now perhaps perceive that “ the 
 agent” @ weuralu are Sa “he, the only begotten 
 son,” is not “in a wrong case;” that the pronoun Ure 
 
 him, “is so placed as” * render it next to impossible “ to 
 
 ae 
 
 prevent its being discoverable to what antecedent it re- : 
 lates;” and that therefore it has not been “ rendered un- — 
 
 intelligible by bad grammar,” but by the obtuseness of his 
 own mind. . 
 
 By this time, perhaps, the reader may be “ of 
 opinion, that a further public exposure of the gross 
 blunders which swarm,” not “ in the (Mahratta) New Tes- 
 
 tament,” but in the criticisms of our opponent, ‘is unneces- — 
 
 sary.” Lest, however, that writer or his friends should 
 fondly imagine that his remaining charges are unanswer- 
 
 able, I crave the reader’s indulgence while I proceed to an — 
 
 examination of them seriatim et separatium ; especially as the 
 next charge, in his estimation, and perhaps in that of others, 
 forms “ the head and front” of the Mahratta translator’s 
 offence. 
 
 - © In the twenty-fifth and following verses, the’ sect of the translators 
 
 SES 
 appears ; for they have rendered to ‘ baptize’ by TTAATE UT a phrase, 
 
 compounded contrary to the idiom of the language, but which can signify 
 nothing else than to give a dipping or immersion; as the noun has no 
 other meaning except that of diving.” 
 
SERAMPORE MAHRATTA VERSION. 39 
 
 If the motives of the writer were not so apparent, it 
 might occasion no little surprise, that a clergyman of the 
 church of England should accuse others of sectarian prin- 
 ciples for rendering fazrizw in the sense of immersion; a 
 sense which is thus fully recognised in the rubric of that 
 church :—“ And then naming it after them (if they shall 
 certify himthat thechild may well endure it) he shall pr it in 
 the water discreetly and warily,” &c. “But ifthey certify that 
 the child is weak, it shall suffice to pour water upon it,” &c. 
 To the same purpose in the rubric for adult baptism, it is 
 directed that the priest “shall dip him in'the water, or pour 
 water upon him.” With this agree, not only the size of every 
 font which has any pretensions to antiquity, and ancient 
 sculptures and paintings representing baptism, but also the 
 first liturgy of King Edward VI. which required baptism to 
 be administered by trine immersion; and a catechism, set 
 forth in the same year (1548) by Abp. Cranmer, in which 
 not only the language he employs, but also a cut prefixed 
 to the Sermon of Baptisme, fully express the meaning of the 
 writer. William Tyndale also, (in his Obedience -of a Chris- 
 tian man, &c.) speaks of “ the plungynge into the water as 
 signyfying that we dye and are duryed with Chryste as con- 
 cernynge the olde lyfe of Synne which is Adam; and the 
 pullynge out agayn as sygnyfying that we ryse agayn with 
 Chryste in a new lyfe.” It would therefore appear that an 
 exception has been converted into a general rule, and that 
 even pouring has been changed into sprinkling. But I wish it 
 to be distinctly understood, that I am neither a baptist, nor 
 the son of a baptist; nor is it here my business to undertake 
 a defence of their cause. The quantity of water employed, 
 or the specific mode of administering the rite, is, in my 
 opinion, of little or no consequence. In adducing the above 
 evidence, therefore, it was simply with the view of evincing, 
 how utterly inconsistent it was, for a clergyman to accuse 
 the Serampore Missionaries of sectarianism, in employing 
 the term immersion for baptism; while that sense was so 
 
40 A DEFENCE OF THE 
 
 fully recognised, though not now acted upon, by the esta- 
 
 blished penee Indeed, were this charge to be held valid, 
 it would be difficult to assign the limits to which it should 
 
 extend. It may be safely affirmed, that many of the most — 
 
 accurate and valuable versions, both ancient and modern, 
 are involved in the same accusation; and that there is not 
 
 | 
 
 one which is directly hostile to that interpretation. As it 
 
 will place this subject upon a proper basis, I beg leave to ~ 
 exhibit a statement of some of the more important of these 
 versions; and, in order that I may be exonerated from the 
 charge af partiality, or an unfair colouring, to adduce the 
 definitions of the various words employed from the most un- 
 exceptionable sources. 
 
 Thus, then, the ancient Peshito Syriac version uniformly — 
 
 renders Garrifw by ~os, which is thus defined by Schaaf: 
 « Abluit se, ablutus, intinctus, immersus in aquam, baptizatus est. 
 Hebr. WY Stetit. Arab. ac THY Re altiore, columna, palo’sustinuit, 
 fulsit, stabilivit, erexit. Tinxit, baptizavit. Conjug. ii. Fulsit, sustinuit 
 columna, palove. Baptizavit. Conj. v. Baptizatus fuit. Ethpeel, -OslJ 
 Idem quod Peal. Aphel Ss) Immersit, (Num. 31.23.) Baptizavit.” 
 
 Our learned countryman Castell explains it in a similar 
 manner; upon which Michaelis observes, 
 
 “In hac baptizandi significatione conferunt haud pauci cum Hebraico 
 WdY stetit, itaut stare sit, stare in flumine, alloque mergi. Mihi verisimili- 
 
 : 
 
 f 
 
 us, diversum plane ab TY, literumque aliqua permutatione ortum ex — 
 
 urease submergere.”* 
 
 * There is another Syriac word for baptism, which is employed by the 
 Syrian Baptists ; and which I long since proved, in opposition to the state- 
 ment of the late Editor of Calmet, also meant to dip. The word alluded 
 to is 4,, which is applied in the Syriac Peshito version of the Old 
 Testament to the dipping of hyssop in blood, Exod. xii. 22; the dipping 
 
 of the foot in oil, Deut. xxxiii. 24, or in water, Jos. iii. 15, or in blood, 
 
 Psal. Ixviii. 24; and in the New Testament, to the dipping of the hand in 
 a dish, Matt. xxvi. 23, of the finger in water, Luke, vii. 33, 44, &c. I ob- 
 serve, that the last Editor of Calmet has had the fairness and candour to 
 append these observations to the original remarks of the former Editor. 
 See Fragments, No. 615. 
 
SERAMPORE MAHRATTA VERSION. 4] 
 
 But whatever may be its derivation, it is perfectly clear 
 that its proper signification is to zmmerse. 
 
 Thus also the Arabic in Walton’s Polyglott, the Arabic 
 of the Propaganda, of Sabat, &c., employ the word s:, 
 which we have seen is perfectly identical with the Syriac 
 aS. 
 
 In the Ethiopic version, also, the word "®? is em- 
 ployed, which Ludolf thus explains : 
 
 Conj. VI. TMMP, « Immersus fuit, in genere, Jos. 3. im specte, 
 Baptizatus fuit. Lu. 3. 21. Inf. TMAP: Crm baptizatus  esset. 
 Matt. 3. 16. A% OP: Baptizavit. Matt. 3.11. Acts 1. 5. (2) Ad 
 religionem Christianam convertit. Christianum effecit. Hine imepta 
 Metaph. Phariseis tribuitur, Proselytum effecit; quasz v. illud medv- 
 ante baptismo factum fecissent. Matt. 23.16. * Mar. 7.4. Respondet 
 Greco Pamrileuy, Immergere, abluere; sed improprié videntur acce- 
 pisse.” 
 
 The words employed in the ancient Coptic version as 
 corespondent to Barrifw, Barrispoc, &c., also convey precisely 
 the same idea of immersion; as will be perfectly evident 
 from the following definitions taken from the Coptic Lexicon 
 of Le Croze, edited by Woide: 
 
 “WRLC, TU, kararoyvriopoc, Vulg. precipitatio. Psa. liv. 4. Barrispoc, 
 baptismus, Matt. iii. 7. et alibi. 
 
 Item, mergere, submergere, cararovrilew, caradvvery, descendere in pro- 
 fundum. Exod. xv. 5. karariveoOar, devorari. Ps. cvi. 27. (BamriZeaGar, 
 submergi. Ley. xi. 32.) 
 
 WRLC, Barriley, baptizare. Matt. i. 11, cum EDowen composi- 
 tum: éydvvety, irrepere, penetrare in locum. 2 Tim. iii. 6. 
 
 GC IORRC, OAM, Barriopot, baptismi. Ebr. vi. 2. 
 Item, baptizari. AYO TWALC baptizatus est. Cateches. Shenutii MS. 
 
 NACCOIWRLC, eBarrifovro, baptizabantur. Mat. iii. 6. Mare i. 5. 
 Passim.” 
 
 The Gothic of Ulphilas employs a perfectly correspon- 
 dent term to our dip, daupjan, which is thus defined by 
 Junius in the glossary appended to the four Gospels, pub- 
 lished at Stockholm, in 1671: 
 
 “ Baptizare. S. dopa. A. S. depan, dyppan. Alem. taufen, taufan. T. 
 
 G 
 
42 A DEFENCE OF THE 
 
 Doopen. Dan. ddbe. Gr. déw, mergo, dutrw, aquas subeo. S. Doppa fig. 
 Ttal. tuffare, submergere.” 
 
 Among the modern versions which render fazritw by to 
 immerse, are the German of Luther, the Dutch, Danish, and 
 Swedish; which employ the above words pointed out by 
 Junius. Other versions which have apparently steered 
 between the two extremes, by rendering Barrifw by washing or 
 ablution, as the ,,\o9 \.2 of the Persian of Martyn, (though 
 he even has sometimes employed the phrase di Ju, 
 which can only mean ablution by dipping, ) are in fact decidedly 
 on the side of the Serampore translators. It is evident, that 
 to wash the body or person, without specifying any particular 
 part of the body, must necessarily denote to bathe, which 
 clearly implies zmmerszon. 
 
 The only other mode that has been adopted, (for I believe 
 none has ever had the hardihood to render farrifw, to pour or 
 sprinkle,) is that of retaining the Greek word ; as the bapti- 
 zare of the Latin, the battezare of the Italian, the bautizar 
 of the Spanish, the baptizer of the French, and our bapitise. 
 This is obviously no translation; and, but “ darkens coun- 
 sel by words without knowledge.” It would naturally lead 
 to the pasch, azymes, and other barbarities of the Douay 
 version, which even the advocates of this mode, would be 
 among the first to deprecate; and, instead of the poor 
 heathen hearing “in their own tongue, the wonderful works 
 of God,” they would be under the necessity either of study- 
 ing Greek, in order to understand the real sense of the terms 
 employed, or be content with the interpretation of their 
 teachers. The adoption, however, of the Greek word, it is 
 clear, militates nothing against our Baptist brethren, and 
 decides nothing as to the real import of the term.* Each 
 
 * It should, however, be remarked, that though these translators: adopted 
 the Greek word, yet they clearly understood it in the sense of immersion. 
 Thus Diodati explains “ battezzati,” Matt. ili. 6, in the edition of 1607, by 
 “ tuffatz nell’ acqua, per un sacro segno, e cerimonia, testificante, e sug- 
 
SERAMPORE MAHRATTA VERSION. 43 
 
 party may with equal propriety, claim it as being favour- 
 able to his cause, according as he may understand the ori- 
 ginal term whence these various words are derived. As, 
 however, fazrifw appears evidently to exclude the idea of 
 pouring, or of sprinkling, and as the only other idea that 
 can be attached to it is that of washing, which, when ap- 
 plied irrestrictively to the body, must, as above stated, de- 
 note to bathe, which implies immersion; it may justly be 
 considered as decidedly in favour of the Serampore translator. 
 That such is indeed the primitive sense of the Greek word, 
 its derivation from Barro, to dip, is sufficient to evince; and 
 is thus expressly affirmed by Schleusner, with whom the most 
 respectable lexicographers agree : 
 
 “ Proprie: zmmergo ac intingo, in aquam mergo, a Barrw, et respondet 
 Hebraico Yan 2 Reg. v. 14, in vers. Alex. et Y20 apud Symmachum 
 Psalm Ixviii. 5. et apud incertum, Psalm ix. 6. In hac autem significa- 
 tione nunquam in N. T. [nisi in baptizandi sensu] sed eo frequentius in 
 scriptt. Gr, legitur, v. c. Diod. Sic. I. c. 36. de Nilo exundante: réy 
 xXEepoaiwy Onpiwy ta Toda bxO TOV Torayod TEpitndOérTa CLagpOeEiperae 
 BarriZdueva, multa terrestrium animalium, a flumine deprehensa, submer- 
 sione pereunt. Strabo Lib. xii. p. 391. et xiv. p. 458. ed. Casaub. Polyb. 
 II]. c. 72. porte Ewe rv pacray ot weloi BarriGopevor dueBacvov. Idem 
 y. c. 47. et aliis in locis, quee larga manu dedit Schwarzius in Comment. 
 Crit. Ling. Gr. p. 232. seq.” 
 
 I trust that these observations will suffice to exonerate the 
 Serampore missionaries from the charge of bigotry and sec- 
 tarianism, in thus conscientiously rendering Bazrifw, to im- 
 merse. Bigotry, that is, ‘blind zeal, or prejudice” they cannot — 
 justly be accused ‘of, while they have the primitive sense of the 
 term, and the rendering of so many ancient and modern trans- 
 
 gellante la rimessione,e purgamento de’ peccati nel sangue di Christo; e 
 la purification degli animi per la virtd dello Spirito santo: per laquale altresi 
 i battezzati s’ubbligavano di conversarsi puri, ad ogni lor potere, di peccato: 
 esercitandosi in una continua conversione, et amendamento di vita: vedi 
 Lue. iii. 3:” DIPPED IN THE WATER, for a sacred sign and ceremony, 
 testifying and sealing the remission, and purging away of sin in the blood 
 of Christ, and the purification of their minds by the power of the Holy 
 Spirit,” &c. 
 
44 A DEFENCE OF THE 
 
 lations as the foundation upon which they have grounded their 
 version ; nor can they consistently be charged with sectari- 
 anism, while they are found in company with the churches 
 of Syria, Arabia, Ethiopia, Egypt, Germany, Holland, 
 Sweden, Denmark, and others, together with the Church of 
 England itself. If they be bigots, I know not what name 
 the advocates for pouring, or sprinkling, who have no such 
 basis to rest on, merit; and if theirs be a sect, it must be 
 confessed to be a very ancient and avery extensive one. It 
 should be remembered, that the question respecting the 
 mode of administering the rite of baptism is a very dif- 
 rent thing from that respecting the subjects of baptism, or 
 that of peedo-baptism and adult-baptism. Concerning the 
 latter our opponent brings forward no charge, nor even in- 
 sinuates that the Serampore translators have ever corrupted 
 or misrepresented a single passage to suit their own peculiar 
 views on this topic. 
 
 But there is another point of view in which the opponents 
 of the Serampore missionaries should consider the subject ; 
 and one which involves the most important consequences. 
 Before they “‘ arraign the British and Foreign Bible Society 
 as guilty of a gross and unpardonable dereliction of duty,” 
 in aiding the Serampore translators, and prefer a recom- 
 mendation for them to withdraw that aid; they should be 
 fully prepared to carry their censure, as well as their recom- 
 mendation, to a much greater extent. In consistency, if that 
 aid be withdrawn from the Serampore missionaries, because. 
 they have rendered Bazrifw, to zmmerse, then must it also be 
 withdrawn from the churches of Syria, of Arabia, of Abys- 
 sinia, of Egypt, of Germany, of Holland, of Denmark, &c. ; 
 and the venerable Peshito Syriac version, the Arabic versions 
 of the Propaganda, of Sabat, &c.; the Ethiopian, the Cop- 
 tic, and other versions, must all be suppressed. If, however, 
 they are not thus prepared to carry their recommendation 
 to its fullest extent, then- must they close their mouths for 
 ever against their Baptist brethren. But should a faction 
 
SERAMPORE MAHRATTA VERSION. 45 
 
 so far prevail over the good sense of the Committee, and the 
 sound and catholic principles upon which the Society- is 
 founded, and which have ever been its boast and glory, as 
 well as the most powerful means of its extraordinary suc- 
 cess, then its “ honour will be laid in the dust ;” and from 
 a splendid temple, in the service of which the whole Chris- 
 tian world could cordially unite, it will dwindle into a con- 
 temptible edifice, dedicated to party feelings, motives, and 
 views. The broad basis upon which it is founded is its 
 strength and security ; contract this within narrower limits, 
 and it falls into ruins. 
 
 I should have deemed it superfluous to have added a 
 single word more upon this subject, had not the writer of the 
 critique favoured us with a rendering of the disputed word, 
 which, in the estimation of some persons, may be deemed 
 perfectly satisfactory, and capable of effecting a union be- 
 tween the advocates for immersion and those for sprinkling. 
 Lest, therefore, I should be charged with unfair dealing, I 
 shall advance to an examination of this new term; and in 
 order to be freed from the imputation of presenting garbled 
 statements, I beg leave to present it in the language of the 
 writer himself, though it be somewhat extended. To this I 
 am the more readily induced, as I believe it will serve the 
 cause of truth and pure religion; and tend considerably to 
 strengthen the preceding arguments and illustrations. It 
 would appear from the statement of the Editor of the 
 Asiatic Journal, that the writer is engaged in the “ laborious 
 office” “ of endeavouring to settle a standard for the expres- 
 sion of theological notions in the language of India;” and 
 he gives the following among “some specimens” with 
 
 which he had been favoured : 
 
 “ Baptism.—l. A Sangskar Houta) is exclusively a_ religious 
 rite or ceremonial of initiation, or the gradual completion (for there are 
 several) of a religious character, or what is viewed as such. Among the 
 Hindoos the sangskars begin before birth, and continue to succeed each 
 other till marriage, which is the last, and completes the exact charac- 
 
46 A DEFENCE OF THE 
 
 ter and qualifications of an accomplished brahmin. The radical notion of 
 the word is, ‘completeness, perfection, accomplishment, finished state, 
 condition or character.’ Vide Wilson’s Sanscrit Dict. in verb. He defines 
 its distinct application, as above, to denote ‘ an essential and purificatory 
 rite, or ceremony.’ The most important of these (for our purposes) are 
 the giving of the name, the tonsure, investiture with the brahminical 
 thread, and the initiation by the gayatri or mystical verse. Other ap- 
 plications of the word are to denote ‘ consecration, purification, purity, 
 perfection.-—(See Wilson.) 
 
 2. These are also performed by the intervention of a priest (see Ward, 
 vol. ili. p. 69), and sacrifices and prayers are offered at the same time. So 
 that as they are in themselves purificatory and initiatory, so the ceremonial 
 with which they are performed is strictly religious, nor can they proceed 
 without the presence of a complete brahmin. 
 
 3. At the upanayana, or investiture with the sacred thread, which is the 
 tenth in order, and followed four days only subsequently by the communi- 
 cation of the sacred verse, the initiated becomes a dwzja or twice-born,—a 
 regenerated man. ‘This ceremonial Wilson declares ‘ to constitute reli- 
 giously and metaphorically their second birth.’ The previous sangskars 
 till this were but preparatory; the tenth and eleventh perfect the moral 
 and metaphorical regeneration, to which marriage only is necessary to 
 render the subject of them ‘complete in all the will of the inventors of 
 the system. 
 
 4. The individual who has passed through these successive stages of 
 initiation is denominated sangskrita, or complete, perfect, consecrated, 
 purified, finished ; nothing further being necessary to fulfil the obligations 
 of his order and birth. 
 
 5. The regular derivative of the agent, is sangskaraka (or sangskartta) 
 ot the completer, perfecter, purifier, &c. oS or WoMAS 
 may be used indifferently. 
 
 6. Baptism is exclusively a religious rite of an initiatory character; it 
 is a symbolical representation of a moral regeneration or second birth, 
 
 — ee 
 
 and is called the ‘ washing of regeneration,’ indicating, in that expression, — 
 
 the outward purification, metaphorical of the inward or moral sanctifica- 
 tion of the subject of it. In this rite the individual is also consecrated to 
 
 God; and whereas before it, 2. e. whilst a catechumen, (if adult) or vir- — 
 
 tually in the same condition (if an infant) the individual is incomplete, out 
 of the unity of the consecrated and initiated, he becomes thereby of their 
 number, and is received into the community of Christians. In short, all 
 the characters of a sangskar are found to enter into the notion of religious 
 
 baptism as directed in the New Testament, or, to speak more properly, all — 
 
 that is symbolized in the latter, is equally figured in the Hindoo rites of 
 brahminical initiation. In the former, as in the latter, the officiating per- 
 
 _— 
 
SERAMPORE MAHRATTA VERSION. 47 
 
 son is a priest; prayers are offered up, the baptised person becomes com- 
 plete. His catechumen state may be compared to the condition of the 
 brahmin youth before the tenth and eleventh sangskars (or znvestiture with 
 the thread and gayatr2); he is now a perfect Christian; he is a twice- 
 born, ‘ born again of water and of the Holy Ghost.’ 
 
 7. Our baptism is distinct from christening in vulgar language, or, more 
 correctly, the sprinkling of water, as practised by us, and conferring of a 
 name (in case of emergency), without reception into the communion of the 
 church and consecration by the sign of the cross, the symbol of the Chris- 
 lian profession, as the thread is of the Hindoo, is analogous to the brah- 
 minical Cartel or naming, the fifth sangskar in order; and lastly, the 
 eleventh ceremonial of the brahmins, or the communicating of the gayatrz, 
 following the reception of the thread, or confirmation, as practised by us 
 subsequently to baptism. 
 
 8. Now it is proposed to use the word sangskar, to denote our sacra- 
 ment, and to prefix jal (G4) water (the element of baptism) to specify 
 the mode or medium of initiation, consecration, and purification among 
 Christians. As if one should say ‘the water-sacrament,’ or that sacred 
 and religious rite, in which, in the use of the element of water, as symbo- 
 lical of purification, the subject of it is consecrated to God, inztiated into 
 the Christian profession, passed from an imperfect to a perfect state of at 
 least external religion, and made competent to all the duties of a Christian 
 as well as become entitled to all its privileges. 
 
 9. This word is regularly formable in all its required derivatives 
 
 < 
 Cina TRIAS, SAMMIAS, TAA) ») 
 
 jalasangskar, jalasangskrita, maul jalasangskarak, or jalasangskartta. 
 
 10. It determines nothing as to the mode in which the element is adhi- 
 bited, whether by immersion or aspersion; nor as to the time, whether in 
 infancy, youth, or adult age (in all of which the sangskars are admissible 
 successively): and thus seems well to adapt itself to the ambiguity of the 
 original Barrifw, Parriopoc, &c. &c. and is calculated to prevent the 
 fatal and injurious contests of the advocates for adult and peedobaptism 
 respectively, as a word equally proper in the usage of all, and determining 
 nothing verbally as to the point in dispute. For it is evident, that if we 
 object to antipeedobaptists employing a word expressive of thezr mode of 
 immersion, with equal reason would they object to a term denoting asper- 
 sion as practised by us. Moreover, we ourselves, who are at liberty to 
 employ either mode, and who contend only for the right of infants to this 
 sacrament, in whichever way the element be adhibited, could not desire to 
 employ a word which would cut off that liberty. Therefore, unless a word 
 can be obtained of equal ambiguity with the Greek Bazrifw, we have only 
 the alternative of employing some such compound term as that proposed 
 
48 A DEFENCE OF THE 
 
 above, or of retaining the original term in the character of the language 
 into which we translate. , 
 
 The latter would be attended with this disadvantage, that previously to 
 explanation, it would convey xo meaning to a heathen convert or infidel; 
 and after such explanation, a far less lively idea of the thing intended than 
 would be the result of employing an indigenous term exciting a distinct 
 and well-known notion analogous to the Christian doctrine designed to be 
 expressed. The word above proposed is, in the latter member of the com- 
 pound, already consecrated to a religious application in close analogy with 
 the use of our word baptism, and in the first term secures a distinct enun- 
 ciation of the element employed in the rite, and therefore of such addi- 
 tional idea (chiefly that of purity), as is more forcibly symbolized thereby. 
 So that while the sangskar is generic, the jalasangskar is the specific re- 
 quired, ic 
 
 11. Again, the generic term is equally, in all its ideas, applicable to the 
 other Christian sacrament of the eucharist, and also to the rite of confirma- 
 tion (unless the latter be kept distinct, as a ratification of baptism, which 
 
 might be expressed by the term Sangeeta, or “the rati- | 
 
 fication of the water-rite of religious initiation and consecration,” the 
 prefix of (SIG ‘a repast, or of S&X ‘edible, or other similar 
 expressions, would sufficiently specify the nature and symbolical meaning 
 of the Lord’s Supper. : 
 12. Lastly, on shewing the first sketch of the above to a friend, I was 
 informed that the Serampore antipzedobaptists have actually employed the 
 very word proposed, in combination with this term Va (dub) or dipping, 
 to express the nature and intention of their baptism to heathens, although 
 they have restricted themselves to the former word singly in their transla- 
 tions; so that they write in their other works the compound Vaya, 
 or the sacred initiatory rite of dipping, to convey a notion of what is in- 
 tended by the Christian sacrament of baptism, The consecrated word pro- 
 posed to be employed to denote ‘sacrament,’ is therefore already known 
 to some, perhaps to many (though I was not at all aware of it until this 
 paper was written in greater part, nor have I yet seen the word myself), and 
 seems by its uniform religious application, as a native term, peculiarly ap- 
 propriate to our purpose.” 
 
 Notwithstanding the length of the preceding extract, it 
 will be necessary to present the reader with the following 
 passage from the Sanscrit Lexicon of Wilson, referred to 
 above, that he may have a complete view of the nature and 
 variety of these Sangskars, divested of all the adventitious 
 
SERAMPORE MAHRATTA VERSION. 49 
 ornaments, and deceitful glare, with which the writer of the 
 
 critique has invested them: 
 
 “AAT «An essential and purificatory rite or ceremony 
 amongst the Hindus; as those of the three first mpuASsES commencing with 
 
 conception and ending with marriage; or ATTA sacrifice on con- 
 
 ception, uaa on vitality in the ae aaa Taza = in the 
 
 fourth, sixth, or eighth month, ae giving the infant clarified 
 butter out of a golden spoon to taste, before dividing the navel string ; 
 
 TAHT naming the child on the tenth, eleventh, twelfth, or hun- 
 
 dred and first day: fa :qhaur carrying him out to see the moon on 
 the third lunar day of the third light fortnight, or to see the sun in the 
 
 third or fourth month : ATOM feeding him with He in the sixth 
 or eighth month, or when he has cut teeth : ASTRA tonsure in the 
 second or third year: suaqya investiture with the string in the fifth, 
 
 eighth, or sixteenth year: aifaat investiture, accompanied by the 
 Gayatri, to be performed four days after the preceding, and for a 
 
 Brahman, not to be delayed beyond the sixteenth year: faate: 
 or marriage is the last Sanscdra, being the twelfth according to some 
 enumerations, or, omitting the second and third, the tenth according to 
 others.” 
 
 This is the true and unadorned picture of the Hindu 
 Sangskars; and I conceive every rightly constituted mind 
 will revolt at the idea of associating the Christian rite of 
 baptism with such puerile and wretchedly superstitious ob- 
 servances. The reader, from a comparison of this statement 
 with that of the writer of the critique, will perceive how in- 
 geniously he has bedizened them in order to suit his purpose ; 
 giving a prominence to those which bore some, resemblance 
 to his ideas of baptism, and carefully hiding every hideous 
 feature. But as the term Sangskar is applicable to all and 
 every one of these rites, which are distinguished by distinct 
 and appropriate names, his reasoning upon and illustration 
 
 H 
 
50 A DEFENCE OF THE 
 
 of the term Sangskar, as applied to any one or two of them, is 
 manifestly false. The term is equally applied, not only to 
 “the giving of the name, the tonsure, the investiture with 
 the braminical thread, and the initiation by the gayatri or 
 mystical verse,” but also to “sacrifice on conception, on 
 vitality in the foetus, and in the fourth, sixth, or eighth 
 month, the giving the child clarified butter,” &c. and to all 
 the other abominable superstitions. Nor can the word — 
 - Sangskar be considered as equivalent to our general terms 
 rite, ceremony, or sacrament, as it is restricted to these 
 ten or twelve observances; and therefore its union with 
 
 ST water, cannot denote “the water-sacrament,” but “the 
 water-sangskar,” which would merely be adding another to 
 the number of these ceremonies, instead of its designating a 
 Christian rite. As a translation of Barriopoe, Barrifw, &C., it is 
 
 decidedly erroneous, even according to our opponent’s own — 
 statement. Notwithstanding his assertion of “ the ambiguity 
 of the original,” (!) it would be difficult, if not impossible, — 
 to shew to what Gazrigw refers, unless it be to the mode. 
 
 To ‘the time, whether in infancy, youth, or adult age,” it has 
 
 no reference ; nor has it any direct reference to the element 
 
 employed, which is in that case always subjoined ; as, “I 
 
 baptize you with water,” &c. The term zmmersion, there- 
 fore, or, what is equivalent to it, washing or bathing, which 
 
 is employed by the Serampore missionaries, in concurrence — 
 with the ancient and modern translators formerly specified, 
 appears the only term which can be properly employed as 
 a translation of the Greek fazriZw, &c.; and it no more de- 
 termines any thing as to “ the right of infants to this sacra- 
 ment,” than the original words. Of the preposterous alter- 
 native “of retaining the original term in the characters of 
 the language into which we translate,” though decidedly 
 preferable to that now suggested by our opponent, I have 
 already expressed my opinion, on grounds which TI conceive 
 cannot be shaken, and some of which are here recognized 
 
SERAMPORE MAHRATTA VERSION. 51 
 
 by this writer himself. But the adoption of the term 
 Sangskar, if viewed in: the consequences which it would 
 necessarily entail, will appear still more objectionable. 
 These can only be, I conceive, a confirmation of the Hindus 
 in their superstitious rites, and an amalgamation of the 
 Christian religion with paganism. Of the danger of such 
 a union, the reader need scarcely be told, when he remem- 
 bers the awful corruptions of the Christian religion in the 
 Romish church, which owe their origin to this source; 
 such as the worship of the Virgin Mary as the mater Dei, in 
 imitation of that of Cybele, the mater Dem, the baptism of 
 bells, from the lustration of trumpets among the Romans, &c. 
 &c. That every approach to such a state of things is to be 
 earnestly deprecated, and prevented by every mean in our 
 power, every real Christian will readily acknowledge. He 
 will therefore be prepared to give his unqualified disappro- 
 bation to the adoption of the term sangskar; a term which 
 is appropriated by the Hindus solely to the superstitious 
 ceremonies previously detailed, and which cannot with pro- 
 priety designate a purely Christian rite. That the Seram- 
 pore missionaries “ have actually employed the very word 
 proposed in combination with this term G4 (dub) or dip- 
 
 ping,” requires further proof than our opponent’s mere as- 
 
 sertion; but, if such be the case, it is deeply to be de- 
 plored, while it says nothing in favour of its adoption. Its 
 not being in any way a translation of Barrifw, its appro- 
 priation to the pagan Hindu rites, and the consequences 
 which its use would necessarily produce, are, I conceive, 
 considerations of sufficient importance to warrant its abso- 
 lute rejection. . 
 
 A few words upon the composition of the word 
 
 as 
 TARA CUI, used by the Mahratta translator to express 
 mmersion, and I have done upon this subject. The writer 
 of the critique affirms that it is “‘ compounded contrary to 
 the idiom of the language ;” but the reader will have seen 
 
52 A DEFENCE OF THE 
 
 too many errors of his on such subjects to rely implicitly 
 on his judgment. Now this phrase is composed of 
 
 Ae 
 TAG, a dipping, or immersion, and @UI to give, which 
 is used instead of the simple verb FAA, to dip, im- 
 
 merse; and the mode of its composition is precisely the 
 ~~ 
 
 AN Ss 
 same as raTq eT to abuse, SA CEU, to answer, 
 
 to assist, and many others, which are respectively composed 
 
 of fSTAT abuse, SAX an answer, AGA assistance, and ra 
 to give. Unless, therefore, these words be “ compounded 
 contrary to the idiom of the language,” the word used by 
 the Mahratta translator must be admitted to be in harmony 
 with that idiom; and it will be seen that “to give a dipping 
 
 y 
 t 
 
 4 
 
 or immersion,” is a burlesque translation, being contrary to — 
 the English idiom, and the word in Mahratta merely having 
 
 the sense of the simple verb, ¢o dip, immerse, as the above 
 compound verbs merely signify, to abuse, to answer, and 
 to assist. 
 
 We now advance to perhaps the most singular charge — 
 
 that was ever brought against any translator : 
 
 “‘ The thirty-second verse,” says our opponent, “ presents this most 
 
 ; 
 4 
 4 
 
 extraordinary and highly irreverent translation: I saw descending from — 
 
 heaven the Spirit like an owl. The word &J]4¥ has no other meaning! 
 The same word is also used in the other three Gospels.” 
 
 The reader might justly presume that such a grave charge 
 would not be advanced without the best evidence, and 
 would naturally expect to be presented with something in 
 the shape of authority for such a statement. As, however, 
 our opponent has not deigned to furnish the desirable in- 
 formation, but rests it entirely upon his own assertion, I 
 shall endeavour to ascertain what grounds he had for the 
 opinion; though I might, perhaps, be fully justified in 
 
 * etd « 
 
 _—" 
 
 leaving it in the same situation he has placed it, and throw _ 
 
 the onus probandi upon his shoulders. Possessing, then, no 
 
SERAMPORE MAHRATTA VERSION. ES: 
 
 advantage arising from the locality of his situation, or collo- 
 quial intercourse, and certainly none derivable from literary 
 attainments in this language,—as is manifest from what we 
 have already seen, and shall hereafter see, of the gross er- 
 rors into which he has fallen,—it may fairly be presumed 
 that he founded the statement upon some lexicographical 
 
 authority. Now, as the word UJAS is omitted in the 
 Mahratta Dictionary of Dr. Carey, his authority was doubt- 
 less that of Colonel Vans Kennedy, who interprets that 
 word an “owl.” This is further confirmed by his employ- 
 ing the language of that writer respecting the Mahratta con- 
 taining “scarcely a word expressive of the operations of the 
 mind,” (compare page 10 supra and page 62 infra); though 
 this he does without the slightest acknowledgement. But 
 the Colonel states, that his work “professes to be a dic- 
 tionary of the second (style) only,” or that of polite, and 
 civil and military intercourse ; and thus acknowledges his 
 comparative ignorance of the agricultural dialect, the very 
 quarter where we should naturally look for the true signifi- 
 cation of this word among the body of the people: 
 
 “ Nor, with regard to the third style, has my intercourse with the 
 Marat’has been such as to enable me to ascertain the peculiarities by 
 which it is distinguished. But if, as I suspect, these peculiarities consist 
 merely in using particular words in the place of others employed in the 
 second style, or in expressing the implements and operations of a parti- 
 cular occupation or trade, it will be obvious that, as the second style is 
 generally understood, the omission of these words can be of no material 
 detriment to the student.” 
 
 I think the reader will agree with me in opinion, that, 
 apart from every other consideration, the testimony of Vans 
 Kennedy in this matter is very insufficient evidence; and, 
 without absolutely questioning the accuracy of his definition 
 _ of the word, we shall perhaps hereafter see ample reason to 
 dissent from our opponent’s statement, that “the word 
 
 aS has no other meaning” than an ow/. But, when there 
 
54 A DEFENCE OF THE 
 
 are opposed to this statement, the learning not only of Dr. 
 Carey and his coadjutors, but that of the mative pundits; the 
 manner in which the translation was effected, as well as the 
 length of time employed in translating and revising; the 
 commonness of both objects—the ow/ and the dove; and the 
 frequency with which the word is employed, there arises a 
 strong presumption, @ priori, that the version is correct, and 
 
 that a dove is properly designated by GAS. If it be an 
 error, then must the native translater have mistaken the 
 
 sense of AY I, &c. in the Sanscrit, whence he translated, 
 
 or that of YAS in his mother tongue; and Dr. Carey, 
 professor of Sanscrit, Mahratta, and Bengali, must also 
 
 have erred when it was brought him for revision, and when ~ 
 
 passing the proofs through the press: nay, not only so, but 
 during the period which elapsed between the first and se- 
 cond edition, and during the seven years that the latter 
 
 edition was at press, from 1804 to.1811, this error must | 
 
 have remained undiscovered, notwithstanding all the facili- 
 ties and opportunities which were afforded, and all the care 
 and pains which were bestowed in order to ensure its accu- 
 
 racy.—And an error respecting what? Not of things of — 
 
 foreign growth or produce—but the proper names of a dove 
 and an owl! Neither of these was a rara avis in terra; but 
 both were objects which must have been met with almost 
 daily, and with the names of which all must consequently 
 have been familiar. To err in such a matter seems scarcely 
 possible ; especially as the error, if it be one, is repeated so 
 frequently, and in circumstances and connections in which 
 its use would be ridiculous, and which would render its de- 
 
 tection inevitable. Not only does GAS occur in the 
 sense of a dove in the parallel passages of the other three 
 Gospels, as stated by our opponent, but also in various 
 other passages of the Gospels, as well as in numerous pas- 
 sages of the Old Testament. Thus it is used of the dove 
 
SERAMPORE MAHRATTA VERSION. 945) 
 
 sent out of the ark by Noah, Gen. viii. 8—11; and in Ley. 
 xiv. 22, as well as Luke ii. 24, it is employed to express a 
 
 iurtle-dove in distinction from UXT, and in other pas- 
 sages HAAS, a pigeon; while in Mat. x. 16, it is used 
 
 in the exhortation, ‘“‘ Be wise as serpents, and harmless as 
 
 EN on 
 doves,” GISTA AU, where, if it denoted owls, it would 
 be absolute nonsense, the owl being a bird of prey. On 
 the contrary, the Mahratta translator never employs it to 
 designate an owl. Did the word occur but once, or 
 even three or four times, it might perhaps be considered, 
 with some shew of reason, to be an error arising from in- 
 advertency; but the frequency and mode of its use wholly 
 preclude this supposition, and shew that its employ- 
 ment was not fortuitous but designed, and at the same 
 time appear to evince that a just discrimination was exer- 
 cised in its use. The reader will probably now be of opi- 
 nion that the Mahratta translator had good grounds for 
 
 designating a dove by GAS ; which, I imagine, will receive 
 additional confirmation from a consideration of its deriva- 
 tion, and its affinity with similar words in other languages. 
 Thus the analogy between GAS, ¢ hmbar, and the Canarese 
 BINA bellagwbbi, the Bengali YY ghoog hoo, the mid- 
 
 land GAT, ehog howa, (which is found in a MS. voca- 
 bulary, prepared by learned natives, under the superin- 
 tendence of Mr. Colebrooke, and now in the library of 
 
 the Honourable East India Company,) and the Chinese 42 
 hd, GE #5 pith koo, &c., is close and striking; to which, 
 
 perhaps, may be added the Sanscrit ATA, kapot, and the 
 
 * rw + Poly es . . 
 Persian pS kabutar, all of which denote a dove or a pigeon. 
 
 Tn all these words, the syllable ghoo, g hoo, goo, ké, or koo, 
 is clearly an imitative sound, expressive of the note of 
 the dove; which is substantially the same with our word 
 
56 A DEFENCE OF THE 
 
 coo, applied to the sound emitted by the same bird, and 
 which is expressed in Mahratta by qa ghoomané, a 
 word of the closest affinity with GIS, ghobar. Now, if 
 the last syllable FS, bar, be an abbreviation of, or have an 
 
 affinity with, ISAS barbar, “murmuring,” it may justly 
 be considered as a very expressive word by which to de- 
 signate a dove—“the murmuring ghoo.” Nor need it be 
 concealed that the Indians apply the same sound, eho, to 
 the ow/, or rather, perhaps, to a particular species of owl; 
 as it is not inconsistent with the preceding statements, and 
 
 will account for that definition being given to AS by 
 Vans Kennedy. Thus, in Sanscrit, one of the names for an — 
 
 owl is GH, ghookd, i. e. “ he who calls ghoo,” from the 
 
 imitative sound @ gho, and , ka, “who sounds ;” and 
 the word ghoog.hoo, which, in Bengali, undoubtedly signi- 
 fies ‘a dove, turtle-dove,” as defined by Forster and Morton, 
 yet in Hindoostanee, the grand medium of colloquial, civil, 
 
 and military intercourse throughout India, denotes an 
 
 owl, according to the authorities of Drs. Hunter and Gil- 
 christ, and of Professor Shakespear, and which is also cor- 
 roborated by the Canarese *T°”A googi, having the same 
 signification. Hence it is extremely probable, that the 
 
 definition of Colonel Vans Kennedy is not in reality at — 
 
 variance with the practice of Dr. Carey in the use of 4S 
 for a dove; and that it may denote, in the second style, or 
 that of polite colloquial intercourse, an ow/, and yet in that 
 
 ——_ 
 
 of the third style, or the agricultural dialect, signify a dove. — 
 I submit these observations on the derivation and affinities 
 of the word, together with the improbabilities of an error 
 respecting so common an object being so frequently com-— 
 
 mitted by those engaged in the translation and revision of 
 the Mahratta version, to the judgment of the reader; and 
 leave him to decide whether there are any sufficient grounds 
 
SERAMPORE MAHRATTA VERSION. 57 
 to infer that “the word GAS has no other meaning” 
 than an owl; and whether there are not strong reasons to con- 
 clude, that it has correctly been used in the sense of a dove 
 in the Mahratta version of the Sacred Writings. Considering 
 the paucity and inadequacy of the dictionaries of the Mah- 
 ratta language which have yet been published, and of 
 standard writings in that dialect, it cannot be a matter of 
 surprise that such authorities cannot be appealed to on the 
 present occasion ; but, in my estimation, the frequent use of 
 the term by such a man as Dr. Carey (who, by the way, is 
 as distinguished as a naturalist as a philologist) is sufficient to 
 outweigh the united unsupported assertions of a host of men 
 like him, who has taken upon himself the honourable office 
 of “accuser of the brethren.” Feeling assured of the reader’s 
 favourable verdict, I pass on to the following delectable 
 specimen of hypercriticism : 
 
 “In the thirty-sixth, as well as in the twenty-ninth verse, the expression, 
 ‘Behold the lamb of God,’ is translated, behold the young of the sheep of 
 God. This periphrasis is perfectly indefensible, because there is a word 
 
 in Marat’ha for ‘a lamb,’ and @| WT is not a Marat’ha word.” 
 
 The translation given here of the Mahratta AZaT gaat 
 is not only verbal but idiomatic; and consequently does 
 not present a fair representation of the original, nor convey 
 to the mind of an Englishman the same idea it would to 
 the mind of a Mahratta. It is as necessary to render 
 idioms as words; especially when, as in this case, an 
 idiomatic version would convey an inaccurate or opposite 
 idea to that which was intended by the writer. The word 
 “ young,” when used as a substantive, only denotes in Eng- 
 lish, “the offspring of animals collectively ;” and as the word 
 “ shecp,” is both singular and plural, the most obvious, if 
 not the only idea which would present itself to the mind of 
 an Englishman, in reading the above version, would be that 
 of “the young ones of the flock of God.” But nothing is 
 
 I 
 
58 A DEFENCE OF THE 
 
 further from the true sense of the Mahratta; which would 
 be fairly rendered into English by “ Behold the young 
 sheep of God,” or even, as in the authorized version, “‘ The 
 
 lamb of God,” which is precisely what a Mahratta would — 
 
 understand by the phrase. Similar periphrases are by no 
 means uncommon in the oriental languages, and are fre- 
 quently and preferably employed even though those lan- 
 guages may possess single words to express the same idea. 
 Thus, in Persian, the periphrasis as? Gio or Ulne Ast, 
 and in Hindoostanee, as? 4», which are perfectly equi- 
 
 valent to the Mahratta 4€41 FAT, are frequently em- 
 
 ployed to designate a lamb; though the former of these — 
 languages has the single word s,, as well as the Arabic — 
 Use ys, &c. and the latter language SS, sp, &c. to | 
 
 express the same object. Thus also in Hebrew, the phrase 
 
 “pz 72 (Gen. xviii. 7, 8.) is used for bay or 15 @ calf, and — 
 
 Sz 72 (Jer. xxxi. 12.) for ap a lamb; and even in Chinese 
 
 the phrases 3 == yang kaou, and -F == yang tsze, are em- — 
 ployed for a lamb, which is also designated simply by — 
 
 kaou; while in Malayan, the only expression, 1 believe, 
 
 for a lamb is <0 (3! anak domba, or  sp3 3\ anak 
 biri, precisely the same as the periphrasis employed by the 
 
 Mahratta translator. But what should we think of a scho- — 
 
 lar who should render these expressions literally and idio- 
 matically by ‘‘ the young of the sheep,” and then accuse 
 the author of ignorance of the language in which he wrote, 
 merely because he preferred employing this periphrasis in- 
 
 stead of the more simple term? I conceive he would be — 
 
 justly considered as exhibiting “a deplorable ignorance of 
 the very first principles of philology, particularly as appli- 
 cable to the languages of Asia;” if not as being under the 
 influence of the basest malevolence. To whatever motive 
 we should ascribe the above translation of the Mahratta, by 
 the author of the critique, he doubtless intended to render 
 it as ridiculous as possible to the English reader, by cloth- 
 
SERAMPORE MAHRATTA VERSION. 59 
 
 ing it in a dress which, however appropriate in Mahratta, 
 was preposterous in English. Disrobed of this foreign at- 
 tire, and arrayed in a proper garb, it now appears both 
 elegant and dignified. 
 
 Having, then, satisfactorily shewn, that “ this peri- 
 phrasis is perfectly” defensible, even though there were a 
 dozen imstead of one “ word in Marat’ha for ‘a lamb,’” as 
 the translator has merely rendered according to the idiom 
 of that and other oriental languages; [ shall only observe, 
 
 with regard to 41, in Persian as?, “not being a Maratha 
 
 word,” that it is quite as good as a great portion of words 
 in that language; such as, A@3, atl, anviety; ARG, 
 lic, sense ; Sais, el, @ sleeve; ATS, OFT, reputa- 
 
 tion; ATATE, obi, peopled ; SH4T, ssc, great, noble, 
 and a thousand others. But, even had the original been 
 rendered in pure Mahratta, and in strict accordance with 
 the Greek and English idioms, it would not have given our 
 opponent entire satisfaction, as appears from the following 
 observations : 
 
 “ But this last mstance requires particular remark, because the greatest 
 difficulty of translation consists m rendering with accuracy and propriety 
 figurative modes of speech, and such as amongst one people may possess 
 aptness and disnity, and yet amongst another people would be imsignifi- 
 cant and undignified. To Christians, the expression, ‘ the lamb of God, 
 which taketh away the sin of the world,’ conveys the highest ideas of the 
 innocence, purity, and redeeming power of the Saviour. But the figure 
 loses all its beauty in such a periphrasis as the above; and as the Hindus 
 attach no such notions to a lamb, which is not even one of the animals 
 formerly employed in their propitiatory sacrifices, they cannot comprehend 
 the similitude intended. In such a case, in what manner ought a trans- 
 lator to proceed? This is a question of the utmost consequence, and yet 
 it is evident that the missionaries at Serampore have never proposed it to 
 themselves. But previous to commencing their versions, ought they not 
 to have deeply considered the principles by which these versions ought to 
 be regulated, and by which alone they could have been rendered intellizible 
 to the natives ?” 
 
60 A DEFENCE OF THE 
 
 The reader will now be fully prepared to acquiesce in 
 the opinion, that ‘‘ modes of speech” which “amongst one 
 people may possess aptness and dignity,’ may “ yet amongst 
 another people be insignificant and undignified ;” and he 
 will also perceive, that though “the figure loses all its beauty 
 in such a periphrasis as the above” in English, it may be 
 rendered “ with accuracy and propriety,’ and in strict ac- 
 cordance with the idiom of the language in Mahratta. But 
 what are we to understand by this tirade? If it mean any 
 thing, I imagine it must be this—that a translator is not 
 bound to adhere to the strict and literal terms of his author, 
 if those terms should happen not'to be familiar to his reader, 
 but should translate them equivalently, and substitute one ob- 
 ject for another. But how fraught with absurdities, and how 
 dangerous in its consequences, as well as opposed to every 
 correct canon of translation, such a mode of procedure would 
 prove, it is scarcely necessary to point out. In the present 
 case, instead of a /amb, we should have in one place a calf, 
 in another a horse, in a third a pig, and so on, till it included 
 all the varieties of the animal creation, that are now, or ever 
 were, offered in sacrifice, or to which the ideas of “inno- 
 cence and purity” were attached, by the various nations 
 under heaven; while, if this mode were generally adopted, — 
 the Sacred Writings, in conformity with the sapient prin- 
 ciples of the Abbe Dubois, would assume as many forms as 
 there are different races of men on the face of the earth. 
 And, after all, what is the cogent reason assigned for such 
 an awful desecration of the Holy Scriptures? Because, for- 
 sooth, that ‘‘as the Hindus attach no such notions to a lamb, 
 which is not even one of the animals formerly employed in 
 their propitiatory sacrifices, they cannot comprehend the 
 similitude intended.” But, is it not self-evident, that, as 
 the want of comprehension does not arise from any obseu- 
 rity of the terms employed, but from the erroneous or de- 
 fective notions entertained by the Hindu reader, that the 
 
SERAMPORE MAHRATTA VERSION. 61 
 
 application of a remedy forms no part of the duty of a 
 translator, but is rather that of the commentator or preacher? 
 Supply a Mahratta with the requisite information, and he 
 will have no more difficulty in comprehending “the simili- 
 tude intended” than an Englishman. Nay, that information 
 is already afforded by the translation of the whole of the 
 inspired Volume into his native dialect. When he there 
 reads in his own tongue, that in the ordinance of the pass- 
 over the Israelites were thus commanded: “ Your lamb 
 shall be without blemish, a male of the first year,” &c. (Exod. 
 
 xii. 5.) FOTST Dal aDSTa Dar Vw Uda yau Ging 
 RVG sir Tea @i Wa, and compares it with the de- 
 claration of the Apostle Peter, (1 Epist. i. 19.) that “we are 
 redeemed with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb 
 
 without blemish and without spot ;” tea Uae AT 
 
 ArT Wea atsTst wot Geer wash Nas waa ay 
 Ba, every difficulty will vanish, and the figure will appear 
 
 in all its native beauty. “To” Mahratta “ Christians, the 
 expression, ‘the lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of 
 the world,’” will convey the same “ ideas of the innocence, 
 purity, and redeeming power of the Saviour,” as it does to 
 English Christians ; while pagan Englishmen, though they 
 may have some faint idea of “the innocence and purity,” 
 are as insensible to “the redeeming power” intended to 
 be conveyed by the similitude, as the most ignorant pa- 
 gan Mahratias. Wappily, for the integrity and purity of 
 the Sacred Volume, as well as for the interests of pure reli- 
 gion, the Serampore translators, instead of adopting a rule 
 which is alike unnecessary and pernicious, have rather ad- 
 hered, in a matter of such momentous import, to the rule 
 which the author of the critique thus details only to carp at: 
 
 “One rule alone appears to have been prescribed or adopted for all 
 such versions, which is, that they shall be literally exact, neither adding to, 
 nor omitting, a single word, that is contained in the Bible. But if this be 
 the case, it shews a deplorable ignorance of the very first principles of phi- 
 
62 A DEFENCE OF THE 
 
 lology, particularly as applicable to the languages of Asia. To confine 
 myself, however, to Marat’ha, which may, at the same time be considered 
 as a sufficient example of the other vernacular dialects of India, there is 
 not in this language a subjunctive or potential mood, or a passive voice, 
 and scarcely a word denoting the operations of the mind. In translating, 
 therefore, from the copious language of the Greeks, or the ruder language 
 of the Hebrews, innumerable words and phrases must occur which have 
 no corresponding term in Marat’ha, but without which the peculiar tenets 
 and doctrines of the Christian religion cannot be explained. . But amplifi- 
 cation and comments are forbidden, and consequently the only resource 
 that remains is, to use the words that actually exist in the Marat’ha lan- 
 guage, in a sense which is not given to them by the Marat’has themselves. 
 To this mode, which must in some cases be unavoidable, there would not 
 perhaps be any great objection, did oral instruction always accompany the 
 translation. But when such a translation is circulated without explanation 
 or commentary of any kind, it must be obvious that words so changed from 
 their original and current meaning, must either be unintelligible, or GHUeTS 
 stood in a sense not intended.” 
 
 Literal exactness is the highest praise which can be be- 
 stowed on a translator; and would be particularly valuable 
 as being the testimony of an enemy, did not the gross ig- 
 norance which he has betrayed, and the errors which occur 
 in this paragraph, some of which haye already been ex- 
 posed, render his judgment of little or no value. But, while 
 the idiomatic omission of the substantive verb in the first 
 verse, the periphrasis for “a lamb,” &c. shew that the Mah- 
 ratta translator has not servilely rendered verbum ad verbum, 
 “neither adding to, nor omitting a single word,” as falsely 
 stated by our opponent; they place the reader in a situa- 
 tion to determine satisfactorily, independently of his testi- 
 mony, that the translator has rendered the original faithfully, 
 and been “literally exact.” Disregarding the number of 
 the words in the original, and the order of their arrange- 
 ment, he has faithfully transfused the pure word of God 
 into the Mahratta language, in strict accordance with its 
 idiom and the collocation of its words, but wholly divested 
 of every meretricious ornament. To have had recourse to 
 “amplification and comments,” as suggested by the author 
 
| 
 
 > SERAMPORE MAHRATTA VERSION, 63 
 
 of the critique, would have been, not only contrary to the 
 most correct canons of translation, and the practice of the 
 best translators, but would have been a substitution of the 
 words of men for the words of God, or, at least, an addition 
 to them, contrary to the divine injunction, ‘ Add not to his 
 words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.” 
 Which of these modes “shews a deplorable ignorance of the 
 very first principles of philology, particularly as applicable 
 to” versions of the Scriptures, I shall leave the reader to 
 
 » determine. 
 
 From what has been previously stated, it will be obvious 
 that the difficulties of translating into the “ vernacular dia- 
 lects of India” have been greatly magnified by our oppo- 
 nent ; some of whose positions are substantially erroneous, 
 and others decidedly false. The Mahratta language being 
 composed of pure Mahratta, Hindee, Arabic, Persian, and 
 Sanscrit, it is clear that what he affirms of the Mahratta ge- 
 nerally, namely, that it has “scarcely a word denoting the 
 operations of the mind,” is only predicable of the pure Mah- 
 ratta, or the agricultural dialect; and the assertion, that 
 “there is not in this language a subjunctive or potential 
 mood, or a passive voice,” is, as we have already seen, 
 wholly untrue, and opposed to what he himself has previ- 
 ously stated. “In translating, therefore, from the copious 
 language of the Greeks, or the ruder language of the He- 
 brews,” there cannot occur “innumerable words and phrases,” 
 ““ which have no correspondent terms in Mahratta;” as the 
 structure of the language is such as to admit of modes of 
 construction perfectly correspondent to those of the original, 
 while its original paucity of terms is abundantly compen- 
 sated by the rich stores which can be drawn from these 
 
 _ other languages, and especially from the Sanscrit. 
 
 The design of our opponent, in thus heightening and 
 misrepresenting the facts of the case, was obviously to in- 
 duce a suspicion of the inaccuracy of the Mahratta version ; 
 
 and also that he might have an opportunity of introducing 
 
64 A DEFENCE OF THE 
 
 with propriety “the only resource that remains’—“ to use 
 the words that actually exist in the Maratha language, in a 
 sense which is not given to them by the Marat’has them- 
 selves.” Even admitting the necessity for the adoption of 
 this mode to its fullest extent, I conceive the objections he 
 has raised against it are unfounded, and perfectly nugatory. 
 As he rightly observes, it ‘‘ must in some cases be unavoid- 
 able ;” as it is impossible to find terms already in use among” 
 a people to whom true religion is unknown, expressive of 
 “the peculiar tenets and doctrines of the Christian reli- 
 gion;” and it is a mode which consequently has been | 
 had recourse to by every first translator of the Scriptures, 
 and also by the Apostles themselves, though writing in 
 “the copious language of the Greeks.” Numerous exam- 
 ples might be adduced to substantiate this statement, were 
 it needful; but the following, on the various senses attached 
 to the word ciapé, flesh, will suffice. I the rather choose this 
 illustration, because it is one of the terms upon which our 
 opponent has favoured us with his animadversions; and 
 I present it entire in the language of Dr. Campbell : 
 
 “« Beside the original meaning of the word, universally admitted, it de- 
 notes sometimes the whole body considered as animated, as in Mat, 
 xxvi. 41. ‘ The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak.’ This indeed. may 
 be thought to be of all the deviations from the proper sense, the most 
 defensible on classical and rhetorical principles, being not an unnatural 
 synecdoche of the part for the whole——Secondly, it sometimes means a 
 human being, as Luke iii. 5. ‘ All flesh shall see the salvation of God 3? 
 sometimes, 3dly, a person’s kindred collectively considered, as in Rom. 
 xi. 14. ‘If by any means I may provoke to emulation them which are my 
 flesh ;—sometimes, 4thly, any thing of an external or ceremonial nature, 
 as opposed to that which is internal and moral, as in Gal. iii. 3. ‘ Having 
 begun in the spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh? —sometimes, 
 5thly, the sensitive part of our nature, the seat of appetite, as in 2 Cor, 
 vii. 1. ‘ Let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit,” 
 where there can be no doubt that the pollutions of the flesh must be those 
 of the appetites, being opposed to those of the spirit, or those of the pas- ; 
 sions. 6thly, and lastly, It is employed to denote any principle of vice and 
 moral pravity of whatever kind. Thus among the works of the fles 
 
 : 7. 
 
SERAMPORE MAHRATTA VERSION. 65 
 
 (Gal. v. 19..21) are numbered not only adultery, fornication, uncleanness, 
 lasciviousness, drunkenness, and revellings, which all relate to criminal in- 
 dulgences of appetite, but idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emula- 
 tions, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, envyings, and murder, which are 
 manifestly vices of a different kind, and hold more of the diabolical nature 
 than of the beastly. Now, for any of the six meanings above mentioned, 
 except perhaps, the first, as to which 1 will not be positive, we may defy 
 these critics to produce classical authority. Yet no man accustomed to 
 the oriental idiom, and the style of the sacred writers, can mistake the 
 sense in any of the passages quoted.” 
 
 Though some of these senses may justly be referred to 
 the prevalence of the Hebrew idiom, yet the fourth, fifth, 
 and sixth especially, are properly referable only to the pecu- 
 liar theological notions inculcated in the Scriptures. The 
 reader may also compare dpapria, sim, in the sense of a sin- 
 offering, Heb. ix. 28; avayevvaw, to reproduce, for to be be- 
 gotten again, | Pet. i. 3,235 ior, faith, belief, for the doc- 
 trines of the Gospel, Ac. vi. 7; xiv.22. Ga. iii. 23, &e. &c. 
 But it does not, as we have seen, necessarily follow, when 
 the original, or “such a translation is circulated without 
 explanation or commentary of any kind,” “that words so 
 changed from their original and current meaning, must 
 either be unintelligible, or understood in a sense not in- 
 tended :” for in every case, the context and the usus loquendi 
 of the writer will be found amply sufficient to prevent every 
 misapprehension. Our opponent, however, concedes, that 
 to this mode “ there would not perhaps be any great objec- 
 tion, did oral instruction always accompany the translation.” 
 ‘Now, as this is the proper duty of the preacher and the 
 missionary, whose instruction may in most cases be fairly 
 presumed to accompany it, every objection disappears. The 
 conclusion, therefore, which he thus deduces from these pre- 
 mises is as irrelevant, as the example which he produces to 
 Support it is unsound : 
 
 “« The defects, therefore, of a translation of the Bible, will not appear so 
 much in such parts of it as are merely narrative; because, as in them the 
 K 
 
66 A DEFENCE OF THE 
 
 words in general retain their proper signification, faults of grammar and } 
 
 idiom may not completely obscure or misrepresent the sense of the ori- 
 ginal. But in all passages relating to the tenets and doctrines of Chris- 
 tianity, the inadequacy, to use no harsher term, of the Mahratta version, 
 becomes too glaring. Take, for instance, the 3d, 4th, 5th, 6th, and 7th 
 verses of the first chapter of St. Paul’s Epistle to the Ephesians, which are 
 thus rendered: ‘ For our being pure, and with love before them blameless, 
 before making the foundation of the world, having chosen us in it, in that 
 manner for the purpose of heaven through Christ, having given all spiritual 
 blessing, they have made us blessed, and by their favour have made us 
 taken, in the beloved, for the praise of the glory of their grace, and to 
 obtain adoption, that which according to the wish of their mind, through 
 Jesus Christ, they formerly made determined to us. For that happy be the 
 God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. In his love, through the blood 
 of them, we, by the great riches of their grace, obtain deliverance from sin 
 
 for the purpose of beatitude.’ To make sense of this strange assemblage 
 
 of words is not my business. I have rendered them faithfully.” 
 
 The reader, I presume, will already have been thoroughly 
 convinced, that ‘faults of grammar and idiom” are not 
 
 chargeable to the Mahratta translator; and consequently, — 
 
 that he is equally free from “ obscuring or misrepresenting 
 
 the sense of the original.” The charge of obscuration and ~ 
 
 misrepresentation, he will have seen, lies wholly at the door 
 of the author of the critique; and he will therefore feel no 
 surprise at the above “ strange assemblage of words,” as 
 
 our opponent justly denominates them. To him alone, — 
 
 however, they exclusively belong ; and if it were not his “ bu- 
 
 siness to make sense” of them, it certainly was not his busi- 
 ness to make nonsense of the original Mahratta. That the 
 translator of that version is clear from mistranslating so 
 absurdly, will, I imagine, be evident from the following 
 literal version : 
 
 We pure and with-love him before blameless for-being, 
 of-the-world the-foundation making before of-us him in 
 
 Wo wat W@W yA ein du Ges get 
 
 choice having-made, that for-purpose heavenly in-things Christ _ through 
 
SERAMPORE MAHRATTA VERSION. 67 
 
 wus waNin uatis Sa We anictodhe 
 
 all spivitual blessings having-bestowed, us  possessed-of-blessings 
 ae AW oS al a Daas DTT aoe. 
 he made hath, and which grace by us 
 
 wa oA wera ay DS wat uw was 
 the-beloved in-person accepted made hath, ofhim that of-grace 
 of-the-glory the-praise for, we adoption obtaining therefore 
 ae my wT Ua WN worm Sages 
 who of-himself of-the-mind the-pleasure according-to us Jesus-Christ 
 mr wen wet wl aah ay as awa 
 through _—himself to before appointed made hath: He our 
 TH Wea Ce at we fT ow where 
 Reach of-Jesus-Christ the-God and _ father blessed-be: which abeed 
 Wis TAA IetUHs TS = aT RUT 
 
 his blood through, we his sie through-the-great-riches 
 
 wa wu uw aa wrod 
 
 freedom, that-is, sin. deliverance obtain. 
 
 That is, according to the English idiom and collocation of 
 words: “Having made choice of us in him before the 
 laying of the foundation of the world, that we should be 
 pure and blameless before him with love; for that purpose 
 having bestowed all spiritual blessings in heavenly things 
 through Christ, he hath made us possessed of blessings, and 
 by this grace hath made us accepted in the beloved person, 
 for the praise of the glory of that grace of him, who hath 
 before appointed us that we should obtain adoption to him- 
 self, according to the pleasure of his own mind through Jesus 
 Christ :—blessed be he the God and Father of our Lord Jesus 
 Christ! in which beloved we obtain freedom, that is, de- 
 liverance from sin, through his blood, by the great riches of 
 his grace.” 
 
 This is a true representation of the Mahratta text; from 
 which the reader may judge whether I have been more 
 successful in “making sense” of it than our opponent, and 
 whether “ the inadequacy of the Marat’ha version,” “in all 
 
68 A DEFENCE OF THE 
 
 passages relating to the tenets and doctrines of Christia- 
 nity,” or that of the writer of the critique, is the more 
 “olaring.” If my version be correct, then he cannot “ have 
 rendered them faithfully,” far less, as he states in a note, 
 “more than faithfully,” having “ translated several words 
 in the sense intended, though they bear no such significa- 
 tion in Marat’ha.” That it is correct, I think may fairly be 
 inferred from its furnishing’ a good sense, though given ver- 
 bally, while that of our critic makes absolute nonsense ; 
 especially when coupled with the gross errors into which 
 he has fallen, not only in previous attempts at translation, 
 but even in this paragraph. Indeed it would perhaps be 
 difficult to find a parallel to the following, which I merely 
 give as a sample, not as the whole: namely, mistaking the 
 
 adjective zmitw, “heavenly,” for the substantive, wii, 
 ‘heaven ;” and the rendering of diqut “ in things,” by “for 
 
 the purpose ;” the translation of @f “he” by “For that,” 
 and of the concrete Wart “in the beloved” in the sense 
 of the abstract sfizm, “ love ;” the rendering of Wray, 
 “freedom,” by “beatitude,” though it is manifestly ex- 
 plained here in the former sense by jira, “ deliverance,” 
 and of ware, “that is to say, id est,” by “for the pur- 
 pose of ”!! We have already animadverted on the use 
 of the honorific plurals, which he here erroneously renders 
 “they,” “them,” “their,” and on “the horrid impiety of 
 the above ;” as well as on “ the non-insertion of a diacritical 
 mark, called anuswar,” which our opponent, directly con- 
 trary to what he had previously affirmed, denominates “ the 
 sign of the Marat’ha plural!” Ohe! jam satis. The reader 
 will therefore not be surprised at the above “strange assem- 
 blage of words ;” but he might well have been surprised 
 if, with all these “ gross blunders,” he had been able “to 
 make sense” of the passage. It is really scarcely bearable, 
 that a man who exhibits such glaring proofs of his “ igno- 
 rance of the first rudiments of this language,” should affirm 
 
SERAMPORE MAHRATTA VERSION. 69 
 
 that the passage is “constructed so ungrammatically and 
 unidiomatically, as to be quite unintelligible to a Marat’ha.” 
 Doubtless it was unintelligible to him; but it will be mani- 
 fest, that its unintelligibility arose not from its “being con- 
 structed ungrammatically and unidiomatically,” but from 
 the darkness of his own mind. That it would “be quite 
 unintelligible to a Marat’ha” is more than he was war- 
 ranted in affirming ; but which, I trust, the reader will now 
 have no difficulty in contradicting. Having thus stripped 
 off the lion’s skin, our opponent’s accusing voice, now re- 
 duced to a few unconnected notes, need occasion no alarm. 
 
 “« But as every Christian must lament that the sacred volume of his reli- 
 gion has been thus laid open to reproach, he will perhaps at the same time 
 be of opinion, that a further public exposure of the gross blunders which 
 swarm in the New Testament is unnecessary. I will, therefore, only add 
 
 a remark or two on a few single words. Grace is translated by TUT, 
 
 HUT, and STATE; but none of these words convey the same meaning 
 as xapte, and certainly not that grace, as defined by Dr. Johnson, ‘ fa- 
 
 vourable influence of God upon the human mind.’ fae signifies 
 merely belief, and not faith, For the latter, the Marat’has, I believe, 
 
 always use the Sanscrit word AG]. Hope is improperly rendered by 
 
 YUU, which in Marat’ha signifies trust, confidence. JF isda 
 
 is not equivalent to povoyerijc, * the only begotten, particularly because 
 
 it does not express the filiation of the Son from the Father. TUATcHT 
 
 and aT T are improper terms for the Holy Ghost, because 
 amongst the Hindus the first signifies the supreme being, or rather the 
 supreme soul, and the latter signifies a pious man. But were I to proceed 
 in these remarks, this letter would become too prolix; and the preceding 
 will perhaps be sufficient to support the observations now made on this 
 version of the New Testament. If not, or if the truth of the above be ques- 
 tioned, I am quite ready to produce still more convincing proofs of this 
 version being deficient in every requisite for conveying to the natives a 
 faithful and intelligible translation of the Scriptures.” 
 
 The argumentum ad passiones, at the commencement of 
 this paragraph, was doubtless well intended by our oppo- 
 
70 A DEFENCE OF THE 
 
 nent; but I fear it will lose its effect upon the “ Christian,” 
 when he remembers that the accuser has failed to produce : 
 any of “ the gross blunders which swarm in the (Mahratta) 
 New Testament.” He “must lament,” not “thatthe sacred — 
 volume of his religion has been thus laid open to reproach” 
 by this version ; but that a Christian and a clergyman should ' 
 have so far forgotten the precepts of his religion as “to 
 bear false witness against his neighbour.” But I proceed to 
 demonstrate, that our opponent has not been more successful 
 with “ single words,” than with sentences; and that his ~ 
 accusations are here as unfounded as im the preceding 
 specimens. 
 
 The reader will naturally suppose from the statement of H 
 our critic, that the word x¢p, when denoting the grace of 
 
 God, is indiscriminately rendered by JU, HUT, xk AATAG; 
 
 and will learn with surprise that such is by no means the 
 
 fact. The word HUT which Wilson defines “tenderness, 
 compassionateness,” and Vans Kennedy, “ favour, kindness,’ — 
 is only used for x4pc,in John i. 14, 17, to express that be- 
 nignity and kindness which shone so conspicuously in our 
 Lord’s character and mission, and which so beautifully cha-— 
 
 racterizes the Gospel dispensation. The word JT, also, i 
 
 occurs but three times for x¢e, (John i. 16. Col. iii. 16. 
 iv. 6.); in all of which its sense of “a quality, particularly 
 a virtuous quality,” as explained by Vans Kennedy, is sin- 
 gularly appropriate. Other words are also employed to ex- 
 
 press the various senses of x4prc; as, Aral, will, Acts xxiv. 
 27; xxv. 9, English Version, “ pleasure ;” tafa, praise, 
 
 Rom. vi. 17; © Atel, given things, 1 Cor. xvi. 3, English 
 Version, “liberality,” &c. But whenever xépe denotes the 
 grace or favour of God exercised towards the human race, 
 
 the word ATAG is uniformly employed: see Luke i. 30; 11. 
 40. Acts, vii. 10, 45; xi. 23; xi. 43; xiv. 3, 263 xv 
 
SERAMPORE MAHRATTA VERSION. 71 
 
 20; xviii. 27; xx. 24,32; xxv. 3. Rom. i. 6,7; i. 24; 
 eee ta Ve de be, D0, 21: viel, 14.155 x1.5, 6¢-xHsd, 
 6, xv. 15; xvi. 20. 1 Cor. 1.3; iii. 3, 10, &c. &c. Now, as. 
 AAG is defined by Wilson, “favour, conferring benefits, 
 by promoting good, and preventing ill,” the reader will, I 
 imagine, be of opinion, that a better word could not have 
 been employed ; and that it clearly “ conveys the same mean- 
 ing as xapre, if not alsoof “that grace, as defined by Dr. John- 
 son, ‘favourable influence of God upon the human mind; ” 
 which, by the bye, is more thetheological than the scriptural 
 sense of that word. 
 
 With respect to the objection to Taare, as signifying 
 “merely belief, and not faith,” it might be sufficient to ob- 
 serve, that as “to believe” is “ to exercise faith,” so “ faith” 
 is ‘“* belief” in God, or the revealed truths of religion. Per- 
 haps, however, our opponent will hereafter point out the 
 distinction; and inform us why “the Marat’has always use 
 
 the Sanscrit word A5T,” (as he modestly expresses his be- 
 lief,) which signifies “faith, belief,” as Wilson explains it, in 
 
 preference to the Sanscrit feria, which the same writer 
 defines “trust, faith, confidence,” and which is generally 
 employed by the Mahratta translator for rior. 
 
 The word ACAUT, it is true, is defined by Vans Ken- 
 nedy, “trust, confidence, belief,” but Dr. Carey explains it 
 by “ hope ;” and I have yet to learn why his definition, and 
 the usage of the Mahratta version, should not be deemed of 
 equal, if not of superior authority, to that of any other writer 
 on the Mahratta language; especially, when the apparent 
 
 derivation of the word from AX, full, and TM or TATL, 
 a wish,— a full wish,” so manifestly supports the sense of 
 
 hope. 
 Our opponent next objects, that «4 TSA is not equi- 
 
 valent to povoyeric, ‘the only begotten,’ particularly because 
 
' 
 Ve A DEFENCE OF THE ; 
 
 it does not express the filiation of the Son from the Father.” 
 
 This is certainly true, as the word A fSdlais merely equi- 
 valent to our word only; but in what part of the Mahratta 
 
 Testament did our learned critic find it used alone to express 
 ovoyevge? Certainly in none that I can discover. The word — 
 povoyeriye OCCUrS Nine times in the Greek New Testament: in” 
 four of these passages it occurs in a purely natural sense, 
 and in the remaining five it is employed to designate the - 
 Son of God. In the former sense, it is thus variously oN 
 
 dered: Luke vii. 12, [heT GA « only son ;” Luke ix. 38, 
 
 Sq UA “ one (or only) son;” with @vydrnp, Luke viii. 42, 
 ~ ~ 
 
 Tq AAT “one daughter ;” Heb. xi. 17, TAA “one 
 
 son:” but in the latter sense, a just distinction is made, and : 
 itis rendered either by afer, “only produced,” 
 from AtSaly « only,” and SCUq, “ produced,” (John 
 i. 14); or by afsaigate, “only begotten,” from 
 
 afeary, and SII, “begotten, engendered, born,” John 
 i. 18; ui. 16,18. 1John iv. 9. These phrases, then, are 
 perfectly “ equivalent to povoyenje, ‘ the only begotten,’” and 
 fully “express the filiation of the Son from the Father.” It 
 would therefore appear that our learned opponent overlooked 
 the latter half of the phrase, and heedlessly taking the single 
 word “ only,” accused the Mahratta translator of an imade- 
 quate rendering ! ! 
 
 Equally extraordinary is the last charge which is brought 
 forward by. our opponent, respecting the words employed 
 to designate the Holy Ghost. Notwithstanding all the er- 
 rors and contradictions which have already passed before 
 us, the reader will scarcely conceive it credible, that the 
 
 first word TCHTHT, paramatma, which our critic objects 
 to as an “improper term for the Holy Ghost, because 
 amongst the Hindus” it “signifies the sapreme beimg, or 
 rather the sewpreme soul,” is the identical word which he 
 
SERAMPORE MAHRATTA VERSION. 73 
 
 recommends, in a subjoined paper, to be employed for that 
 purpose! Such, however, is the fact, as will be perfectly 
 manifest from the following extract : 
 
 “ Holy Spirtt.—i. The rendering of this term is peculiarly difficult, 
 from the preposterous speculations of the Hindoos relative to matter and 
 spirit. The notion of the anima mundi, or universally expanded spirit, 
 meets us at every turn. This they term ‘the sublime spirit’ or 
 , [paramatma,] of which every human intellectual soul is an 
 
 individualized portion subjected to temporary interclusion within the bonds 
 of a material frame, whether this latter be considered real or illusory. 
 
 2. The soul of a man, therefore, is only so long and to such degree con- 
 sidered as a distinct existence as it is held in union with the body, and the 
 object and aim of all abstract devotion is to secure the breaking of the 
 illusion of materiality or the dissolution of the connexion with a corporeal 
 frame, and the loss of individual existence by absorption into the universal 
 soul or Supreme Deity. 
 
 3. The term employed by most or all Christian missionaries hitherto is 
 
 Dharmatma (5M), which, with its perfect synonym Te 
 (Punyatm4), is objectionable on several grounds. 
 
 a. Its uniform application by Hindoos is to denote a man, or mate- 
 rialized individual, who has acquired religious merit—the merit of works 
 —and, therefore, in common usage, signifies a good man, a pious and 
 religious person, attentive to all sacred and social duties, and become 
 possessed of a stock of meritorious virtue. 
 
 < : 
 6. Dharma (437) is acquired by works or acts of duty, &c. and is 
 distinct from, and inferior to, Diy (dnyan) or mental abstraction, and 
 TA (tapas), or ascetic mortification, both of which are intended to 
 = . 
 prevent future transmigration by securing absorption-into the great spirit. 
 
 (See the proofs in Ward’s Introd. p. 33.) A dharmatma (ASH) 
 is therefore inferior to a ADP. or abstract devotee, and does not 
 obtain absorption. 
 
 c. Consequently this word is altogether inadmissible in application to 
 express the notion of the Supreme Spirit as distinct from man and matter, 
 and an essential modification of the one Deity. 
 
 4. On the other hand Aan [paramatma,] is applied only to the 
 deity in the notion of his spirituality. It is avowedly defective if applied as 
 a translatzon of the term ‘ Holy Spirit’ (in the Christian notion -of the 
 words), inasmuch as it contains no distinct specification of holiness, an 
 abstraction not easy to enunciate in this language, from the indistinctness 
 
 L 
 
and erroneousness of the Hindoo doctrines of virtue and vice, of moral 
 
 74 A DEFENCE OF THE 
 good and evil. aA belongs only to a material condition and is the 
 attribute of man, &c., not of the great God, or am (Brahma), who has 
 
 no duty (which is the exact notion of this word). Every other word ex- 
 pressive of moral excellence in combination with Sw (or spirit) is 
 
 predicable only of man; so that no alternative seems to remain but to do 
 the best we can in employing the term }AUTBH [paramatma] as ap-— 
 plicable only to predicate the Supreme Deity in his spiritual essence. At 
 all events, though we should prefer to use a word expressive of moral qua- } 
 
 lity rather than >fA{xq (sublime), still Dharma or Punya (MFM or re?) ) 
 could not be employed, as they denote only merit, the result of acts of 
 virtue or duty. YS would be decidedly a better term, forming the 
 compound A YTG, though even that, like every similar composition, 
 will always be at least ambiguous, and in the first understanding convey 
 the notion of an excellent or good man.” 
 
 According to our opponent’s own shewing, therefore, the 
 Mahratta translator was perfectly correct in employing the 
 
 term UCATAT paramatma, to designate the Holy Spirit. Of 
 his honesty and consistency in disapproving and condemning 
 the use of a term by that translator, which he himself after-— 
 wards approves of and recommends, I shall say nothing, but ~ 
 leave it to the judgment of the reader; as well as the inge- 
 nuousness with which he proposes the term, after rejecting 
 others, as if it were the result of his own cogitations, and 
 never before employed by any translator or missionary! 
 Truth is simple and consistent with itself; error and false- 
 hood are necessarily involved and contradictory. 
 
 With respect to the other term, ATT, dharmatma, 
 employed in the Mahratta version, and which he objects to 
 as signifying “a pious man,” the above extract also furnishes 
 the very best defence of its use. Even the term 
 which our opponent would apparently prefer, he declares, 
 “like every similar composition, will always be at least am- 
 biguous, and in the fist understanding convey the notion of 
 an excellent or good man.” Now, as “the term employed 
 
SERAMPORE MAHRATTA VERSION. 75 
 
 by most or all Christian missionaries hitherto is dharmatma,” 
 we may fairly presume, that “the fst understanding” of 
 that term by the natives has been corrected by the exposi- 
 tion of the missionaries, and by its use in the various trans- 
 lations already effected; an1.that they would now under- 
 stand it in precisely the sense intended to be conveyed— 
 that of “the Holy Ghost,” as it is, in fact, defined in the 
 Mahratta dictionary of Dr. Carey. Whatever, then, may be 
 the etymology of the words, or their primary signification, if 
 they have the sanction of usage, and be correctly under- 
 stood by the native readers, there is sufficient reason af 
 forded for their retention; and the accuracy of the version 
 in which they occur remains unimpeached. Nothing ad- 
 vanced by our opponent has had the slightest tendency to 
 shew the contrary; but, in fact to establish the truth of 
 this very position. 
 
 Having then not only “questioned,” but disproved “ the 
 truth of the above” statements of our opponent, he will, per- 
 haps, feel the necessity, as well as be “ quite ready, to pro- 
 duce still more convincing proofs of this version being defi- 
 cient in every requisite for conveying to the natives a faith- 
 ful and intelligible translation of the Scriptures.” I beg, 
 therefore, even for his own sake, that what he produces may 
 be “proofs,” and not assertions : the accusation is grave, and 
 should be well supported with the most solid evidence. 
 Let the “ extensive critique” which he is “ preparing” on the 
 Serampore versions be conducted in this manner, and he 
 will deserve the thanks of the Christian world; and I am 
 quite sure will receive those of Dr. Carey and his learned 
 colleagues: but if he is not prepared to furnish something 
 more convincing than his mere assertions, he may be assured 
 that he but exposes himself to the lash of criticism, and the 
 laugh of scorn. Already has he fallen from the proud height 
 to which he had elevated himself, and presents but a sem- 
 blance of fallen greatness. In order to reinstate himself in 
 his former station, to which even his most sanguine friends 
 
76 A DEFENCE OF: THE 
 
 . 
 will now suspect he was not entitled, let him furnish a new ; 
 and superior version of any eight or ten verses of the Scrip- : 
 tures into Mahratta. Let, however, this be honourably per- 4 
 formed without a reference to the versions of the Serampore, ; 
 or the American Missionaries ; and then will “ honour be 
 given to whom honour is due, and praise to whom praise is . 
 due.” Nothing short of this will ever sufhice to redeem his — 
 character. - 
 Here I cannot pass by without animadversion the con- Fi 
 cluding paragraph of the critique, which is marked by the . 
 basest calumny, as well.as by all the arrogance which ig- 
 norance never fails to inspire. . 
 
 “‘ Before concluding, I cannot refrain from remarking, without intend- — 
 ing the slightest disrespect to the missionaries at Serampore, that their zeal _ 
 has neither been tempered nor guided by knowledge; and that their opi- 
 nions respecting the proper manner of making translations proceed from — 
 an imperfect education. For had they studied the first principles of philo- — 
 logy, and acquired a conversancy with two or more languages, or even 
 with their own mother-tongue, and any Indian dialect, they must have 
 observed that the mere translating from one language into another, word — 
 for word, without considering carefully the ideas actually denoted by each 
 term used, and without paying attention to grammar and idiom, could 
 never possibly produce a faithful and intelligible translation,” &c. &c. 
 
 “‘ An imperfect education!” had “ studied the first prin- 
 ciples of philology, and acquired a conversancy with two or 
 more languages, or even with their own mother-tongue, and 
 any Indian dialect!” And this is spoken of the venerable 
 Dr. Carey! A man, whose stupendous learning is the theme 
 of admiration and praise from the shores of the Ganges 
 to the banks of the Thames! A man, who is denominated 
 by a writer well known to the accuser, but otherwise per-_ 
 fectly inimical to the doctor, a “ respectable author” of 
 “really extensive acquirements and acknowledged talents.” 
 He is a man indeed, whose extraordinary acquirements are 
 perhaps only surpassed by the benignity of his heart, and 
 his devotedness to the dissemination of pure religion ; whose 
 
SERAMPORE MAHRATTA VERSION. 77 
 
 ample revenue as professor, instead of being employed for 
 the aggrandizement of himself and family, is solely devoted 
 to the advancement of the objects of the mission! and it is 
 against such a man, venerated and beloved by all who know 
 him, that these reproaches are cast! Pudet, pudet! hac op- 
 probria vobis,—non nobis ! And by whom are they cast? By 
 a being of yesterday—a mere sciolist; who has betrayed 
 the grossest ignorance of the language he pretends to cri- 
 ticize, and violated every principle of translation, and every 
 rule of “grammar and idiom.” Whatever may have been 
 the advantages of his “education,” or his “ conversancy” 
 with his ‘‘ mother tongue,” he has exhibited his utter igno- 
 rance of this “ Indian dialect,” and his utter incompetency 
 for the task he has undertaken. To use, then, the language 
 of the same writer, reproach from such a man is “an extreme 
 injustice, quite unworthy of an aspirant to literary excel- 
 lence.” It must necessarily, however, recoil upon his own 
 head; and his very reproaches will be considered as praise. 
 Every attempt to injure the literary, or moral character of 
 the venerable Apostle of India, must prove as abortive as 
 the efforts of an emmet to overturn a mountain, or those of 
 a viper to consume a file. 
 
 Having thus fairly and fully examined every charge ad- 
 vanced by the writer of the critique against the Mahratta 
 version, the reader will now be convinced, that they have 
 been founded in ignorance and error, if not, in some cases, 
 in wilful and deliberate misrepresentation. It has clearly 
 appeared, that his reasoning is illogical, his statements false, 
 and his re-translations decidedly erroneous ; while the whole 
 has been mixed up with the grossest inconsistencies, and 
 the most palpable contradictions. Mistaking assumptions 
 for arguments, and assertions for proofs, he threw into the 
 scale the weight of his “ mame” and “ reputation,” and per- 
 suaded himself that his readers would concur in his con- 
 demnation of the Serampore Missionaries. They have, 
 
78 A DEFENCE, &c. 
 
 however, proved light as gossamer before the breeze. Truth 
 like the morning sun, has rolled away the foul mists of error, 
 and discovered to our view the river of the water of life, 
 full, deep, and clear, flowing in the pure channel of the 
 Mahratta. Human passions and prejudices have not dis- 
 coloured its waters, nor imparted a deleterious quality to its 
 fertilizing stream ; and we may hence expect that in due sez 
 son it will cause “ the wilderness, and the solitary place to 
 be glad, and the desert to rejoice and blossom as the rose.” 
 
 FINIS. 
 
 London: Bagster and Thoms, Printers, 14, Bartholomew Close. ~ 
 
BY THE SAME AUTHOR. — 
 
 In the Press, 
 A TRANSLATION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT INTO HEBREW. 
 
 Preparing for Publication, 
 
 A SERIES OF GRAMMARS; 
 
 consisting of the Hebrew, Chaldaic, Syriac, Ethiopic, Arabic, Persic, 
 Greek, Modern Greek, Latin, Italian, French, Spanish, Portuguese, Ger- 
 man, Danish, Swedish, Russian, Dutch, Welsh, Irish, Anglo-Saxon, and 
 English. 
 
FACTS 
 
 RESPECTING 
 CERTAIN VERSIONS OF HOLY SCRIPTURE 
 
 PUBLISHED BY THE 
 
 British x foreign Bible Society: 
 
 IN REPLY 
 
 + TO 
 AN ARTICLE IN THE SEVENTY-FIRST NUMBER 
 
 OF THE 
 
 QUARTERLY REVIEW. 
 
 BY 
 T. PELL PLATT, Esa. F.A.S. 
 
 LATE FELLOW OF TRINITY COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE. 
 
 = FOURTH EDITION. 
 
 LONDON: 
 
 SOLD BY 
 HATCHARD AND SON; SEELEY AND SONS; COCHRAN AND KEY; 
 AND HOLDSWORTH AND BALL. 
 
 1851. 
 
 R- Watts, Printer, Crown Court, Temple Bar. 
 
ADVERTISEMENT 
 
 TO THE 
 
 FOURTH EDITION. 
 
 Av the request of some Friends officially connected 
 with the British and Foreign Bible Society, I have con- 
 sented to the republication of the following Work; 
 believing that it contains, as it professes to do, a state- 
 ment of facts: though I do not pledge myself afresh to 
 the approbation of every sentiment by which that state- 
 ment may be accompanied. In particular, I feel bound 
 to state— 
 
 1. In reference to the controversy on the subject of 
 the Turkish Testament, alluded to in p. 24, that I believe 
 the objections made by Dr. Henderson against that Tes- 
 tament to have been, in the main, well founded: though 
 the ground for such objections has been removed in the 
 Second Edition of that Testament, and the First Edition 
 of the entire Bible which has now been some time com- 
 pleted. For the nature of the objections to which I allude, 
 and for the fact of their subsequent remoyal, I refer to 
 the Letter from Dr. Henderson on the subject, printed 
 in the Appendix to the 24th Report of the British and 
 Foreign Bible Society.* 
 
 2. That, in reply to the question put by me in p. 36, 
 I must say, that I certainly do now believe that the par- 
 ticular evils there referred to might, by a different and 
 better management, have been avoided. 
 
 November, 1831. TP: PRAEE: 
 
 * The Letter here referred to is piaced at the back of this Advertisement. 
 
FROM THE REV. DR. HENDERSON, 
 TO THE SECRETARIES OF THE BRITISH AND FOREIGN BIBLE SOCIETY. 
 
 “* Mission College, Hoxton, April 26, 1828. 
 
 “In compliance with your request, it gives me pleasure to furnish ~ 
 
 ou with a statement respecting the result of my examination of the — 
 
 sheets of the Turxisn Brsie which have been forwarded to me for this — 
 purpose. ; 
 
 “‘1. The passages to which I objected, as rendered in a manner cal- | 
 culated to teach doctrines opposed to the general tenor of Scripture on — 
 some important and fundamental points of Christian Belief, have been 
 altered so as to bring them into accordance with the same passages in 
 other generally-received versions. 
 
 “* 2. Those renderings which gave a Mohammedan colouring to the 
 version have been exchanged for such as express the meaning of the 
 original in a way that excludes all extraneous or accessory ideas. 
 
 “« 3. The high-sounding and bombastic epithets given by Ali Bey to 
 the Deity, and such combinations as ‘ His Majesty Jesus,’ ‘ Lady 
 Mary,’ ‘ Lord Abraham,’ &c. have all been expunged; and the general 
 style of the version has been reduced to those forms of sober simplicity 
 by which the diction of Sacred Scripture is so strikingly characterized. — 
 
 “4, As far as I have been able to give attention to the work, asa 
 whole, I am happy in being able to state, that I consider its distribution 
 entitled to the cordial and unqualified support of all who are desirous 
 ‘that the Word of the Lord may have free course and be glorified.’ 
 
 “‘ Having drawn the attention of the public to the state of this version, ; 
 as exhibited in the New Testament published at Paris in 1819, I can- 
 not but feel anxious that they should be put in possession of explicit F 
 information relative to the corrections that have been introduced into © 
 it, and thus have the means of satisfying themselves that every ground — 
 of objection from this quarter against the operations of the Society is . 
 now entirely removed. This I conceive would be most effectually done — 
 by the insertion of this communication in the Appendix to your next 
 Report. 
 
 “T earnestly beseech Almighty God to crown with His effectual bless- — 
 ing the labours of an Institution, in the service of which I spent many © 
 happy years of my life, and which I shall rejoice still to aid to the — 
 utmost of my power.” ‘ 
 
 A 
 
FACTS 
 
 ESe. EFc. 
 
 Tuar the British and Foreign Bible Society has under- 
 taken a great work—a work that tends to results of the 
 last importance to mankind at large—cannot be doubted: 
 and that it is a work, the difficulties of which are propor- 
 tionate to its greatness, must also be allowed. That its 
 Managers and Directors, or those who have carried on 
 its work, have in all cases fully overcome the difficulties 
 with which they had thus to struggle, it would be rash 
 indeed to assert. But the attempt was noble in itself; 
 and they went forth to it, not in their own strength, but 
 in the strength of Him who is Almighty ;—-and hence, 
 doubtless, it is, that their success has been, in many 
 respects at least, so astonishingly great. A Committee 
 is formed, not out of the mighty and learned of the earth, 
 but from among a few pious men, most of them altoge- 
 ther unknown by name to the world. Their plan is-de- 
 nounced, as hostile to ancient Religious Societies, hostile 
 to the Established Church of the Kingdom, dangerous to 
 the very existence of our Eastern Empire—and against 
 all this, they stand, they “ put forth branches,” and, in 
 less than twenty years, literally cover the face of the 
 whole earth. By their means, Establishments for a 
 perpetual supply of the Scriptures are set up, under 
 Royal and Ecclesiastical sanction, in half the Kingdoms 
 of Europe—a Translation of Scripture is sent forth, for 
 the first time, from St. Petersburg, in the national lan- 
 guage of the Russian Empire—while, at the same time? 
 the people of China and of Western America, of Iceland 
 and of the Islands in the Southern Sea, are receiving, 
 every man in his own tongue, the record of the wonder- 
 ful works of God. 
 
6 
 
 But, amazing as this work of Twenty Years must 
 appear to every mind that will calmly think upon it, it 
 can never be for a moment desired that men should rest 
 content with the mere report of general results, however 
 magnificent. Among the various points upon which 
 inquiry is and ought to be made, one question of great 
 importance has been—Are the Versions of Scripture, 
 thus furnished, faithful; and are they in language that 
 is commonly read and understood? In order to answer 
 this inquiry, as far as lay in their power, the Committee 
 had resolved, a few months since, (Feb. 5,) that an Ac- 
 count should be drawn up of all the Translations which 
 they have circulated; stating the reasons which led to 
 their adoption, or the history of the translating and 
 editing of those which were New or Revised Versions. 
 The preparation of this Account ultimately devolved 
 upon myself; and I was beginning to enter upon it, when 
 a statement upon the very same subject came forth, in a 
 Periodical Publication, (the Quarterly Review, No.71,) 
 which has appeared to call for the few following remarks. 
 
 My object will be, chiefly, to give a correct relation of — 
 Facts which the Writer in the Review has misrepre- 
 sented. I hope, and am ready to admit, that his mis- 
 representations have been unintentional ; yet, surely, the 
 utmost care ought to have been exercised, before impu- 
 tations were cast upon a body of men who are engaged 
 in an undertaking so beneficent and so important to 
 mankind, as the Reviewer will and does acknowledge 
 that of the Committee of the Bible Society to be. 
 
 The case of the Wetsu Biste comes first in order.— 
 Here, says the Reviewer, 
 
 “The Directors of this Institution (the Bible Society) devolved the 
 selection of a proper text, and the revision of their new edition, upon a 
 Mr. Thomas Charles, an apostatized clerzyman from the Established 
 Church, and at that time an itinerant preacher among the Calvinistic 
 Methodists. Who or what recommended him to the Managers of the 
 Society, we do not happen to know. The result, however, proved 
 exactly what might have been anticipated: he introduced so many 
 unauthorised innovations, by way of improving the version, that one of 
 the Welsh Bishops found himself called upon to remonstrate with the 
 Committee. Finding that the heads of our church were not to be taken 
 by surprise, the Directors were constrained to suppress the edition ; 
 
7 
 
 and, up to this day, the inhabitants of Wales are deprived of the benefit 
 which the Managers of the Bible Society intended to confer upon them 
 by Mr. Thomas Charles’s new readings of the Word of God.” 
 
 Now it is not true that Mr. Charles “ introduced un- 
 authorised innovations” into the Welsh Bible, “ by way 
 of IMPROVING THE VERSION.” <A representation was indeed 
 made against the plan which he intended to follow in his 
 edition, but the complaint was this :— 
 
 “The ortHoGRAPHY of the copy prepared for the press is very much 
 changed and altered, and makes the language a different dialect from 
 that of the Bible in present use. I judge of it by the specimens which 
 I have seen in some other Welsh Publications. This measure I con- 
 
 sider preonant with many bad consequences, and methinks should not 
 be suffered to be carried into effect.” 
 
 The charge brought was, solely and simply, an attempt 
 to correct the system of orTHocRAPHY. And the com- 
 munication was not made by a “ Welsh Bishop,” but by 
 a very respectable Welsh Clergyman—the Rev. John 
 Roberts, the present Rector of Tremerchion; who, it 
 may be added, is now an active member of the Flintshire 
 Auxiliary Bible Society. 
 
 Again, no edition of the Welsh Bible was ever sup- 
 PRESSED. 
 
 The discussion above mentioned took place whzle the 
 copy was preparing for press. No fault has ever been 
 found with the Welsh Bibles and Testaments which have 
 been actually printed; and the number of these has 
 been, up to the present time, 97,598 Bibles, and 156,697 
 Testaments. 
 
 One Welsh Bishop was, at the time, a Vice-President 
 of the Society: and this Prelate, at least, saw nothing so 
 objectionable in the proceedings of Mr. Charles and the 
 Committee, as to withdraw from them his patronage and 
 support. On the contrary, he did all in his power to 
 assist in deciding the course that ought to be followed. 
 This Prelate was the Bishop of St. David’s (the present 
 Bishop of Salisbury); and it was in consequence of a 
 communication from him that the edition finally taken 
 as a standard, that of 1752, was adopted. In reference 
 to the imputation against the Committee, of neglecting 
 to take advice from “ ecclesiastical authorities,” the 
 
8 
 
 following passage, from a Letter of Lord Teignmouth to 
 the Bishop, deserves notice :— 
 
 “The Bible Society (notwithstanding the intimation in the Report 
 of the Committee to the Subscribers at large, that it has been deter- 
 mined ‘to follow the example of the Society for Promoting Christian 
 Knowledge, in printing from the edition of 1746’) would, I imagine, 
 consider themselves at liberty to adopt the suggestion of your Lordship, 
 as it must be their wish to pay every respect to so high an authority. 
 But, as the Act of Uniformity subjects the Welsh Bible to the revision 
 and approbation of the Bishop of Hereford and the Welsh Bishops, it 
 would, in my opinion, be most satisfactory to the Bible Society (con- 
 sidering the preceding circumstances) if your Lordship would conde- 
 scend to nominate some person or persons to prepare such a copy for 
 the press as would be likely to meet your Lordship’s approbation, and 
 that of the other Welsh Bishops—a sanction which would preclude all 
 possible objection.” * 
 
 It being afterwards found that the Society for Pro- 
 moting Christian Knowledge intended to print from the 
 edition of 1752, not from that of 1746, as they had at 
 first proposed—and that their edition would have that 
 approbation from the Welsh Bishops for which «Lor 
 Teignmouth in the above Letter expresses |his desire— 
 the same copy was ultimately followed by the Bible 
 Society, without alteration; and the edition was printed 
 at the Cambridge University Press. 
 
 It may still be said—But why was the “ apostatized 
 Clergyman,” Mr. Charles, employed at all? Mr. Charles, 
 
 _ A 
 
 Ee 
 
 it is true, was no longer officiating as a Clergyman of the — 
 
 Established Church: but the man who laboured, without 
 earthly gain or reward, for thirty years, in travelling, in 
 preaching, and in setting up Schools among his then 
 ignorant countrymen in Wales—who himself prepared 
 
 and sent forth Twenty Teachers fitted to instruct in those 
 
 Schools, whence afterwards the light of religious educa- 
 tion spread over the whole face of the country—such a 
 man, surely, may rather be called an Apostle, than an 
 Apostate. And “ what recommended him to the Mana- 
 gers of the Society,” those who have read its early history 
 know well; for it was from his urgent calls for a supply 
 
 of the Welsh Scriptures, that the Society itself first took — 
 
 * Dealtry’s Vindication of the Bible Society (1811). Appendix, p.xxvi. : 
 
5 
 
 rise.—But this story need not here be repeated. It has 
 been told long since, by Mr. Owen and Mr. Dealtry.f 
 
 And, after all, supposing even that some considerable 
 degree of mismanagement had appeared in the case, let it 
 ever be remembered, that it was but the First act of an 
 infant Institution—an Institution driven into action, I 
 cannot but add, by the inactivity of others. Nor did the 
 Society shun the aid of dignity and learning; though, 
 too often, men of dignity and learning shunned the 
 Society. 
 
 We come next to the Ir1iso TestaMENT.— 
 
 Here, “‘ again, the same evil genius which introduced Mr. Charles to 
 their favour, led them (the Committee of the Bible Society) to tix upon 
 one Mr. M‘Quig, who had formerly been a preacher among the Wesleyan 
 Methodists, and who had been expelled from this connexion for re- 
 peated misconduct ; and again, the results were such as might have 
 been expected. The principal object of The Irish Sociely is, as every 
 one knows, to promote the cultivation of the Irish language. Most of 
 the members composing this Association are also Subscribers to the 
 Bible Society ; none of their proceedings can, therefore, be represented 
 as flowing from dislike or jealousy of that institution. At a meeting 
 of the Irish Society, held in Dublin on the 22d November, 1822, a Re- 
 solution was proposed by John Leslie Foster, Esq., seconded by the 
 Right Honourable George Daly, and carried, we believe, without one 
 dissentient voice, stating, ‘ That, after a full inquiry, the members of 
 this Society feel satisfied that material and very numerous errors exist 
 in the Irish Version of the New Testament edited by the British and 
 Foreign Bible Society.’ »—Review, p. 8. 
 
 Now here it is important to observe, for the sake of 
 those who may be entirely unacquainted with the sub- 
 ject, that it was no New Irish Version which the Society 
 printed, but the Received Version of Archbishop Daniel, 
 or O'Donnell. This work Mr. M‘Quige was employed 
 to edit; but his instructions were, to adhere strictly to 
 the text as he found it, except in case of typographical 
 errors. And, when he afterwards pointed out some pas- 
 sages in which he thought a change necessary, these in- 
 structions were repeated and confirmed to him; and he 
 was informed, that if any such change should be indeed 
 found, by competent judges, to be absolutely needful, 
 
 + See Owen’s History of the British and Foreign Bible Society, 
 I. 138—150; and Dealtry’s Vindication of the Society (1811), pp. 1—17; 
 and Appendix, i—liv. 
 
10 
 
 they should be inserted in a separate page, at the end ; 
 but into the text itself no innovations whatever were to 
 be introduced.—Whether any, or what misconduct, was 
 charged against this Editor, by the Wesleyan Methodists, 
 I cannot ascertain ; but this is certain, that it was by one 
 of the most distinguished Members of the Wesleyan Body, 
 Dr. Adam Clarke, that he was mtroduced to the Com- 
 mittee of the Bible Society: nor has any complaint been 
 brought against him since he was so introduced to them, 
 though he has been labouring in the work of the Society, 
 as will presently appear, in close connexion with Gentle- 
 men of the highest respectability in Ireland. 
 
 But it is stated, that the Members of the Irish Society 
 in Dublin passed a Resolution, five years since, express- 
 ing their conviction that “material and very numerous 
 errors exist in the Irish Version of the New Testament 
 edited by the British and Foreign Bible Society.”—This 
 matter requires a full and distinct explanation. 
 
 And first, the Resolution m question ought to be 
 given at length. It will thence appear, that there was 
 no intention, even in the very outset, to impute wilful 
 carelessness to the Bible Society, or, in fact, any fault into 
 which other Societies might not be equally liable to fall. 
 Copy of Resolutions passed in the Committee of the Irish Society in 
 
 Dublin, Friday, Nov. 22, 1822. 
 
 ** REsoLveED, (on a Motion by John Leslie Foster, Esq., Vice Presi- 
 dent, seconded by the Right Honourable St.George Daly, Vice- 
 President)— 
 
 “ That, after full inquiry, we feel satisfied that material and very nu- 
 merous errors exist in the Irish Version of the New Testament edited 
 by the British and Foreign Bible Society ; and that we are not without 
 apprehensions that the Translation which, we are informed, is in pro- 
 gress under the direction of the Society for Promoting Christian Know- 
 ledge may eventually prove liable to similar objections. That it further 
 appears to us, that Bedell’s and Daniel’s Version of the Scriptures into 
 the Irish Language (now out of print) is, with comparatively few and 
 unimportant exceptions, a literal and faithful translation, and which has 
 been received with approbation for nearly 140 years; and that the only _ 
 course which we can recommend to this Society, is, to adopt the Trans- 
 lation of Bedell and Daniel, subject to such specific corrections as may 
 be proposed and adopted by this Society, and which this Society will 
 not in any case be disposed to adopt without being first convinced of 
 an absolute necessity for so doing. 
 
 “ H.C. Sirr, Chairman. (Signed) Joun L. Foster, 
 
 Sr. Groree Daty. | 
 
 ee ee Oe Eee eee 
 
 : 
 5 
 
 . 
 
11 
 
 “ ResoLvepD— 
 
 “« That this opinion of this Society be respectfully communicated to 
 the British and Foreign Bible Society, and to the Society for Promoting 
 Christian Knowledge, accompanied by the expression of our anxious 
 desire to assist those Societies in the editing of the Irish Scriptures, by 
 undertaking the task of revision and correction on the principle above 
 referred to, in case it should be the wish of those Societies to have re- 
 course to us for this purpose. 
 
 «< H. C. Sina, Chairman. (Signed) Joxun L. Foster, 
 
 Sr. Gzorer Daty.” 
 
 The Testament here referred to, differed in one im- 
 portant respect from the first edition, which has been 
 already mentioned as edited by Mr. M‘Quige ;—that was 
 in the Roman, this in the Irish Character: and on various 
 points occurring in the use of that character, as to ortho- 
 graphy, the use of aspirates, and similar matters, it is 
 known that difference of opimion exists among Irish 
 Scholars. 
 
 An intimation had been received by the Committee of 
 the Bible Society, before the passing of the above Reso- 
 lution, that the Irish Society would furnish them, if de- 
 sired, with a List of Errata which had been observed in 
 the Irish Testament then in circulation. In conse- 
 quence, the Assistant Secretary of the Irish Society was 
 immediately requested to furnish such a List of Errata, 
 before a new edition, which had just been ordered, should 
 be put to press; from which edition a grant of 5000 
 copies had been already voted, for the use of the Irish 
 Society. This took place in Sept. 1822; and in Novem- 
 ber, a copy of the Resolution above quoted was received 
 in London. Now the Version already adopted was the 
 very same as that recommended by the Irish Society in 
 their Resolution; and all that could be done, therefore, 
 was still to contmue the suspension upon printing the 
 new edition, till the proposed List of Errata, or some ~ 
 statement of the corrections required, should arrive. 
 Nothing further, however, having been heard on the sub- 
 ject, and applications for the Insh Scriptures being 
 urgent, the Committee were at length induced, m May 
 1823, to order 2000 copies to be printed off, from the 
 same stereotype plates as the former edition, for a tem- 
 
 porary supply. 
 
12 
 
 On the 6th June, a Letter, of which the following is 
 an Extract, was written by H.J.Monck Mason, Esq., 
 Secretary to the Irish Society :— . 
 
 “« Trish Society, 16, Sackville Street, Dublin, 6th June, 1823. 
 “Sir, 
 
 “« The Committee of the Irish Society having reason to suppose that 
 any inquiry respecting the correctness of the Stereotype Edition of the © 
 New Testament in the Irish Language, by the British and Foreign Bible 
 Society, is likely to take up some time—and fearing that the great de- 
 mand for the book which now exists in this country will very soon ex- 
 haust the stock of copies at present in their hands—have determined to 
 request of your Society to cause immediately to be printed an edition 
 equal to the amount of the grant so kindly voted by them to the Irish 
 Society. 
 
 “‘ They are strongly induced to urge this to your Committee, because 
 they think, that, in the present promising state of things, it would be 
 the worst of all evils were the efforts of this Institution to be checked in 
 any way, especially by the want of the Holy Scriptures. 
 
 “* To the Secretary of the British and 
 
 Foreign Bible Society.” 
 
 The following is from the Rey. J. D’Arcy Sirr, also one 
 of the Secretaries of the Irish Society :— ~- . 
 
 “*My Lorp, “ Dublin Castle, August 12, 1823. 
 
 “A generous grant of 5000 Testaments was made to us, we un- 
 derstand, long since. One thousand has been received: two more, we 
 now hear, have been ordered to be struck off. But why suffer us to 
 languish for these tardy driblets? Why defraud the longing aborigines” 
 of this island, many of them daily dropping into eternity, of the im- 
 portant residue? My Lord, I may speak strongly, but the case is most 
 affecting. Our countrymen are imploring us for the Records of Sal- 
 vation, but we are compelled to dole them out with the most distressing 
 parsimony. We have often expressed our gratitude for the assistance 
 you have already rendered us; nothing can efface the sense of it: I 
 only wish to have it deepened. “ J. D’Arcy Sirr.” 
 
 “‘ To the Right Hon. Lord Teignmouth.” 
 
 After these appeals from the very quarter from whence 
 alone any complaints respecting the Irish Testament 
 had been received, there appeared to the Committee no 
 reason for further delay; and it was finally Resolved, on 
 Oct. 6, 1823— 
 
 “That the edition of 2000 Copies of the Irish New Testament, in the 
 
 Trish Character, now in the press, be augmented to 11,000; making the i 
 whole number printed, including former editions, 20,000 Copies.” a 
 i 
 
 On the 14th November 1823, Mr. Mason forwarded a 
 
13 
 
 collation of the first ten pages of the Irish Testament, 
 made by Edward O'Reilly, Esq., author of the Irish Dic- 
 tionary. It appeared, upon examination of this colla- 
 tion, that of thirty-five variations in the Society's Testa- 
 ment from the edition of 1685 with which it had been 
 collated, twenty-eight were allowed to be unnecessary, 
 or, at-least, immaterial; and the remaining seven only 
 are disapproved of by Messrs. Mason and O'Reilly. And 
 on the 9th of January 1824, Mr. Mason writes again, 
 urging “‘every possible expedition” in preparing the 
 edition of the New Testament from which the grant to 
 the Irish Society was to be supplied, and making no 
 further mention of corrections. 
 
 The edition was completed accordingly, and put into 
 circulation ; and the Irish Society received the number 
 granted to them. They have since received other large 
 supplies, but no further complaint of any errors has been 
 heard. 
 
 But we shall better shew both the caution with which 
 the Committee of the Bible Society have acted, and 
 their friendly connexion with the Members of the Irish 
 Society, by proceeding a little further with the history of 
 their Irish Editions. 
 
 In the autumn of 1823, they resolved upon another 
 undertaking—the reprinting of Bishop Bedell’s Version 
 of the whole Bible, in the native character as well as 
 language *. In order, then, to guard against errors in 
 this work, and to prevent the reproduction of those that 
 might be found im the edition of the New Testament, 
 fresh precautions were taken. Mr. M‘Quige was to be 
 the acting editor; but he was placed under the super- 
 intendence of a Committee of Revisors, to whose exami- 
 nation his proof-sheets, with all corrections and changes, 
 were to be submitted. This Committee consisted of the 
 Rey. R. Daly, Vicar of Powerscourt; J. Leslie Foster, 
 Esq. M.P., and Messrs. H. J. Monck Mason, Robert 
 Newenham, and Edward Hoare.— These Gentlemen 
 
 * The Bible, as well as the New Testament, had already been printed 
 by the Bible Society in the Roman Character. 
 
14. 
 
 have sedulously attended to their task; and on the 4th 
 of June last (1827), Mr. Daly writes : — 
 “‘T have great pleasure in informing you of the Orp Testament 
 
 having been completed. The press is now employed on the New. 
 My soul praises God for this mercy.” 
 
 No objection has been made by any of these Gentle- 
 men to acting in concert with Mr. M‘Quige : their inter- 
 course with him, they say, has throughout been “ satis- 
 factory.” 
 
 “And as we find that the New'Testament is now pass- 
 ing through the press under their own inspection, there 
 cannot surely be a doubt that the errors of which they 
 complained, whatever they might be, will be effectually 
 removed. 
 
 Finally, it is this very Testament, be it observed, 
 against which the complaimts were made, that has been 
 in so wide circulation during these last years in Ireland; 
 and the reading of which has so powerfully contributed, 
 under the Divine Blessing, to stir up that mighty move- 
 ment in the minds of men, which is now taking place 
 there. { 
 
 Having thus gone through the charges relating to the 
 Welsh and Irish Versions, we come to those that refer 
 to the Translations ‘‘ PRINTED FOR THE FIRST TIME under — 
 the auspices of the Committee in Earl Street.” 
 
 And here, while the Reviewer “ lays it down as a 
 general principle, admitting of very rare, if of any, ex- 
 ceptions, that the Translator of the Sacred Writings. 
 ought to possess a critical acquaintance with the original, — 
 together with an intimate and vernacular knowledge of — 
 the language into which he engages to translate them,” 
 he says that, “in the execution of all the Versions which — 
 have been printed for the first time under the auspices — 
 of the Committee of the Bible Society, principles have — 
 been allowed to prevail, for which we can discover no 
 precedent in the annals of any previous Translations.”— ~ 
 “The Translators,” for instance, in one case at least, 
 “are uneducated men, totally unacquainted with the © 
 original languages of the Scriptures, and having a know- — 
 
 F 
 
lo 
 
 ledge of the language, into which they translate, which 
 their eulogists can only venture to call ‘ pretty complete.’ 
 —For any thing we can see,” he says in another 
 place, “‘the case stands thus: from whatever quarter 
 new Translations may be offered, they are immediately 
 accepted and printed, without any satisfactory evidence 
 of the competency of the individuals by whom they have 
 been executed.” 
 
 Now here, from my own experience and from recorded 
 facts, I will venture to assert, that the principles upon 
 which the Committee have uniformly acted, have been 
 these ;—that it is most desirable and most important to 
 get a Translation made directly from the Hebrew and 
 Greek Originals, when men can be found able to make 
 such a Translation ; but that, when such men cannot be 
 found, it is better, FaR BETTER, to publish among a people 
 merely the Version of a Version, than to leave them in 
 utter ignorance of the Word of God: provided always, 
 that the Version so produced should either have under- 
 gone a revision by some person acquainted with the On- 
 ginals ; or, in extreme cases, as those of the North-Ame- 
 rican Indian Languages, where it is impossible to obtain 
 such a revision, that it should be certified, on the best 
 testimony that may be had, to be a faithful Transcript 
 of the Version that it professes to follow. 
 
 These principles are not “‘ new.” Let us see how the 
 pious Bishop Bedell obtained that Irish Version, which, 
 as we have seen, is in use to this very day. The state- 
 ment is taken from the “Acta Eruditorum” of Leipsic, 
 for the year 1686 :— 
 
 “«Statuerat (Wilh. Bedell) Bibliorum Hibernicorum, quibus hactents 
 earuerant, copiam facere hujus regni incolis ; ac hine licet neminem 
 indipisci posset qui preter hunc sermonem, Hebraicum etiam calleret, 
 Hibernum tamen quendam, King dictum, qui exacté simul Anglicam 
 linguam noverat, incitayit, ut sacrum codicem ex Anglica saltem Ver- 
 sione Hibernicé redderet. Interpretationem indé partam Bedellus 
 postea studiosé recensendam sibi sumpsit, collatis insimul cum Anglica 
 Versione, Textu Hebraico, txx Interpretibus, et translatione Italica 
 Diodati. Cum ver6 opus ad umbilicum perductum jamque typis ex- 
 scribendum esset, tunc quidem per invidas quorundam zmulorum 
 machinationes repressum est, criminantium ejus autorem hominem sim- 
 plicem et abjectum esse, quique adeo labori huic par esse haud potuerit. 
 
16 
 
 Exemplar tamen istius translationis naufragio seditionis supra dicte 
 ereptum, jam sumptibus D™ Boyle sub prelo sudare narratur.” 
 
 “« William Bedell had resolved to furnish the inhabitants of the King- 
 dom of Ireland with the Bible in the Irish Language, which they had 
 neyer yet possessed. And though he could find no one who was ac- 
 quainted with this language and the Hebrew also, he, however, pre- 
 vailed upon an Irishman, named King, who bad also an accurate know- 
 ledge of the English Language, to render the Sacred Volume from the 
 English Version at least into Irish. The Version thus obtained, Bedell 
 undertook diligently to revise; collating, together with the English 
 Version, the Hebrew Text, the Septuagint, and the Italian Translation 
 of Diodati. But when the work had been completed, and was now 
 just ready to be put to press, it was kept back by the machinations of 
 some envious opponents, who alleged that its author was an unlearned 
 and mean man, and one therefore that could not have been equal to such 
 a task. A copy of this Version, however, saved from the wreck of the 
 above-mentioned factious opposition, is said to be at this moment passing 
 through the press, at the expense of the Hon. Mr. Boyle.” 
 
 If the principles of the Committee, then, are not new, 
 so neither is the manner in which their attempts are re- 
 ceived. The resemblance between the “ seditio,” as it 
 is here called, of 1685, and the ‘ factious opposition” 
 (for such seems to be the correct rendering of the term) 
 of 1827, is too striking to escape notice. 
 
 Here was a case, however, in which, in the revision, 
 the Original could be consulted. And how does this 
 differ from the case of the Persian Pentateuch, translated 
 from the Arabic, and sent to this country to undergo the 
 revision ‘of Professor Lee ;—or from that of Sabat’s 
 Arabic Testament, revised by Martyn and Mr. Thomason 
 in India ; and, on a second edition, again revised by Pro- 
 fessors Lee and Macbride in this country ;—or from 
 that of the Amharic, translated from the Arabic by a 
 native Abyssinian, under the inspection of a learned 
 French Orientalist,'and revised in this country by Pro- 
 fessor Lee and myself ? 
 
 _ And then, as to the incompetence of the Translators 
 employed ;—there is the Modern Greek Version, exe- 
 cuted by a Bishop of the Greek Church, revised by EKe- 
 clesiastics appointed by the Synod at Constantinople, and 
 printed in this country under the inspection of the Rey. 
 Mr. Renouard (late Arabic Reader at Cambridge, and 
 formerly Chaplain at Smyrna) and myself—the Modern 
 
17 
 
 Armenian Version, executed by M. Zohrab, of Paris— 
 the Calmuc Gospels, translated by Mr. J. J. Schmidt, of 
 St. Petersburg, the first Mongolian and Calmuc Scholar 
 in Europe. I might go on with the List; but I have 
 said enough to shew how justly the Reviewer remarks :— 
 
 “* After the most careful and patient investigation, we are obliged to 
 state, that, without one single exception, the New Versions which have 
 appeared, either at the direct expense or under the immediate sanction 
 of the Earl-Street Committee, have either been executed by incompetent 
 
 Translators, or printed without having been subjected to a proper re- 
 vision.— Review, p. 6. 
 
 But it is said, moreover, that, in REPRINTs of Foreign 
 Versions also, the Committee 
 “seem to stumble, almost instinctively, upon the most incompetent 
 Editor that could have been discovered. 
 
 Such has, doubtless, been the case with the Carshun 
 and Syriac, edited by M. Silvestre de Sacy of Paris; 
 with the Syriac, Arabic, and Malay, edited by Professor 
 Lee ; with the Arabic, edited by Dr. Macbride; with the 
 Coptic, edited by Professor Lee and the Rey. H. Tattam; 
 with the Ancient and Modern Greek, edited by the Rev. 
 Josiah Pratt, and the Rev. G. C. Renouard; with the 
 French, edited by the Rev. D. Chabrand, of Toulouse, 
 and the Rey. J. Monod, jun. of Paris—Of my own com- 
 petency or incompetency as an Editor, it is not for me to 
 speak. The Reprints which I have edited have been, 
 the Ethiopic Gospels, Syriac Testament, and Ancient 
 and Modern Greek Testament. 
 
 If there were any suspicion, on the part of the Bishops 
 and Clergy of the Church of England, of such an un- 
 happiness in the selection of Editors, it is singular, that 
 
 ‘in almost the only Reprint of a Foreign Version which is 
 circulated by the Society for Promoting Christian Know- 
 ledge, the Text of the Bible-Society’s edition should be 
 that which they have chosen to adopt; for thus runs the 
 Title-page of the French Bible sold, at this time, at the 
 Office of the ancient Society just mentioned :— 
 
 “Ta Sainte Bible contenant le Vieux et le Nouveau Testament, 
 revue et corrigée avec soin daprés les Textes Hebreu et Grec, et 
 fidélement réimprimée sur la Bible Protestante Francoise publiée par 
 P Association Angloise et Etrangére de la Bible, avec de nombreuses 
 
 os 
 
18 
 
 corrections, conformes 4 l’édition la plus approuvée maintenant en 
 usage dans le Sud de la France. a Londres, 1819.” 
 
 The edition is “ revised and corrected” indeed; but 
 here is the Bible Society’s Text manifestly set forth as 
 the ground-work of it. 
 
 But we have been led away from the subject of NEw 
 versions. It remains to state a few facts respecting 
 those Versions against which distinct charges have been 
 brought:—these are, the Mohawk, Calmuc, Chinese, 
 Turkish, and Bengalee. 
 
 And first of the Monawk :-— 
 
 This Translation was obtained, indeed, in the manner 
 related by Mr. Owen in the passage quoted from him by 
 the Reviewer, and judgment was passed upon it after 
 the sort of examination which he describes. The Re- 
 viewer holds up this examination to ridicule: but in 
 what better way such a work could have been examined 
 he does not inform us; nor does he go on to tell us, 
 with Mr. Owen, the names of some of the Examiners. 
 These, it will be seen, were not “blind partisans” of the — 
 Bible Society, but men of acknowledged respectability 
 and learning. The persons mentioned by Mr. Owen, as 
 having assisted on the occasion, are, the Rey. Professor 
 Bridge, of the East-India College; the Rev. Dr. Hamil- 
 ton, Rector of St. Olave’s, Jewry; and the Rey. R. 
 Ormerod, A. M., Vicar of Kensington. : 
 
 Let us now see what has been the further history of 
 this Version.—The edition printed in London haying 
 been exhausted, the Managers of the American Bible 
 Society at New York found the demand still extensive 
 enough to require a further supply: they therefore 
 printed a second edition. This they did not send forth 
 rashly, and without inquiring into the nature of that 
 which they were distributing: for, upon hearing that 
 some complaints were abroad against the Version, they 
 suspended its circulation forthwith, until the nature and 
 foundation of these complaints should have been ascer- 
 tained. In their Ninth Report (for 1825) is the follow- 
 ing passage :-— 
 
19 
 
 “Tn the last Report it was mentioned, that, from doubts entertained 
 about the correctness of the Version of St. John’s Gospel in the Mo- 
 hawk Language, it was deemed expedient to suspend its circulation. 
 From various sources the Board have obtained satisfactory evidence, 
 that, although there are some trifling inaccuracies in it, principally in 
 orthography, yet there is no error that can hinder its usefulness. 
 Accordingly, the suspension was removed, and grants of that Gospel 
 made to the Indians who speak and read the Mohawk Language, at 
 Greenbay, in the Michigan Territory; at Grand River, in Upper 
 Canada; at Caughnawaga, and St. Regis, in Lower Canada.” 
 
 In the Tenth Report (1826), the Managers state 
 again :— 
 
 “Through the medium of the Montreal Bible Society in Lower 
 Canada, many copies of the Gospel according to St. John in the Mo- 
 hawk Language have been faithfully distributed among the Indians 
 residing at the Lake of the Two Mountains, and at St. Regis; and also 
 among those at the Caughnawaga Village, who were able to peruse 
 them, and received the word of God with expressions of joy and grati- 
 tude. Asa pleasing instance of the prompt and independent spirit of 
 these children of the forest, it is stated, that the Indians at Caughna- 
 waga, being members of the Church of Rome, convened a Council of 
 their Chiefs, to deliberate upon the propriety of receiving the Scrip- 
 tures; and unanimously resolved, that all their people should be left 
 at liberty to accept of the Gospel. 
 
 ** Several other parts of the New Testament have been translated into 
 the Mohawk Language, which it is the intention of the Managers to 
 publish, as soon as they have undergone a revision that may test their 
 accuracy; and the expectation is entertained, that ultimately the whole 
 New Testament will be furnished to that portion of the Aborigines of 
 our country, commonly called the Six Nations. The want of competent 
 translators has hitherto imposed difficulties in the way of its accomplish- 
 ment. The partial Versions heretofore published, have been less per- 
 fect than could be desired; and yet the Board have received satisfactory 
 assurances, from intelligent persons resident among those Tribes, that 
 very great advantages have been derived from their distribution and 
 use. A strong inducement is thus supplied for renewed efforts to pro- 
 cure further and more correct transiations.” 
 
 And so, for myself, I confess I cannot for a moment 
 doubt that this little book, the Gospel of St. John in the 
 Mohawk Language, with all its imperfections, has been, 
 in its own proper place and nation, a blessing in the 
 earth. 
 
 We proceed to the Catmuc Scriptures :— 
 
 “In this case,” says the Reviewer, 
 
 “in order that they might not proceed in the dark in a matter of such 
 importance, the Committee directed a set of Queries to be sent to the 
 
 c2 
 
20 
 
 Moravian Missionaries settled among the Calmucs. We shall extract 
 two or three of these questions, with the answers :— 
 
 “* Query 2. Who is the translator or translators (of portions of the 
 New Testament stated to have been translated into the Calmuc Lan- 
 guage) ?>—Answer. Several persons have employed themselves in this 
 work, and those chiefly such as have not had the benefit of a literary 
 education, but who had a good understanding of the sense of the Serip- 
 tures, who felt an impulse ‘of the heart to the task, and who had already 
 acquired a pretty complete knowledge of the Calmuc Language. The 
 most eminent among these is Conrad Neitz, who, more than forty years 
 ago, being commissioned by this congregation to qualify himself for 
 performing this service in the Gospel, for the Calmucs, lived among 
 them at different times, travelled also with them, and, considering his 
 education, acquired a very accurate knowledge of the idiom of their 
 language, facility in speaking it, and acquaintance with the mode of 
 thinking and manners of this people. He has also even studied their 
 writings. Most of these translations were executed by him. 
 
 ** «Query 3. Can the accuracy and correctness of these translations 
 be relied upon ?—Answer. Confidently. The translations have been 
 made with much diligence and fidelity, and have been repeatedly cor- 
 rected and revised by brethren acquainted with the subject and the 
 language. Nevertheless, this work is still imperfect, particularly as the 
 Calmuc has as yet received no literary cultivation, and the common aids 
 for acquiring a language, such as dictionaries and grammars, are 
 entirely wanting.’ 
 
 “Upon the receipt of this information, the Committee instantly voted 
 a sum for the purchase of a set of Calmuc types; and, without any 
 further inquiry whatever, recommended the Moravian Missionaries ‘to 
 proceed in translating such entire books of the New Testament as their 
 circumstances might enable them to execute, with the promise of further 
 assistance from the Society, from time to time, in proportion to their 
 progress in the undertaking. —Review, p. 12. 
 
 Now, in the first instance, what could be a more na- 
 tural, and what a better course to take, than that of ap- 
 plying for information respecting such a Version as this, 
 to the Missionaries who had been so long employed in 
 teaching among these people the truths which these 
 very Scriptures contain ?—But were the Translations of 
 the Missionaries adopted therefore, and published forth- 
 with, without further thought or examination? So far 
 from it, that scarcely any part of their Version can be 
 said to have ever been published at all. 
 
 It was at Petersburg that the Calmuc Gospels were 
 printed, and there that an Editor and Translator was 
 found for them, Mr. J. J. Schmidt :—for the Missionaries 
 sent indeed into Russia the portions which they had 
 prepared, which served for consultation and reference, 
 
21 
 
 but the Version was, in truth, Mr. Schmidt’s own; and in 
 the Latin Title-page prefixed to the first edition of the 
 Gospel of St. Matthew, it bears his name. And of Mr. 
 Schmidt's intimate acquaintance with the Mongolian 
 and Calmuc Dialects, no man who is at all acquainted 
 with the recent history of Oriental Literature on the 
 Continent can for a moment doubt. He has been lately 
 engaged in a controversy concerning the History and 
 Languages of Central Asia, with the celebrated Klaproth; 
 who, though an antagonist, scruples not fully to acknow- 
 ledge ‘les rares connaissances de M. Schmidt en Mon- 
 gol et en Kalmuk :’—VJournal Asiatique de Paris, tom. V. 
 a 193. 
 
 We come next to the Cuimese TrANsLATOR—Dr. 
 Morrison. 
 
 Now let it be observed, that the charge of incompe- 
 tency brought against this Translator is founded entirely 
 on his own statements about himself—statements which 
 natural modesty and diffidence might well induce any 
 man to make, but which surely ought not to be brought 
 as evidence against him. Let us hear what others have 
 to say of him. Take this statement, full of good sense 
 —and, I am persuaded, of truth also—which was sent 
 to me lately by Sir George Staunton :— 
 
 “1 beg to assure you, that it was with pain and surprise that I read 
 the other day, in the Quarterly Review, the animadversions on Dr. 
 Morrison’s Translation of the Scriptures, to which you allude. 
 
 “The writer of the article in question demands qualifications in a 
 Translator of the Scriptures, and a degree of perfection in the Trans- 
 lation itself, which, however desirable in the abstract, would, in the case 
 of a Chinese Version, have necessarily the effect of postponing the 
 accomplishment of the work to an indefinite period; and, consequently, 
 wholly frustrate the object in view, as far as respects the communication 
 of religious knowledge to the Natives of China oF the present day, 
 through such a medium. 
 
 *T cannot say that I have examined Dr. Moki s Translation so 
 critically as to be able to give a positive opinion on its precise degree 
 of merit; but I have no hesitation in saying, that I conceive his quali- 
 fications for the execution of the task to have been far superior to those 
 of any other person whatever. He is, unquestionably, our best Chinese 
 Scholar—he had made himself fully acquainted with the previous 
 labours of the Catholic Missionaries—he was in constant communication 
 
22 
 
 with intelligent Natives during the progress of the work—and his 
 general zeal, diligence, and integrity, in the Cause to which he has 
 devoted himself, are too well known to need any confirmation from my 
 testimony. “G. T. Staunton.” 
 
 Again—I was one of a Deputation from the Com- 
 mittee of the Bible Society who waited upon Lord 
 Amherst before he went out to India; and I well re- 
 member that he said to us—~—lI give his expressions as 
 nearly as recollection enables me —— 
 
 “To one of your Translators, at least, I can bear a favourable testi- 
 mony—br. Morrison. I recollect particularly one instance of his 
 accuracy. It was necessary once, when I was in China, that a certain 
 paper should be drawn up, which etiquette required to be of the most 
 faultless composition: every rule of Chinese propriety of diction was to 
 be strictly adhered to. Dr. Morrison drew it up; and, when it was 
 
 submitted to some Chinese Authorities for inspection, it was pronounced — 
 altogether correct and unblameable.” 
 
 A copy of Dr. Morrison’s Translation of the entire 
 Bible in Chinese now lies before me. It was issued in 
 1823, since the publication of his Dictionary. Now 
 whatever we are to think of his first edition of the Tes- 
 tament, surely the Reviewer will not have much to say 
 against his work in this later edition of the whole Scrip- 
 tures. For how is his Dictionary announced in Kings- 
 bury’s Oriental Catalogue ? . 
 
 “ Dictionary of the Chinese Language, in Three Parts. By R. Mor-— 
 rison, D.D.; viz. lst, Chinese and English” &e. &c. 
 
 “* Dr. Morrison’s ‘ Dictionary of the Chinese Language’ may be con- 
 
 sidered as the most important work in Chinese Literature that has yet 
 reached Europe.”—QuartEerLy Review. 
 
 wert. opt Ok. ewe od 
 
 Cee. | 
 
 As no charge is brought against the Chinese Version, 
 but the general one of incompetence in the Translator, 
 I shall not stay any longer upon it, but proceed to the 
 TURKISH. 
 
 We 2k Santee 
 
 “Some ‘most miserable details of their (the Committee’s) style of 
 management occur in the history of their Turkish New Testament. — 
 The text was that of a Polish Renegado, which had lain in MS. for — 
 more than a hundred years; and no sooner was it published in 1818, — 
 than Dr. Henderson, and other friends and agents of the Society, began — 
 to complain, that, in addition to prevailing errors of mere style, florid 
 affectation and so forth, important additions, and still more important — 
 omissions, deprived this Version of all just title to respect and support. _ 
 The Society got some of the Parisian Literati to bolster up their Turkish 
 
23 
 
 Testament with their certificates; but the issue was, that some hun- 
 dreds of gross errors were acknowledged. And here comes the curious 
 part of the story,—how were these errors to be corrected? The Direc- 
 tors of the British and Foreign Bible Society made cancels in their 
 book; that is, they printed anew the leaves containing the most hor- 
 rible blunders—in number, fifty-one,—and sent out bundles of these 
 corrected leaves to Turkey, to be distributed among those who had 
 previously acquired the books. These persons were, of course, easy to 
 be found; when found, it was easy to persuade them to have their 'Tes- 
 taments taken out of the binding and rebound with the new leaves; and 
 the whole affair, when completed, could not fail to inspire the proprie- 
 tors of the Turkish Testament with sentiments of redoubled confidence 
 in the purity of its text.”—Review, p. 19. note. 
 
 Now, in this case, I am ready to admit that there was 
 some misunderstanding, at the outset, im the directions 
 given to Professor Kieffer, the editor. He was led to 
 believe that the text of his MS. should be implicitly fol- 
 lowed; and he appears accordingly to have done so, 
 without collating it, as he went on, with the origmal. In 
 consequence, several errors were afterwards discovered. 
 But here my admissions stop.—The rest of the Reviewer’s 
 statement is a gross misrepresentation. The real case 
 was this :— 
 
 Not more than 100 Testaments at most, if so many, 
 had been issued, so far as I can ascertain, when notice 
 of these errors was received. The circulation was im- 
 mediately suspended, and Professor Kieffer set to revise 
 the text. He furnished a List of Errata, drawn up with 
 scrupulous minuteness ; which List was referred to the 
 examination of a Sub-Committee, assisted, on the occa- 
 sion, by a well-known Biblical Critic, the Rev. T. Hart- 
 well Horne. This Sub-Committee found the greater 
 part of the faults pointed out to be so utterly insignifi- 
 cant, that it would be quite useless to disfigure the work 
 by noticing them ; and a Table was drawn up, to be ap- 
 pended to the Testament, containing all that could be 
 considered of the least importance; im number, 49. 
 But even of these there was not one that appeared di- 
 rectly to affect any point of faith or practice. Those 
 that appeared to do so, were remedied in another and 
 more effectual way, by cancelling the leaves on which 
 they occurred. The leaves so cancelled were in number, 
 eight. Having already observed that scarcely any copies 
 
24 
 
 had yet been issued, I need scarcely add, that the whole 
 story about sending bundles of leaves to Turkey, to be 
 inserted in copies already in circulation, is a mere fiction: 
 its falsehood is as gross, as the charge which it conveys 
 is insulting. 
 
 Nor is it just to speak thus contemptuously of the 
 Translator of this Version—Ali Bey, or Bobovius, as his 
 name is written in the Latin form. In Turkish learning 
 hewas indisputably most eminent. At Constantinople, he 
 
 was the instructor of the celebrated Meninski, by whom ~ 
 
 one of his works is frequently quoted in his Turkish 
 Lexicon. And the following is the account given of 
 him by a contemporary, the learned Dr. Hyde. It is 
 prefixed to a treatise of Ali Bey’s on the Religious Cere- 
 monies of the Turks, which Dr. Hyde edited (in 1690) ; 
 and it may be thus translated from the Latin :— 
 
 “The following observations on the ceremonies of the TurksI re- — 
 
 ceived from my learned friend Dr. Thomas Smith, who, on his return 
 from a journey to Constantinople a few years since, put them into my 
 hands, with a request that I would eventually publish them, which I 
 have now at length done. They had been drawn up, at his request, by 
 Albertus Bobovius, or, as the name is written in his native language, 
 Bobowsky, a Pole by birth, who died some years since. His death is 
 to be lamented, not only because he was particularly friendly to our 
 countrymen, and most ready to serve them in any thing, but also inas- 
 much as he was a most zealous and assiduous student of languages, 
 and extremely well versed and skilled in many of those of Europe and 
 Asia also, so that he was promoted, under the Sultan Mahomet IV, to 
 
 the office of oil Ves _» or First Interpreter. It is however more 
 
 especially to be lamented that ‘he should have been carried off before he 
 had returned to the profession of Christianity, which it was his most 
 
 earnest wish to do. It was his desire to be able honestly to gain his” 
 
 livelihood, in whatever way might offer, in the society of Christians 
 in England, and to retire from his connexion with a Mohammedan 
 people. 
 
 The controversy which arose upon the style of this 
 Version, between Dr. Henderson and Professor Lee, I 
 by no means overlook as unimportant; but to go into 
 such a matter fully, in this place, would obviously be 
 impossible : suffice it to say, that Dr. Henderson himself, 
 in his last pamphlet, appears to express his satisfaction 
 
 with the new edition of this work, now going through the ~ 
 
 press at Paris. 
 
25 
 
 We come now to the Benecatee Version, with which 
 is connected the whole array of charges against the Se- 
 rampore Translators. And here, surely, every man who 
 is alive to the importance of Translations of the Scrip- 
 tures at all, will, at the first outset, feel most forcibly the 
 truth of Sir George Staunton’s remarks, as applied to 
 Indian Versions, as well as to the Chinese :— 
 
 “The writer of the article in questioa demands qualifications in a 
 Translator of the Scriptures, and a degree of perfection in the Trans- 
 lation itself, which, however desirable in the abstract, would, in the 
 ease of Indian Versions, have necessarily the effect of postponing the 
 accomplishment of the work to an indefinite period ; and consequently 
 wholly frustrate the object in view, as far as respects the communica- 
 tion of religious knowledge to the Natives of India of the present day, 
 through such a medium. (See above, p. 21.) 
 
 After what has heen said already (p. 16) upon New 
 Versions in general, I shall think it quite enough in this 
 place to reply to the Reviewer by bringing a few quota- 
 tions from the Reports of the Missionaries, to shew how 
 their Versions have really been made, and with what 
 effect they have been put into circulation. 
 
 Extract of a Letter from the Rev. Dr. Carey. 
 “Serampore, April 20, 1808. 
 
 “You mention some objections that have been made to our Transla- 
 tions, as if they were the work of graceless Brahmans. We certainly 
 do employ all the helps we can obtain—Brahmans, Musselmans, and 
 others, who both translate, and sometimes write out rough copies; and 
 should think it criminal not to do so. But we never priné any Trans- 
 lation till every word has been revised; and rerevised. Whatever 
 helps we employ, I have never yet suffered a single word, or a single 
 mode of construction, to pass, without examining it, and seeing 
 through it. I read every proofsheet twice or thrice myself, and cor- 
 rect every letter with my own hand. Brother Marshman and I com- 
 pare with the Greek or Hebrew, and Brother Ward reads every sheet. 
 Three of the Translations, viz. the Bengalee, Hindostanee, and Sung- 
 serit, I translate with my own hand ; the two last immediately from the 
 Greek : and the Hebrew Bible is before me while I translate the Ben- 
 
 ee. Whatever helps I use, I commit my judgment to none of them. 
 Brother Marshman does the same with the Chimese, and all that he en- 
 gages in; and so does Brother Ward. 
 
 Extract of a Letter from the Rev. William Ward. 
 “ May 10, 1820. 
 “The appointment of my beloved colleague (Dr. Carey) to the Pro- 
 fessorship in the College of Fort William put him in possession, so far 
 
. 
 
 26 
 
 as it was necessary to his plans, of all the learning in India. Learned — 
 men from every part crowded to Calcutta, seeking employment in this — 
 new College; and the senior Stingskrit Pundit in the College, who at- 
 tended Dr. Carey constantly in the discharge of his College duties, in- 
 formed him from time to time of the arrival of some learned Native, 
 now from Benares, then from Cashmere, then from the Punjab; and 
 thus, in succession, from the different provinces of India; who were, — 
 of course, introduced to Dr. Carey. The Doctor here saw all India © 
 coming to pour all its treasures at his feet; nor could he be so blind ~ 
 as not to recognise the hand which thus brought him help from afar. 
 ‘Tn that spirit of faith which has distinguished his Missionary life, he 
 engaged these learned men as fast as they were brought; and put the 
 Sungskrit Bible, as the original from which they were to translate, into 
 the hands of each. Each Pundit, thus furnished, and instructed also 
 in the nature of the work of translation, now sat down, and began to 
 render the divine word into his native dialect. He was assisted for some 
 time by hints and directions from two learned Hindoos, prepared by Dr. 
 Carey, and familiarized to the work of translation by having read the 
 proofs of the Sungskrit and Bengalee with the Doctor; and then, from 
 day to day, he was able to go on alone with his work. At an early 
 period, his first attempts were brought to the test ; for, after he had ad- 
 vanced some way, his manuscript was put to press, and the first sheet 
 was examined by one of the initiated Native Assistants, sitting by the 
 side of this original Native Translator. The first and second proofs 
 were thus corrected, which brought the sheet as near as they could — 
 bring it to the original Stngskrit. The third proof was then carried to 
 Dr. Carey by the Translator himself; and they went over it together, 
 and over as many more proofs of the same sheet as the Doctor thought — 
 necessary, Sometimes more and sometimes less; and after this, the sheet 
 was ordered to press. This has been the constant and only process in 
 these Translations, from the beginning.” t 
 
 t 
 
 From the Eighth Memoir of the Missionaries at Serampore. } 
 
 “To expect that these editions will not be susceptible of many and 
 various improvements, would be vain in itself, and contrary to univer-— 
 sal experience. The English Version, which occupied the labour of 
 the learned for seventy years, is by many deemed faulty at the present 
 day: how must it, then, have appeared in the first twenty years, or in 
 its first edition! Yet this did not prevent its being made the instrument 
 of converting thousands, and of pouring forth such a flood of light as 
 led to the correction of its own defects. They (the Missionaries) trust 
 that the Versions they have put to press will be found intelligible to 
 the great body of the people, and generally accurate. On the testimony 
 of native critics, however, much dependence cannot be placed, as they 
 must necessarily be ignorant of the Original Text, and of the peculiar 
 phraseology of Scripture ; while those phrases of Scripture which enter 
 into the essence of Christianity, such as, ‘ living in Christ,’ ‘ crucified 
 with Christ,’ ‘ justified by faith, ‘ taking up the cross,’ and numerous 
 others, must be literally retained at whatever sacrifice of idiom. And 
 as these terms are by no means intelligible to the bulk of mere nominal 
 Christians even in Britain, it will not appear strange if they should not 
 
 & 
 
27 
 
 be immediately apprehended by Heathens. Should a native critic, there- 
 fore, withhold his unqualified testimony from any Version, this would be 
 insufficient to prove that it might not still be intelligible to the body of 
 his own countrymen. If, after reading a portion of it, an intelligent 
 Native will seek for the volume and consider it a valuable gift, to men 
 in his situation of life it must be intelligible; and the object of a first 
 edition may be considered as secured. The Serampore Committee 
 have reason to hope that this has been the case with the Versions which 
 have been already sent into circulation. On this subject they subjoin a 
 Letter sent to the Rev. Mr. Thomason, a few months ago, by Dr. 
 Marshman (see Appendix, No. I.), in answer to his inquiries relative to 
 the effect of circulating the Scriptures in Bengal ; and another from 
 Mr. J. T. Thompson, a Missionary who has travelled over a consi- 
 derable portion of the country around Delhi. The Serampore Com- 
 mittee are still employed in ascertaining the character of these Ver- 
 sions, and will from time to time communicate to the Religious Public 
 the result of their inquiries.” 
 
 Extract from the Letter (No.1.), above referred to, from the 
 Rev. Dr. Marshman. 
 
 “* Serampore, Feb. 20th, 1821. 
 
 “€ About three years ago, a number of persons were found inhabiting 
 eertain villages near Dacca, who had forsaken idolatry, and who con- 
 stantly refused to Brahmans the usual honours paid to them beyond the 
 other classes of the community. They were also said to be remarkable 
 for the correctness of their conduct, and particularly for their ad- 
 herence to truth. These were occasionally visited by several of our 
 Christian Brethren, both European and Native, and were said to be 
 scattered through ten or twelve villages. They were, however, the fol- 
 lowers of no particular leader, as is the case with many sects among 
 the Hindoos; but, from their professing to be in search of a true 
 Gooroo, or Teacher, they were termed Sutya-Gooroos. Some of our 
 native friends being exceedingly desirous of knowing from whence they 
 had derived all their ideas, were at length told that they had imbibed 
 them from a book which was carefully preserved in one of their villages. 
 On arriving at this village, they were shewn a book much worn, kept 
 in a case (I think of brass) which had been made for the sake of pre- 
 serving it, and which our friends were told had been there many years, 
 although none of those present could say from whence it came. On 
 examination, this book was found to be a copy of the FIRsT EDITION OF 
 THE BENGALEE New TrestTAMeEnT, printed at Serampore in 1800. After 
 this, numbers of these Sutya-Gooroos came to Dacca, and, with Mr. 
 Leonard, and various Native Christian Brethren there, described a 
 number of things mentioned in the New Testament, particularly those 
 which related to caste, and the distinction of food. This ended in three 
 of them being baptized, in the course of a few months, on a profession of 
 faith in Christ ; who afterwards returned to their own villages. Our 
 aged native brother, Kishnoo, (baptized in 1800,) went among them last 
 August ; and at the village where he was constrained to remain on 
 account of the rains, he found a copy of THE SECOND EDITION OF THE 
 Beneatre New Testament, which they prized very highly, although 
 they had not as yet made an open profession of Christianity.” 
 
28 
 
 ‘The following advertisement,’ (say the Committee of the Baptist 
 Missionary Society, in their Report for 1819,) ‘ which is copied from 
 the ‘* Friend of India,” a Monthly Publication printed at Serampore, 
 will prove how desirous the Missionaries are of procuring all the 
 assistance they can towards the improvement and completion of the 
 Versions of the Holy Scriptures which are preparing by them :’— 
 
 “ August, 1818. 
 “In the beginning of this month was finished at press the New Tes- 
 tament in the Pushtoo and the Kunkun Languages, under the super- 
 intendence of the Missionaries at Serampore. The Pushtoo Version 
 was seven years in the press. This language is spoken by the nation 
 of the Affehans, beyond the Indus, who have been by some supposed 
 
 to be descended from the Ten Tribes carried away by Salmaneser. It — 
 
 is printed in the Arabic Character, and contains 782 pages. The 
 Kunkun is spoken on the western coast of India, from Bombay to Goa. 
 It is printed in the Nagree Character, and contains 706 pages. It has 
 been about five years in the press. The Missionaries will esteem it a 
 favour if any Gentleman acquainted with these languages will examine 
 either of these Versions of the New Testament, and favour them with 
 corrections and emendations, with a view to a second and improved 
 edition. The following are the points to which they would particularly 
 request their attention. 
 
 “‘'They would feel greatly obliged if any one would examine the 
 style, and compare it with that of other books in the language, the 
 style of which is allowed to be good. In doing this, it will be useful 
 to avoid general observations, which, however easily made, are of no 
 service in the improvement of a Version; one observation drawn from 
 practical knowledge, and supported by authorities brought forward 
 from works of repute, contributing more to illustrate the true nature of 
 any language or dialect, than a thousand general observations, unsup- 
 ported by examples. 
 
 “They also beg such as are sufficiently acquainted with these 
 
 ee 
 
 languages, kindly to examine the construction, and to point out parti- — 
 
 cular instances wherein they think it improper; in doing which, it will 
 be of great utility to adduce examples of a different and superior mode 
 of construction, drawn either from valuable works or from practical 
 cbservation. ; 
 
 “‘ They further entreat that Gentlemen will examine the rendering of 
 particular passages, and kindly instance such as may appear to them 
 inadequate or obscure. In doing this, they beg leave to suggest the 
 still more urgent necessity of adducing emendatory passages and 
 phrases; which, they trust, will appear evident, when it is considered, 
 that, in the New Testament particularly, there must occur many ideas 
 which are almost wholly new in these languages: and it can scarcely 
 be expected, that in dialects as yet so little cultivated, there should be 
 found all those terms in divinity which the Greek Language furnished 
 in such abundance. Many phrases and terms, therefore, must be created 
 for the occasion, or accommodated as nearly as possible: and hence, 
 though a term may be uncouth, if we would express the idea, it must 
 still be retained until a better can be found. Important service will, 
 therefore, be rendered by any Gentleman suggesting terms or phrases 
 
29 
 
 more adequate, or better understood, in the room of any which may 
 appear objectionable; as, by this method, a number may be brought 
 forward, from which a selection may be made to the highest advantage. 
 And it may be-hoped, that, by this course, should those who are best 
 able thus kindly contribute their aid, the various Versions of the Scrip- 
 tures in the Languages of India may ultimately be brought to a con- 
 siderable degree of perfection.” 
 
 This was afterwards succeeded by the following Cir- 
 cular Address, subjoined to the Seventh Memoir of the 
 Missionaries, 1820 :— 
 
 *« The Brethren who form the Committee for conducting Translations 
 at Serampore, having been for many years engaged in the Translation 
 of the Scriptures, have felt convinced, in proportion as they have 
 applied to this work, that in no way can the best interests of India be 
 more effectually promoted, than by a Version of the Scriptures being 
 given, if possible, in the dialect of every Province and Tribe in India, 
 notwithstanding the difficulties which attend the completion of the work. 
 
 “‘ With these difficulties it is impossible that they should be unac- 
 quainted, engaged in the work, as they have been, for so many years. 
 But if difficulties are suffered to deter from an undertaking of this 
 nature, there can be little hope that light will ever be diffused through- 
 out India, or that the numerous Tribes of Eastern Asia, which comprise 
 a full half of mankind, will ever enjoy those blessings with which Bri- 
 tain is so highly favoured. They have found in the course of their 
 work that the dialects of India and of Eastern Asia, numerous as they 
 appear, may almost all be traced to two sourees, the Sungskrita and the 
 Chinese ; and, therefore, that a knowledge of these two languages sheds 
 a prodigious degree of light over the various languages of India. 
 This circumstance, among other things, enables them to view the diffi- 
 culties in the way of accomplishing it as easily surmountable, by a 
 course of steady perseverance; particularly if steps be taken to bring 
 into operation that knowledge of the various dialects of India already 
 possessed by our countrymen here. They humbly trust that the College 
 recently established at Serampore, in which Native Youths of talent 
 and ability, conversant with the various laneuages of India, will be 
 instructed in the languages wherein the Scriptures were originally 
 written, as well as in their own classic tongue, will prove highly im- 
 portant in this great work, which can be brought to due perfection only 
 by efforts continued through a succession of years. But they feel 
 assured that assistance of the most important kind may also be obtained 
 from their countrymen in various parts of India; and it is with the view 
 of respectfully soliciting this assistance in the Improvement of the Ver- 
 sions of the Scriptures they have already published, that you are now 
 addressed. 
 
 “This request they feel encouraged to make, from the consideration 
 that the Word of God is equally the portion of all Christians, by what- 
 ever name or denomination they may be known. It is indeed to men 
 that this glorious revelation is made; and every man who loves his 
 _Trace, is bound to interest himself to the utmost of his power in causing 
 
30 
 
 to be made for his fellow-men of every nation, a faithful and perspi- 
 cuous Version of the Divine Writings. 'The Committee for conducting 
 Translations at Serampore, therefore, wish to interest in this important 
 work every friend to the Scriptures in India who feels willing to contri- 
 bute his aid in the improvement of even a single Version; with whom 
 they wish to exchange ideas on the subject in the most free and candid 
 manner, for the sake of improving the various Translations of the 
 Divine Word which they may conduct. 
 
 “‘ How to secure this, so as to bring to bear on the Sacred Writings 
 that knowledge of the dialects of India now possessed by Gentlemen 
 
 —e 
 
 who reside in its various provinces, has long been with them matter of — 
 
 serious consideration, particularly as they wish to include the assistance 
 of Learned Natives in various parts of India in examining and judging 
 relative to the style of such Versions as are made in their respective 
 dialects. The unavoidable distance of those so capable of affording this 
 assistance, from them and from each other, increases the difficulty of 
 frequent communication. They, however, humbly trust that the follow- 
 ing plan will obviate most of the difficulty which exists in the pre- 
 sent case. They respectfully propose— 
 
 ‘“‘]. That every Gentleman willing to correspond with them on the — 
 
 subject of Translations, be entreated thus to contribute his aid to the 
 improvement of some one of the Indian Versions, and therein to obtain 
 the aid of every Learned Native over whom he has influence. 
 
 “2. That such Gentlemen be not called upon to incur any expense 
 in examining any Version of the Scriptures ; but that, whatever expense 
 they may thus incur, be defrayed by the Committee for Translations at 
 Serampore. 
 
 “3. That an interleaved copy of any one Version of the Sacred Scrip- 
 tures, or of a single book in the language with which any Gentleman 
 may be best acquainted, be sent him, on his kindly requesting it. 
 
 ** By thus combining all the help procurable in examining the various 
 Versions, as editions are successively printed, most of the Translations 
 of the Scriptures will, they trust, ultimately be brought to a happy de- 
 gree of perfection. But whether it be sooner or later, the Committee 
 feel determined, by Divine assistance, never to withdraw their attention 
 from this object till it be accomplished. They beg leave to observe, 
 however, that in thus attempting to promote this important work, they 
 have no wish to interfere with any friend who may be already conduct- 
 ing a Translation in any of the dialects of India; on the contrary, to 
 every such friend they cheerfully tender that assistance they respectfully 
 solicit from others; their grand wish being, to see the work accom- 
 plished, by whomsoever it be done. 
 
 “They therefore respectfully entreat your assistance, Dear Sir, and 
 that of any friend near you, whether European or Native, in examining 
 any one of the Versions they have already brought through the press ; 
 a copy of any part of which, interleaved, and particularly of the Ver- 
 sion in the Language, shall be thankfully sent you, on 
 your kindly intimating your wish.” 
 
 The following Extracts are from the latest Publication 
 received from the Missionaries—their Ninth Memoir of 
 
 — 
 
i 
 
 31 
 
 | Translations. After giving a list of the different Ver- 
 
 sions printed, with the date of each, they say— 
 
 “From this view of the Translations, and of the time when they were 
 respectively begun and finished at press, it will be evident that none of 
 them have been brought hastily through the press. Seven years have 
 formed the shortest period which has been occupied, even by those in 
 which the terminations were the nearest akin to those in the neighbour- 
 ing dialects; and with the exception of the Bengalee, which, as the 
 first, occupied almost undivided attention, it was not till those in the 
 chief cognate languages of India (the Bengalee, the Hindee, the Mah- 
 ratta, &c.) had been finished, that the secondary Versions were suffered 
 to pass through the press even in so small a space as seven years. The 
 chief cognate branches, it will be evident, occupied, in general, above 
 ten years each; and to those wherein the discrepancy was very great, 
 (as, for example, the Chinese, the Telinga, and the Kurnata,) nearly 
 twelve were given. It is however a fact, that above three-fourths of the 
 words in most of the secondary cognate languages were understood, in 
 all their bearings, through the Swngscrit, the Bengalee, and Hindee, 
 before those secondary languages were begun; and in some of them 
 even seven-eighths of the words, to say nothing of the construction, the 
 idiom, and the usual figures of speech, in which there is little variation 
 throughout the whole of the Indian family.”———— 
 
 “An assemblage of Pundits, learned in the various languages of 
 India, and engaged in making new Translations from Versions already 
 existing, afforded (to the Missionaries) advantages for ascertaining the 
 correctness of Versions when made, which are not easily met with else- 
 where. Each of those, who carefully perused another Version for the 
 sake of ascertaining the exact meaning of every passage, became a more 
 unexceptionable witness to its accuracy or its incorrectness, than any 
 Native can possibly be who cursorily examines only a few passages. 
 While the latter can do little more than testify to the correctness of the 
 idiom and the general perspicuity of the language, the Pundit, after 
 spending month after month in examining it in order to obtain the 
 literal meaning of each sentence for practical purposes, is a voucher for 
 the accuracy of the rendering in a way that no Native beside can be, 
 till he become acquainted with the original text, or at least obtain a 
 very thorough knowledge of the Scriptures in some other way. As it 
 is impossible that any one of these Pundits could guess beforehand 
 what sense the European Translator might wish him to find in the Ver- 
 sion he examines, (for this would have been equivalent to guessing, in 
 nearly every instance, the exact meaning of the original,) it must fol- 
 low, that the meaning he brought out of each passage and expressed in 
 his own rough draft was precisely the meaning he found in that Ver- 
 sion ; and this, brought to the European Translator, enabled him at once 
 to judge of the Version thus examined. 
 
 “This may be illustrated by an example. The Bengalee Version of 
 the New Testament being the first that was finished, when the Orissa 
 Pundit commenced his labours some years after, as he understood Ben- 
 galee nearly as well as his own vernacular tongue, he of course took 
 the Bengalee Version to assist him in making his own rough draft for 
 
. 
 
 32 
 examination. This, brought to Dr. Carey, enabled him at once to see 
 how far he himself had given the exact meaning of the original in the ~ 
 Bengalee Version, and wherein he had failed. This not only assisted — 
 him in rectifying the mistakes in that Version, but enabled him to dis- — 
 cern what mistakes were chiefly to be guarded against in future Ver- 
 sions of the Scriptures. Hence, when “several of these Pundits have ; 
 reciprocally read different Versions, and in this way have given undoubted — 
 proof of the sense in which they understand them, this has carried Q 
 more conviction to the mind respecting their accuracy when the sense 
 given has agreed with our own idea of the meaning of these passages, — 
 and has assisted us more in discerning those passages which had been 
 inadequately rendered, than all the other helps we have as yet been able — 
 to obtain, either from other Natives or Europeans. And as each Version — 
 has occupied from seven to twelve years in its formation and its passage 
 through the press, neither time nor means have been wanting, to enable 
 us to make up our own minds respecting the merits of each, long before 
 it has been sent into circulation. We are ready to indulge the hope, 
 therefore, that although all first Versions must necessarily be imperfect, 
 each of these already named is sufficiently accurate and perspicuous to 
 become, under the Divine blessing, the means of salvation, as well as” 
 the Bengalee, Sungskrit, and Hindee V ersions, which God has been 
 pleased already thus to honour. But, while we have this hope, we decom 
 it important to second editions of these Versions, to obtain, from every 
 quarter we are able, the opinions both of other Natives and of Euro- 
 peans respecting them; and, if possible, critical remarks on particular 
 passages, in the manner described in the Circular Letter on that subject, 
 published in the Appendix of the Seventh Memoir.” 
 
 Surely, in all this, the man who feels a real interest in 
 the circulation of the Scriptures and the spread of Divine ~ 
 Truth will see abundant cause, not for cayil and accusa- 
 tion, but for thankfulness and joy: and future Labourers — 
 will doubtless speak of the honoured and excellent men 
 now at Serampore, as the Translators of our own Version 
 have spoken of those who had preceded them :— . 
 
 ‘‘ Therefore, blessed be they, and most honoured be their names, that 
 break the ice, and epve the onset upon that which helpeth forward to 
 the saving of souls! Now, what can be more available thereto, than to 
 
 deliver God’s Book unto God’s people in a tongue which they under- 
 stand ?” 
 
 And doubtless they may be able to add, at the same 
 time— 
 
 “Yet, for all that, as nothing is begun and perfected at the same 
 time, and the latter thoughts are thought to be wiser; so, if we, build- 
 ing upon their foundation that went before us, and being holpen by 
 their labours, do endeavour to make that better which they left so good, 
 no man, we are sure, hath cause to mislike us: they, we persuade our- 
 selves, if they were alive, would thank us.’ 
 
33 
 
 The Committee of the Bible Society are charged with 
 * arrogating to themselves the credit of all that is thus 
 done by the Baptist Missionaries in India.” How they 
 do so, does not appear. They print a list of Languages, 
 in which Versions have been made; but of the Bible So- 
 ciety they only say, that it has “ either directly or in- 
 directly promoted the distribution, printing, or transla- 
 tion of the Scriptures” in these languages? Is this ar- 
 rogant? Is it untrue? 
 
 But there are Two important points respecting Indian 
 Versions, which have been overlooked by the Reviewer. 
 
 1. There exist Auxiliary Bible Societies at Calcutta, 
 Madras, Bombay, and Colombo, all engaged in promot- 
 ing the translation and circulation of the Scriptures, in 
 direct connexion with the Society in London. These 
 Societies have rendered important service in the editing 
 and publishing of some of the most important Indian 
 Versions—the Persian for instance, Hindoostanee, Ma- 
 layalim, Teloogoo, Tamil, Goojurattee. To Calcutta 
 and Madras, large Libraries have been sent out by the 
 Committee in London, selected under the inspection of 
 Professor Lee and other men of learning, for the use of 
 Editors and Translators. These consist of all the most 
 important Critical and Exegetical Works, from Walton’s 
 Polyglott, down to the modern works of the most dis- 
 tinguished Scholars of Germany and other countries. 
 
 Having mentioned these Societies, I cannot but quote 
 one passage from the last Report of that at Madras, on 
 account of its complete accordance with some of the re- 
 marksmade above, upon imperfect Versions. ThisSociety 
 has been reprinting the Pentateuch, the Psalms, and 
 Isaiah, of the Old Tamil Version of Fabricius, though fully 
 sensible of its imperfections: on which they observe— 
 
 “ Although it is an object of paramount importance with your So- 
 ciety to obtain and circulate the purest and most faithful translations 
 of the Sacred Scriptures, nevertheless, as long as it is the only existing 
 source from which the spiritual wants of Native Christians can be sup- 
 plied, it is assuredly its duty, as it doubtless ever will be its earnest 
 desire, to provide them with such means of nourishment as it has 
 pleased an All-wise Providence to place in its hands.” 
 
 2. The Committee of the Bible Society have voted 
 2000/. for the Translation Department of that very 
 D 
 
34: 
 
 College at Calcutta, founded by Bishop Middleton, of 
 which the Reviewer speaks so highly. And they voted 
 this sum the moment they heard of its establishment, 
 rejoicing to support such an Institution by any means 
 within their power. The Grant has been suitably ac- 
 knowledged at a Public Meeting of the Society for Pro- 
 pagating the Gospel; and part of it was drawn for by 
 the late lamented Bishop above mentioned. 
 
 The establishment of this College seems to afford one 
 instance of the great results to which even weak and im- 
 perfect attempts at what is good may in the end lead. 
 For it owes its rise, if we may believe the Reviewer, to — 
 the Bishop’s meditations upon these very same “ill — 
 digested measures of the Earl-Street Committee’s Trans- 
 lators,” of which we have heard so much. 
 
 There is one more charge which requires notice. It 
 is this :-— 
 
 “‘ That individuals (on the Continent of Europe), notorious for enter- 
 taining Heretical or Infidel opinions, acting under the protection of the 
 BibleSociety, have succeeded in making seriousinnovations in the received 
 Versions. Under the sanction and at the expense of this Society, editions 
 of the Bible have appeared in various parts of the Continent, purified 
 of the passages which gave offence to the philosophers.” —Review, p. 26. 
 
 Of so grave a charge surely some proofs ought to have — 
 been produced: but there are none. The Reviewer 
 merely requests his readers to believe that “ Mr. Haldane 
 and Dr. Andrew Thomson of Edinburgh have proved 
 these things beyond the possibility of doubt.”—On re- 
 ference to such writings of these Gentlemen as I have at 
 hand, I have been able to find two cases only where such 
 accusations are made, out of the multitudes of stances 
 in which Received Versions have been reprinted on the 
 Continent by the aid or influence of the Society in Lon- 
 don. The two cases are, those of a Danish Testament, 
 and a French Bible printed at Lausanne. 
 
 That Danish Testament was printed at Copenhagen ; 
 and the Committee of the Bible Society in London had 
 no more control over it than the Editor of the Quarterly 
 Review : it was printed by the Society at Copenhagen, 
 altogether at their own expense, and according to their — 
 own directions. Supposing, therefore, that it has even 
 
39 
 
 been designedly corrupted, still the Committee in Earl 
 Street had nothing whatever to do with it. So far from 
 it indeed, that they have lately ordered preparations to 
 be made for a new edition of the Danish Bible to be 
 printed from a copy of the Old and Standard Danish 
 Version, which has been forwarded to them for this pur- 
 pose by their Correspondents in Norway. 
 
 Of the Lausanne Edition, the Bible Society bore in- 
 deed a great share in the expense ; but it was edited by 
 seyeral of the Pastors and Professors of Lausanne and 
 Neuichatel, jomtly ; agaist whom no errors of opinion 
 on the essential pomts of Christian doctrme had ever 
 been alleged. One or two passages have now been 
 found, in which they have made alterations much for 
 the worse. Yet I would still maintain, that no sufiicient 
 - proof has been brought fairly to impeach the general 
 character of the Version. A Collation of this Edition 
 with that of 1744, which was taken as the basis of it, 
 was lately made, through the first half of the Book of 
 Psalms, and the Epistle to the Romans. This Colla- 
 tion was submitted to the examination of Dr. Macbride, 
 Principal of Magdalen Hall, Oxford, whose jealous care 
 for the purity of Scripture Translation is well known, I 
 am sure, to all who have been under his instruction in 
 the University.—His Report upon it was as follows :— 
 
 ** T have carefully compared these Collations with the original Greek ; 
 and find that a great majority of the variations from the edition of 1744 
 have no other object than toimprove the style. As the result is to bring 
 it nearer the French idiom, it retains fewer of the peculiarities of the 
 original—peculiarities which, from the force of habit, we prefer in our 
 Version ; and which I conceive that the foreigners who are accustomed 
 to read the Scriptures would be sorry to exchange for more modern words 
 and phrases.—A few are rather too paraphrastic, and soften down the 
 sense more than the original will bear: the Translator thus becomes a 
 Commentator: for instance, ‘ laisse dans son endurcissement, instead 
 of ‘endurcit ;’ and yet, in this new edition, ‘ destinés a perir’ is harsher 
 than ‘ disposés a la perdition.’ ” 
 
 ** Upon the whole, I prefer the edition of 1744, because more literal ; 
 but the Editors of the new one have evidently no sinister intentions in 
 their emendations, and appear to be perfectly orthodox ; since, in the 
 celebrated texts in the Acts, and in the First of Timothy, they follow 
 the readings most favourable to that scheme. The same wish of im- 
 ’ proving the style appears to have occasioned the variations in the Psalms. 
 “J. D. Macsrive.” 
 
36 
 
 But still, it may be said, granting even that the cor- 
 ruption has been slight—granting that it has been found 
 in two editions only, out of two hundred—is it not never- — 
 theless a great evil ?—Most certainly: but it is an evil 
 which the precautions that experience teaches are ren- 
 dering every year less and less likely to recur: and the — 
 question is, Whether it be one of those evils which must 
 attend the natural weakness and imperfection of all hu- 
 man Institutions, or an evil which a different and better 
 management might easily have avoided altogether ?—To 
 decide this, I can only appeal to experience. 
 
 Take the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 
 with all the safeguards that Dignity and Learning and 
 Religion can place around it, and all the wisdom which 
 the experience of a century must have taught. Doubt- 
 less, among the few Foreign Versions which this Society 
 circulates, none will be admitted but the most faultless 
 and pure. 
 
 Now, a few days since, I purchased at the Office of the © 
 Society, a copy of their French Testament, with the — 
 stamp of the Society upon it. It was printed in London, — 
 1808, and bears the’ following title: “ Le Nouveau ~ 
 Testament de Notre Seigneur Jésus Christ. Nouvelle — 
 Edition. Exactement revue, sur le Texte de M. Martin, — 
 par D. Durand, Min. de la Savoye.” I have compared — 
 the text of this book in a few passages with that of the — 
 editions of Martin of 1707 and 1722. The following is 
 the result :— 
 
 * 9g tf. 
 
 : Edition of Society for Pro- 
 Greek Tect. Martin, 1707 & 1722. molting Christ. Knowledge. 
 
 Marth. vi. 6. ; 
 xal 6 lari cov'6 BAémov et ton Pére qui te voit the whole clause, after 
 
 év 7@ xouTTO— dans ce lien secret. the word “ et,” omitted. 
 » 
 Epn. iv. 1. ' 
 , ~ ~ . 4 . 
 dkies mepimatijcot ys devous conduired’une the clause, “a laquelle 
 . . na i La > r 
 xAngE@s, rs ExAHOnTE. maniére digne de la vous étes appellés,” al- 
 
 vocationalaquelle vous together omitted. 
 étes appellez. 
 
 Epn. iv. 7. 
 xatT& To pétpov Tis Swpeas. selonlamesuredudon. selon la mesure des 
 dons. 
 1 Tro. iii. 16. 
 Ocos Epaveowbn. Dieu a été manifesté. un Dieu manifesté. 
 
The last three 
 
 37 
 
 Trr. ii 13. 
 de la gloire du grand 
 Dieu et notre Sauveur 
 Jésus Christ. 
 
 1 Joz. v. 20. 
 et nous sommes dans le 
 © Véritable,sarcir,enson 
 
 6 Fils Jésus Christ: il est 
 7 le vrai Dien, et la vie 
 
 éternelle. 
 
 variations are the 
 
 de la gloire du grand 
 Dieu, et de nétre San- 
 yeur Jésus Christ. 
 
 et nous sommes dans le 
 Véritable, savoir, en son 
 Fils Jésus Christ: c'est 
 lui qui est Ia vie éter- 
 nelle. 
 
 more remarkable, 
 
 inasmuch as, in the editions of Martin referred to, there 
 are notes to each of the three passages, explaining them 
 as so many direct proofs of the Divme Nature of- our 
 Sayiour; which notes would be without meaning, if 
 applied to them as printed in the new edition. And 
 what is more, these three errors were distinctly pomted 
 out by the late Mr. Owen, as far back as 1822, in two 
 _ Letters that arose out of a controversy between him and 
 a writer im the Christian Remembrancer; which Letters 
 appeared in the public Newspapers, and were afterwards 
 printed in the form of a pamphlet, and were noticed in 
 the Christian Remembrancer. So that it can scarcely 
 be conceived but that some of the Directors of the 
 Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge must have 
 been aware, at the time, of the charges adduced. 
 
 I lament that the Managers of so important a Society 
 —a Society of which I am myself a Member—should 
 have been thus negligent. But I mean not this as recri- 
 mination: I mean only to shew, that, im the best- 
 managed human Institutions, errors, even great and 
 manifest errors, will at times unavoidably be found. 
 Nor would I have brought these errors thus publicly 
 forward, had not the cause of truth, and justice to a 
 much-injured Institution, appeared to require it of me. 
 
 There still remaim some matters, though of a very 
 
 different nature, upon which the Reviewer has grounded 
 : against the Committee—I mean the circulation 
 of the Apocrypha among Catholics on the Continent, and 
 the Expenditure of the Society’s Funds. The lawful- 
 ness of thus circulating the Apocrypha has been so fully 
 
ms 1 
 
 and so publicly discussed, and that practice is now so 
 completely given up, and so plainly forbidden by Reso-— 
 lutions passed at the two last General Meetings, that I 
 think it unnecessary to say a word more about it here. — 
 
 Nor do I profess to enter very fully into the Charges 
 respecting Expenditure—yet upon these I cannot ba 
 make one or two observations. 
 
 The Committee are accused of spending sixteen per 
 cent. on the Management of the Income entrusted to 
 them ;—“ they have been guilty of unjustifiable extrava- 
 gance; they have expended, upon a host of Secretaries, 
 Accountants, Agents, both stationary and itmerant, &e, 
 &c., an unreasonable proportion of the funds entrusted 
 to their discretion.” 
 
 1. It is surely most unfair to take the Expenses of 
 Management in comparison with the amount of Free 
 Contributions merely. It should be compared with the 
 whole Amount Managed, that is, with the whole expen-— 
 diture of the year. Now, for the year 1825—1826, the 
 whole expenditure was 96, 0141. 13s. 4d. ; and, accord : 
 ing to the detailed statement published by the Auditors, 
 the charge of management was 6539/. 2s. 11d., which is” 
 less than seven per cent. upon the whole. 
 
 2. It has never been proved that there is any one of 
 the subordinate Officers, Clerks, or Porters, employed - 
 about the Society’s House, who is overpaid, or who is | 
 not fully employed. For myself, I know, by constant 
 observation, that they are at work from morning to night, — 
 and often at extra hours. 
 
 3. It has been stated, and never disproved, that, 
 
 “‘ Upon an accurate calculation of the expenses of the Depository and — 
 of the whole Establishment, during the last ten years—allowing, accord- — 
 ing to the usual mercantile ratio, for the money expended in the purchase ~ 
 both of the freehold and leasehold premises, erecting and enlarging the — 
 warehouses, furnishing, and all other expenses—the average of the last 
 ten years is only about equal to the average of the preceding three years: 
 when the Bibles and Testaments were with a Bookseller upon a mode- 
 rate commission ; the Secretaries and Assistant Secretary conducting 
 the business of their respective departments at their several habitations, 
 widely detached from each other; and the Committee holding its meetings 
 in rooms hired for the occasion. 
 
 “ The facility which has been experienced from having the increasing 
 concerns of the Society conducted on one spot, is such as to evince the 
 propriety of the measure : and it having been found necessary to aug- 
 ment, very considerably, the variety as well as quantity of Versions in 
 
| 39 
 
 _ Foreign Languages, and also, in order to have the English editions at 
 
 all times in a proper state for binding, to increase the stock in that lan- 
 
 - guage very greatly, I am informed, that the aggregate value of the So- 
 ciety’s Bibles and Testaments is, at this time, five times what it was at 
 the period when their stock was removed to Earl Street; and had it 
 been continued with a Bookseller, his allowance, for warehouse-rent, and 
 the necessary attention required by the care of such a stock, must have 
 been considerably augmented.”—(See a Letter in the Edinburgh Theo- 
 logical Magazine for December 1826.) 
 
 4, It must be recollected, that the Bible Society stands 
 in a very different situation from that of most other Re- 
 ligious Societies, with respect to Foreign Agents. Sup- 
 pose, for instance, the Society for Promoting Christian 
 Knowledge, in London, or the Continental Society in 
 Edinburgh, wish to extend their operations to any parti- 
 cular country, even though it be one in which they can do 
 little but by the distribution of the Scriptures or Religious 
 Works, they send out a Missionary, or Schoolmaster, 
 or Agent, as the case may be; and this is set down as 
 one of their legitimate objects, and the expense of it is 
 by no means to be reckoned among “ Expenses of 
 Management.” Now, if the Bible Society wish to do the 
 same thing, unless there be Missionaries already esta- 
 blished on the very spot, they must necessarily send out 
 an Agent also: and then this Agent, though engaged in 
 “domg the work of an Evangelist,” as fully perhaps as 
 many of the persons above described, is put down at once 
 in the same List with Messengers and Porters, and his 
 salary goes only to make an item in “a lavish expendi- 
 ture of Management.” 
 
 It is not to be endured, for instance, that the salary 
 of the Rev. Mr. Leeves, who has been for years rendering 
 as important services to the cause of Religion, in the 
 Greek Church, and throughout the Turkish Empire, as 
 any Missionary whatever employed in that part of the 
 world, should be classed with the stipend of an Office- 
 clerk. Moreover, some of these persons described as 
 Agents have been muchemployedas Editors ; for instance, 
 Mr. Leeves himself, and Professor Kieffer; and a great 
 part therefore of themoney paid to them has been no more 
 expended in “ Management” than that which has been 
 employed for discharging Editors’ and Printers’ bills. 
 
 5. Leander Von Ess received no salary until Mr. Owen 
 
40 
 
 had personally examined into the state of his affairs, 
 while on the Continent in 1818. And from his Report 
 it appeared, that so extensive were the arrangements 
 which had been necessarily made for the effectual circu 
 lation of his edition of the New Testament, that the whole 
 income derived from his existing employments would be 
 absorbed by the expenses attendant upon them; and on 
 the principle, that he who thus widely preached the Go- 
 spel ought to live by the Gospel, a salary of 300/. a-year 
 was voted to him. 60/. was afterwards added for a Clerk, 
 and for warehouse-rent. But that his affairs and the whole 
 of his proceedings may be duly investigated, Dr. Pmkerton 
 has just been despatched by the Committee to visit him : 
 and on this journey he is accompanied by the Rey. R. W 
 Sibthorp, B.D. Fellow of Magdalen College, Oxford. 
 
 That Dr. Von Ess’s salary was not announced in the 
 printed Reports of the Society, arose simply from the 
 circumstance, that those Reports were known to be read 
 by many, on the Continent, who would gladly thwart his 
 progress and abridge his usefulness by all means in their 
 power; and if any such exposure of his arrangements 
 and affairs were made, as the mention of his salary would 
 necessarily cause, it was feared that some occasion might 
 be devised for taking more effectual steps against him 
 than any that had yet been attempted. 
 
 Whether this fear did indeed justify the concealment, 
 I shall not undertake to decide. The motive for it 
 least was good. 
 
 As to the language in which his exertions are spoke 
 of in two passages quoted from the Reports of the So- 
 ciety, I have to say, that at the time the first of them 
 was written, he neither was receiving, nor had received, 
 any salary at all. And the second, it should be observed, ~ 
 is not from the Report itself, but ‘quoted from a Letter 
 of Dr. Steinkopff. Doubtless the i impression made upon | 
 the warm and affectionate heart of that excellent man, 
 by the sight of Leander Von Ess’s operations, was such 
 as he describes; nor do I see any thing in the mere fe t 
 of his receiving a salary, (under the circumstances re-— 
 presented by Mr. Owen,) which should make me believe ~ 
 that impression to have been delusive. se 
 
Bible Society, 
 
 “REMARKS 
 
 UPON THE RECENT ACCUSATIONS AGAINST 
 THE COMMITTEE OF THE BRITISH AND 
 FOREIGN BIBLE SOCIETY. 
 
 IN A LETTER TO A CLERGYMAN IN THE COUNTRY, 
 FROM A LAY-MEMBER OF THAT INSTITUTION. 
 
 “ He loveth transgression that loveth strife.’—Prov. xvii. 19. 
 
 “ Hatred stirreth up strife; but love covereth all sins.’ —Pyov. x. 12. 
 
 Second BDitiow. 
 
 LONDON: 
 PUBLISHED BY J. DUNCAN, PATERNOSTER ROW ; 
 
 AND SOLD BY HATCHARD AND SON; SEELEY AND SON; J. NISBET; 
 J. AND A. ARCH; AND ALL OTHER BOOKSELLERS, 
 
 1826. 
 
- 
 om 
 - 
 : 
 *fi 
 ' 
 i 
 
 ye 
 -~ 
 ’ 
 
 KS, 
 i 
 a 2h 
 ? 
 * 
 ‘ re Be 
 Og 
 *f 
 hGiw ike 
 «8 , 
 a 
 
 Printed by J. Rides Little Britain, London. 
 
A LETTER, &c. 
 
 My pear Frienp, 
 
 IN one of your recent letters you requested me to send you, as 
 soon as possible, any statements which the Committee of the 
 Barris anv Foreien Brste Society might publish, in reply to the 
 charges lately alleged against their proceedings. You urged the 
 necessity of this measure; as although you and many others were 
 fully satisfied that these charges were either absolutely false or 
 much exaggerated, yet they produced mischief in the minds of 
 numerous individuals; and you hoped that explanations would 
 speedily appear, to silence the calumnies of adversaries, and remove 
 the fears of those friends upon whom the ex-parte statements 
 had made an unfavourable impression. 
 
 At that time I had not the smallest idea of personally entering upon 
 the subject. I fully expected that the Committee would have 
 sent forth a general and explanatory Statement; and I cannot but 
 regret that they propose to confine themselves to publishing Docu- 
 ments, relative to the principal allegations which have been brought 
 forward against their proceedings. I regret this, for however 
 valuable and satisfactory such testimony may be, to those who possess 
 time, inclination, and ability for a careful examination of masses of 
 documentary papers, they will hardly meet the wishes of the general 
 body of subscribers, among whom the various objections have been 
 circulated, in every shape, and with extraordinary industry. 
 
 It must be admitted that the Committee have only a choice of 
 difficulties; and it cannot be expected that any general Statement 
 should remove the prejudices, or silence the calumnies, of those who 
 are unfriendly to the Society. But “a patient perseverance in well- 
 doing,” will, in time, stop the mouths of gainsayers; and however 
 painful it may be to proceed amidst suspicion on the one hand, and 
 opposition on the other, yet those who have been called to give 
 their time and abilities to this work of faith and labour of love, asa 
 
4 
 
 matter of duty, may be confidently assured that, in the end their just 
 dealing will shine forth as the noon-day. That such will eventually 
 be the result, I cannot doubt ; but it is the duty of every Member 
 of the Society to remove misconceptions, and to give publicity to 
 the truth, so far as lies in his power. 
 
 With these impressions, and as some time must elapse before the 
 proposed Documents can appear; and since there are points re- 
 quiring notice to which they can hardly extend, I am induced to 
 send you the following observations :—* 
 
 Your acquaintance with the rise and progress of this noblest of 
 human Institutions renders it unnecessary for me to enter into 
 details upon many subjects with which you are far better acquainted 
 than myself; or to attempt a delineation of those days, when 
 persons who visited the meetings of the General Committee 
 witnessed a practical illustration of the words of the Psalmist, 
 “Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell 
 together in unity.” Those days, I fully trust, will again return; 
 as I feel persuaded, although misunderstandings have arisen, 
 that those who direct the affairs of the Society are influenced 
 by higher motives than any earthly considerations; and that, 
 however differing in opinion, they have been actuated by a desire 
 conscientiously to perform what they considered to be their duty. 
 
 It has fallen to my lot, as you are aware, to be present at most of 
 the discussions which have recently taken place in the General 
 Committee, and I shall endeavour simply to state facts, without the 
 least design to advocate any of the measures in a party spirit, or 
 with the personality which unhappily has pervaded many of the 
 publications on these subjects. 
 
 The allegations in question refer, to—THE CIRCULATION OF THE 
 AvocrypHA—THE CuHaAracTeR oF ForzicN InstiTuTIons AND 
 INDIVIDUALS CONNECTED WITH THE SoctrTy—THE ADDITION OF 
 NoTEs TO COPIES OF THE ScRIPTURES PUBLISHED WITH THE AID 
 OF THE SoclETY—THE ENCOURAGEMENT OF ADULTERATED EDITIONS 
 oF THE ScripTURES—THE CONCEALMENT OF PART OF THE ExpEN- 
 sES OF ManacGemMENT—EXAGGERATED REPRESENTATIONS OF THE 
 Reuicious State or THE ContinsentT—TuHE ExPENDITURE GENE- 
 RALLY—AND, THE CIRCUMSTANCE OF MANY MEMBERS OF THE 
 ComMITTEE HAVING BEEN KEPT IN IGNORANCE OF A PART OF THE 
 PRrocrepin¢s. 
 
 * See a Note at the conclusion, 
 
5 
 
 These subjects I propose to notice in succession. I am fully 
 persuaded that you will peruse my remarks with that candour and 
 impartiality with which Christians ever desire to examine the 
 proceedings of their fellow-men; that you will remember the 
 Society had to proceed upon a new and unbeaten track, without 
 the experience of others to guide their way, or to give warning of 
 the dangers which might beset their path; and that several indi- 
 viduals who were most active in former years, being now no more; 
 we are precluded from receiving full explanations of their conduct ; 
 while many particulars, from the lapse of time, cannot now he 
 fully recalled. 
 
 I need not remind you, that my statements are those of one who 
 sustains no official character; at the same time, 1 have made use of 
 every proper source of information in my power, and have availed 
 myself of many important documents to which I have had access ; 
 in some instances adopting the expressions of others more conver- 
 sant with the different subjects than myself. 
 
 APOCRYPHA. 
 
 It is not my intention to enter much into the late discussions 
 relative to the circulation of the Apocrypha. As that subject 
 of complaint is now removed, it is unnecessary to dwell upon it, 
 although it is important to meet the assertions of those who accuse 
 the greater part of the present Committee of a desire and a design to 
 act contrary to the Resolutions passed at the last General Meet- 
 ing.* Certain writers seem to have forgotten, that persons may dif- 
 fer very widely—even upon points of material importance—and yet 
 be equally actuated by conscientious feelings, and an honest de- 
 sire to discharge their duty. But though you were among. the 
 
 * These Resolutions are— 
 
 I. That the fundamental law of the Society, which limits its operations to 
 the circulation of the Holy Scriptures, be fully and distinctly gia Tyra as 
 excluding the circulation of the Apocrypha. 
 
 II. That, in conformity to the preceding resolution, no pecuniary aid can be 
 granted to any society circulating the Apocrypha; nor, except for the purpose 
 of being applied in conformity to the said resolution, to any individual 
 whatever. 
 
 If]. That in all cases in which grants, whether gratuitous or otherwise, of 
 the Holy Scriptures, either in whole or in part, shall be made to any Society, 
 the Books be issued bownd, and on the express condition, that they shall be 
 distributed without alteration or addition. 
 
6 
 
 most decided objectors in the country to Apocryphal circulation, 
 I do not for a moment class you with the individuals just alluded 
 to. I am persuaded that you gave those, whose ideas you warmly 
 opposed, full credit for honesty and uprightness, and were satis- 
 fied that they acted from the real conviction of their own minds, 
 with a desire faithfully to discharge the trust committed to them :— 
 in this you did justice to their motives. A large proportion of 
 the Committee, without possessing any regard themselves for the 
 Apocrypha,* thought that the primary rule of the Society did not 
 prevent aid from being given to Continental Societies, which issued 
 Bibles in the only form circulated in their districts, and had not 
 yet learned to free their copies of the Scriptures from these objec- 
 tionable additions. Another part of the Committee thought other- 
 wise.—But it is needless to proceed further upon this subject : the 
 question is now completely decided—it can no longer be a matter 
 of doubt or hesitation to any one; and whatever division of sen- 
 timent may formerly have existed, as to the interpretation of the 
 first rule of the Society, none exists now; the path of duty is 
 clearly pointed out; and it may be stated, in the most decided 
 terms, that no intention to depart from the regulations adopted 
 at the last Annual Meeting of the Society has ever been mani- 
 fested by any Member of the present Committee. Of this I believe 
 you are fully satisfied; so that if you were to return to London, 
 and again resume your active assistance to the Society, I am -per- 
 suaded you would not for a moment feel reluctant to act with 
 those whose opinions upon this subject you but lately so warmly 
 opposed. 
 
 Two cases, it is true, have been brought forward, in which it has 
 been said, that the present Committee, or a large portion of it, did 
 manifest a desire to depart from these rules. The charge is un- 
 founded, and the facts of these cases may, with truth, be briefly 
 stated as follows :— 
 
 A printer in Germany wrote to the Committee, stating the great 
 
 * In confirmation of this, it may be confidently stated, that in the numerous 
 instances in which new Translations of the Scriptures have been made by Mis- 
 sionaries in India, or elsewhere, by direction of the Committee and at the ex- 
 pense of the Society, even the idea of translating or adding the Apocrypha has 
 never been entertained. It may be proper to add, that the Apocrypha was not 
 contained in more than about twenty of the versions printed directly by the 
 Society, or with its aid, which amount in the whole, to more than one hundred 
 and forty, including some, it is true, which do not contain the Old Testament. 
 
7 
 
 want of the Scriptures in the Watzacuran language; and that 
 he was willing to undertake an edition, if aided by the British 
 and Foreign Bible Society. The letter was referred to a Sub- 
 Committee, who were convinced of the importance of the object, 
 but felt that the resolutions of the General Meeting precluded pe- 
 cuniary aid in such a case; they however thought that a thousand 
 copies of the edition might be purchased, if they were without 
 the Apocrypha. But when the subject was further considered,* it 
 was deemed advisable to decline taking any copies of the edition, 
 unless it was first ascertained that the printer would not print 
 any additional copies for his onn sale, or for any other parties, with 
 the Apocrypha; and after some discussion, whether the resolutions 
 of the General Meeting required such an interference with the pri- 
 vate proceedings of an individual, it was resolved, that no part of 
 the edition should be purchased for the Society, wnless the whole was 
 printed without the Apocrypha.t ‘This was the only resolution of 
 the Committee on the subject; and it does appear singular, that a 
 proceeding, which must have met the strongest wishes of the most 
 decided opposer of Apocryphal circulation, should be distorted into 
 a charge of predilection for the Apocrypha, and referred to, as 
 evidence of a desire to break through the regulations so recently 
 laid down. 
 
 A grant to Dr. Leanper Van Ess has been still more grossly 
 misrepresented. The various editions of his Testament are printed 
 at Sultzbach, a town in a different State, and at some distance from 
 his residence at Darmstadt. The conveyance of books in sheets is 
 much safer and less expensive than when bound, and the duties 
 charged on passing from one State to another are less on unbound 
 than on bound books. The copies of the Testament, therefore, 
 were formerly sent in sheets from the printer, and bound at Darm- 
 stadt, under the inspection of Professor Van Ess, who thus became 
 
 * It should be remembered, that the Resolutions of the Sub-Committees are 
 merely suggestions to the General Committee, and they are frequently altered 
 or modified upon further consideration. 
 
 + The Resolution of the Committee is as follows: 
 At a Meeting of the Committee, May 22, 1826— 
 
 ‘¢‘ RESOLVED, That the Secretaries be directed to correspond with Mr, 
 Thierry, of Hermanstadt, to know if he will undertake to print an edition 
 of the Wallachian Bible, without the Apocrypha; and the terms on 
 which he would supply a Thousand or more copies of it,” 
 
8 
 
 responsible for proper attention on the part of the binders, and their 
 due performance of the work. Soon after the General Meeting, 
 Dr. Van Ess stated various applications for his Testament, and re- 
 quested that a grant of Eleven Thousand copies might be placed 
 at his disposal. It never was intended that these should be issued 
 unbound, nor was it supposed that the Professor would send forth 
 a single copy in any form contrary to the regulations; but it was 
 considered, by some persons on the Committee, that, to proceed in 
 strict conformity with the resolutions passed at the last Annual 
 Meeting, the Testaments ought to be bound previously to their arrival 
 at the town in which Dr. Van Ess resided. This suggestion the 
 Committee adopted, directing only Five Thousand copies to be 
 granted at that time, and that they should all be bound before they 
 were sent away from the town in which they were printed. A resolu- 
 tion was passed to this effect.* It should be here observed, that this 
 question never was before any Sub-Committee ; that the only reso- 
 lution on the subject is the one just mentioned; and that the asser- 
 tion of unbound bibles being granted to Dr. Van Ess is entirely false. 
 To any one acquainted with the proceedings of Committees, or other 
 public bodies, it is well known that only the result of a deliberation, 
 as ascertained from the resolution adopted, is to be considered as the 
 act of the Committee, and that they never should be called in 
 question for any opinions expressed by individuals during a debate. 
 It should be further remarked, that the questions just referred to 
 were not, as is represented, whether the regulations should be de- 
 parted from, but how far the cases in question came within the 
 meaning of those rules: and, it may fairly be asked, how could this 
 be ascertained, except by discussion? Again, let it be remembered, 
 that the conductors of this and every institution are but men, and 
 therefore liable to err; then, surely, they should rather be commended 
 
 * At a Meeting of the Committee, July 3, 1826— 
 
 s¢ READ an Extract of a Letter from the Rev. Dr. Van Ess, dated Darm- 
 stadt, June 6, 1826. He incloses a statement of his Accounts, duly audited, 
 and of his Issues of the Scriptures from the Ist December, 1825, to the 3lst 
 May, 1826. He requests the Committee will allow him to procure 11,000 Tes- 
 taments, without delay, as his stock is nearly exhausted. 
 
 “ RESOLVED, That Mr. Von Seidel, of Sulzbach, be directed to furnish to 
 the order of Dr. Van Ess, as a present supply, 5000 German Testaments, 
 bound in common binding; and that he draw upon the Treasurer of this 
 Society for the amount thereof.” 
 
9 
 
 for careful enquiry and discussion, than blamed because all may not 
 at once see the same thing in the same light, although all are equally 
 determined to act with honesty and conscientiousness in the dis- 
 charge of the duties which have devolved upon them. 
 
 I need not remind you, that the Bible Society is not authorized to 
 sit in judgment upon the motives of Individuals, or other Societies, 
 at home or abroad, who may think it lawful to circulate the Apo- 
 crypha.* The only point in which the Institution is concerned is 
 now put beyond a doubt; namely, that 1T Is NoT LAWFUL FOR THE 
 BritisH anp Foreien Brere Society To Alp IN THE CIRCULATION OF 
 THE APOCRYPHA. 
 
 By undertaking the responsible post assigned to them, the Com- 
 mittee have distinctly pledged themselves to adhere to the late Reso- 
 lutions ; and the various individuals connected with the direction of 
 the Society are too well known, to render it necessary to say, that 
 they would not continue to fill their respective situations without an 
 honest determination strictly to follow the path their constituents 
 have pointed out for them. Still less would the revered and 
 respected President, and the Vice-Presidents, be found in a Com- 
 mittee, if it were true, as is asserted by certain writers, that the 
 members are unworthy of confidence, and actuated by selfish or evil 
 motives. 
 
 It has been asserted, that the Committee, after the resolutions 
 passed in 1822, granted a set of Stereotype plates for De Sacy’s 
 French Bible, containing the Apocrypha, to Professor Kieffer, as well 
 as a number of the Bibles already printed. The former part of this 
 charge is without foundation; the stereotype platest of De Sacy’s 
 Bible were never, as has been supposed, the property of the British 
 and Foreign Bible Society, but always belonged to Mr. Smith, a 
 printer at Paris: and as to the copies then on hand, it was generally 
 understood in the Committee, and expressly stated by those who 
 
 * It has always been deemed a prominent feature in the constitution of 
 the Society, that it leaves all persons in possession of their own opinions, the 
 Society neither being called upon to approve or condemn, nor those who have 
 joined its ranks to retain or reject, any particular sentiments. This applies 
 with full force to the case of those who do not feel it sinful to circulate the 
 Apocrypha. 
 
 + The Society never possessed any plates for the Apocrypha, except in the 
 case of a Spanish and a German Bible. In the latter instance, the plates were 
 sent from Leipsig through mistake, but they were never used: and both have 
 been destroyed. 
 
10 
 
 took a prominent part in opposing Apocryphal circulation, when the 
 resolutions regarding the Apocrypha were passed in 1822, that 
 they should not be applied retrospectively ; and therefore, with the 
 sole view of closing all concern with the edition in question as 
 speedily as possible, the copies that remained were placed in the 
 hands of Professor Kieffer for distribution. 
 
 I should here state, that the Society continued to pay the ex- 
 pense of binding these Bibles, and their carriage to different places : 
 this might, perhaps, be deemed more inconsistent with the resolutions 
 than the grant itself,—but it followed as a necessary consequence 
 of the general understanding just mentioned, and through inadver- 
 tency escaped notice, although clearly stated in Professor Kieffer’s 
 accounts, which were regularly laid before the Committee. Upon the 
 adoption of the recent resolutions, the Committee directed that the 
 Apocryphal books and chapters should be removed from every copy 
 that remained of this edition, and from others of a similar description, 
 
 Respecting the proposed purchase of 8000 copies of the first part 
 of the Bible preparing by Dr. Leander Van Ess, attention should be 
 given to the first paragraph of the Letter from him, dated June 
 28th, 1824, which has appeared in print :—He says, “ In reply to 
 your Letter concerning the 8000 copies of my Translation of the 
 Old Testament, as proposed to be purchased.”’—Unfortunately, in 
 another paragraph of the same Letter, the same expression in the 
 original is rendered has purchased: hence has arisen the mistake 
 which has been the subject of complaint. The original is given 
 below:* and, in fact, the alleged purchase NEVER was made, nor 
 have any copies of his version of the Old Testament been circu 
 lated at the expense of the Society. The whole of his version has 
 not yet left the press! 
 
 As to a studied concealment, with regard to the Apocryphal 
 Writings, which has been so much spoken of, it should be remarked, 
 that in the Committee, open at all tumes, none such did occur, nor 
 could possibly be practised : the subject was frequently mentioned— 
 Letters were read and Resolutions were passed, in which the Apo- 
 crypha was mentioned by name—and it is a matter of general noto- 
 riety, that in all the Churches on the Continent, the Apocryphal are 
 united with the Canonical Books. 
 
 Nor has this always appeared objectionable to those who are now 
 the loudest in their accusations against the past proceedings of the 
 
 * © Deren Canonische Biicher auf Kosten der Brittischen Bibelgesellschaft 
 angekauft werden.” 
 
11 
 
 Society. One instance may suffice. In a letter from Henry Drum- 
 mond, Esq. to the Committee, dated Geneva, 5th September 1817, 
 that gentleman writes, “ I think you are unjust towards the Ca- 
 tholics, and employing yourselves uselessly, to attempt to force 
 Translations unauthorized by their Church.” I am informed that this 
 gentleman printed an edition of the Italian Bible, at his own expence, 
 in 1819, containing an intermixed Apocrypha and fifty-two pages of 
 general index, and circulated it during that and succeeding years. 
 It is well known that during the last three years considerable dif- 
 ferences of opinion prevailed among the members of the Committee— 
 as well those who are elected as those who are privileged to attend and 
 vote,—whether it was consistent with the fundamental Laws to circu- 
 late Bibles in foreign languages in which the Canonical and Apo- 
 cryphal Books were united, and to aid Foreign Institutions which 
 circulated Bibles of that description. Many painful discussions were 
 the consequence, which have been at length happily brought to a 
 termination by the explanatory Regulations adopted at the last Ge- 
 neral Meeting. If, in the course of these discussions, and the nu- 
 merous Resolutions adopted in consequence, at various times, there 
 may have been an appearance of vacillation in the conduct of the 
 Committee, the cause will principally be found in that part of its 
 constitution which opens it to Subscribers of a certain amount, and 
 to all Ministers contributing One Guinea per Annum, by which more 
 than Five Hundred individuals are entitled to attend and vote, and 
 on all these occasions Members thus privileged have taken an equal, 
 if not a more prominent patt, than the thirty-six elected Members. 
 The Committee having thus, on various occasions, been exceed- 
 ingly numerous, great diversity of sentiment resulted: and this has 
 given rise to much misconception among persons who were only 
 occasionally present, as well as in the public mind : for those who are 
 not aware that the privileged Members present have often equalled 
 or exceeded in number the elected Members, and are unacquainted 
 with the leading part the former have taken in these discussions,* 
 have naturally supposed that the different Resolutions all emanated 
 from the majority of the elected Members. In making this remark, 
 I would request you clearly to understand, that I do not refer to this 
 
 * On one occasion, a person who was present noted down the names of the 
 speakers, and found that only eight of them were elected members of the Com- 
 mittee, while the discussion was principally carried on by sixteen of the pri- 
 vileged members. More than eighty individuals were present, only twenty of 
 whom belonged to the elected Committee. 
 
12 
 
 circumstance with any wish that an attempt should be made to alter 
 these Rules or limit these privileges.—On the contrary, I should 
 deprecate such a proceeding. I merely refer to the simple matter 
 of fact; and must remark, that the elected members of a Committee 
 thus constituted should not be held entirely responsible for proceed- 
 ings which the constitution of the Society does not subject wholly 
 to their controul. From similar misconception has emanated the 
 charge of inconsistency and unfairness, in rescinding, in March 
 1825, all former resolutions relating to the Apocrypha. These re- 
 solutions were several in number, and had been passed in large 
 Committees; among the individuals attending which, as well as 
 among many of the Subscribers, great difference of opinion existed, 
 as to the actual bearing of those Resolutions upon the first Rule of 
 the Society. Two remonstrances against them, on exactly opposite 
 grounds—the one from the Committee of the Edinburgh Bible 
 Society ; the other from a respectable body of Subscribers at Cam- 
 bridge, Clerical Members of the Established Church—being at the 
 same time brought before the Committee, in addition to several 
 others previously received, those Resolutions were rescinded,—only 
 one person signifying a different opinion, although about thirty 
 were then present—NOT, as has been asserted, to leave the Com- 
 mittee at liberty to circulate the Apocrypha, but that they might, 
 unfettered by any past or conflicting explanations of their own as 
 to the construction of the Laws, be open to receive, and act upon, 
 such as might be put upon them, after further and more mature 
 deliberation. : 
 
 In reference to any additional Apocryphal Books which may have 
 been introduced in some Foreign Editions of the Sacred Seriptures, 
 printed in foreign countries with the aid of the Society, it is suffi- 
 cient to state, that they were admitted solely on account of their 
 forming a part of the Authorised Bible of the Church or people 
 for whom the edition was intended, and according to the only form 
 in which the Scriptures are circulated by the Societies of those 
 countries, 
 
 THE CHARACTERS OF FOREIGN INSTITUTIONS AND INDIVIDUALS CON- 
 
 NECTED WITH THIS SOCIETY. 
 
 The alliance of the Society with Foreign Institutions that cir- 
 culate the Apocryphal Books, and with persons said to profess and 
 hold unsound opinions, has also been made a matter of the gravest 
 
13 
 
 censure. From the expressions made use of by some writers, it 
 would appear as if the Committee were in league with all the In- 
 fidels of note upon the continent of Europe, and had committed the 
 circulation of the Scriptures to their hands, in preference, and to 
 the exclusion, of all others. Of the falsity and folly of such asser- 
 tions you are well aware. 
 
 The nature of the connection between the British and Foreign 
 Bible Society and Foreign Societies seems not well understood. 
 Some persons appear to have pressed the figurative terms of ‘ Parent 
 and Child,’ ‘Stem and Branch,’ far beyond their just application. 
 You know that they are all independent Societies, appointing their 
 own officers, conducting their own operations, and administering their 
 own funds. Many indeed were formed by the exertions of the 
 Agents of the Bible Society, whose presence and advice have always 
 been kindly received.* But abroad it has been the same as at 
 home: and over the Provincial Societies the Committee in London 
 have no controul. The simple point looked to, and invariably re- 
 quired, is the engagement to circulate the Scriptures without note or 
 comment; all local details are, and must be, left to themselves. 
 
 It thus plainly appears, that the Foreign Societies cannot be re- 
 garded, any more than the Domestic, as Agents under the controul 
 of the Committee of the British Bible Society; and for the private 
 or public conduct of their conductors, be it good or bad, the Com- 
 mittee cannot be responsible, as they are chosen both at home and 
 abroad without their controul or interference. If any of the Direc- 
 tors of such Institutions have committed the evils with which they 
 have been charged, it is deeply to be regretted; but the London 
 Committee have no power to direct their removal. It cannot be 
 doubted, however, that experience will in future guide them to 
 exercise the utmost caution, whenever assistance is required. 
 
 With regard to the Editors of the Lausanne Bible, in September 
 1817, the Committee resolved that the sum of £500 should be 
 granted in aid of an Edition of Ostervald’s French Bible, to be 
 
 * On visiting different places on the Continent, the Agents of the Society 
 addressed themselves generally, in the first instance, to those who are in 
 authority. The sanction of such, both at home and abroad, has been solicited 
 in the first instance; and the value of such a course of proceeding has shewn 
 itself in various ways, principally in disarming all suspicions of a political 
 and ecclesiastical nature. On the Continent, without this sanction of Rulers 
 in Church and State, it would have been scarcely possible to have proceeded 
 at all. 
 
14 
 
 printed by the united exertions of the Bible Societies of Lausanne, 
 Neufchatel, Berne, and Geneva. They did so in consequence 
 of an application from those Societies, and at the express re- 
 commendation of Mr. Drummond, who, though well aware of 
 the characters of the individuals forming those Societies, and with 
 the state of all matters connected with religion in that country, 
 strongly urged it as the most effectual method to prevent the 
 reprinting of a version which was exceedingly objectionable, and 
 which there was reason to fear those Societies might adopt.* 
 
 This grant was accepted : and certain individuals, having thus given 
 up the version to which they were perhaps most warmly attached, 
 became the coadjutors in the printing of an Orthodox Edition; and 
 the late Rev. J. Owen had a most difficult and delicate task to 
 perform when at Geneva, in the course of a Continental Tour under- 
 taken in behalf of the Society, in the year 1818. The testimony of 
 persons who witnessed his conduct, and heard him preach there, 
 satisfactorily proves that he did not shrink from fully declaring 
 his own doctrinal sentiments, although he very properly avoided en- 
 tering into any theological discussions, as he would in all probability, 
 have thereby put an end to the cordiality with which all parties ap- 
 peared to unite in the circulation of the Scriptures. Many other 
 particulars could be mentioned, shewing that those very individuals, 
 who are now the loudest in bringing forward this connection with 
 certain characters as a ground of accusation, at that time thought 
 very differently, and earnestly endeavoured to procure their co- 
 operation in printing approved and Orthodox Editions of the Scrip- 
 tures ;t—but of this circumstance you are doubtless already aware. 
 
 * By one of those strange mistakes which have been so frequent in these 
 cases, many persons have supposed that the Committee of the British and 
 Foreign Bible Society had adopted or aided this corrupted version, which they 
 have strongly and successfully opposed. 
 
 + It may here be proper to observe, that it is not on the Continent as in 
 this Country, with reference to Socinians, Arians, and others. There, separate 
 bodies do not exist, known under these designations; but all ostensibly 
 profess orthodox principles: and if their principles and character be such 
 as is represented, it is matter of some alleviation, that the antidote to 
 the poison of their doctrine has been extensively circulated, and that by 
 themselves. 
 
 The assertions of those who declare, without any hesitation, that this or that 
 individual is a Socinian, have recently been contradicted in express terms by 
 Professor Kieffer and many other persons, who feel deeply hurt that such an 
 erroneous and injurious imputation should have been cast upon them. 
 
15 
 
 This subject involves the consideration of the question, Whether 
 the conductors of the British and Foreign Bible Society are only to 
 correspond with, and employ, such persons as are of religious senti- 
 ments similar to their own? or, Whether they can avail themselves of 
 the co-operation of all such as engage to promote the circulation of 
 the Scriptures without note or comment? I need hardly remind you, 
 that it has always been considered sufficient to require satisfaction as to 
 the versions adopted, with the pledge already mentioned, that nei- 
 ther notes nor comment should be introduced. Doubtless, the 
 Committee would always prefer the selecting of men of decided Chris- 
 tian principles, well known for piety and sound wisdom, to carry on 
 the circulation of the Holy Scriptures. But surely the Commitee is 
 not, and will not, be required to adopt the earnest recommendations 
 of those who cannot allow even an abstractedly good work to be 
 performed, unless performed in their own way, or by persons of 
 their own views ;—which appear to be, that the Bible itself would 
 almost prove contaminated by passing through the hands of persons 
 whose sentiments respecting its contents may be exceptionable ;—that 
 we may not convey the Scriptures to the perishing nations, unless 
 they first choose the instruments for its distribution ;—unless they 
 are allowed to dictate to the Authorities and Dignitaries, the Clergy 
 and Laity, the Subscribers to objects of Charity, and the Public at 
 large in Foreign Countries, who shall be their Domestic Agents and 
 Secretaries and Committee-Men, in co-operating with them in this 
 work of charity.* Far distant be the day when the peculiar doctrinal 
 opinions which may be adopted by any individuals, to whom the 
 conducting of the British anp Foreien Brste Society is confided, 
 are made a Shibboleth and a test for other institutions or indivi- 
 duals, before they are allowed to assist in the work of circulating 
 the Scriptures,—never may its Directors assume to themselves a 
 right to sit in judgment on the consciences of their fellow mortals! 
 
 * See some appropriate remarks in the Christian Observer for Sept. 1826, 
 p- 572. 
 
 The 2d Rule of the EDINBURGH Bible Society is an excellent explanation 
 of the practice of the British and Foreign Bible Society: it is as follows :— 
 
 “ The Society shall consist of all who are disposed to promote the object of 
 the Institution, without regard to difference of religious sentiment.” 
 
 It should also be remembered, that no ¢esé or declaration of doctrinal opi- 
 nions has eyer been resorted to in the selection of Members for the elected 
 Committee, except the circumstance of their belonging to certain outward 
 denominations of Christians; while the privilege of attending and voting in 
 the Committee for twelve months can be attained by any individual, what- 
 ever his tenets may be, upon the payment of five guineas. 
 
16 
 
 The statements which have been made with regard to the charac- 
 ter of the Directors of the Foreign Societies are far too general : 
 as many excellent men are to be found among them. Of the imme- 
 diate Correspondents of the Society, there is every reason to con- 
 clude that there are many who are under the influence of the 
 soundest principles; their Reports also, generally speaking, breathe 
 sentiments of the purest piety. And it cannot be expected that 
 the Committee should enter upon the invidious and uncalled- 
 for task of pronouncing upon private sentiments and opinions; 
 nor is it necessary,—the question is not one relating to Church- 
 membership. 
 
 In connection with this point, it has been urged that Christians 
 have been passed by. You well know that the Conductors of the 
 Society have never thought it their duty to adopt the term 
 “‘ Christians,” in the sense in which it is here applied, they have 
 always considered, that all those who professed themselves Christians, 
 and who have been willing to join in the simple object of the 
 Institution, might with propriety and advantage be employed, in 
 conformity to the Constitution of the Society, which admits the 
 co-operation of all persons who are disposed to concur in its sup- 
 port. If, in some instances, there may have been the appearance 
 of neglecting certain estimable individuals; it should be recol- 
 lected that difficult circumstances often must arise. The Committee 
 may have erred sometimes in this respect; but very many are the 
 instances in which the advice of those who are strictly to be de« 
 signated ‘‘ Christians” has been cheerfully sought and followed, and 
 they have always most readily been aided by grants of copies of the 
 Holy Scriptures, unless circumstances of peculiar importance pre- 
 vented. This is a matter of sufficient notoriety; and the force of 
 this statement cannot be weakened by a few instances which may 
 have occurred, where it has not been thought proper to accept 
 the offers of some individuals to assist in the distribution of the 
 Sacred Volume. 
 
 The charge that has been made of the inefficiency of some 
 Foreign Societies, appears true to a certain extent; but through the 
 friendly manner in which the Agents of the British Society have 
 been received by the Continental Institutions, the evil has often 
 been, and may no doubt often again be, remedied, and thus the good 
 work of circulating the Holy Scriptures has been essentially promoted. 
 Persons unacquainted with the Continent can hardly conceive how 
 difficult it is to excite individuals to be active in these operations, 
 where the liberty, which we enjoy in this country, is not allowed. 
 
17 
 
 Individual Agency has been loudly extolled, in preference to 
 the formation of Societies. Yet, surely, experience has shewn that the 
 circulation of the Scriptures in any country or district, when effected 
 by the instrumentality of its own inhabitants, possessed of local influ- 
 ence and knowledge, and carrying on their work in public co-opera- 
 tion, may be extended much further than when it depends upon the 
 efforts of an isolated individual. Nor should we omit to consider the 
 powerful effect produced upon the feelings and habits of those who 
 conduct the business of such Societies, by the very work in which 
 they are engaged, by the companions with whom they are called to 
 associate, and by the correspondence which necessarily passes through 
 their hands. 
 
 The Society, when it has established others in connection with 
 itself, has not deemed it right to thwart and counteract them, by 
 employing individual Agents, unless there were very weighty reasons 
 for so doing, lest their labours should at least wear the aspect of 
 interference. Yet there are many, both private individuals and 
 booksellers, of whose services the Committees have long availed 
 themselves, and with whom they are still in the closest intercourse. 
 
 When Grants, either of money or books, have been made to 
 Societies or Individuals, they have been coupled with a request, 
 that an account should be rendered; and in all recent Grants it has 
 been made an indispensable condition, that the proceeds, which may 
 arise from the sale of books, are to be returned to the Society. 
 
 ADDITION OF NOTES, AND OTHER ADJUNCTS. 
 
 A violation of the fundamental law, as it respects notes and 
 comments, has also been alleged ; and this particularly with reference 
 to the Bibles printed at Strasburg and Lausanne, and the Danish 
 New Testament. All the Documents, connected with the first of 
 these three cases, are now before the Public;* and a correct judg- 
 ment may be formed whether the Committee did or did not take 
 the proper steps upon so painful an occasion. I need hardly ob- 
 serve, that all these departures from the principles of the Society 
 took place without their knowledge or sanction. 
 
 An inspection of these documents will shew that no time was 
 lost in objecting to this deviation from the primary rule of the 
 
 * It has been insisted upon, that all connection with the Strasburg Society 
 should haye been immediately broken; but, from the milder, and equally 
 effective course pursued, this good has at least resulted—the Strasburg Bible 
 Society still continues, and distributes Lutheran Bibles, without Note, Com 
 
 ment, or Preface. 
 Cc 
 
18 
 
 Society, for the first remonstrance was sent the day after the informa- 
 tion was received, and within a month from the first appearance of the 
 publication. The Committee did not feel themselves called upon to enter 
 into any question as to the character of the Preface itself, but confined 
 their attention simply to the invasion of the fundamental principle 
 of the Society, by the introduction of any Preface whatever ; by this 
 mode the object to be desired was attained with less difficulty, and 
 more effectually than it could have been by any other. There is no 
 ground to believe that the extracts from the Preface were ever read 
 in the Committee, for the reason just stated; but, whatever censure 
 the Preface itself deserves,—and do not for a moment suppose I advo- 
 cate the objectionable sentiments contained therein, it cannot be called 
 the production of an Jnfidel, in the correct acceptation of that word.* 
 
 On discovering that Notes had been appended, in the cases of 
 Lausanne and Copenhagen, remonstrances were also made. In 
 the case of the Lausanne Bible, a distinct pledge had been given, 
 which ought to have precluded the introduction of Notes. 
 
 This case is fairly to be classed among those in which the Com- 
 mittee were deceived, and where wisdom is gained by experience ; 
 but, after the full and explicit manner in which the principal party 
 at Lausanne expressed his regret, and since the error, from the 
 greater part of the edition having been already issued, had pro- 
 ceeded so far as to be irremediable, it was found impossible to act 
 with greater severity than was exercised. The following are Ex- 
 tracts from the documents on this subject :— 
 
 Ata Meeting of the Committee, held January 20, 1823— 
 
 “ The Rev. Jos. Hughes having called the attention of the Com- 
 mittee to the French Quarto Bible, printed at Lausanne, in 1822— 
 
 ‘¢ RESOLVED, that a communication be made to the Lausanne 
 Bible Society, expressing: the surprise and regret of this 
 Committee, that the fundamental principle of this Institu- 
 tion has not been adhered to, in preparing that work for 
 the press; the charge thereof having been chiefly borne by 
 this Society.” _ 
 
 * Dr. J. P. Smith has given an account of this Preface, shewing that the 
 accusations against it have been much exaggerated. He also bears a strong 
 testimony in favour of the moral and religious character of the author, who 
 was imprisoned during the French Revolution for his adherence to the pro- 
 fession of Christianity, and for many months was in daily expectation of 
 suffering death on that account.—See Evan. Mag., November, 1826. 
 
19 
 
 A letter was immediately written by Dr. Steinkopff, in which 
 he strongly expressed the surprise and regret felt by the Committee 
 at this contravention of a fundamental law, and required that 
 the Notes should immediately be cancelled, in all the copies remain- 
 ing unsold. 
 
 At a Meeting of the Sub-Committee for general purposes, held 
 March 20, 1823 :— 
 
 “Read a Letter from Professor Levade, of Lausanne, dated 
 February 12, 1823—referred to this Sub-Committee; in which he 
 explains the circumstances that led to the deviation from the 
 principle of this Society in the French 4to Bible, complained of by 
 the Committee on the 20th January last— 
 
 “‘Resotvep, that the Lausanne Bible Society be informed that 
 the principle in question must in future be rigidly ad- 
 hered to, agreeably to the Communication forwarded in 
 pursuance of the minute above mentioned.” 
 
 In this letter, Professor Levade states, that the notes were intro- 
 duced by his associates, principally in the latter part of the work, 
 notwithstanding his remonstrances, and he takes blame to himself for 
 yielding to their importunities. He details, at considerable length, 
 various circumstances, such as, the decease of his wife, his own 
 illness, and consequent absence from home, which prevented him 
 from giving uninterrupted attention to this work, and resisting 
 the proceedings of his fellow-labourers.* He declares his readi- 
 ness to make a public acknowledgment of his error in any way 
 the Committee may prescribe; and, in conclusion, offers himself to 
 repay the portion of the grant (4250.) which belonged to Geneva. 
 This subject will be again noticed. (See page 22.) 
 
 * The Professor also mentions having shewn some of the early proof-sheet 
 to Mr. Owen, and to various friends of the Society. In justice to these indi- 
 viduals, it should be stated, that these were the early portions of the work 
 which are so nearly destitute of notes, as easily to escape the observation of an 
 unsuspicious person who did not minutely inspect every page; and Professor L. 
 states, that he did not mention that any notes had been, or were to be, inserted. 
 The first 160 pages are wholly without notes, as are many entire sheets in the 
 subsequent portions of the work. The greater number were inserted in the 
 latter parts of the Bible, and during Professor L.’s absence: nor are they so 
 numerous as has been represented; many, if not most of them, are merely 
 translations of Hebrew or Greek names, or similar to the marginal readings 
 of our authorised version, In the whole of the New Testament there are only 
 twenty-four Notes. 
 
20 
 
 The Notes in the Danish Testament were also the subject of re- 
 monstrance*; and the answer received was, that they formed a part 
 of the Authorised Danish Version, that the Testaments could 
 not be circulated without them, and that, in fact, they were nothing 
 more than our own marginal references and readings.t There 
 are, however, some exceptions to this remark. 
 
 The parties are indeed situated, as to the source whence the Scrip- 
 tures are to be obtained, much as the Bible Society is in our own coun- 
 try ; copies can be procured only from the Royal Orphan-House at 
 Copenhagen, where none are printed but such as are according to the 
 legally Authorised Version, which always contains these appendages. 
 
 The Testaments printed by Dr. Leander Van Ess appear, at 
 first glance, to contain many Notes; but, in reality, the supposed 
 Notes are merely Various Readings. The Latin Vulgate is fol- 
 lowed in the body of the text ; and a translation from the Greek, 
 when differing from the Vulgate, is given at the foot of the 
 page. In the Gaelic Bible, a case somewhat similar occurs : five 
 or six lines may, in some places, be noticed beneath the text, which 
 circumstance is thus explained in the Advertisement prefixed :— 
 
 “In the Translation, care has been taken to preserve, as much 
 as possible, the literal meaning of the words in the Hebrew Text. 
 Tn the Original, words not unfrequently occur which may be differ- 
 ently interpreted: in such cases, that signification which was 
 judged the most proper has been always adopted. The other mean- 
 ings have however been, in many instances, given at the bottom of 
 the page. The use of words which may not be known in every 
 District of the Highlands has been sometimes found unavoidable. 
 To remedy this inconvenience, familiar synonyms, or other words 
 which convey nearly the same meaning, have been given below.” 
 
 * A Danish Testament having been commenced in this country in the year 
 1822, from a copy printed at Christiana, containing Notes, and the Editor 
 having inadvertently suffered these Notes to be printed in some early sheets, 
 the pages in which the notes occurred were cancelled as soon as the circum- 
 stance was discovered, which was previously to the completion of the work. 
 Several thousand copies of this and earlier editions, printed by the Society: in 
 England, all without notes, have been circulated. 
 
 + Observations have been made on the subject of our own English Editions ; 
 but it has been hitherto deemed a sufficient conformity to the fundamental 
 Rule of the Society, to take the copies of the Scriptures, in the yarious 
 sizes, as they have usually been printed, by the King’s Printer or the Uni- 
 versities, who alone are authorized, in our country, to print copies of the 
 Scriptures without notes. 
 
21 
 
 To no point, indeed, has the attention of Dr. Pinkerton been 
 more sedulously directed, in his visits to Continental Societies, 
 than to urge the omission of Notes or other additions; and on ap- 
 plications being made to these Foreign Societies from the Com- 
 mittee or the Agents of the Bible Society, many have been with- 
 drawn, which the parties themselves did not consider as violations 
 of the fundamental Rule. The importance of strict adherence to 
 these principles was also strongly urged to the Foreign Societies, in 
 a circular, a copy of which will be found in the Seventeenth Report. 
 
 ADULTERATION OF THE SCRIPTURES. 
 
 Another very serious assertion has been made, That those who 
 are employed by, or connected with, the Bible Society, on the 
 Continent, have been guilty of corrupting the Scriptures. With 
 regard to the Turkish New Testament, it is sufficient to remind 
 you of the testimonies of thirteen individuals well acquainted with 
 the Turkish language, which are given in the Appendix to the 
 Report of the British and Foreign Bible Society for 1824; and fully 
 shew that the Committee used every means in their power for ascer- 
 taining the correctness of this Version. Several passages and some 
 expressions which have been made the subject of complaint had 
 been corrected previously to the publication of the work, and long 
 before the appearance of the remarks in which they are censured. 
 
 Professor Kieffer has never been employed by the Society, nor 
 has he employed himself, in altering any French Bible. Upon this 
 subject he has declared, ‘I never published any Protestant French 
 Bible, but that which the Society ordered to be printed at Paris, 
 the proof-sheets of which.1 corrected. I certainly got a pocket 
 edition of Martin’s Bible in 18mo. printed; but it was literally 
 taken from Martin’s Bible, as published at Toulouse; and so far 
 from having heard the least complaint against it, it is at this 
 present time in very great demand. If allusion is made to the 
 Stereotype Edition of Ostervald’s Bible, published by the Paris Bible 
 Society, I can only say, I have not had the least share in its publication. 
 The only thing I did in respect to that Bible was, when some Members 
 of our (the Paris ) Committee proposed to revise the text previously 
 to its being stereotyped, to oppose the measure to the utmost; being: 
 convinced that Bible Societies have no right to undertake revisions of 
 versions of the Sacred Scriptures, but that it is their province simply 
 to reprint such as are received in the different Churches.” 
 
22 
 
 The history of the Lausanne Bible, as to the Notes appended, 
 has already been given; it is further necessary to notice the charge 
 of alterations having been made in the text of that edition. Certain 
 individuals, Members of the Consistory, were appointed by the 
 Members of the Lausanne, Neufchatel, and Geneva Bible Societies, 
 to undertake the work of editing the Quarto Bible. As to the 
 Edition to be followed, and any alterations to be made, Professor 
 Levade distinctly stated that it was intended, nithout altering the 
 version of Ostervald, printed at Neufchatel in 1744, merely to cor- 
 rect some small imperfections, and even faults that were in it, 
 by availing themselves of the best assistance they could procure. 
 It was also intended to print the alterations in front of the Bible, 
 or on a separate sheet, with the ancient text opposite. While the late 
 Rey. J. Owen was at Neufchatel, in 1818, a chapter was examined in 
 his presence by the Committee of revision, in such a manner as fully 
 to satisfy him as to the caution and fidelity with which the text was re- 
 vised, and the scrupulous adherence to the edition of 1744, wherever 
 a change of expression did not appear to be absolutely required. 
 
 This method of proceeding seems to have been adhered to for 
 a considerable time, but afterwards some alterations were introduced 
 which have been strongly censured. The Committee might have 
 insisted on another Edition being printed, at the expense of Pro- 
 fessor Levade; but surely no one will condemn. their lenity, who 
 considers the inevitable consequences of such a severe line of pro- 
 ceeding, as well as the impossibility of effecting the desired altera- 
 tions in the greater part of the edition. The Professor was then, 
 at the age of seventy-four, after having devoted a large portion of 
 his strength and time, and no inconsiderable sum of money to this 
 object, about to resign his professorship, that he might attend more 
 closely to biblical labours and to the depository for sale of the Serip- 
 tures which he had established in his own house. Im this ease, also, 
 the evil has been greatly exaggerated, for the objectionable renderings 
 are by no means so numerous as has been stated.* If the sub- 
 ject did not receive the attention of the Committee so promptly as 
 
 * I do not find that more than five texts have actually been pointed out in 
 the Lausanne Bible, as having been rendered in an objectionable manner, and 
 one of these is precisely the same as in many former editions of Ostervald. 
 I also know, that the Lausanne Bible is approved by some individuals whose 
 principles unquestionably are orthodox, and who preach the gospel of Christ : 
 not that they approve every rendering, but consider it, as a whole, to be 
 preferable to former editions. 
 
23 
 
 the Strasburg Preface, the friends of the Society will deem a suffi- 
 cient reason to be alleged, when the real cause is stated, 
 namely, the last illness and death of the late Mr. Owen, upon 
 whom the correspondence respecting the French Versions had chiefly 
 devolved, and to whom the earliest communications, referring to 
 an objectionable alteration in the text of this edition, were ad- 
 dressed just prior to his decease. 
 
 Respecting the observations on the text of the Danish Testa- 
 ment printed in 1822, it is sufficient to state, that it was the sole 
 concern of a Commission appointed by the Government, over which 
 the Danish Bible Society had no controul. Towards it the British 
 and Foreign Society did nor contribute. 
 
 It is unnecessary to enter upon a review of the criticisms upon 
 this or other versions, although the observations which have been 
 made are open to many remarks.* 
 
 The history of a purchase of Bibles, from a Mr. Stone, at Paris, 
 alleged to be of a Socinian character, belongs entirely to the 
 London Missionary Society, by which Institution those Bibles were 
 ordered to be printed before the existence of the British and Foreign 
 Bible Society. They were printed from the text of Ostervald, at 
 the charge of the London Missionary Society, and not a single copy 
 was ever purchased by the Bible Society, or circulated at its expense.t+ 
 
 CONCEALMENT OF SALARIES. 
 It has been contended that the remuneration afforded to certain 
 
 individuals on the Continent, should have been specifically stated in 
 the Society’s Cash Account. A person intimately acquainted with the 
 
 * It is obvious that the Committee of the British and Foreign Bible Society 
 can never act as a body of Biblical Critics: any attempt to do so would at 
 once involve them in an endless maze’ of controversy. Those whose pursuits 
 
 ‘have led them to investigate subjects of this nature, know that many ren- 
 derings which would be censured by some would be justified by others, 
 all of whom are entitled to the character of able scholars and excellent 
 men. In cases, therefore, in which critical opinions have been required, 
 the Committee have sought them from the best sources which offered: 
 and, in respect to Readings differing from those found in the English 
 Bible, they have felt it wholly out of their province to interfere with the 
 judgment of those in authority in any particular Church:—and, indeed, 
 they had, and could have, no power to make the English authorized Version 
 a standard for universal adoption. 
 
 + The money entrusted to the Basle Deputies, belonged, also, to the same 
 Institution :—and those Gentlemen never entertained the project of “ forcing 
 a Bible Society in France.” 
 
24 
 
 Continent gave, on one occasion, the following important advice : 
 “If you value the co-operation of Christians on the other side 
 of the water, and if you desire to be permanently and solidly useful, 
 rather than to put on a specious appearance, do not mention the 
 names of your foreign co-adjutors, under any pretence whatever. 
 The fear of such mobs as prevailed during the Revolution is by no 
 means allayed, nor altogether groundless ; and any person of pro- 
 perty, becoming notorious as the promoter of Religion, might sub- 
 ject himself to the fury of a bigoted or an atheistical populace.” 
 
 In the spirit of this advice, given by Mr. Haldane toanother Society, 
 (although the cases are not precisely similar,) the Committee, with 
 perfect integrity, acted, as you doubtless will recollect, in the manner 
 which now is brought forward as a matter of accusation. The 
 arrangements with Dr. Van Ess were made by the late Rev. J. 
 Owen, and several years have since elapsed. Mr. Owen has 
 been dead four years; and, in this case, it is found to be impossible 
 exactly to recal every particular which induced the adoption of the 
 measure in question, although it appears to have been made after a 
 full consideration of Mr. Owen’s statement, on his return home. 
 It should also be considered, that Dr. Van Ess unavoidably incurs 
 considerable expence from the number of persons who continually 
 resort to his house respecting the circulation of the Scriptures. 
 The whole subject of the future connection between the Society 
 and Dr. Van Ess is now under consideration, and I conclude it 
 will be adjusted according to the new’ circumstances in which he 
 is at present placed. But I trust that the Committee will not adopt 
 any measures which may close that important channel of access to 
 the Roman Catholics on the Continent of Europe. 
 
 The following extract of a Letter lately received from Dr. Stein- 
 kopff, will convey some idea of the extensive nature of the opera- 
 tions of Professor Van Ess :—‘ The labours and operations of the. 
 Professor have hitherto been, and still are, of the most extensive 
 and beneficial nature. The first edition of his Version of the New — 
 Testament appeared in 1807; since which time he has brought 
 into circulation upwards of 583,000 copies of the same, partly by 
 sale, partly by gratuitous distribution, in every part of Germany, 
 as well as in several parts of Prussia, Bohemia, Poland, Switzer- 
 land, Holland, and other portions of the Continent ; besides 11,984 
 Bibles, and several thousand New Testaments, of Luther’s Ver- 
 sion, and a considerable number of the Scriptures in ancient and 
 Modern Greek, Hebrew, Arabic, Syriac, and in other European 
 
25 
 
 and Oriental Languages ; the latter, chiefly among Roman-Catholic 
 Students of Divinity, by means of which the study of the Sacred 
 Volume in the original tongues has been greatly promoted among 
 them,—a circumstance of the highest importance, even for generations 
 to come. Taking a retrospective view of the last seventeen years, 
 the average number issued of the Professor’s Version of the New 
 Testament exceeds 32,000 copies per annum. At present, the 
 demands are so great, that, on an average, between 800 and 900 
 copies per week (or upwards of 40,000 per annum) are issuing from 
 his depositories ; the principal of which is at Darmstadt. To keep. 
 every thing in proper order, requires constant attention. The 
 Biblical Correspondence also of the Professor is very extensive, 
 several hundred Roman-Catholic Clergymen being closely con- 
 nected with him.” 
 
 But it should be further stated, that the sums paid to Dr. Van 
 Ess and Professor Kieffer cannot, by any fair reasoning, be consi- 
 dered as expenses incurred in the management of the Society ; they 
 are’ remunerations for specific labour in superintending the printing, 
 binding, and circulating of certain versions of the Scripture, and apply 
 to their cost as properly as the expense of translating, correcting the 
 press, (to which head those of Professor K. chiefly belong,) paper, 
 printing, or binding. The allowances to each of these individuals, for 
 their respective services, have therefore been entered as charges 
 upon the Scriptures in the several languages which occupied their 
 attention, as has been done with payments to editors, and charges 
 of distribution in any other language. 
 
 With regard to Professor Kieffer, his engagements have been prin- 
 cipally in revising the Turkish Bible, correcting the proof-sheets, and 
 superintending the printing. He has, at the same time, in con-. 
 nection with others, attended to the printing of various Oriental 
 Translations carrying on at Paris; as, the Carshun, the Syriac and 
 Carshun New Testaments, and the ancient and modern Armenian 
 New Testament. Various editions of the Scriptures, in modern lan- 
 guages, have been conducted under his superintendence at Paris: the 
 proof-sheets of some of which he has also corrected. Thus, he has 
 been employed upon various editions of De Sacy’s and Martin’s French 
 Bible and Testament, as also on a Spanish New Testament: the 
 management of binding numerous large editions of the Scriptures 
 devolves upon him: he makes the engagements with the Printers; 
 and superintends the issue of many thousand copies, of which he 
 furnishes regular quarterly Accounts, as well as of his Cash-Trans- 
 
26 
 
 actions, which are audited by responsible persons in Paris on behalf 
 of the British Society. Professor Kieffer is a regular attendant at 
 the Lutheran Church, of the Consistory of which he has been a 
 member for seventeen years, and there is no ground for accusing 
 him of Socinian principles, 
 
 EXAGGERATED REPRESENTATIONS OF THE RELIGIOUS STATE OF THE 
 CONTINENT. 
 
 The Officers of the Society have been charged with giving ex- 
 aggerated statements, and the Committee with having caused them 
 to be printed; in order to evince this, a painfully dark picture of 
 many parts of the Continent of Europe has been drawn from various 
 sources. It should be remembered, that these accounts of good 
 done, and doing, appear far greater, from the absence of the con- 
 trast of the evil which still remains.* And any one who should go 
 from this Country with high-wrought expectations of finding every 
 thing answering to these statements, forgetful that particular cases 
 only are adverted to, would of course be disappointed. 
 
 But are there no unsuspected witnesses of the good also working 
 on the Continent? Have not those who have drawn this pain- 
 fully dark picture so far supplied the contrast? We there find the 
 following letter from a Clergyman : 
 
 “‘T earnestly hope that I have not misrepresented the opinions of 
 the party ; but when men engage in so wide a subject as Theology, 
 and are bound by no common laws of thought, it would, of course, 
 be vain to attempt giving more than a sketch of their tendencies. 
 This remark is the more called for, because so many of them have 
 themselves varied in, and even entirely renounced, their former 
 opinions. Thus, for example, I find (from an Article in the Archives 
 du Christianisme, Vol. VIII.) that Kaiser has, in the Preface (p. 344) 
 to his Biblische Moral (1821), announced the entire change of his 
 opinion on these subjects, and declared, that the Word of God re- 
 vealed in the Bible is now his ‘one and all’—* eines und alles.” 
 Ammon, again, has decidedly changed, as appears from several 
 of his later works: and the author of this article says, that several 
 of the Rationalists have done the same, in their Lectures; amongst 
 these he names De Wette, once Professor at Berlin, and now at 
 
 * Many painful, as well as pleasing, communications, have often been made 
 and read in open Committee; but it hasnever been thought necessary to incur 
 the expense of printing them, as no benefit could result from so doing. 
 
27 
 
 Basle; I never saw any writings more offensive than the early 
 ones of De Wette, and was not aware of the change. 
 
 “In conclusion, I cannot but express my sincere pleasure in 
 knowing, that, in Germany, a better order of things may be shortly 
 expected. Some of the Rationalists have openly retracted—some 
 are silent. The system is on the decline; and the new appoint- 
 ments to Theological Chairs are made from a better class of thinkers 
 and scholars.” 
 
 Another correspondent, quoted in the same work, observes, 
 
 “On the other hand, it cannot be denied, that though, in gene- 
 ral, the aspect of things is very discouraging and dark, yet almost 
 every where a dim spark of light seems to break in. In every Dis- 
 trict distinguished for darkness and profaneness, the Lord has, of 
 Jate, raised some witness for the Truth, some one who proclaims 
 Salvation to Sinners by the Blood of the Lamb. This I can state on 
 my own observation ; and I feel great pleasure in being able to do it.” 
 
 Surely, when we refer to the opening prospects here adverted to, the 
 diffusion of the Scriptures, by means of Bible Societies, as one cause 
 of this revival, should not have been lost sight of, as it has been by 
 some who have written on this subject. The writers of the letters here 
 quoted have been more just in their observations ; while the gloomy 
 statements, already referred to, shew the difficulties the Society had 
 to contend with, and make it a matter of surprise that any Institutions 
 could have been formed, rather than a subject of blame that they 
 were not composed of individuals who were not to be found. 
 
 THE EXPENDITURE. 
 
 The Expenditure of the Society has also undergone a rigid exami- 
 nation. It has been matter of complaint, that the Balance Sheets 
 annexed to the Annual Reports are not always so full as some per- 
 sons think they should have been. To draw the line between what 
 should, and what should not be inserted, is by no means an easy 
 task. Believing, however, that they enjoyed the confidence of the 
 Subscribers, the Auditors, who are appointed annually, and consist 
 of an equal proportion of Members of the Committee, and of other 
 Subscribers, exercised a discretion on this point, as men of integrity, 
 and considered their Publications as sufficiently explicit for the satis- 
 faction of the Subscribers. It will, doubtless, be their endeavour to 
 avoid giving any ground for future cavils. 
 
 Upon this subject I will only add, that being acquainted with the 
 proceedings of most of the considerable Societies of the present day, 
 
28 
 
 I can unequivocally say that no one is conducted with more minute 
 attention to economy than the Bible Society, and that the charges 
 of management are very small, in proportion to the operations of the 
 Institution. I would also repeat, what has been already remarked 
 in reference to Dr. Van Ess and Professor Kieffer, that the expense 
 of Foreign Agents, who are only employed in the circulation of the 
 Scriptures, cannot properly be considered as a part of the charges of 
 management of the Bible Society, any more than the expense of 
 Missionaries could be reckoned among the charges of management 
 of a Missionary Society. 
 
 The grounds upon which it was finally resolved to appoint Sa- 
 laries to the Three Secretaries were most maturely weighed, and ap- 
 prove themselves still to all who have an opportunity of knowing the 
 nature of the services expected and required of these individuals; 
 and it is well known, that the measure was not finally adopted till it 
 had been repeatedly discussed at great length, and with the minutest 
 attention. It was also distinctly brought before the General Meet- 
 
 ing of the Members of the Institution, and received their sanction 
 before it was carried into effect. The services of the Secretaries 
 are become widely different, and far more extended, than in former 
 years. The requisite attention to the affairs of the Society is 
 now become so great, as nearly, if not quite, to preclude the idea of 
 these Gentlemen otherwise employing their time beneficially for 
 themselves or their families. The assistance absolutely required 
 in the discharge of such Ministerial labours, as they may consider 
 it their duty not wholly to relinquish, must draw heavily upon their 
 own resources; and many private and family expenses, unavoidably 
 attend the appointment, as well as the absolute relinquishment 
 of other prospects. The Society under this arrangement can more 
 cheerfully confide in the attention which will be paid to their business; 
 and the Secretaries naturally feel a greater responsibility attached to 
 their office, while various expenses incurred by the Secretaries in the 
 gratuitous performance of their duties to the Society, for which for- 
 merly they were reimbursed, are now provided for from the Salaries 
 paid to them, and this to a considerable extent. The late Mr. Owen, 
 in devoting himself to the service of the Society, made heavy pecu- 
 niary sacrifices—sacrifices which he could never have borne, had not 
 the kindness of many Members of the Committee, and other friends, 
 come often and cheerfully to his aid. Therefore, previously to the 
 appointment of a successor, it seemed a proper opportunity to ob- 
 viate the recurrence of similar demands on private benevolence. 
 
29 
 
 Justice, in fact, required this measure, which was determined on be- 
 fore the appointment of the present Clerical Secretary, and I believe 
 there are few persons acquainted with the duties to be performed, 
 but will say, the amount is far too small to be considered as an 
 adequate recompense for the labour and time so employed. I know 
 that you have decidedly expressed your opinion to that effect. 
 
 Mr. Brandram has stated, that the expenses occasioned to him by 
 his office “ engross together, at least, two out of the three hundred 
 per annum allowed him.” I should further add, that the duties of 
 his office fully occupy him, upon an average, more than five days 
 in the week. I need not speak of the zeal and energy with which 
 he devotes himself to the discharge of these duties; indeed, the 
 extent and value of the services of all the Secretaries are in a consi- 
 derable measure before the public, and too well known to require 
 any remark.* It may, however, be right to add, that it is impos- 
 sible to form any just estimate of them by a comparison with those 
 of the Secretaries of the largest Auxiliary Bible Societies, whether in 
 England, Wales, or Scotland.+t The parties themselves are too well 
 known to require any eulogium; and yet, strange to say, the state- 
 ments of those who accuse such individuals as being devoid of in- 
 tegrity and honor are sometimes listened to! I.cannot but consider 
 that the charges now alleged involve such an accusation, when 
 they impute to such men the design of intentionally breaking the 
 fundamental laws of the Society, as defined by the late resolutions. 
 
 Of the importance of the labours of Mr. Dudley, one, out of in- 
 numerable other proofs of the same character, may be taken from the 
 last Report of the Hertfordshire Auxiliary Bible Society :— 
 
 “In January last, a Deputation from your Committee met Mr. 
 Dudley, by appointment, at one of the principal Inns in the last- 
 mentioned town; a Public Meeting having been there announced, 
 for the purpose of organizing a Ladies’ Association. Some opposi- 
 tion took place, yet the success which accompanied the formation 
 and subsequent progress of the Society’s labours ia this division 
 
 * I have thought it quite unnecessary to notice the personal attacks made 
 upon individuals connected with the Society; but as it has been asserted of 
 one of the Secretaries that he “ openly deprecates any restriction being laid on 
 the circulation of the Apocrypha,” I think it is necessary to state, that this 
 assertion is not correct, as a reference to the Minutes clearly shows. 
 
 + The Foreign Correspondence with Societies, and individuals, in various 
 parts of the globe, probably exceeds that of the most considerable mercantile 
 houses in the kingdom. : 
 
30 
 
 calls for devout acknowledgment. The largest room which your 
 Committee could procure, proved inadequate to accommodate the 
 friends of the cause; and many who had come from a considerable 
 distance were unable to obtain admission. 373 Subscribers in this 
 vicinity were discovered, by the activity of the Ladies, in the first 
 month ; and, instead of informing you, (as in the last Report,) that 
 30/. have been collected in a year, your Committee have the plea~ 
 sure of gratefully announcing, that in half that period they have 
 already received 94.” 
 
 It cannot be necessary to justify the employment of Agents in 
 Foreign Countries, any more than the employment of Missionaries 
 by Missionary Societies. It is true that their object is to make 
 known the preached word, while the Bible Society disseminates that 
 which is written ; but still the employment of human agency is requisite, 
 in both cases. Every reflecting person will acknowledge, that such 
 services must be essential for carrying on the distribution of the 
 Scriptures, and the requisite care of the property of the Society. The 
 idea of expecting that they should be employed, without remunera- 
 tion, is too preposterous to need refutation. The acceptance of such 
 recompense no more implies a mercenary spirit, than making a bene- 
 ficial use of the talents which an individual possesses in any other way. 
 Even if persons could be found, who, needing no remuneration, 
 would labour unweariedly in their service, would even subject 
 themselves to the controul of the Society; would reside where 
 they were appointed ; and would, for the most part, carry on their 
 operations in methods prescribed to them: the question would still 
 recur, whether (when the importance of such Agents being com- 
 pletely responsible to those who employ them, is duly considered) 
 a Committee would act wisely in accepting the gratuitous services 
 of any individual, when those services reach to a considerable ex~ 
 tent, and are required on stations of peculiar importance? The point 
 to be examined is this:—Does the remuneration afforded exceed in 
 value the services performed, all the circumstances of the case being 
 considered? Let, for example, the case of Mr. Leeves be taken. 
 Is he paid at all in proportion to the unpleasantness and danger of a 
 residence at Constantinople? Is the number of copies of the 
 Scriptures circulated by him (though not inconsiderable) a fair eri- 
 terion of the real worth of his labour? Let the state of the Coun- 
 tries in which he operates be fairly viewed ; and a few hundred copies 
 issued there in the present day, will be justly esteemed equivalent 
 to many thousands in England. The great extent and value of Mr. 
 
31 
 
 I.’s operations may be easily learned by consulting the printed do- 
 cuments of the Society. 
 
 Let the labours of Dr. Pinkerton, as recorded in the Annual Re- 
 ports, be investigated ; the result will be satisfactory to every un- 
 biassed mind. In justice to him, it should be stated, that the recent 
 allegations which accuse him of improper union with Infidels, and of 
 indifference as to the errors of Romanism, have been satisfactorily 
 disproved ; and as to the assertion, that Dr. P. used every argument 
 in his power to prevent a Roman Catholic physician from become 
 a Protestant, that individual, who now openly professes the Pro- 
 testant faith, completely denies the imputation. 
 
 To Mr. Barker, some of the observations respecting Mr. Leeves 
 are applicable ; im labour he is abundant ; and, it may be truly said 
 he is im perils often, by land and by water, by robbers, and 
 pestilential disease. 
 
 And let it also be borne in mind, that these Gentlemen have no 
 appointment for life ; but that the Committee, in their diseretion, or 
 if compelled by the financial state of the Society, may recall them. 
 
 Nor should it be forgotten, that the Committee have not exclu- 
 sively adopted the system of employing paid Agents, as they con- 
 stantly avail themselves of the gratuitous services of those friends 
 who are willing and able to assist, wherever they can be found. 
 Without such aid, the expense of Foreign agency would have been 
 very considerably increased, or the great work of circulating the 
 Seriptures must have been left undone; and im the selection of 
 Agents, personal character has always been considered 2 matter of 
 the greatest importance. 
 
 The situation of the Accountant and Assistant Secretary is one 
 of much responsibility ; not only in regard to the amount of pro- 
 perty continually passing through his hands, and for which he 
 gives considerable security, but also as it respects the extensive 
 knowledge of business requisite to enable him to conduct the large 
 portion of the Society’s concerns which devolves upon him. Were 
 an equal degree of service rendered by him in conducting a Mer- 
 cantile Concern, it would entitle him to 2 much larger remuneration 
 than a due attention to the Fimances of this Society permits the 
 Committee to allow. I need not enlarge on this head; you well 
 know the very great value of his labours, and that abilities so pe- 
 euliarly fitted for the situation he occupies could not be purchased 
 by any pecuniary reward. 
 
 The Assistant Foreign Secretary is responsible for civing faithful 
 Translations of Letters received from abroad: and he conducts a 
 
32 
 
 considerable part of the Foreign Correspondence, when the Se- 
 cretaries are engaged in other departments of the Society’s concerns. 
 He is competent to translate from the French, Spanish, Portuguese, 
 Italian, German, Dutch, Danish, Swedish, and Modern Greek 
 Languages, and to correspond in the French, Italian, German, and 
 English ; and actually resigned a situation of respectability and emo- 
 lument, to undertake the duties of this office. The business of his 
 department necessarily requires daily and close attention. 
 
 The Depositary also holds a situation highly responsible ; having 
 an immense stock of Bibles and Testaments constantly under his 
 care, for every copy of which he is accountable to the Society. He 
 also gives ample security for the faithful discharge of his Trust. It 
 requires a constant and assiduous attention to keep the Stock in 
 order ; to superintend the due execution of the contracts for Paper, 
 Printing, and Bookbinding; and at all times to have the Accounts, 
 in the various branches connected therewith, as well as those of the 
 Receipts and Issues, in such a state as to exhibit a luminous view 
 of the Society’s affairs. 
 
 With regard to the rate of remuneration affixed to the respective 
 services of persons in the Society’s Offices, it should be recollected, 
 that they are employed from morning to night in the work of the 
 Society, as their business; and that they come into their respective 
 situations without any prospect of advancement. A very different 
 rate of remuneration necessarily prevails in the Metropolis, to what 
 exists in the country, from the greater expenses of living; and 
 what some friends of the Society, judging by their own neigh- 
 bourhood, might deem superfluous, is not more than moderate in 
 London. 
 
 As to the Society’s House and Warehouses, the extent of its con- 
 cerns renders them not only absolutely necessary, but even a matter 
 of economy. The house is occupied by the Committee-Rooms, the 
 Library, and the various Offices; while the Warehouses scarcely afford 
 room sufficient for the stock of Books and Paper. Many months 
 elapse after the Bibles and Testaments are printed, before they are in 
 a proper state for binding, and every year adds to the number of 
 translations and editions upon the Society’s list. A document 
 which I have seen, clearly shews that the annual expense incurred by 
 the present method of conducting the business of the Society, includ- 
 ing a large and fully adequate allowance for the sums expended in 
 the purchase of the premises, repairs, alterations, and additions, and 
 also for the fittings and furniture,—concerning which so many absolute 
 falsehoods have been promulgated,—does not exceed the annual 
 
33 
 
 amount which was actually paid for commission and allowances to 
 a bookseller, with the expense of a Committee-room and offices, 
 previously to the adoption of the present system. It is unnecessary 
 to enlarge upon the great advantages enjoyed by having the various 
 departments concentrated, and under the immediate controul of the 
 officers of the institution, without any additional expense ; and it 
 should be further stated, that had the former plan of conducting the 
 business of the Society been continued to the present time, the ad- 
 ditional stock being more than five times as large as it then 
 was, would have occasioned a considerably greater expense for 
 warehouse-rent, and other charges, while the vast increase of the 
 correspondence and operations of the Society, would have caused the 
 numerous inconveniences attendant upon a separation of the various 
 departments to be most severely felt. For further explanations 
 respecting the expenses of management, I would refer you to the 
 statement lately published by the Auditors, and I add the following 
 observations upon that document, from the Hdinburgh Theological 
 Magazine :—‘‘ The London Committee have done well in publishing 
 this statement. It is clear that, in the article of expense, as in 
 other things, their conduct has been greatly misunderstood ; that 
 averments have been made which have no foundation ; and that others 
 are exaggerated to a degree that must mislead all who give them 
 credence ; and we do not hesitate to affirm, that if the explanations 
 which are here given do not relieve the Society from much of the 
 odium under which they have laboured, it will prove that passion 
 and uncharitableness have mingled more with these unhappy con- 
 tentions than we are willing to believe.” Nor should it be for- 
 gotten, when our attention is called to petty cavils upon the sub- 
 ject of expenses, that these items are selected from an expenditure 
 of more than One Miutiion anp Turee Hunprep THovusanp 
 Pounps. Who can produce the account of his own expenditure 
 of thousands, or even of hundreds, and say that similar observa- 
 tions may not with equal fairness be made thereon? 
 
 The Expenses connected with visiting the different Auxiliaries 
 and Associations have been noticed. It is not the Committee who 
 send out the Secretaries and Agents; but they are urgently sent 
 for by their friends in the country, in whose minds there is so deep 
 and settled a persuasion of the real utility of these visits, from the 
 experience of many years, that the disappointment is often severe 
 if their requests cannot be complied with. 
 
 D 
 
34 
 
 You well know that these applications for help have always been 
 so numerous, that the Officers of the Society alone could 
 never meet them. The amount stated in the last report in- 
 cludes the expenses incurred by twenty-three individuals, who 
 were engaged toa greater or less extent in visiting the different 
 Auxiliaries during the past year.* The valuable assistance of those 
 friends who have aided the Secretaries and other officers in this work, 
 has been given gratuitously ; and there are, as you well know, many 
 other estimable individuals, who engage, more or less, in these 
 visits entirely at their own expense; rejoicing that their private cir- 
 cumstances enable them to do so, although they frequently travel to 
 considerable distances, and, as wellas the friends already mentioned, 
 render these important services at much inconvenience to themselves. 
 The expense of the late deputation to Scotland is also included 
 under this charge; and I cannot advert to that measure without ex- 
 pressing some regret that the truly Christian feeling which induced 
 the Committee of the Parent Society to adopt that course of pro- 
 ceeding has not been more generally appreciated in the manner it 
 deserves. The Committees of this and other similar Institutions 
 would rejoice if visits to different Societies in the country were un- 
 necessary ; but experience has long since shown that, if this system 
 be abandoned, New Auxiliaries cannot be formed, and that the greater 
 part of those already in existence would languish to dissolution. 
 
 THE IGNORANCE OF SOME MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE ON VARIOUS 
 
 POINTS. 
 
 That some of the Members of the Committee have not been 
 fully acquainted with all the particulars of the proceedings of the 
 Institution is evident from their own declarations ; but that ignorance 
 has originated in two sources—the one, their own frequent non- 
 
 * Some unfair inferences have been drawn from the circumstance that the 
 amounts contributed by the Auxiliaries, have not, in the last four or five years, 
 borne quite the same proportion as formerly, to the sums expended in visiting 
 them. This is satisfactorily explained when we recollect, that at the formation 
 of new Auxiliaries, larger amounts are almost invariably received as donations 
 than in subsequent years, and the number of new Auxiliaries now formed annually 
 cannot be so many.as in preceding years; besides, in many instances, the local 
 wants of the Auxiliaries ate not so great as when they were first established. 
 
35 
 
 attendance; and the other, because several arrangements formerly 
 entered into, have gone on from year to year without specific notice ; 
 and, in consequence, some of the newly-elected Members had not 
 informed themselves of such particulars. 
 
 You are well aware that the services of the Elected Committee 
 are ENTIRELY gratuitous, although requiring very considerable 
 sacrifices on the part of many individuals, and I think you will 
 agree that they are entitled to a little more kindness than has 
 been bestowed upon them in several quarters, to say nothing of 
 the statements which represent them as if actuated by base and 
 sordid motives,—but such observations are unworthy of the 
 LEAST notice. 
 
 I will here transcribe a few lines from a letter written by a highly- 
 respected member of the Society of Friends, which was lately com- 
 municated tome. It contains, I am sure, the sentiments of many 
 of the most valuable members of the Institution. He says, “Ido 
 think that much is due to the Committee for their indefatigable 
 labour and toil in the service of the Society, in which some have 
 been engaged for upwards of twenty years of the most valuable 
 part of their lives; and the public should know how much they 
 have gratuitously and disinterestedly laboured in Sub-Committees, 
 devoting their time and thought to an extent which they have never 
 made known.” The writer alludes to the various Sub-Committees 
 for General Purposes, for the Depository and Printing, for the 
 Finances, &c. &c. which, as he truly states, occupy the time and 
 attention of the active members of the Committee to a very consi- 
 derable extent. No person who is unacquainted with the actual 
 proceedings of the Society can form an adequate idea of the great 
 sacrifices, both as to time and personal labour, which are made by all 
 the Members of the Committee who actively engage in this work, 
 without the smallest advantage or recompense, except the plea- 
 surable feelings which arise from having laboured in such a cause. 
 
 While adverting to those individuals who labour gratuitously in 
 the service of the Society, I cannot refrain from mentioning the 
 LisrariAN, whose highly valuable assistance is most readily given 
 in several departments. 
 
 And now, my dear friend, having gone through the various alle- 
 gations, I will not trouble you with many general remarks, but will 
 call your attention to a fair and reasonable view of the past proceed- 
 ings of the Society, which is generally attributed to one who cannot 
 
36 
 
 be accused of improper partiality to the Committee, and who had no 
 share in the proceedings of former years,*—it is as follows: 
 
 “Tt is no part of our intention to defend all the measures employed 
 by the British and Foreign Bible Society, either at home or abroad, 
 during the long period of twenty-two years of most laborious and 
 widely-extended operation. That all its measures may not have 
 been the wisest and best which could have been devised ; that all its 
 Agents and Correspondents may not have been the most enlightened 
 and devout, we presume the Committee will not require the country 
 to believe, or its warmest friends to maintain. That it may have 
 been sometimes carried away from the simplicity of Christ by the 
 Glory of its object, and led unconsciously to the adoption of a kind 
 of worldly policy or expediency; that its benevolence may have 
 been sometimes greater than the rigid principles of the Society’s 
 constitution permitted it to exercise; and that these things have oc- 
 casioned the appearance of vacillation and changeableness, the Com- 
 mittee, we believe, will most readily acknowledge. Let it be found 
 guilty, if necessary, of these delinquencies ; but let it not be charged 
 with offences of which it has nor been guilty,—of breaking faith 
 with the public,—of deliberately violating the principles of honour and 
 integrity,—and of committing treason against the word of God and the 
 salvation of men. Let those who know what it is to devote their 
 days and hours to the management of the benevolent Institutions of 
 this country, and particularly those of the Metropolis, and who believe 
 that even the Bible Society, can be conducted without indications of 
 human imperfection, if such there be, rise up and cast the first stone 
 at the Committee.” 
 
 To the truth and justice of these remarks I can bear testimony,— 
 I never heard a Member of the Committee assert that all which had 
 been done was, or could be, perfect; but I have heard many of 
 them declare, and I believe with truth, that they had not design- 
 edly or intentionally erred; and, with respect to abstaining from 
 granting aid to the circulation of the Apocrypha, I have heard 
 them state, that as they had no affection for those books, they could 
 acquiesce in the Resolutions adopted by the general body of the 
 Members of the Society, without any dereliction of principle on their 
 part, and considered, that it is now decided in the clearest manner 
 that the Bible Society 1s Nor To encourage it in any way whatever. 
 Some individuals evidently will not be satisfied unless they can force 
 
 * Sce the Congregational Magazine, April, 1826. 
 
37 
 
 _ all who formerly aided the circulation to declare that “ they com- 
 mitted a sin in doing so.” I will only say that this is not in the 
 spirit of the Bible, nor accordant with the principles of that noble 
 Institution in which all sects and parties have agreed to forget 
 their peculiar opinions, and to unite in the great work of spread- 
 ing the knowledge of Divine Truth. Surely this truly Catholic 
 Institution is not to be made an instrument for ruling the con- 
 sciences of men! 
 
 The alliance of the Society with improper characters has been 
 misrepresented in a most unfair manner.* That individuals whose 
 past conduct gave ground for better hopes, have been guilty of de- 
 ceptive conduct, clearly appears from the Strasburg and Lausanne 
 documents; but how could this be ascertained, except from experi- 
 ence? A British Public will never rank the deceived as equally guilty 
 with the deceiver; and the conduct of the past as well as of the 
 present Committees + sufficiently manifests that they have always se- 
 parated themselves from those who have refused to act agreeably 
 to the Rules of the Institution; and, doubtless, a still greater de- 
 gree of caution will in future be exercised. 
 
 Nor has it yet been established, that any preliminary declaration 
 of faith is requisite before individuals can be permitted to circulate 
 orthodox copies of the Scriptures.—If the Members at large deem 
 it necessary that such a test should be proposed, it is for them to 
 frame such a rule, and to furnish the necessary document; then 
 there will be ground to censure the Committee if they depart from 
 that line of proceeding; but until this is done, such a course can- 
 not be pursued, and it is impossible to listen without surprise to the 
 denunciations of Divine wrath, which in no measured terms have 
 been applied to the past proceedings of the Society. 
 
 The charges respecting adulterated Editions of the Scriptures, 
 whether by alterations of the text or additions of notes, prefaces, 
 
 * It is not my intention to introduce any observations which may appear to 
 reflect upon others; but I cannot refrain from saying, that such charges pro- 
 ceed with an ill grace from those who have brought forward the often-refuted 
 accusations long since gone by; and who, professing themselves to be followers 
 of Christ, are hailed with joy by the Infidel opponents of the Society, as valuable 
 allies. 
 
 + It may here be remarked, that only jifieen of the thirty-six Members of 
 the Committee, elected in the year 1820, are members at the present time. 
 It is desirable to notice this, as the Committee is frequently spoken of as if 
 it always consisted of the same individuals, and without any reference to the 
 privileged Members. (See page 11.) 
 
38 
 
 or other adjuncts, it may be safely said, are unfounded or exaggerated; 
 and the most speedy remonstrance has followed upon the discovery of 
 error. Upon these charges the various Committees of former years 
 may boldly meet their calumniators, and point to the beneficial fruits 
 of their exertions, by which many faulty Editions have been pre- 
 vented from appearing, or have been cleared from their errors.* 
 
 The charges respecting the expences of management are equally 
 unfounded, and the Committee can confidently call upon their accusers 
 to point out the statements of any institution which are given more 
 clearly and faithfully than their own, or wherein a proper economy 
 is more closely studied. 
 
 When the real facts upon which the various recent allega- 
 tions are grounded have been fairly looked at, surely there is no 
 cause for that want of confidence upon which some writers have 
 dwelt, still less for the injurious calumnies of others.¢ The 
 
 * The removal of the objectionable rendering of 2 Cor. v. 19, which had been 
 introduced into many Editions of Ostervald’s French Version may here be re- 
 ferred to. 
 
 + A noble Vice-President well observed at the recent meeting of the Kent 
 Auxiliary, “ It is wonderful that any men, still more that men of learning and 
 understanding, should suffer themselves to be imposed upon by trash like 
 this! But let us consider the injury it does. These Edinburgh statements, 
 and such as these, are triumphantly copied, and commented upon, in the 
 Roman Catholic publications.—And there they are in their place; because 
 the Pope has said that the Bible Society ought no longer to be suffered to 
 exist. But let those who sanction them reflect on the evil they occasion. 
 Let them reflect that they are making themselves the tools of jesuitical arti- 
 fices, and instruments of carrying into execution the Bull of the Pope for the 
 suppression of the circulation of the Scriptures.” These observations claim 
 the serious attention of every British Protestant. I also add, with great 
 pleasure, the conclusion of Lord Bexley’s address. ‘I trust, that the charges 
 which have been brought against the Society, instead of injuring its cause, 
 will only stimulate all, who feel as I do, to redouble their exertions in this 
 great pursuit, and to act with a spirit of liberality in the consideration of 
 those errors (if such they think they see) which may have occurred in the 
 complicated transactions of twenty-two years, inso many novel and difficult 
 circumstances ;—for where is the Seciety, or where is the individual, who 
 must not, in the course of such a period, have fallen into many? Above 
 all, may we pray to God for his blessing—not forgetting in our supplication 
 to the Throne of Grace, our Christian Brethren who differ from, and even those 
 who defame us. May we all unite our exertions for the glory of God on 
 earth! and may they, as well as we, be found partakers of the merits of our 
 Saviour in the realms of bliss!” How pleasinga contrast do such really Chris- 
 tian sentiments present to the language of the assailants of the Institution! 
 
39 
 
 severest scrutiny has been applied to discover all the faulty or 
 mistaken proceedings of more than twenty years. The grossest 
 exaggerations have been resorted to, and the most unfair and 
 uncandid constructions have been put upon acts and resolutions 
 long since gone by, as well as those of more recent date. We are 
 called upon to believe these statements, and to receive them as truth; 
 but I cannot think that this noble, this invaluable Institution will be 
 suffered to fall a victim to such calumny and misrepresentation. 
 That all which has been done in past years has been perfect, and 
 without blame, no one will pretend. Of what human Institution 
 can such an assertion be made? Does it afford just ground of 
 severe censure, if a Society engaged in promoting the translation and 
 printing of the Scriptures, or portions of them, in one hundred and 
 Jorty-three different languages and dialects; and in distributing, or 
 aiding in the distribution of, more than Ercur Mitions of copies 
 at home and abroad, may have failed, in some instances, to pursue all 
 those measures to which their present experience would direct, or 
 to accomplish all they intended? Individuals also, to whom the 
 sacred volume was as a sealed book, or who were only nominal fol- 
 lowers of Christ, may have been associated in this work; but has 
 no good resulted even from this? Are there not many who, through 
 all eternity, will bless the day on which they were admitted into the 
 ranks of the British anp Foreicn Brste Socrety, and who can 
 truly say, ‘“ We have found it good for us to be here ;” who, at 
 first attracted by the mere love of novelty, or even more objec- 
 tionable motives, have now learned to prize that word which is 
 “more to be desired than fine gold: sweeter also than honey and 
 the honey-comb?”* Many such there are:—What do they say to 
 those who urge a line of conduct which would have barred this door 
 against them for ever? 
 
 Experience has been advantageous in many respects; it has 
 taught the members of this Institution to look more to the Creator, 
 and less to the creature; an increased measure of pious feeling 
 prevails at its Meetings: and the blessed effects resulting from 
 its labours are visible in many districts both at home and abroad. 
 Are we then to cast down this goodly fabric, and scatter the mate- 
 
 * Nor is thisa novel occurrence in the Church of Christ. Augustine ob- 
 serves, “ It often happens, through the mercy of God, that he who applied 
 to us for instruction with carnal views, is brought to feel the value of that, of 
 which, at first, he only made pretence.”— Milner’s History of the Church of 
 Christ, vol. II. p. 434. 
 
40 
 
 rials in every direction, because it is not absolutely perfect in every 
 respect? Who is to point out a standard of absolute perfection? or 
 who will undertake that any human work shall be made in all 
 points to proceed conformably thereto? Surely the real followers of 
 Christ,—those who know and feel the evil of their own hearts, and 
 desire to walk humbly with their God, will never propose themselves 
 as the only possessors of wisdom ; nor will they seek to bend all 
 others to their individual opinions! The present day is not a time 
 for indifference; the Church of Christ is strongly assaulted on — 
 every side, and this mighty bulwark, which has been so signally 
 blessed, must not be suffered to fall. Let us not sit pondering over 
 blots and blemishes, till surmises establish themselves for certainties 
 in our minds, leading us further and further into the mazes of 
 doubt, until, at length falsehoods and calumnies assume the aspect 
 of truth. Are we, according to the words of one of these accusatory 
 documents, “left doubtful whether there is not more reason to lament 
 the evil committed, than to rejoice at the good accomplished, by 
 this Institution?” We rejoiced at the glad tidings of former years, 
 and are we to believe that the details we then delighted to hear should 
 rather have been cause for sorrow and regret? Are the mere ex- 
 parte statements of a few individuals to have such an effect upon 
 us? AssurzpLy not. Let att its friends come forward, and 
 hasten to uphold this invaluable Institution, endeavouring to keep 
 the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. Let us pray—let us 
 earnestly pray for a blessing upon it.—Ir 1s THE Lorp’s worx, 
 AND HE WILL BLESs IT. 
 
 I remain, 
 My Dear Friend, 
 
 Your’s, very sincerely, 
 
 GEORGE STOKES. 
 London, 2d November, 1826. 
 
4] 
 
 POSTSCRIPT. 
 
 Since I closed my letter, I have seen the following very judi- 
 cious and temperate observations on the unfairness of the large and 
 sweeping remarks which have been made upon “ the character of 
 the Societies on the Continent, with which the British and Foreign 
 Bible Society stands connected.” They are extracted from the 
 statement published by some Members of the Glasgow Society, who 
 objected to dissolving the connexion between that Auxiliary and the 
 Parent Institution. 
 
 “When particulars of alleged evil in the conduct of these 
 (Foreign) Societies are concentrated into a pampblet, and brought to 
 bear upon our minds, en masse, within the short space of an hour or 
 two, they necessarily tell much more powerfully than when (as we 
 ought to do) we recollect the trath—that these particulars have been 
 carefully brought together from the history of a large and increasing 
 number of Societies, through a period of twenty years, over the 
 entire extent of the European Continent. The force of them is, 
 by such recollection, prodigiously abated; because we then per- 
 ceive how very smalla proportion, even on the supposition of their 
 being all correctly represented, they bear to the large aggregate of 
 separate and combined exertions.” 
 
 “Tt must be very obvious, that in exact proportion as the position 
 is made good, which affirms the almost entire absence of real evan- 
 gelical religion from the Continent, and the almost universal pre- 
 valence of infidelity and error, the difficulty is augmented of obtain- 
 ing Bible Societies composed of pure materials. If the number of 
 genuine Christians be indeed so very small, how preposterous is the 
 expectation that genuine Christians are to abound in the benevolent 
 institutions, and how unfair the complaints against the British and 
 Foreign Bible Society for the want of them! The wonder comes to 
 be that we should find Bible Societies there at all. And for this we 
 are indebted to the very Institution from which it is now proposed 
 to separate, because they have not pure Societies, where, if these 
 accounts be true, there are few or no pure materials. 
 
 *“‘ The principle ought to be remembered on which the British and 
 Foreign Bible Society was constituted, and on which all kindred 
 
42 
 
 Institutions have been constituted since. On the ground that the 
 uncommented Scriptures was the exclusive object, membership was 
 made to depend upon Subscription, and on no stipulation whatever as 
 to religious opinions. This has, of course, been the principle on the 
 Continent, as well as here. It is the only principle on which the 
 Catholicity of Bible Societies can possibly be maintained ; and the 
 abandonment of it must of necessity contract the whole system (it is 
 impossible to say how far) within Sectarian limits, and even expose 
 it to the risk of being frittered down into as many institutions as 
 there are parties of professing Christians. The Committee in Earl 
 Street are thus hardly dealt with. In the Apocrypha-case they are 
 condemned for departing from their original principle, and in this, 
 with equal severity for adherence toit. If the principle has given 
 rise to incidental evils, let us not be so unrighteous as to visit these 
 upon the head of the Committee, when the principle itself is a 
 constitutional principle of the Society over which they preside, and 
 one that was originally sanctioned by universal approbation. 
 
 “We are persuaded from the peculiar circumstances of Con- 
 tinental Society, and the character of the Continental Govern- 
 ments, that there are few parts of the world where it is of more 
 essential consequence to secure the influence of those who occupy 
 stations of rank and authority ;—that without such influence, in 
 some parts, at least, of the Continent, considering the obstacles 
 that lie in the way, comparatively little good could be effected ; and 
 that an open rupture with all the Societies there, associated as 
 they are with such political authority and exalted rank, might 
 occasion immediate and extensive injury to our great cause. It is 
 moreover well known, that amongst the persons of eminence who 
 hold official stations in the Bible Societies on the Continent, there 
 are not a few, after all, who, for real excellence of character, would 
 do honour to any of the Institutions of our own country. 
 
 ** The general charge against the London Committee, as purposely 
 shunning connexion with the true Israel of God, and giving a pre- 
 JSerence to the enemies of his truth and people, we must be allowed to 
 regard as an unfounded and cruel imputation ; till it is supported by 
 much stronger evidence indeed, than we have yet seen adduced either 
 from the conduct of living Agents, or that of the lamented dead, 
 whose memory is thus ungenerously vilified, when they are not with 
 us to answer for themselves, or to explain the circumstances in which 
 they were placed, and the considerations by which they were in- 
 fluenced. It is sufficiently obvious, that the persons whom the 
 
43 
 
 Agents of that Society might have preferred associating with as fel- 
 low Christians might not be the persons whom they were in duty au- 
 thorized to prefer as the most suitable for their purpose,—namely, 
 the effectual and extensive circulation of the Scriptures. The 
 former might be found among the ‘poor of this world, whom 
 God hath chosen rich in faith, and heirs of his kingdom.’ As 
 Christians, they might have chosen fellowship with these; while, 
 as Agents of a Society, they were bound to seek out and secure 
 those whose influence was more likely to forward the object of their 
 official trust.” 
 
 ‘‘ We should be far from doing justice to our feelings were we to 
 close without reminding our constituents of the numerous and 
 powerful positive claims, which the British and Foreign Bible 
 Society possesses on their continued countenance and support. We 
 surely use no language which is beyond the truth, or which ought 
 to be offensive, when we say, that there has been of late displayed 
 a disposition to make the most of its faults; and that the lights in 
 which these have been held forth to public view have been by no 
 means the most favorable, or the most consistent with that charitable 
 construction of motives, and allowance for circumstances, which it 
 seems needful to remind the followers of Jesus, is one of the Chris- 
 tian virtues. The real and alleged defects and errors in the admi- 
 nistration of this noblest of Christian Institutions have been dwelt 
 upon till its many excellencies have been forgotten. They have 
 been pressed so close to the public eye as to hide from its vision 
 the beauties it was accustomed to admire. 
 
 “ But is this fair? Ought we,. on account of these faults, to pass 
 an act of ungrateful oblivion upon all its excellencies?’ Make as 
 many deductions as you please, still its Reports will show a career 
 of usefulness and glory that stands unrivalled. We could follow its 
 twenty-three years’ course, and mark with pleasure its spiritual 
 triumphs. We could go round the world, and point out the scenes of 
 its interesting achievements. We deprecate therefore dividing, where 
 union, we are deeply convinced, is both beauty and strength.” 
 
44 
 
 The conduct of the late Rev. Mr. Owen, when at Geneva, having 
 been much misrepresented, the following account, given by a Gen- 
 tleman then resident in that city, in a letter to a friend, is highly 
 deserving of attention. 
 
 “ Geneva, Nov. 4, 1818. 
 
 “ The first General Meeting of the Geneva Bible Society was 
 held a few days ago. None but Subscribers were invited to it, for 
 good reasons. As a Subscriber, I had the happiness of being present. 
 I shall ever keep this Meeting in remembrance. 
 
 “Mr. Owen, from the moment of his arrival to that of his de- 
 parture, having been employed the whole day, and generally till late 
 at night—by which excess his health has, in some degree, suffered, 
 though not seriously—I have requested he would let me supply his 
 place, in giving you, My dear Sir, an account of that Meeting, 
 to which, I know, you attach great interest. I shall do it con- 
 scientiously, unbiassed by my high regard and affection for Mr. 
 Owen. 
 
 “ The Meeting was composed of between thirty and forty Mem- 
 bers, chiefly of the Clergy; a few Laymen only in the number. 
 As this was the first General Meeting of the Bible Society; asa 
 difference of opinion avowedly exists at this time, and disturbs 
 the Church ; and as champions of both parties were present ; it re- 
 quired no small abilities to open and to conduct the Meeting with 
 such judgment and discretion as that it should not receive prejudice 
 through the temper or ill-humour of some of the individuals who 
 composed it. 
 
 “I took my place in such a part of the room as gave me a full 
 view of all present. The shades on the several countenances were 
 visible and strong ; some good-humoured, some doubtful, and some 
 stern ones: yet the object concerned them all in an equal degree. 
 
 “Mr. Owen, at the request of the President, (Mr. Vernet) 
 opened the business, by a short but glowing picture of the origin 
 and progress of the Bible Society in London. From this moment 
 the universal attention was visibly called off from every other 
 thought, and rivetted to that one point. Next to the primary cause 
 of the Institution of this stupendous Society, were placed the 
 great and illustrious persons in Church and State, and successively 
 those in every other class of the community, who gave it their 
 earliest and ever-since increasing support,—the struggles, the pro- 
 
45 
 
 gress, and the ultimate success of this glorious undertaking. The 
 visible assistance of Divine Providence, in conducting it through 
 all its difficulties, and the miraculous results already obtained, 
 touched deeply the feelings of the hearers; and the manner of the 
 Christian Orator, being throughout expressive of piety, gentleness, 
 candour, and benevolence—the history itself of this Society shewing 
 the necessity and happy effects of harmony in matters of one great 
 common interest,—one could perceive the visible change of the 
 countenances, when all, as if moved by one Spirit, assumed the 
 same becoming expression. 
 
 «« After some little rest given to Mr. Owen, the President res 
 quested he would favour the Meeting with some account of his 
 journey and proceedings through the many Swiss Cantons he had 
 just visited, on his road to Geneva. And hereI shared in the 
 astonishment of every one present, when the very great work done 
 in so short a time, and the happy prospects arising therefrom, were 
 Jaid before the Meeting. And again, this journey, this touching 
 at so many Cantons, to confirm, strengthen, and extend the Religious 
 Establishment, was delivered in so modest and so captivating a manner 
 —the Mission, the spirit, and the object of the Traveller, was so truly 
 Christian, that the eyes of all were rivetted on him, with evident 
 marks of respect, interest, and affection; and I verily believe, that, 
 at the end of a speech, which lasted an hour and a half, in French, 
 and very energetic French too, there was not an individual in the 
 room who thought of any difference of opinion; but all came in suc- 
 cession, to express their satisfaction and gratitude to Mr. Owen, 
 requesting his permission to pay their respects to him at his own 
 house. 
 
 ‘© At first, after his arrival, it was quite a storm of visitors from 
 seven o'clock in the morning till late at night. Individuals of both 
 opinions came in succession, laid their real or supposed grievances 
 before him, and demanded his advice. Mr. Owen’s answers, per- 
 fectly consistent with the delicacy of his situation, (which answers 
 have been furnished me from many quarters,) united charity and 
 prudence to his great sagacity: this made him carefully avoid all 
 shades, from which might have been implied adhesion to this or 
 to that side. 
 
 “ On Sunday the 24th, we had another great day. Mr. Owen 
 preached at the English Chapel. I took care this should be known 
 beforchand, both to the few English still remaining here, and to all 
 
46 
 
 those of the Geneva gentry, men and women, who speak or under= 
 stand English. They were all there. The Messenger of Provi- 
 dence, who knew his ground well, took for his text these few words 
 (the last of the 24th verse of the 20th chapter of the Acts): To 
 testify the Gospel of the Grace of God. 
 
 “You can see at one glance, my dear Sir, the eile he traced, and 
 every point on which he moved. The Fall of Man—the forlorn 
 state of Man after his Fall,—his entire incapacity to recover by his 
 own means,—the mercy of God relieving him from his state of 
 misery, by the appointment of a Saviour,—that Saviour His only 
 Son, leaving the glory of the Father, and making himself into man, 
 —the necessity of the influence of the Holy Spirit, to put man first 
 in a state of justification, then of sanctification,—in short, that 
 whole chain of sin, mercy, and Grace, which, of late years, has been 
 disjointed by many Ministers at Geneva, and, in part, quite left out 
 by some of the Novators,—Mr. Owen laid before his Congregation ; 
 pausing, and occasionally returning, to enforce the main points of 
 the discourse : the whole delivered as from authority, yet with that 
 spirit and expression of Christian charity and benevolence which 
 convinces the hearer that his eternal interest fills the heart of the 
 preacher. I have often heard him from the pulpit, and always 
 eloquent and expressive; but never did he, to my feelings, exceed 
 the powers he has shewn on this occasion, so important to this 
 shaken Protestant Community. He closed his discourse with an 
 address to his Countrymen (there might be about forty English in 
 the Chapel) ;. which, delivered as to Christians and Englishmen tra- 
 velling or residing in Foreign Countries, was calculated to make a 
 great and favourable impression. Mr, Owen recommended respect 
 for the existing authorities, abstinence from all interference in the 
 concerns of their Governments, gratitude to this Government for 
 the constant and signal marks of favour and predilection shewn to 
 the English Nation. Nothing was omitted that ought to be ex- 
 pressed. Some of the Magistrates were present, and shewed them- 
 selves much gratified, as well as edified, by the whole of the 
 Sermon. 
 
 “Recalled to Paris by important Letters, our friend was to have 
 left us on the 28th ; but some indisposition, the consequence of un- 
 remitted exertions on his journey through Switzerland, and here, 
 ever since his arrival, rendered it advisable that he should postpone 
 it for two or three days, devoting those days to rest. ‘This respite 
 
47 
 
 procured us the benefit of a second Sermon, for the Communion, 
 which we had the comfort of receiving at his hands. He left us the 
 day before yesterday, in good health. 
 
 “Thus, My dear Sir, have I given you, to the best of my ob- 
 servation, a succinct, correct, and conscientious account of our 
 doings here. I have delayed it till after Mr. Owen’s departure, in 
 order to take in all that could interest you. His exertions have 
 been so great and so unremitted, that his health requires rest: he 
 looks for that to the few days only given to his journey to Paris 
 (about six, the days being now very short): he hopes then to be 
 again what he was when he left England—that dear country, which 
 has a right to all his faculties. Here he was only a traveller, on a 
 Mission from the Bible Society: and in this great object he seems 
 to have achieved all he could in reason have hoped for, and to 
 have laid the foundation of much future success ;—not one dissen- 
 tient voice having been heard, and, on the contrary, all being unani- 
 mously ready to favour and assist the glorious work. So far, then, 
 the great object of his visit to Geneva has succeeded: the wheels 
 are set in motion, and there seem to be willing and efficient labourers 
 set towork. Attention, activity, and perseverance, will it is to be 
 hoped, under the Divine Blessing, have their usual reward. 
 
 “This Bible Society will occasion general Meetings, and more 
 frequent Committees will bring the parties into more frequent con- 
 tact, ina cause in which they all agree. As to Mr. Owen, there is 
 but one opinion; he departs from hence universally beloved and 
 highly respected: I never knew a man produce the same impression 
 in so short a period. 
 
 “TJ make no apology for having written so long a Letter, on a 
 subject which I know to be interesting to you. I abstain from 
 speaking of the good prospects which recall our friend to Paris. He 
 will have, probably, pleasing accounts to give you.” 
 
 “ P. S. Professor P.... returned here from Paris the very day 
 on which Mr. Owen set off from hence: they have never met; the 
 first having left Geneva before Mr. Owen reached it.” 
 
 J. R1pgR, Printer, Little Britain, London. 
 
48 
 
 To avoid, as much as possible, any misapprehension, it may be 
 proper to state, that the substance of a portion of the pre- 
 ceding pages mas drawn up at the desire of the Committee of 
 the British and Foreign Bible Society, as the ground-work of a 
 Statement explanatory of some points respecting which enquiries 
 had been made by many friends of the Institution, and a copy of 
 at was sent to each member of the Committee. 
 
 Upon fuller consideration, it was thought advisable, on the part of the 
 Committee, to publish only Extracts from their Minutes and Cor- 
 respondence ; leaving it to the friends of the Institution to offer ex- 
 planatory observations, if they thought proper so to do, individually. 
 The original design being thus relinquished, the Statement so drann 
 up mas, m consequence, laid aside, mithout having been brought 
 under consideration, or any discussion ee gone into respect- 
 ing its contents. 
 
 The Compiler of these pages felt the value and importance of the infor- 
 mation thus collected, and was unnilling that it should be wholly 
 lost : he therefore was induced to embody many of the particulars, 
 mith some of the remarks by which they were accompanied, in a 
 Letter to a Friend, and to make considerable additions. He printed 
 a few copies, intending it only for private circulation ; but, on 
 the recommendation of the highly-respectable individual to whom 
 at was addressed, and of other friends, he has considerably enlarged 
 his original design, and offers it to the Public im its present form. 
 The necessity of a speedy explanation of the injurious allegations 
 against the Society, nill, he thinks, fully remove any imputa- 
 tion of its being premature. 
 
 He would further add, that he has no intention to engage in contro- 
 versy, but merely nishes to give some part of the information — 
 mhich has been so long and so earnestly desired by the friends 
 of the Bible Society. He has endeavoured to avoid every expres- 
 sion which might be deemed personal, feeling that such was the 
 intention of the Author of the original document, of which he has 
 so largely availed himself (to the extent of nearly one-third of 
 the present Pamphlet); but he requests it may be distinctly un- 
 derstood, that neither the Author of that document, nor the Com- 
 mittee, is in any nay responsible for the present Work, as neither 
 of them is, or has been, in any respect a party to this Publication. 
 
ANGLICANUS AND THE REV. MR. GREY. 
 
 No. CCXI. of the Curistian INsrrucror will be published on 
 February 20th ; and among various interesting articles, will contain a 
 Comment on that most extrdordinary Letter which the Rev. Mr. Grey 
 has inserted in the Newspapers, respecting the “ Seven Letters by 
 Anglicanus,” in which he non confesses himself to have been, voluntas 
 rily and deliberately, the Edilor of that Pamphlet, after having solemaly 
 declared that the assertion of Mr. Grey being Anglicanus had no roun- 
 DATION IN TRUTH, and that Mr. Grey was nol responsible for the senti= 
 ments contained in the Seven Letiers ; and in which, far from making 
 any acknowledgment to Dr. Thomson for having attacked his pri- 
 vate, personal, and ministerial charactet under a mask, pours out upor 
 him the same sort of abuse by which he had formerly provoked that 
 Gentleman fo expose and rebuke hini for his unjustifiable hostility, and 
 represents himself as “ the injured and not the injurious party ;” as 
 “ suffering in the cause of righteousness,” and as “ having the testimony 
 of a good conscience.” 
 
FES 
 
 » bedaiidine od, “ths dhpibsiy | 
 & wld live Potoltue Qoidearoagy 2 
 err) ah oll oft daudve zottonk a 
 vi ovetted upiret Boda vor 
 - sacha hg rye hie Pte 
 
 sleuth gnerit stk Hea ymay ‘eh: 
 
 -wvent Gat Bad ey userikgy Jy aston gare) fp 
 oer ae JA A Omaee Inaener op: 
 ‘paisa omit Wah <siotlier, Att fae "% ar sii 
 ie) art bea ne” aint oi 
 ronqy Tah es a Tobaw $host! 
 ters Sean gy laonpeteh Lock gh honky 
 bie ,xabbatvene ve Sid seh 
 me Scat a ae we 
 acorn ni dae Be 
 
 ; a eee te 
 4 OAT fale aa ahs oii ols» < LIM es ie 
 Gs yaIgeT tent HAL ty! 
 
 by Bp Fae He 
 
THE 
 EDINBURGH 
 
 Christian Dustructor. 
 
 No. CEX! JANUARY 1828. Vor. XXVII. No. I. 
 
 REVIEW OF NEW PUBLICATIONS. 
 ——_—_ 
 
 Review of View of the Character, Position, and Prospects of the Edin= 
 burgh Bible Society. In Seven Letters. By Anglicanus. 8vo. pp: 
 vi. and 77. Price 1s. 6d. Edin. 1827. 
 
 Berors discussing the merits of this most extraordinary pamphlet, we 
 must say something of its authorship. And on this point we have a 
 very curious and distressing tale to unfold—one which we would have 
 willingly suppressed, had it been at all consistent with the regard that 
 we owe to the cause of truth and justice. 
 
 We state it then in plain and unequivocal terms, that the individual 
 who must stand forward to take upon him the guilt and shame of hav- 
 ing produced the Letters of Anglicanus, is THE Rev. Henry Grey; 
 Minister of St. Mary’s, Edinburgh, and one of the Secretaries to the 
 Corresponding Board. When these Letters were first sent to the Edi- 
 tor of the Caledonian Mercury, they were sent with the name and the 
 responsibility of Mr. Grey. The copy furnished to the printer of the 
 pamphlet, was, to a certain extent, in Mr. Grey’s hand-writing. The 
 preface was wholly so ; and it is subscribed “ THE AuTHOR.” It was 
 Mr. Grey who regularly corrected and revised the proofs as the work 
 advanced. And it was Mr. Grey who, from first to last, gave directions 
 concerning the publication. 
 
 These facts we have obtained without any breach of confidence—so 
 stupidly has our opponent managed his own affairs—on the part of 
 those by whom they were communicated. We might add, were it at 
 all necessary, various circumstances corroborative of our main statements. 
 And had the matter gone into a court of law, which would have been 
 far worse for Mr. Grey than either the Police or the Small Debt Court, 
 we could have extracted from the witnesses that would have been sub- 
 poena’d on the occasion, such testimony as must have covered more thar 
 one with confusion and disgrace. ' 
 
 VOL. XXVI¥. No. B 
 
2 Review of Anglicanus’ Lellers: Jan, 
 
 When we afiirm that Mr. Grey is the author of the pamphlet, we do 
 not mean that it is altogether the emanation of hismind. That hecom-— 
 posed the feebler portions of it, we have no doubt ; and that the whole 
 of it was subjected to the revisal of his pen, is very probable. But there 
 are passayes, for producing which, every one who knows him must be 
 satisfied. that he has not the intellectual capacity. We need no declara- 
 tion, on his part, to convince us of this. An affidavit, asserting that the - 
 whole is his, and subscribed by his own hand, we would not, we could 
 not believe. We should as soon believe that the London Committee — 
 could have astonished the world with “ Paradise Lost,” or that the 
 Corresponding Board could have brought forth such works as the Ana- 
 logy of Butler or the Principia of Sir Isaac Newton, as that certain of 
 these pages proceeded from the brain of the Rev. Mr. Grey. Still, how- 
 ever, he is strictly accountable for all that has come forth under the 
 signature of Anglwanus. Though he has not, and cannot have the 
 credit of one clever or vigorous sentence that the book contains,—and 
 that it contains some such we are free to confess,—he must answer for 
 its malevolence, its meanness, its falsehoods, its misrepresentations, its 
 insolence, its scurrility, its profaneness, its heresies, its want of principle, 
 its hardened insensibility, its gross insults to individuals, to whole bodies 
 of men, to the very country itse!f, in which the heartless and ungrate- 
 ful libeller is permitted to live, and feed, and go at large. Of these we 
 know him to be quite capable. Many of them, we are well persuaded, — 
 have no other paternity. And whether they originated in his mind or — 
 not, he has at least willingly and formally adopted them,—which is am- 
 ply sufficient for his condemnation. We speak not of argument; for 
 that is a thing to which he is inadequate, and of which indeed, bating — 
 an unsuccessfulattempt now and then, the pamphlet is perfectly guiltless. 
 
 It is clear to us, and every body in Edinburgh is of the samme opinion, 
 that it owes not a few of its pages to a lady, with whom Mr. Grey is 
 on intimate terms, and who has aided him in the same way on many 
 other occasions. One entire letter at least must be aseribed to her, and 
 that the most unprincipled, perhaps, of the whole series—if, indeed, 
 one can be considered as worse than another, where all are so unspeak- 
 ably bad. We should be sorry to withhold from this female,—whether 
 she is to be deemed the principal agent or merely an auxiliary—any 
 portion of that credit which belongs to her, as having a participation in 
 the authorship of these letters. She is no doubt very vain of seeing 
 herself cut a distinguished figure in the arena of debate, in spite of her 
 having the misfortune to disgust far more by her low ribaldry, than she 
 can hope to dazzle with her stolen brilliancies. And though we should 
 not be willing to minister to vanity so mistaken and so insatiable as hers, 
 yet we cre compelled, by a sense of justice, to acknowledge her claims, 
 and to show her we are not unaware of her deserts. Our opinion 
 of her talents was formed long before the appearance of her present ef- 
 fort: and what we observe here only confirms what we previously thought. 
 She has imagination, but it is wild and undisciplined. She has read- 
 ing, but it.is crude and undigested. She has command of diction, but 
 it is indescribably loose, verbose, and pedantic. She has no taste, no 
 judgment, no acuteness, no concentration of thought, no power of reason- 
 ing. What she has of the positive and negative, may be seen in a sen- 
 tence which we once quoted from Mr. Grey’s Reasons of Dissent, and 
 which is as characteristic of her power and manner as if she herself 
 had written it. It occurs in asserting the insufficiency of provincial 
 
1828. Review of Anglicanus’ Letters. 3 
 
 associations to do the work of the British and Foreign Bible Society, and 
 is as follows: 
 
 _ «< Nay, do they not start to the race, with. the seeds of dissension in their bowels? 
 Does not this first dreach take its rise in principles that promise fertility in all those 
 miceties of judgment and scrupulosities of feeling, that overtask the springs and check 
 the impetus of associated effort, that stop the machine continually in the full career of 
 harmonious operation , by injected crotchets of individual opinion, that billet themselves 
 upon free associations, only to shackle their movements, and retard their progress.” 
 
 We have reason to believe that a third person has been concerned in 
 the concoction of this dish of scandal and impiety. Fancying himself 
 a man of talent, eager to display the gifts he possesses, and very willing 
 to be serviceable te the Apocryphal cause, he had indicted some trash to 
 the Newcastle journals, in favour of the London Committee, and by 
 getting praise from his own relatives for the cleverness of his remarks, 
 he has been unhappily encouraged to lend his assistance to the Letters. 
 We have no desire to repress his literary ambition, so far as its grati- 
 fieation is compatible with truth and Christianity. But really, when 
 instead of soothing the personal resentments, and restraining the mad 
 propensities of his friends in Edinburgh, he helps them on in their 
 reckless and self-destroying career, we cannot avoid suggesting that 
 it would be better for him to attend to his cattle and his corn, than to 
 busy himself either in mismanaging the county politics of his chieftain, 
 or in vilifying those who prefer pure to adulterated Bibles. 
 
 There are difficulties, we confess, in the adjustment of this three-fold 
 authorship, so as to reconcile it with what the pamphlet contains, and 
 with the Christian profession of those who have combined to produce it. 
 In the first place, the Preface is subscribed “ the Author.” So that 
 «“ the Author” must be considered as identified with “ Anglicanus,” 
 who signs each of the Letters, and whose, therefore, they are all under- 
 stood to be. And according to the ordinary mode of interpretation, 
 “ Anglicanus, the Author,” can scarcely be construed to signify three 
 different individuals. 
 
 In the second place, “ Anglicanus” tells us over and over again, that 
 he was present at our Annual Meeting, and saw and heard every thing 
 that was said and done. But Mr. Grey, who would be convicted in a 
 court of law. of being Anglicanus, becat:se the preface was in his hand- 
 writing, not to allude to all the other proofs that could be brought for- 
 ward, was xof present at the meeting, and neither heard nor saw any 
 thing that passed init. Where he was, we do not pretend to say ; but 
 certain it is, that on the 9th of July 1827, the Assembly Room was not 
 honoured with his personal attendance, so that when he says, in the 
 character of Anglicanus, I saw such a thing and I heard such a thing, 
 he says what is altogether untrue. 
 
 In the third place. the female partner in this epistolary concern was 
 no doubt at the meeting from its beginning to its conclusion, makin 
 herself more conspicuous than a very bashful woman would desire to be, 
 and trying to talk her neighbourhood into a disbelief of all that Dr. 
 Thomson asserted: but then, this lady can scarcely be Anglicanus, for 
 not to speak of the difference of the gender,—what genuine lady 
 would choose to assume the masculine title ?—-she did not know the Rev. 
 ‘Dr. Gordon, who moved the adoption of the Report ; and this is rather 
 an unaccountable circumstance, seeing that she had often heard him 
 preach, and had been often in his company, and was equally familiar 
 with his appearance and his voice. We fear that this lady, were it for 
 
4 Review of Anglicanus’ Letters. Jan. 
 
 no other purpose than that of saving Mr. Grey from being chargeable 
 with the sin for which Ferdinand Mendez Pinto was so illustrious 
 that of seeing what he never saw, and hearing what he never heard— 
 must be answerable for all the passages in which the author speaks of 
 having personally witnessed the proceedings of the Annual Meeting. 
 No doubt her pretending to be ignorant of the person of Dr. Gordon 
 renders her a great hypocrite ; but there are falsehoods in every page, 
 and we must distribute them according to as fair and charitable a rule 
 as we can adopt, and it is much more tolerable that the lady should 
 be found guilty of one untruth, than that Mr. Grey should be burdened 
 with the guilt of twenty. ; 
 In the fourth place, from the pretensions of the author we are led to 
 believe that he resides, as well as had his birth, ia England. But 
 though Mr. Grey and the lady were born to the south of the Tweed, 
 they have their abode in Edinburgh, and we feel some difficulty in exon- 
 erating them from the double-dealing which this implies, because the 
 pretension of English residence runs throughout the whole course of 
 the pamphlet, and really we cannot think any of the two so clever as to 
 be wholly in England and wholly in Scotland at one and the same time. 
 We once thought of getting them out of this scrape, by, imputing the 
 residence part of the story to the third individual alluded to. Here, 
 however, there is another and a greater stumbling-block in our way, 
 for, not to insist on his absence from the Annual Meeting, we have to 
 state, 
 In the fifth place, that this individual, though a bona fide residenter in 
 England, does not dwell many miles from the border, whereas An- 
 glicanus would persuade us that he is greatly nearer the sun, and even 
 insinuates that he is altogether beyond the reach of Scotch companion- 
 ship. And besides, while Anglicanus tells us that the Apocrypha ques- 
 tion is completely set at rest in his vicinage, so much so, that the very 
 mention of the word causes the hearers thereof to yawn, which must be 
 very uncommon in the polite company that he affects to keep, the per- 
 son whom we are at present supposing to be Anglicanus, for the sake of 
 preventing his two copartners from being involved in the charge of 
 mendacity, happens to be an inhabitant of that very district in which 
 the Apocrypha Controversy is carried on with more eagerness and ener- 
 gy than ever attended it even here, and has himself done his best, by 
 speaking and writing, to convince the good people of Northumberland 
 that Earl Street is a perfect paradise for purity, and that all who object 
 to the London Committee are enemies to the Bible Society. 
 _ In the sixth place, some kind friends of Mr. Grey are anxiously whis- 
 pering that the said Northumbrian dweller is the real author, and that 
 poor Mr. Grey is only a sort of humble agent, who has undertaken to su- 
 perintend the printing and publication from mere love to his southern cor- 
 respondent. ‘his will not do. Not only does it leave Mr. Grey laden 
 with the whole demerit of the performance, of which he has taken up- 
 on himself the responsibility, and as to which he has acted the part of 
 a cordial and indefatigable abettor, but it is inconsistent with a variety 
 of particulars that occur in almost every page. It must be obvious to 
 
 | 
 
 every one that there are a multitude of allusions scattered throughout ’ 
 
 the pamphlet, indicating a minute acquaintance with lecalities, indiyi- 
 duals, incidents, and gossip, which could never be possessed by a being 
 who is seldom seen on the streets of our metropolis, but is almost con- 
 stantly occupied in looking after his farming operations, and attending 
 
1328. Review of Anglicanus’ Letters. 5 
 
 Morpeth market. And there are, moreover, a few circumstances which 
 it is worth while to state, as implicating Mr. Grey in a manner which 
 
 | he little dreamt of when he was trying to hide himself in the shroud 
 
 of secrecy, and which cannot by any possibility be supposed to find a 
 
 | solution beyond the Tweed. In page 43 there is a most unhand- 
 | some and revengeful allusion to the gentleman we pointed at in a for- 
 
 mer Number as having resigned his place in the Corresponding Beard, 
 which allusion, though containing a wicked misrepresentation of fact, 
 «ould have been furnished by nothing else than a communication which 
 ‘was confidentially made to Mr. Grey. And in the answer that Mr. 
 Grey gave to a letter which he lately received from a Presbyterian 
 minister in Northumberland, requiring him to say explicitly whether 
 he was the author of the pamphlet, or whether he countenanced or en- 
 couraged the publication of it, and especially referring him to the attack 
 in page 39, on the Scotch ministers and people who have gone into Eng- 
 dand, he not only expressed himself equivecally and evasively, but he 
 ‘gave an authoritative interpretation as to the meaning and object of the 
 parti ge objected to, which the most sagacious or imaginative 
 of readers never could have conjectured, and which none but the writer 
 ‘could have given, he alone knowing his own meaning, though he had 
 failed to express it so as to make it intelligible to his readers. 
 
 In the seventh place, Anglicanus is quite surprised, on coming to 
 Edinburgh, to find that the Apocrypha Controversy is stillraging- But 
 none of the three personages alluded to could by any possibility be ig- 
 morant of this state of things. It was well known to every one of them. 
 Perhaps they belong to that class of beings, sometimes met with among 
 us, who have a sort of instinctive wender at every thing that is said to 
 them, and will start, as if you had made a most unexpected discovery, 
 when you tell them that the sun shines at noon-day. No doubt this 
 
 jarity is always accompanied with cunning and deceit. But that, 
 we rather think, strengthens our theory, for it turns out that Anglicanus 
 has more of these qualities than any respectable person would find it 
 agreeable to be even suspected of pussessing. The worst feature of the 
 business is, that the individual who marvels at the prevalence of the 
 dispute in our Metropolis is the individual who attended the Annual 
 ‘Meeting, that this individual is the lady part of the concern, and that 
 
 she has been long familiar with that phenomenon which fills her with 
 
 ‘such sudden amazement. 
 
 » In the eighth place, one of the most puzzling parts of the affair is to 
 be found in the sex of the parties. A correspondent of ours very wit- 
 ‘tily, but very justly observes, that in one view no man could possibly 
 write these letters ; that it must have been a woman who had lost the 
 
 - half of her wits and the whole of her temper ; that none but a female 
 
 ‘scold was capable of uttering the raving and bitter scurrility which 
 
 ' constitutes about three-fourths of the pamphlet. But then this does 
 
 = 
 
 not agree with the author's signature, whose termination is masculine ; 
 and besides, it would be a reproach to Mr. Grey, that he allowed any 
 ‘weaker vessel to put on his habilments and rob him of his superiority. 
 ‘No help for it, however ; we know the fact that here a lady has been, and 
 that here Mr. Grey has been ; and if we take into account the clodpole 
 auxiliary from the south, of whose passionate coarseness they have avail- 
 ‘ed themselves in their attack on all that is decent and sacred, we may 
 perhaps compound the matter, by recollecting that the word employed 
 
6 Review of Anglicanus’ Leiters. Jan. 
 
 by the authors to designate themselves is to be understood as represent- 
 ing all the three genders, and that it is the same as if the subscription 
 
 had been Anglicanus, Anglicana, Anglicanum. 
 
 ‘ 
 
 Although it is evident, however, that the strange combination of indi- 
 
 viduals that has been concerned in the production of this work, involyes 
 
 the most absurd and ludicrous inconsistencies, it gives rise to reflections 
 
 of a serious and melancholy description. Here is a minister of truth lend- 
 ing himself willingly and heartily toa base deception. Here are flaming 
 professors of Christianity, joining and assisting him in this lying device. 
 
 We can understand, and we can tolerate a fictitious signature in works — 
 
 of mere fancy, or of intellectual speculation, where the announcement of 
 
 the writer, or the nature and aspect of what he writes, are sufficient to 
 
 guard against all imposition. But no such privilege as that usurped by 
 
 Mr. Grey can be granted in a case where a man pretends to discuss the ~ 
 
 merits of an existing and most important controversy —where he is deal- — 
 
 ing with the truth and honour of Ged—where he is arraigning the private 
 
 and public character of his fellow-men—where he is endeavouring to in- — 
 
 fluence the opinion and conduct of the community onagreat moral question. — 
 
 Let him give his name, or if he prefers it, let him be anonymous. But let 
 him not atfect to reside where he does not reside ; let him not put forth the 
 lucubrations of a woman under the hand and ownership of a man; let 
 him not give as his own what belongs to another ; let him not allege that 
 he has seen what he never saw ; let him not look meek as a saint, while 
 he is ferocious as a savage. Though the artifice should never be de- 
 tected, still itis a witked and guilty deed—sinful in any one—more 
 sinful in those who bear the Christian name—most sinful in him who, 
 above all others, should not “ wallx in craftiness.” And when it is de- 
 tected, its demerit becomes the deeper, because its mischief is the 
 greater. Anglicanus, hiding himself in his den, or putting on a false and 
 treacherous guise when he walked abroad, was unworthy in no ordinary 
 degree. And now that he is dragged from his den, and stripped of his 
 disguise, and made to stand forth in the person of Mr. Grey, the fraud 
 assumes an ugglier aspect, as being associated with such mighty preten- 
 sions to high principle and unimpeachable integrity. It is a very dis- 
 tressing view of our opponent which this discovery affords us. And 
 yet it is of a piece with all the exhibitions of all the defenders of the 
 London Committee with whom we have had to do. This remark we 
 have frequently made. Every day gives us fresh proofs, by giving us ad- 
 ditional examples of it. Those who support the London Committee never 
 go straight forward. Whether the circumstance be trifling or important, 
 the by-path of cunning and duplicity is invariably taken. We had a 
 pamphlet by the Rev. Mr. Brandram the Layman ; and here we have let-~ 
 ters by Mrs. Somebody, the Englishman. There is one comfort arising 
 from the disclosure we have made. If Mr. Grey had come forward 
 publicly and manfully, and given us his bona fide averments, they might 
 have derived some weight from his established reputation amongst us, 
 which it would have required a stricter investigation, and a more mi- 
 nute discussion to counteract and destroy. But now that he has been, in 
 the very manner of putting forth his statement, found guilty of mean, 
 multifarious, and “deliberate fraud, all that he has covered with his 
 sanction, must go for nothing in the estimate of every competent judge, 
 
 * 
 
 even independently of that evidence which can be adduced of its ut-— 
 
 ter contrariety to fact and verity. sis 
 It is worthy of observation, also, that so bent was Mr. Grey on the 
 
1828. Review of Anglicanus’ Letters. 7 
 
 “work of calumny against Dr. Thomson, and eventually on his own dis- 
 ‘comfiture and ruin, that he rejected the advice which was indirectly 
 ‘tendered to him in bringing his abominations before the public. The 
 Tetters which appeared in the Mercury are different, in some points, 
 ‘from the letters now before us. And on comparing the two editions of 
 them, and attending to the intimation given, that certain curtailings had 
 ‘taken place, we can easily see that the Editor of that respectable Jour- 
 ‘nal, whom Anglicanus calls his “« Ingenious patron,” had deemed it right 
 ‘im the exercise of a sound discretion, to cancel passages which were so 
 abusive as to be disgusting, or so calumnious as to be actionable ; and 
 ‘thus signifiel very forcibly, that neither in point of decency, nor 
 in point of safety, shouid they appear in any republication of the Epis- 
 tiles that might be contemplated or undertaken. This judicious and 
 friendly admonition, however, has been completely set at nought. Mr. 
 Grey’s ardour in his vocation as a slanderer, was not to be cooled either 
 by the advice that he thus very emphatically received, or by the time 
 for sober thought that necessarily intervened. He seems to have re- 
 laced all the horrible passages that had been wisely obliterated by the 
 individual, who was not only a dispassionate and learned judge, but who 
 had shown him so much kindness as to make room for his raving and 
 trashy declamations. And for any thing we know, he has added 
 to the bitterness and the baseness of the rejected sentences, which, even 
 in their original state, were too outrageous to be submitted to the pub- 
 lic eye—and in all this given a dismai illustration of the adage, Quem 
 Deus vult perdere, prius dementat. 
 
 The Preface. which, whoever actually composed it, was in the hand- 
 writing of the Rev. Henry Grey, is a very curious production. It isa 
 mixture of impudent assertion, profane allusions, bitter malice, and vile 
 hypocrisy. Of course, it is the effusion of a mind which had already 
 vented all the malignity and wickedness that are to be found in the 
 Seven Letters ; and we should have thought that such a discharge of 
 peccant humours must have reduced the wretched patient to some degree 
 of moderation and decency. But no; the plethora continues ; its symp- 
 toms are as rampant and as fatal as ever; and he must certainly die, 
 unless our treatment of his case, which, from the necessity that he very 
 impudently pleads in his own defence, must consist in profuse bleeding 
 and universal blistering, shall have the eifect of restoring him to his 
 wonted sanity. 
 
 It is evident, indeed, that he has some misgivings on the retrospect of 
 what he had previously committed to the press. He sees that it is 
 utterly destitute of argument—that it contains no exculpation of his 
 friends in Earl Street—that the Christian public must go somewhere 
 else, if they wish to be satisfied on the great points, or on any point, of 
 the Controversy. And he very cunningly, as some may think—very 
 simply and stupidly, according to our estimate—puts in a caveat, lest 
 any reader should expect the questions at issue to be reasoned in the 
 
 ages of Anglicanus. ‘“ Nothing,” says he, ‘“ could be more unprofita- 
 le now, or more repugnant to the inclination of the writer of the fol- 
 lowing pages, than a renewed and regular investigation of the various 
 charges that have been already satistactorily discussed in many pre- 
 ceding publications.” This is really good. ‘‘ Unprofitable!” The on- 
 ly profitable thing—infinitely more profitable, surely, than the railing 
 eclamation and diabolical calumnies in which he has so plentifully in- 
 dulged,—the only profitable thing he could have done, was to investi- 
 
e 
 
 8 Review of Anglicanus Letters. JAN. 
 
 gate the charges which have been brought against the London Com- 
 mittee, and either to have proved that they were false, or to have ads 
 mitted that they were true. And it is utterly absurd to allege that 
 the charges have been “ satisfactorily discussed in many preceding 
 publications.” Every one knows that the charges have never been met 
 at all by the very men who are most deeply implicated in the offences 
 to which they refer—that some who have defended their cause, for ex- 
 ample, the Eclectic Reviewers, have done so on principles which the 
 Committee dare not avow, and which are revolting to the mind of every 
 minister in Scotland, except perhaps that of Mr. Grey himself—that 
 others, such as Amicus, who is cruelly re-introduced by his insane and 
 heartless puffers to the notice of the public, with all the pretension and 
 appearance of dealing in fact, were demonstrated immediately and con- 
 clusively to have dwelt in nothing but falsehood,—and that while those 
 we have alluded to were anonymous, such as boldly gave their names 
 when opposing the Second Statement, viz. Mr. Grey, Mr. Campbell, Mr. 
 Craig, and Mr. Brown, had the mortification to see their “ discussions” 
 blown to pieces in a few weeks after they appeared in print, and the 
 pamphlet which contained them converted into a mere monument of 
 bathos, paradox, and imbecility. The plea of disinclination is equally 
 hollow and absurd. If the charges were so serious as to provoke 
 the ire of Mr. Grey and his coadjutors, and if they obtained so much 
 credit as, by alienating all Scotland, to make all Scotland the object 
 of his brutal malediction, it was impossible for him, without supposing 
 that his mind had lost its balance, not to be inclined to discuss them 
 fully, and rebut them satisfactorily. And surely if he had perceived 
 that this achievement was within his reach, he must have laboured to 
 perform it, seeing that it must have been more congenial to his gentle 
 nature, as well as more advantageous to his needy cause, to offer a 
 triumphant vindication of the London Committee, than to indite eighty 
 long-primer 8vo. pages of foul, vulgar, malicious, and actionable invective. 
 The disinclination which he pretends to feel, arises solely from the in- 
 ability which he is ashamed to confess, and from that personal animosity 
 and resentment, the indulgence of which is far dearer to him than the 
 maintenance of truth, and which a thousand arguments, however victo- 
 rious and successful, would have failed to gratify. 
 
 Mr. Grey says, that “ the explanations he has given on a few of the 
 points most popularly agitated, are chiefly designed to testify to those 
 by whom the circumstance is forgotten, that there are two sides of every 
 story in a party question, and that yielding to the more clamorous of 
 the disputants to get rid of his noise, puts a period to the debate, but 
 gives no solution of the problem ; and also to vindicate his friends for 
 declining to magnify their assailant, by engaging in the dishonest strife, 
 or to be instrumental in giving to his calumnies a notoriety they had 
 not otherwise the means of obtaining.” This is no doubt a handsomely 
 composed sentence, and must have required the assistance of the 
 female yoke-fellow. How very gracious to remind the public, in the 
 form of a testimony, that there are two sides in every party question ! 
 This was especially needful, we presume, for the stupid Scotch, whe 
 cannot recollect, without the help of Henry Grey, or an exotic blue- 
 stocking, that a question, where one attacks and another defends, involves 
 two opposites. But then he allows that both sides have been elamorous, 
 for the least clamorous is said to yield to the “ most clamorous.” 
 Very extraordinary indeed ; for one would think from his way of talk 
 
 ; 6 
 
1828. Review of Anglicanus’ Leiters. 9 
 
 ing at other times, that the London Committee have not been clamorous ~ 
 at all. In truth, they have never made any noise. The very thing we 
 have mplain of is, that when the gravest and most important 
 charges were brought against them openly, explicitly, and solemnly, by 
 the Edinburgh Committee, they would neither defend nor acknowledge, 
 but took refuge in a dead sulky silence, which no consideration could 
 prevail upon them to break. And yet Mr. Grey has the assurance to 
 tell us that they yielded ta our clamour, because it was the loudest ; 
 although he knew, in the jirst place, that in our three Statements there 
 was nothing that could be called clamorous ; and, in the second place, 
 that the Earl-Streetians could not, according to common sense, cease 
 from that which they had never begun. To talk of “ putting a period 
 to the debate,” in which there was only “ one side,” is worthy of those 
 scribblers who imagine that they are propounding ideas, when they are 
 only spouting words! Andasto “ the problem not being solved,” 
 that is just anotner example of Mr. Grey’s senseless verbiage. The pro- 
 blem is solved. The problem was, whether the London Committee had 
 been guilty of those things of which they were accused. We not only 
 accused ; we also substantiated our accusations. And they never even 
 attempted to vindicate their conduct, but wrapped themselves up in 
 their taciturnities or their dignities, as if a shut mouth, or a heavy purse, 
 or a fine title, were sufficient to satisfy the whole country of their innocence! 
 And after this, we are to be contented with “‘ the explanations of a few 
 of the most popularly agitated points,” by the Rev. Henry Grey, who 
 claims this homage from us, we suppose, because he first opened his in- 
 fant eyes, not in dirty Edinburgh, but in charming Morpeth! As he ad- 
 vances, Mr. Grey becomes more ridiculous; for the second clause of 
 the sentence is big with the promise of a vindication of his friends. 
 But, alas! the vindication instantly turns out to be a thing of nought ; 
 for it only respects the silence of the London Committee, not their 
 arraigned management. He is to vindicate them for not defending 
 themselves! He is to do this bya few explanations!! And he is to 
 do it on the ground that we would have been unduly magnified, had we 
 been noticed by such mighty men as Messrs. Stokes, Thornton, True- 
 man, and Haslope, and that such notice would have given too great 
 notoriety to our calumnies! !! 
 
 Mr. Grey pretends to be somewhat annoyed by his own introduction 
 of so many names “ for the purposes of censure and crimination,” and 
 apologises for it by the plea of necessity. Nobody would find fault 
 with him for introducing names into such a question ; and, therefore, 
 he needed not to urge any excuse. But he has done in this respect 
 what admits not of excuse or apology. He has introduced the names of 
 individuals evidently because he hated them. It is that he might vent 
 the malice that had been lodging in his heart. We see no process of 
 _ reasoning, and no statement of fact, by which he proves the objects of 
 his malignity to have been guilty of unjust and injurious proceedings. 
 But there is presented to us on his part the copious and filthy outpour- 
 ing of the very worst passions by which any human breast was ever 
 agitated ; and the raving and nonsense that he puts forth when givi 
 us his “ few explanations,” are merely pretexts that he has comes 
 for letting us see how much of righteousness, and religion, and huma- 
 nity, Henry Grey can coolly sacrifice in order to satiate his thirst for 
 vengeance. 
 
 VOL. XXVII. NO. I. c 
 
10 Review of Anglicanus’ Letters. JAN, 
 
 And yet after all his violation of what even worldly men hold sacred — 
 —after gloating over his seventy pages of wrath and reviling—after — 
 wallowing in the sink of defamation which he has recklessly difged, and _ 
 as recklessly supplied out of his own polluted resources, he can take the — 
 name of his Saviour in vain, and insult us with such cant and whining ~ 
 as follows. “ Far be it from us,” says he, “ to disparage any man’s — 
 influence as useful, or talents as they are available to that cause that is — 
 ours as a whole, inclusive of all its interests: we judge no man. Who- 
 ever they be that are followers of Christ, we are their servants for Jesus’ 
 sake ; and if any such find in those pages any thing whereby their just 
 feelings are wounded, or their privileges as Christian brethren overlook- 
 ed, the sin is unweeting on our part ; we fervently proffer them the 
 reparation of our humblest acknowledgments.” What can be mere dis- 
 gusting? Coming from any person whatever, it goes to shock all our — 
 feelings ; but coming from him who is accounted the pink of Christian — 
 pastors, and the paragon of Christian men, there is no term of severity 
 and abhorrence by which it does not deserve to be stigmatised. 
 
 Next comes the courage of the trio. After denouncing Dr. Thomson — 
 by an injurious reference to Scripture, of which we shall speak more 
 particularly by and by, they write the following passage: “It.was time ~ 
 to teil him, that fear of sin, not fear of him, nor of the strength of the © 
 cause he had in hand, deterred our acceptance of his ceaseless sum- 
 mons to the field of strife. His movements are not to be the directory 
 for ours. We neither deprecate his wrath nor desire his forbearance. 
 His utmost ire and means of giving effect to it, ‘nought value we nor 
 shun!” So these worthies have conquered their fear of sinning against 
 God, and have at length emboldened one another to do it without dread 
 of his anger! As to the strength of the cause that Dr. Thomson had in 
 hand, if they are not afraid of it, how does it happen, that even after they 
 have come forward, vapouring and bullying as they do, they have not dared 
 to grapple with it, or to assail one of its bulwarks? And, O the unparal- 
 leled bravery of Mr. Grey, the Lady, and the Farmer, te conceal them- 
 selves behind a wall which they deemed too high to be sealed, and too 
 thick to be penetrated, and thence to send an anonymous message to 
 Dr. Thomson, bearing that they defy his displeasure, and challenge him 
 to the contest! The ludicrousness of such swaggering is only equal- 
 led by its vanity ; for here is Mr. Grey, and here are his associates, 
 dragged neck and heel from their skulking place, and punished by an 
 exposure of their duplicity, their malice, their detractions, and their 
 
 rofaneness, to the scorn and indignation of the world. 
 
 When Mr. Grey rants about “ goading on his adversary, and urging 
 him and his affairs to his fate,” what does he mean? Does he really 
 believe that the efforts of Dr. Thomson, and of those who fight in the 
 same holy cause, have any tendency to injure the Edinburgh Bible So- 
 ciety, and to advance the prosperity of the Earl Street concern? Ifhe — 
 has faith for this, there is no absurdity which he may not swallow and 
 digest. And his affected delirium of joy at the result of our proceed- 
 ings, is belied by the quantity of labour that he has expended, and the 
 quantity of character that he has thrown away, in order to arrest us in 
 our career, and compel us to be as Apocryphal, and as dishonest, and 
 as worldly, as his idols are in the London Committee. Little did this 
 pattern of every virtue imagine, when he was penning such crazy sen- 
 tences as those which occur in his preface, that he was hurrying on to 
 
 ae. 
 
2 ee 
 
 1828. Review of Anglicanus’ Letters. 11 
 
 that very crisis in which he longed to involve his adversary, and that he 
 was treasuring up for himself the infamy that is due to those who se- 
 cretly isiges and indulge the more greedily that it is secret, in the 
 personal enmity, and bitter contumelies, and false assertions, which, 
 when their author is discovered, as he has been, must “ disparage him 
 in the eyes of all good men,” and which, whether the author be disco- 
 vered or not, must prohibit him from ever hoping for “ the blessing of 
 heaven,” except he repent. 
 
 In perusing this pamphlet the reader cannot fail to see that the great 
 ‘object of Mr. Grey, (always implying the Lady and the Farmer) is to 
 revile Dr. Thomson, and to make him odious wherever their pamphlet 
 can find credit. And it is not difficult to perceive, that the sole cause of 
 this is not to be sought for in his exertions to expose the unworthiness 
 of the London Committee. There is a feeling of strong personal aver- 
 sion which reigns throughout. There is mean jealousy. There is bitter 
 revenge. Nothing can account for the sentiments which he has uttered, 
 and the language in which he has clothed them, and the tone and tem- 
 per by which they are pervaded, but a rooted and unqualified animo- 
 sity. 
 His love to the British and Foreign Bible Society affords no explana- 
 tion. He never gave any proofs of that attachment, as we shall after- 
 wards show, till he had an opportunity of writing these letters ; and even 
 now it is but too obvious, that his violent attachment is a fictitious 
 thing, got up for the occasion ; and only boasted of and blazoned, that 
 if possible, he may render the conduct of his antagonist more hateful, 
 and in the dark retreat which he had chosen at the expense of honour 
 and of godliness, give a more fatal stab to the reputation which he de- 
 ‘tests. He attacks Dr. Thomson on points which have no bearing on 
 the controversy, and no connexion with it. He throws out insinua- 
 tions, and makes broad charges of delinquency, whose only effect could 
 be to injure the individual whom he had marked out for cowardly assas- 
 sination, and whose only origin, therefore, could be in black rankling 
 ‘malevolence. 
 
 And why, it may be asked, should Mr. Grey entertain any such feel- 
 ings as we have supposed, towards Dr. Thomson? Nothing can war- 
 ‘rant them ; but certain things may be referred to as giving occasion to 
 them. 
 
 In the frst place, Dr. Thomson reviewed the “ Statements of 
 Dissentient Members,” and in his review, exposed the weakness of Mr. 
 Grey’s pleading, and gave some ludicrous quotations from his paper. 
 But every person who has read the work and the critique, will allow 
 that Mr. Grey was treated with much greater lenity than the author of 
 such offensive lucubrations deserved ; and when the extracts from the 
 Instructor, to which the review belonged, were published, Dr. Thomson 
 interfered to prevent it forming a part of the separate publication, out 
 of mere delicacy—very mistaken delicacy, we confess—towards the Rev. 
 ‘Gentleman and his brother Dissentients. And at the annual meeting 
 of the Edinburgh Bible Society in July last, Dr. Thomson, in exposing 
 the pretensions and demerits of the Corresponding Board, openly re- 
 ferred, in terms both of ridicule and argument, to the published Dissent 
 ‘of Mr. Grey, as one reason, why it would be unsafe and improper for 
 the lovers of pure Bible circulation to give that hostile institution any 
 ‘countenance and support. But in neither of these instances, nor in any 
 other, did he abandon his subject to impugn Mr. Grey’s personal char- 
 
: 
 12 Review of Anglicanus’ Letters. Jan. 
 acter. And surely, that Mr. Grey should have had: recourse to such — 
 measures of hostility out of mere resentment for having been demon- — 
 strated to be a turgid writer, and an illogical reasoner, and an fnsound 
 declaimer against the Edinburgh Bible Committee, is authorised by no 
 maxim either of worldly honour or of scripture morality. ; 
 
 In the second place, Dr. Thomson’s alleged popularity is gall and 
 wormwood to Mr. Grey. According to Mr. Grey, the Doctor is the — 
 most popular of all the popular men that have ever appeared. He can 
 do any thing he pleases, except, perhaps, pacifying the wrath of that 
 three-headed monster Anglicanus. He wields the public at will. He 
 binds their understandings and their passions as by the spell of enchant- 
 ment. He has all Edinburgh, all the Bible Society, all the kingdom of 
 Scotland at his command. And if the Seven Letters have travelled so | 
 far south, we cannot doubt, especially as there is a mysterious allusion to 
 Cromwell, that the Secretary for the Home Department is greatly alarm- 
 ed by this time, and that the militia will be called out to guard against the 
 dangers and the evils of a Usurpation. Without stopping to laugh at the 
 amazing folly of the man who could talk as Mr. Grey has done on this 
 subject, or to unfold the insidiousness with which it is dwelt upon, to 
 lessen the credit of him whom he so grossly misrepresents, we may re- 
 mark, that if Dr. Thomson is popular, he has not obtained his popular- 
 ity by going about, like some others, to court and cater for it; and that 
 whatever he possesses, he has not disgraced himself by cherishing and 
 manifesting envy towards those of his brethren who enjoy, in an equal 
 or in a higher degree, the same gratifying distinction. But no matter in 
 what way the public regard has been secured to him, or in what way he 
 has been affected by it, most undeniable it is, that it has excited the 
 jealousy and rancour of Mr. Grey and of his kindred. He cannot endure 
 the thought of it. And by the whimpering peevishness and vulgar sneers 
 with which his animadversions upon it are so strongly seasoned, he lets 
 his most superficial readers to wit that it grieves and vexes him to the 
 very core. But wherefore should this be so? Has not Mr. G. contrived to 
 gather to himself a measure of popularity, sufficient to satisfy the ambition 
 of any half dozen of far more gifted men? And why does he grudge, 
 and fret, and get angry, that there are others to whom the citizens of 
 Edinburgh, or the inhabitants of Scotland, give the homage of their re- 
 spect and approbation? We could rest with pitying his silliness, if he 
 did not force us to detest the malice with which it is combined. Long 
 has this fiend-like feeling been known to lurk in his bosom ; and now it 
 gets too potent and unruly to be repressed. He fancies—poor blun- 
 derer !—that it is Dr. Thomson’s popularity which has made the Lon- 
 don Committee an object of distrust in this country. But how comes 
 it, that Mr. Grey’s popularity did not play its counteractive part, and 
 carry back the tide of affection and confidence to the worthies of Earl 
 Street? Has he not as much remaining sense as to perceive that « 
 the cause of that phenomenon which afilicts his soul, and has well 
 nigh deprived him of his wits, is to be sought for in no personal in- 
 fluence, but in the devotedness of the people—whom he has so grossly 
 libelled, because they will not follow him—to the purity and integrity 
 of the Word of God? Supposing that Mr. Greyhad united his hold of public 
 opinion with that of Dr. Thomson, has not experience taught him that it 
 would have. been of little or no avail? Have not the members of his own 
 congregation—cleaving to him as they do with no ordinary adhesion, when 
 their conscience does not forbid—have not they refused, though solicited 
 
1828. Review of Anglicanus’ Letters. 13 
 
 jm many, many cases, and in the most urgent terms, to support his bib- 
 lical peculiarities, by deserting the Edinburgh Society as he wished, and 
 giving countenance to the Apocryphists in Earl Street? And should not 
 
 | this fact—a fact realised also under his own eye, in other congregations, 
 
 with ministers still more deservedly popular than himself—have con- 
 vineed him, that it is independent thinking and conscientious principle 
 which have determined the great body of our Christian population to 
 act that noble part, by which they have immortalized themselves, in 
 this mighty contest between truth and error? And when he rails and 
 scoffs at Dr. Thomson’s popularity, as that which had in a great mea- 
 
 sure detached this country from the Bible adulterators, is it not evident 
 
 to every person among us that he is saying what, with all his Anglican 
 
 prejudices, he must have known and seen to be untrue, and that he 
 
 is betraying the envy of a little ungenerous mind, while he is taking 
 
 his worthless revenge equally on the individual whom he abhors be- 
 cause others esteem him, and on those who would have performed their 
 duty to the God of the Bible, though the minister of St. George’s had 
 been so far left to himself as to agree with the minister of St. Mary’s, 
 in preferring the credit of a corrupt Society to the safety of the Book 
 of Life? 
 
 But we have to notice, in the third place, that Mr. Grey’s dislike to 
 Dr: Thomson on this occasion is embittered by the remembrance of 
 experienced kindness. It is well known to many,—to none better than 
 to Mr. Grey himself,—that but for Ur. Thomson’s strenuous and dis- 
 interested efforts, that treacherous brother would not have been trans- 
 planted from St. Cuthbert’s chapel to the city of Edinburgh. These efforts 
 were made after receiving personal provocation, aye, and provocation 
 still more cruel, which it was difficult for him to despise or to forget. 
 They were made on the principle which—we say it without reserve, and 
 without fear of contradiction from any man who has the honesty to 
 give his name—has guided him in all the advice he has ever offered, 
 and in all the influence he has ever used, on the subject of clerical 
 preferment,—the principle of obtaining the most acceptable and useful 
 pastors within our reach. And they were repeated in conjunction 
 with the efforts of one of Dr. Thomson’s elders—a body of men whom 
 Anglicanus has also made the sport of his calumny—in order to get 
 Mr. Grey to St. Mary’s, when it required only a whisper of opposition, 
 or a mere cessation from remonstrance, to keep him where he was, and 
 where he did not wish to remain. These things have not onl 
 been forgotten, but seem to have put more bitterness into that vial of 
 malignity, which he has been pouring out with such frenzied delight on 
 the head of Dr. Thomson. Gratitude for undeserved favours is not in 
 his catalogue of virtues. A conviction of the debt hangs heavy on his 
 conscience, and gives him sorrow. And he takes the first opportunity 
 of cancelling it to the full, by inflicting all the injury he can on the in- 
 dividual to whom he owes it. Well; the acknowledgments and the un- 
 thankfulness of such a man are of much the same value; and we feel 
 no regret except what arises from having been unwittingly instrumental 
 in the promotion of a perfidious ingrate. The deception is all his own; 
 the misfortune only is ours. But it is some consolation that we have 
 been able, by identifying him with the author of the “‘ Seven Letters,” 
 to strip him of his false reputation—to exhibit him in his own native 
 colours—to assign him his proper place in the scale of merit—to hold 
 him up as ambitious, without any thing of the nobleness of ambition—as 
 
14 Review of Anglicanus’. Letters. Jan 
 
 envious, because he observes others prospering in the cause, whi 
 would have profited as little by his talent as it has been beholden to 
 good will—as shooting his envenomed arrows, from out the secret pl 
 of his duplicity, at those whom he durst not meet on the field of fair and 
 open contest, and to whom even he would have blushed to be known as 
 so regardless of personal obligation,—as one who ‘ 
 
 *« too fond to rule alone, 
 Bears, like the Turk, no brother near the throne ; 
 Views him with scornful, yet with jealous eyes, 
 And hates for acts which caused himself to rise.” 
 
 That our readers may not think the charge we bring against Mr. 
 Grey for malignity and abuse, is either groundless or exaggerated, we 
 shall enter into a little detail, by quoting what he has actually directed 
 against Dr. Thomson. . 
 
 According to the pious and sweet-blooded Henry Grey, Dr. Thomson 
 is a “ boaster that came forth daily as an alien to defy the armies of the 
 living God.” p. v.* ' 
 
 He is thus addressed by Mr. Grey, “ Ferdinand Mendez Pinto is but 
 a type of thee, thou Lyar of the first magnitude.” p. 6. And a few 
 pages farther on, Dr. Thomson, “ the grand Bible reformer himself, is 
 said not to be squeamish in the company or pursuits to which he gives 
 his hours of recreation.” p. 10.+ wrder 
 
 He “ chooses to be gazed after like Goliath of Gath, or like the mys- 
 tic beast of the Apocalypse,—to have the lamentings of the good, the 
 exultations of the impious, the intercessions of the faithful, recorded 
 against him,—to be remembered in the daily prayers of holy men among 
 their ‘ enemies, persecutors, and slanderers,’{—to have an application 
 
 * A commentary on this very irreverent appeal to Scripture will be given in a 
 subsequent part of the Review. 
 
 + What Anglicanus means in this allusion to Dr. Thomson’s recreations, we are 
 unable to conjecture. The vile slanderer should have recollected that, by his own 
 account of Dr. Thomson’s employment, in p. 16, that gentleman has no leisure 
 for recreation ; for, in securing what is called ‘‘ publicity for party opinions,” it is 
 said that “ his year is without vacation, his days scarce interrupted by the intervening 
 nights !” The truth is, that Mr. Grey, when he sent these statements to the print- 
 er, was well aware that both of them were mere malevolent fabrications. Mr. 
 Grey knew nothing of Dr. ‘Vhomson’s private pursuits, and has no right to know 
 them. If he concludes that Dr. homson’s company is not what it ought to be, 
 just because it is not his, we beg to assure him, that his company never was invit- 
 ing, and that now it must be a nuisance to every right-hearted man in this count- 
 ry. And as to recreations, it is unfortunate for Mr. Grey and his female coadju- 
 tor, tomake mention of these with a lying and malicious insinuation, when they are 
 quoting the very elegant apostrophe concerning Ferdinand Mendez Pinto, seeing 
 that this is tuken from one of the impurest scenes of one of the impurest Plays in 
 the English language, and gives proof presumptive at least that the Reverend 
 Pastor and the Devout Matron are not very nice in their light reading, and 
 that they have not the spirit and the character that become the advocates of a Bible 
 Society, even the British and Foreign,—which is not, they say, a religious So- 
 ciety,—when they draw the weapons of their warfare from the pages of an obscene 
 drama. 
 
 t This, we suppose, alludes to a little party of Methodist masters and misses in 
 Newcastle, which offered up a prayer extraordinary for Dr. Thomson’s conversion ! 
 Mr. Grey would no doubt get the anecdote from that voracious correspondent who — 
 sent him the account of the Newcastle Bible meeting, and who was present at, and 
 doubtless joined heartily in, the supplications for the Anti-A pocryphal Secretary. ‘I hese 
 are the holy people whom Mr. Grey would have us to admire, and these the holy 
 practices he would have us to imitate, in this unenlightened, torpid, and godless city ! 
 
1828. Review of Anglicanus’ Letters. 15 
 
 found to him in the petition, ‘ Turn the counsel of Ahithophel into fool- 
 ishness.’” He has chosen to be what was “not the choice of Nebu- 
 ehadnezzar, or of Attila, to be what the one was in his ignorance, and 
 | what the other boasted of being in his presumption, ‘the scourge of 
 | God’ for the chastisement of his people’s sins.” He is still worse, 
 for he has run the risk of being found an implement of Satan, stirred 
 up se, tempt, and distress the approved people of the Lord.” 
 p. 15. 
 
 ae Your Dr. Thomson,” says Mr. Henry Grey, in all the perfection 
 of softness and charity, “‘ is allowed, on all hands, to be a first-rate de- 
 bater,-- with whom no sort of means forms any obstacle, who knows 
 how to make every thing bend to his purpose, and who could do equal 
 justice to either side of a question ; but then it is not so well under- 
 stood on what principle, in a case like this for instance, he chooses his 
 
 . There is small scope here for the exercise of conscience, suppos- 
 ing him to have one ; still less for all the heat and violence called up 
 for the contest. One is reminded of the Duke of York’s answer to Bi- 
 shop Burnet, who reproved him for his fierceness about a creed, while 
 violating the ordinary precepts of morality, ‘ Isa man to be of no re- 
 ligion except he be a saint?’ We are at a loss to know what he is fight- 
 ing for, and whom he is fighting with; and see no reason, except the 
 want of a sufficient opponent or field of controversy, for his not launch- 
 ing his frigate on the other side.” p. 26. ¢ 
 Again, the honest, humble, meek-mouthed Henry Grey, pretends 
 
 that the people of England, that country where, no doubt, the truthful 
 preacher is residing, speaks thus of Dr. Thomson, “ Poor man! he will 
 say any thing but his prayers,” p.46.|| And in the same page, to show 
 that nothing but the gentlest and sweetest terms can ever proceed from 
 his amiable lips, he supposes that Dr. Thomson would insert in a News- 
 paper, ‘an advertisement, such as no bully ever blackened a Newspaper 
 
 * « The people of the Lord,”—namely, Anglicanus—a—um, Professor Haffner, 
 and My Lord anybody, who gives a guinea, and swears that he will take the chair 
 at a Bible meeting, and then makes himself merry with telling that he has “ diddled 
 the saints.” ‘ 
 
 + hank you, Mr. Henry Grey; that is more than canbe said of you. 
 
 ¢ ‘* Small scope here for the exercise of conscience!” Very small, indeed, if the 
 conscience of Anglicanus is meant. But the scope for a good conscience operating, 
 is unhappily too large. What affectation ! to pretend ignorance of what Dr. Thom- 
 son “is fighting for, and whom he is fighting with!” Nothing but idiocy could 
 dictate such a sentence. ‘‘ Fighting jor!” Dr. Thomson is fighting for all that 
 should be precious to the Christian. ‘ Fighting wi/h!” He is fighting with the 
 London Committee and their adherents, who are unworthy both in the system 
 which they maintain, and in the means by which they endeavour to uphold it. 
 Does Mr. Grey not sce’ for what—does he not feel with whom, Dr. Thomson con- 
 tends ? Then he is both blind and insensible. We can assure Mr. Grey that whe- 
 ther Dr. Thomson launches a frigate or a first-rate, he will take care to launch it on 
 a different element from the “ field of Controversy.” 
 
 || We must suppose that Mr. Grey, before he sent the Seven Letters to press, 
 prayed for a blessing on them—and that every time he corrected a proof, he repeat- 
 ed the petitions,—and that when he hastened the publication at last for his English 
 friends, who were all impatience for it, he would not dispatch it till he had made-a 
 still longer and more urgent request for its success. Will Mr. Grey have the good- 
 ness to explain, in reference to all this, what is the meaning of ‘‘ making prayers 
 fora pretence ?”” and “ of lifting up holy hands without wrath?” and of “ the 
 Lord not hearing us, if we regard iniquity in our hearts ?” 
 
 -. : 1 
 
16 Review of Anglicanus’ Letters. 
 
 with, (except he were of the clerical order) devoted to calling a 
 the liar.” p. 46.* ti ie gat 
 
 ‘ Anglicanus, wicked fool! accuses Dr. Thomson of employing 
 clerks or other confidential persons in the Post Office, to betray th 
 trust, by inspecting the letters that pass through their hands, and speaks 
 thus: ‘ Equally unfortunate in his inspectors of the Post Office,’ yo 
 Inguisitor-General makes grand mistakes respecting the contents 
 letters he has never seen ;t and “ his labours are much more those 0’ 
 the spider than the bee.” p. 48. 
 
 Hear still, if your patience, good readers, is not exhausted by the 
 
 instances already given of Henry Grey’s piety towards God, and cha= 
 rity towards men, what he says in page 50: “ Jam not his judge,” 
 
 * This relates to an advertisement which Dr. Thomson put into the newspapers 
 of the day, intimating an answer to the Statements by the Dissentient Members, i 
 which the fullacious statements, &c. of this pamphlet would be exposed. This gave 
 mighty offence to the dissentients, inasmuch as such good and able men could not 
 bear to be found in error, and were sadly mortified that, by this very simple me 
 of counteraction, the mind of the public was prevented from yielding implicitly, as they 
 expected, to the “injected crotchets of individual opinion” which had “ started to the 
 race with the seeds of dissension in their bowels.”’ Some of them were so offended that — 
 they complained to the Committee ; and because the Committee, who knew nothing © 
 about it more than they did, would not condemn as well as disclaim the advertise- — 
 ment, they resigned their seats. And particularly Mr. Campbell of Carbrook, who 
 is almost always as unhappy in his attempts to get out of a difficulty as he is dexte-« 
 rous in getting into it, insisted that the word “ fallacious” meant ‘ false.” When 
 the advertised article came out in the form of a review in the Instructor, we not 
 only referred to the dictionary, which Mr. Campbell was too learned to consult, but 
 referred to his own authority, which could not at least be disputed by himself, and show- — 
 ed him that in the very portion of ‘‘ Statements of Dissentient Members,” which 
 was written by his own hand, he accused the Committee of publishing “ fallacies.” 
 This, we should think, might have settled that verbal dispute, and indeed: we flats 
 tered ourselves that it had been buried in oblivion. But we were mistaken; for 
 here it is raked up by Mr. Henry Grey, as if “fallacious” still and necessarily 
 means ‘‘ false,” and made the occasion of an assault as low and ruffian-like, both in 
 sentiment and style, as any that we ever remember to have seen im the course of 
 our reading. If we had used the epithet fulse, we could have justified it by exam- 
 ples ; but we only used the term fallacious, as descriptive of much that was contain- 
 ed in the pamphlet of the dissentients, and we gave ample and decisive proof that we 
 had justly characterised not a few of its statements. And because Dr. T. did so in 
 the advertisement, he is called worse than a “ bully,” the newspapers was of course 
 ‘* blackened by it”—* no bully ever” did such a thing ‘+ except he was of the cleri- 
 cal order’’—and the advertisement was ‘« devoted to calling some person a liar !!!’” 
 We have only to answer, that Mr. Grey pretends to be a gentleman-— that he is 
 moreover a clergyman—and that in spite of his obstinate adherence to Mr. Camp- 
 bell’s lexicon fallacious and false are not synonymous and convertible terms. 
 
 + We shall speak of this by and by; but what stuff have we here about the 
 post-office! Is the man who can calmly utter such extravagance to be trusted as a 
 counsellor or a guide in the management of any institution whatever? How mise- 
 rably provided is the Corresponding Board with office-bearers, when it has a secre« 
 tary who is given to this sort of raving! And what a fortunate circumstance that 
 he bethought himself of retiring from the service of the Edinburgh Bible Society ! 
 We want no dreamers to manage our business and get us laughed at. 
 
 ¢ No, Mr. Henry Gre7, we thank God that you are not our judge; you have 
 neither a head nor a heart to qualify you for being the judge of any of your fellow-~ 
 men ; but judge yourself that you be not judged ; therein lies your wisdom‘and your 
 safety. And especially judge yourself for saying that ‘you *¢ will not be Dr. Thom- 
 son’s accuser !”” Are you so stupid as not to perceive, or have you the effrontery to 
 deny, that the pamphlet which you, Mr. Grey—visited with infatuation, and lost to 
 all sense of decorum and of right—have put forth in behalf of a Bible Society, is lit- 
 
1828. Review of Anglicanus’ Letters. 17 
 
 nor will I be his accuser; yet, in pity, my soul breathes the prayer. 
 «The Lord rebuke thee!’ What loss, thata man’s reading sh be 
 ied to ‘ Statements,’ first, second, and third ; who leaves so many 
 is things unexplored in the 7th chapter.of St. Matthew, for in- 
 , and in the truly canonical Epistle of St. James. How useful 
 for him, would he let his texts instruct him, and make himself their 
 _ pupil instead of their master! What a world of meaning might he find 
 ¢ admonitions, « Be not righteous overmuch ; why shouldest thou 
 ! roy thyself? Be not overmuch wicked; why shouldest thou die 
 before thy time? ”+ 
 | There are some things which a man, even of no great delicacy or 
 le of conscience, would almost shudder to express in his own name, 
 but which his laxity of principle will allow him to tell as uttered by the 
 mouth of another, and to retail and publish con amore, though, after all, 
 he must literally lie in making up his on Thus it is with Mr. Henry 
 Grey in the following passage. ‘‘ No delusion seems more dangerous 
 ‘in its tendency than that wherein a man learns to assume, or his friends 
 for him, that the work he is called to demands an extension, or com- 
 _ pliance in his favour, of the ordinary rules of duty ; when it is thought 
 defence enough to say, ‘ But, Sir, he is a.very extraordinary man, an 
 uncommon man,—you must not judge him by ordinary rules of conduct.’ 
 — An extraordinary man he must be,’ said a plain country minister, in 
 _ reply to this remark, applied to the clerical controversialist, to whom it 
 has been our misfortune so often to allude,‘ since all whom I have heard 
 attempt to defend him, claim for him an exemption from the law of 
 God. He takes care of a house of which he has turned the contents 
 out of the windows, and is disowned by the law he is so strenuous to 
 defend.’ * What then would you say about him?’ rejoined the other, ‘I 
 ‘would say,’ replied the provincial, without hesitating, «that his throat is 
 
 an open sepulchre !"” p. 50, 51. 
 
 tle else from beginning to end than a series of railing accusations against Dr. Thom- 
 son? Not only have you accused—you have also mounted the tribunal, and con- 
 demned him. And at the very moment that you are speaking.the language of 
 hypocrisy and untruth, you have the audaciousness to appeal to God in prayer, and 
 ask him to rebuke the object of your unmixed and insatiable malevolence ! 
 
 * We advise Anglicanus to read these Statements with great assiduity and care. 
 “They are deserving of very diligent study. especially by the ignorant. If the firm 
 of impostors that we are dealing with had perused them with attention, they would 
 ‘not perhaps have sent out of their wareroom so many contraband and so many rotten 
 articles. And better, surely, far better for Dr. Thomson to devote days and nights 
 to their perusal, though most of them proceeded from his own pen, and are as fa- 
 
 _miliar to him as the Bible is to Anglicanus, than for a Lady of great virtue, and 2 
 _ Pastor of undisputed sanctity, to spend their leisure hours in poring over the filthi- 
 est and most loathsome effusions of the dramatic muse. 
 _ + One good turn deserves another: and, therefore, we refer the scandalous con- 
 _ cern to the following passages, which they will find very apglieable,—and it will be 
 ‘their own fault if they do not also find them very edifying. ‘Let them ponder well 
 _ the following passages, 1 Peter ii. 1,—-Matthew vi. 16, 17,—1 Cor- xiv. 34, 35,— 
 Titus ii. 3, 4, 5,—J Tim. ii. 11, 12,—Jerem. ix. 3—9,—Rev. xxii. 18, 19. 
 _ ¢ Inlike manner, we can give the sayings of a shrewd Christian man, who has 
 been conjured up for the occasion, and speaks very sensibly on the subject. « What 
 do you think of Anglicanus?” said a friend to Mr. A. ‘ Of Anglicanus!” re- 
 plied Mr. A. with a mixture of contempt and indignation, “ not so much by a 
 thousand times as he thinks of himself. I wonder how people can be taken in 
 with his affected suavity. Whenever I see him approzching with his silken 
 VOL. XXVIII. NO. I- D 
 
7| 
 
 18 Review of Anglicanus’ Letters. Jane 
 
 Mr. Grey’s reference to the seventh chapter of St. Matthéw, and to” 
 the epistle of St. James, having made him very careful to avoid rash 
 judgments and wicked words, he shows how much he himself has p 
 fited by the reading those parts of holy writ, by going aside to indite 
 the following piece of flippaney and impertinence. “ Besides, as Dr. 
 Thomson may chance to know, the pastors of these poor people,” in 
 Geneva, &c. “ are no underlings. ‘Though his very antipodes as yi 
 such things as piety, charity, &c. they have the talent of dictatorship — 
 in nearly as great perfection as himself; and doubtless on both sides, 
 he and they, while occasion serves, enjoy a much larger portion of each 
 other’s civility and good opinion, situated as they are, than could pos- 
 sibly fall to the lot of either from the other, supposing them met in a 
 Committee way in the same city. Mr. Owen had his wits about him 
 in guarding against such collisions at Geneva. He had, doubtless, 
 heard the adage, Aut Cmsar aut Nullus.” P. 59.* t@ 
 
 Here is more nonsense and rudeness from the wise and gentle 
 Henry Grey. A part of the heading in his Letter VII. runs in this 
 wise: “ Dr. Thomson, from the disposition and habits his sphere of 
 
 ‘ 
 
 smilés, and soft sanctimonious whine, I am sure that they are a cover for some po- 
 pular fetch, some selfish design, some secret malignity. This was always my opi- 
 nion of him since I had full opportunity of knowing his character. And if you 
 have any doubts of its accuracy, just look into the *‘ Seven Letters,’ and in the — 
 manner in which they have been concocted, and in the moral qualities which per. 
 vade them, yeu will soon discover what is meant by the simplicity, the piety, the 
 zeal, the prayers, the sweetness, and the charity of Mr. Henry Grey.” ‘ And what 
 judgment have you formed of Anglicana?’’ ‘It is so unfavourable that I 
 not bring myself to express it. ‘Chough I have no tenderness for her, I have 
 great tenderness for the sex to which she most unaccountably belongs, and there- 
 fore you will excuse me for declining to answer your question.” ‘* Well, but, 
 Mr. A. you need not surely be so delicate respecting Anglicanum.” ‘ So long as 
 this person keeps by the tilling and dressing of his native clods, he is respectable 
 enough. But the moment that he meddles with politics or religion he gets crazy. 
 He gave a shock to the interests of Lord Howick at last election from which they 
 are not likely to recover: And having entered into the Apocrypha Controversy, 
 with which he had very little to do, you need not be afraid that he will either 
 much help his friends or much hurt his opponents.”We need scarcely add, that 
 we have got no such opinions from “ plain country ministers,” or any body else. 
 But we have imagined them, to show the traducers of Dr. T. how much they may 
 be made to suffer by the help of fiction. The fiction, however, we leave to them 
 as their exclusive property. We need it not; we love it not; and we will use it 
 not. ‘here is more of real and indisputable demerit in this pamphlet than would 
 consign to detestation all the genders of its author a hundred times over. ’ 
 * This double hit originates firs¢, in hatred of Dr. ‘Ys who must be dragged in, 
 right or wrong, whenever any thing that is thought very good is going; and, 
 secondly, in resentment against M. Malan, who repaid Mr. Grey’s vain and selfish 
 hospitality towards him, by tendering some very wholesome and negessary coma 
 respecting domestic management. It was too spiritual to find acceptance with such 
 perfect mortals. And therefore not only was it ‘scornfully rejected, but here we 
 have the effect of it in a base scandal against M. Malan, (the author of which, 
 was never, of course, expected to be known by him,) representing him as worthy 
 of none of that confidence and attention which Mr. Owen—now bepraised beyond 
 all endurance and decency, because it serves the momentary purpose—bestowed liber- 
 ally on the enemies of the cross of Christ, and the persecutors of the people of 
 God, and the notorious corrupters of his Word.—As to the pun on M. Malan’s 
 name, it-has been in use among his enemies for some time. ‘There is also a pun 
 floating about on the name of Mr. Grey. But we shall give it no place in our 
 pages, correct and humorous as it is, because no man is entitled to settle a question 
 either of religion or of character by such unbefitting instrumentality, 
 
1828. Review of Anglicanus’ Leliers. 19 
 
 life has led him to cultivate, incapable of adaptation to the character or 
 coalition in the plans of the Bible Society.” And then he proves the pro- 
 position in his ordinary way, as follows: « And wherefore did Dr. Thoni- 
 | son suspend his labours in that Augean stable they say he has left 
 unpurified in the home department, to meddle in affairs that meddled 
 not with him ; for truly Bible disputants might have been reduced to 
 heavier straits than had befallen them, ere they had thought of finding 
 aremedy in appointing him their arbiter. There are individuals form- 
 ed, we may not presume to say superfluously, for seasons only of strife 
 and debate, whose function, like that of the lion to rend, and the adder 
 to sting, is performed with manifest solace and refreshment of their 
 nature. They can further a cause so long as the sword is the only 
 implement its exigencies admit of—that crisis over, their occupation is 
 The sluggish hours of peace fret them as they did the coursers 
 of Achilles,—and woe to that enterprise that borrowed from them an 
 impulse of whose intenser activity it has reason to dread the conse= 
 quences,” &c. p. 67, 68.* 
 
 In page 70, Dr. Thomson is gravely called “an intrnder in the cons 
 | tests of the Bible Society,” and the Reverend Heary Grey who so de- 
 | Hominates him, adds, as if any person could listen to his question, of his 
 jargon without intolerable nausea, “ I would yet ask, whether ques- 
 
 = By and by we shall consider at some length this subject of the exertions of Mr. 
 Grey and his associates, as compared with those of the gentlemen whom he is so 
 eager to hold out as having done little or nothing for Bible Societies. But it is ra- 
 ther amusing to observe him railing at Dr. Thomson as a disputant in this case. 
 Was not he himself a disputant also? In the pamphlet, he pretends that it is for 
 the first time he has entered the lists, and had we not discovered his concern in 
 the affair; this unwarranted claim of forbearance might have been admitted. But 
 it would have been untrue even if it had been concealed; and now that the secret 
 is disclosed, we have Mr. Grey trying to impose upon us with the statement that he, 
 peaceable man, had been hitherto quiet, and telling us, under the feigned name of 
 _ Anglicanus, that he is quiet stiil Whereas so long ago as when he was in the 
 _ Edinburgh Committee, he contended for the Apocryphists in Earl Street, making 
 
 little speeches that produced no impression, and preparing hostile motions that were 
 _ mot even seconded. And in the “ Statements by Dissentient Members,’’ he in- 
 serted many pages of matter—more disputable, we confess, than disputing—in which 
 he spared not the conduct of our committee, though he was very mereiful to our 
 facts and arguménts, and by which he said expressly to Dr. ‘Ihomson himself, that 
 he expected to change the public mind, and reconcile it to Earl Street! He strug- 
 gled as doughtily as he could. His eiforts, indeed, were feeble as those of a child. 
 But he showed as much of the spirit of ‘‘strife and debate” as any of those on the 
 other side of the question. And it was only the want of pith and energy, and a 
 conviction that the London Committee could not be defended without the aid of 
 assertions which no man of character would put his name to, that prevented the 
 minister of St: Mary’s from mingling in the controversy, with all that pugnacious- 
 ness and perseverance which he now siates as a reproach against those with whom he 
 only found himself unable to cope. Do the ++ Seven Letters” show any disposition 
 tobe at peacé? Not only is their tone most belligerent from beginning to end, but 
 every law of war, every principle of honour, every sentiment of humanity, every 
 claim of justice and truth, is over and over sacrificed by Mr. Grey to the gratification 
 of his passion for contest, and his thirst for revenge. Ifever this gentleman again 
 ventures to breathe an insinuation against any man for the love of fighting, he must 
 be hooted and ridiculed as one who himself is quarrelsome and turbulent, wherever 
 he can be so with impunity—who is ever ready to throw his poisoned darts when 
 he presumes his ambush is inaceessible—and who only wants intellectual strength to 
 make him more mischievous than the most mischievous of Professor Haffner’s de- 
 fenders. Under the mask of’ peace, he delights in warfare; but it is the cunning, 
 treacherous, cowardly, scalping, torturing, blood-thirsty, remorseless warfare of an 
 Indian savage. 
 
' 
 ; 
 
 20 Review of Anglicanus’ Letters. Jan. 
 
 tions arising in that field of pacific operation, fall fairly into the hands’ 
 of a public challenger from the other,” (the General Assembly and othe 
 Church Courts,) “or are likely to receive either candid investigatioi 
 or just representation, or beneficial and satisfying solution, from a ware 
 rior by profession, an eschewer of concord, who delights in truth “a 
 when it ean be made an instrument of strife, and is condemned to take 
 the wrong side when he finds the right previously occupied? Like the 
 dog incensed at his shadow, is it not plain, that the more his opponents 
 resemble him, the less chance is there of pacification between them ; no 
 quality being so much adapted to awaken his resentment as those that 
 particularly characterise himself?”* Pa 
 
 The last that we shall quote at present is this: “ I have heard of a 
 Sunday party of that kind of gentlemen,” (infidels and scoffers, ) “where, 
 among other toasts expressive of their sentiments, a bumper was filled 
 to the health of that clever fellow, Andrew Thomson, who had so capi- 
 tally laid open all the humbuggery of the Bible Society,—a matter they 
 had always been clear about, without knowing that he was of their mind 
 about it.” p. 74.+ 
 
 On these passages, fairly extracted from the Letters of Anglicanus, 
 we have to remark, in the first place, that so far as they contain any 
 thing which the author wishes to be received as fact, they are charac- 
 terised by falsehood. No attempt is made to establish assertion by 
 proof. We have only the zpse dixits of those who were so conscious of 
 dealing in untruths, that they not only withheld their names, but used 
 the most culpable simulation to hide themselves from the ken of the 
 public. And after the individuals are detected, instead of being one 
 whit less convinced than we were before, that they have indulged it 
 deliberate violations of the ninth commandment, we only wonder that 
 such professors of religion should have ventured, even in the shades of 
 
 * Mr. Grey is deeply offended at Dr. Thomson because he takes an active part 
 in our church courts, though it be on the very side which that traitor to our eccle- 
 siastical establishment professes to espouse. It is the old story over again—envy— 
 ‘base and bitter enyy. For he is not without his ambition to shine as a member of 
 these judicatories, where it grieves him to see Dr. T. taking a prominent share in 
 the public business, He tried his oratory in the presbytery, and justified a national — 
 monument for warriors, in the form of a house for worshipping the God of peace, 
 ‘by quoting the precedent of the Pagan temples of Greece and Rome. And he 
 even attempted to recommend his powers by a more lengthened philippie against 
 pluralities in our supreme ecclesiastical council, but failed to make himself remem- 
 bered above five minutes after he sat down. And, therefore, he is exceedingly mad 
 at the very arena, to use his own favourite word, where he laboured to make a figure 
 ‘80 unsuccessfully ; and at Dr. Thomson for coming into the arena of the Bible and 
 Apocrypha Controversy, where he wished to have all the honour to himself, as if the 
 individual whose achievements in the former department—‘ those forensic halls, 
 where his name ranked foremost, or among the first three,” procured for him the 
 jealous notice of this meek and humble Christian—were not better qualified, on that 
 ‘very account, for doing service in the latter department, by resisting the host of 
 Bible adulterators, and “‘ contending for the faith once delivered to the saints.” 
 
 + Mr. Grey’s object here is to impress his readers with the belief that because 
 Dr. Thomson has been instrumental in laying open the iniquities of the London 
 Committee, he is therefore a foe to Bible Societies, as all and altogether a delu- 
 sion. Now, in making good his point he should not, as an honest man, have 
 
 ' forged such a story as he has given us about the Sunday club. Or, at Jeast, he 
 should have given us the story in all its parts, and told us that the next bumper 
 toast was in these terms: ‘* Here’s to Henry Grey, poor fellow, who is to be 
 pitied both at home and abroad—and relief to all in distress!” 
 
1828. Review of Anglicanus’ Letiers. 21 
 
 | fancied concealment, to write so regardlessly of the claims of verity and 
 justice. They have not yet, it seems, acquired the faculty of speaking 
 truth in the dark. 
 
 - But, secondly, the passages quoted are malicious as well as false. 
 | They are not written in order to vindicate the London Committee, or to 
 ‘support any proposition relating to the subject of controversy, but to 
 | injure as much as possible the person against whom they are directed. 
 ‘They bear decisive marks of being intended by Mr. Grey, to wound the 
 feelings and the reputation of his opponent, without any regard to the 
 cause itself in which he pretends to be so deeply interested. They 
 | breathe the keenest and most unmixed malevolence throughout. They 
 attack personal character, where no such attack is either called for or 
 warranted in the circumstances of the case. ‘They intrude with their 
 detractions into the conduct and intercourse of private life. They are 
 written with a relish and a cordiality which betoken how dear are slan- 
 der and revenge to the bosom of their author. And though the extra- 
 vagance which pervades them defeats the object for which they have 
 been indited, by rendering them incredible and absurd, still it is the 
 extravagance of hatred—of a hatred which is too visible to be mistaken, 
 and too fierce to be controlled ; which indeed destroys itself, but only 
 by its mad efforts to consume others in its fire ; and which, converting 
 those who cherish and display it into ugly and revolting fiends, causes 
 _ them to be shunned as well as detested. 
 
 In the third place, to falsehood and malice, we must add scurrility. 
 Mr. Grey somewhere speaks contemptuousiy of ‘“ the rank and educa- 
 tion of Newhaven fishermen.” It is not their fault that in rank and 
 education they are inferior to him, but it is his fault that in other re- 
 spects he is greatly inferior to them. The majority of them will beat 
 him at an argument any day, on a subject which comes within their 
 sphere of ordinary information ; and as to honesty and uprightness, 
 there is not one of them who would not be indignant were he and they 
 to be brought into comparison. Z'hey brave the dangers of their occu- 
 pation in an open boat, and on an open sea. Whereas he encounters peril 
 only when he has got on what he thinks an impenetrable coat of mail, 
 and has moreover secured himself from the resentment of his adversa- 
 ries by such miserable artifices as neither a good nora valiant man would 
 have recourse to. But then it must be allowed that he surpasses even 
 the fishermen’s wives in certain other accomplishments, which are not 
 very creditable to man or woman. Supposing what is generally, though 
 we believe falsely reported of them, that they are much addicted 
 to say the thing that is not, and not very nice in the selection of those 
 epithets which they apply to such as have provoked them, here is a 
 clergyman, to whose superiority in these respects they must humbly 
 bow ; and indeed we might suppose that he had acquired these ques- 
 
 ‘ tionable distinctions by the habit of arresting them as they passed from 
 the shore to the city, and higgling stiffly with them for great bargains, 
 in their own peculiar style. Contrasted, however, with the male and 
 female Anglicanus, the fishers: of both sexes in Newhaven are real 
 ladies and gentlemen. Our anthers have an extraordinary aptitude for 
 calling bad names, and using coarse language. Scurrility seems to be 
 the element in which they delight—the attainment in which they excel. 
 
 ‘They are so outrageous in their diction, as to resemble an infuriated 
 
 Amazon who does not care what she says or does—who threatens, re- 
 
 viles, and blasphemes without reserve—and who throws every sort of 
 
 missile that comes in her way, whether it be hard or soft, wet or dry, 
 
 | 
 
. | 
 
 22 Review of Anglicanus’ Letlers. J 
 
 ~ 
 
 sharp or blunt, a knife or an oyster, a book or a brickbat, from the 
 causeway or the kennel, from the drawing-room or the dunghill. = 
 Our readers cannot have proceeded thus far—and as yet we hay 
 
 gone but a short way—without thinking of the charge of bad spir 
 which has been so often levelled, and so loudly urged against the o 
 pouents of the London Committee. The First Statement of the Edi 
 burgh Committee was said to be a “ firebrand,” and to be enough 
 « make angels weep, and devils triumph.” As soon as Mr. Craig, fron 
 whose pen all its severity, as merited as it was pointed, proceeded, say 
 it to be his duty to desert our standard, which he had so bravely helped 
 to rear, the First Statement was no more objected to, and all the wra' 
 of the Apocryphal party was poured out upon the Second Statement, 
 which was drawn up by Dr. Thomson, Mr. Craig joining in the hu 
 and cry against the ‘* bitter words” which it contained “ against h 
 men!” The most ferocious of the Earl Street junto held up their hant 
 and their eyes in wonderment at its unjust accusations, and acrimonious” 
 style. The men of the Evangelical Magazine pronounced it to have ~ 
 «less of the spirit of Christ and more of the spirit of the world,” than — 
 any thing that they had happened to see. The Conductors of the Con- 
 gregational anathematized it as the most unchristian production that 
 they had ever the misfortune to peruse, and as proving, that those from 
 whom it came were under the immediate and extraordinary direction 
 of Satan. The Christtan Observer, steering his way with that caution 
 
 which was requisite to preserve the Semi-Calvinistic Semi-Armini 
 field, as Anglicanus would say, of which he had taken possession, uz 
 determined to keep fast hold of the pecuniary as well as the spirit 
 advantages which had attended his periodical labours, did not spe 
 quite so fervidly against it as some otliers, but still, with affect 
 calmness and suavity, denounced it as at variance with the gentlen 
 of Christ’s desciples. The Editor of the Eclectic—our old friend Josi 
 Conder, who did not live, we suppose, to print his account of the Mar- 
 tyrdom of John Knox—amidst the uncouth vituperations which he he 7 
 ed indiscriminately on all who did not choose to take his views of the 
 canon and inspiration of scripture, had the courage to represent it as 
 quite diabolical both in its aim and its temper. And even Mr. Henry 
 Grey, forgetting to simper and to smile, frowned at the evil spirit of 
 the Second Statement, and had his thoughts and feelings so thoroughly \ 
 engrossed by that single view of it as demonstrative and decisive of its 
 worthlessness, that he would not listen to those who referred him to the 
 facts and reasonings of which it was full, as the only test of its merit, 
 in determining the guilt or the innocence of the body of managers whom 
 it arraigned. lies aan 
 What will now be said of the spirit which actuates the adherents 
 
 of Earl Street as exhibited in the “ Seven Letters of Anglicanus ?”. 
 We will venture to predict that, in the magazines we have specified, 
 these Letters will either not be noticed at all, or they will be mention-— 
 ed with high applause, or they will be praised as remarkably clever, 
 though a little too pungent. Certain dull and prosing periodicals in 
 our own city will be likewise in favour of the Joint Stock concern,— 
 one of them hesitating a good deal at first, but so well pleased with Mr. 
 Grey’s abuse of Dr. Thomson, of the Instructor, and of Ecclesiastical Es- 
 tablishments, as at length to overlook all blemishes, and to chuckle over the 
 small shot of St. Mary’s,—and the other setting up on the instant a rude 
 shout of acclamation at the amazing powers of understanding displayed 
 
1828. Review of Anglicanus’ Letlers. 23 
 
 by the author, and the sacred regard he has paid to truth, and the truly 
 Christian temper he has preserved, and the marvellous union of satire 
 and mildness that distinguishes his epistles,—all these things probably - 
 put forth by the very individual who assisted in correcting the proofs, 
 and doing other little auxiliary jobs. Then the members of the Corre- 
 sponding Board must stand by their Secretary, and what with gratitude, 
 ‘for the services he has rendered to the Apocryphal cause, and resent- 
 ment against the Secretary of the Edinburgh Bible Society, for the in- 
 jary which it has sustained from his assaults, they will not be able to 
 ‘perceive any thing in the pamphlet but what deserves unqualified ap- 
 probation,—and indeed their leading men have already, more to the dis- 
 tress of their friends than the surprise of their opponents, agreed to laud 
 its talent and its tone, as equally creditable to the writer, and worthy 
 of the cause which he so strenuously and so sweetly supports. And 
 some would-be blue-stocking, whom Anglicana has gained over by 
 flattering her person, extolling her gifts, courting her company, and 
 bepraising her twopenny books, will be thankful for such favours, and 
 getting excessive in her reciprocities, will perhaps exclaim, with an air 
 equally learned and extatic, that nothing has appeared, which could be 
 compared with this performance, since the days of Pascal’s Provincial 
 Letters ! 
 
 But what will be the opinion of the unbiassed of all classes and pars 
 ties? What will be thought of Anglicanus as to temper and disposition, 
 even by those whose prejudices are in favour of Earl Street? What 
 estimate will be formed by every person who has any regard for what 
 is decent in controversy, and any feeling of what is due from one man to 
 another? We are much mistaken indeed if disgust will not be the pre- 
 vailing sentiment. It must be so at least, if there be any sincerity and 
 any consistency in those who have made such an outcry about the vio- 
 lence and harshness, which they are so forward to allege against the 
 adversaries of the London Committee. A few observations on the sub- 
 ject may be useful. 
 
 The first appearanees and outbreakings of personality which entered 
 into this dispute were on the side of that Committee and their friends, 
 The Eclectic Review imputed to us the most sinister and wicked mo- 
 tives for the protest which we entered and published against Apocry- 
 phal circulation, and dragging forth individuals to public view, 
 without the least necessity, singled them out as the objects of their 
 vengeance, and loaded them with every species of low. abuse. And for 
 this the Editor of that work was befriended and patronised by those 
 whose credit he took this method of supporting, and his most reprehen- 
 sible article was published separately and circulated widely at their 
 expense—by which means they took upon them the odium and the 
 guilt of helping at least, to convert the Apocrypha question into a person- 
 al quarrel. As conductors of this Magazine, we retaliated, not to gratify 
 malice nor to turn away the public attention from the real merits of the 
 question, but to teach our calumniators practical wisdom, by showing 
 them how fatal the kind of warfare, which they had so molevolently 
 introduced, would prove to their own reputation and influence. They 
 persisted in these evil doings for which we had reproved and punished 
 them, and we continued to subject them to merited castigation. But 
 with this exception, and some exceptions of a similar sort, in all which 
 we fearlessly assert that the Philo-apocryphists were the aggressors, 
 and provoked the chastisement which they have so impatiently suffer- 
 ed, we maintain, that whatever severities we have exercised have been 
 
24 Review of Anglicanus’ Letters. (SANs 
 
 confined within the limits of the controversy, and have not been al 
 
 to encroach on the sacred territory of private and personal character. 
 we have charged dishonesty and other offences of that nature upon 
 London Committee, and those who have abetted them in their Apoc 
 phal career, we have followed up the charges with specific proofs, an 
 called upon the accused to account for their conduct, or to vindicate i 
 or to repent of it. Contenting themselves with merely disdaining 
 make any reply, or only maledicting us through their publishing organs 
 for daring to question the propriety and uprightness of. their manage= 
 ment, we were entitled to press the charges still more closely upon them, 
 and to hold them up as indirectly, but significantly enough acknow- 
 ledging, that we had not accused them unjustly of the very grievous de- 
 linquencies of which we averred them to be guilty. But still we did | 
 not travel away from the subject, or invade the privacy of our oppon- 
 ents, to proclaim to the world how they sinned in their secret retire- 
 ments, or in their domestic economy, or in their mercantile dealings 
 Far less did we give way to vindictive feelings, by imagining or impu 
 ing faults which we either could not specify, or had no access to know, 
 And we never once drew a general and sweeping inference as to the 
 moral and religious status which those were entitled to hold, whom be 
 had convicted of betraying their trust, and violating their duty, ¢ 
 the Committee of the British and Foreign Bible Society. It may be 
 said—it has been said—it is said by Anglicanus. who repeats as if it 
 were new, every thing that has been already refuted, that if we accuse 
 and convict the London Committee of dishonesty, we necessarily involve 
 them in a tetal bankruptcy of character. Be it so—that is not our con- 
 cern. They are trustees tor a great public charity ; we are among tl 
 constituents ; and there is no principle on which we can be prohibited 
 from calling them to a strict account, and exhibiting them as they have 
 really discharged the important functions that have been assigned to 
 them. If we are to be deterred by the unfavourable conclusions which our 
 opponents—and these their own friends—have so readily drawn against 
 them, and to which we have never once conducted our premises and 
 our reasonings, then to this result we must necessarily come, that, let 
 the directors of a Bible Society act as they please-—let them commit as 
 many errors as there are days in the year—let them be extravagant 
 and unfaithful to any extent whatever—we must not say that they are* 
 ‘chargeable with these things, or burden them with specific acts of ini« 
 quity, however fully and satisfactorily proved, because, forsooth, this 
 would be to involve them in general or total unworthiness! Against 
 such an absurd and dangerous doctrine we beg to reclaim without any 
 qualification or reserve. All that we can agree to is, that we go no 
 farther than finding the persons who have been detected in such aber- 
 rations unqualified to remain in the direction, and undeserving of the 
 public confidence. And farther than this we have not gone; though, 
 had we been actuated by that bad spirit which has been so dogmatical- 
 ly and pertinaciously ascribed to us, we should, in all probability, have 
 not only indulged in the hard words which have occasionally eseap 
 from our pen, in the ardour of exposing what we regarded as most 
 worthless and dishonourable conduct, but have been eager to press our 
 argument forward to those broad and overwhelming inferences which 
 the apologists for Earl Street have, with more strict logic, certainly, 
 than good sense, been so anxious to deduce from our proofs, and to ob- 
 trude on the public observation. 
 
 , 
 
1828. Review,of Anglicanus’ Letters. 25 
 
 . But what has Mr. Grey done? Has he kept within the limits of the 
 ‘record? No: he has travelled out of it; he has done so, frequently, 
 unnecessarily, and wantonly ; he has done so, for no other conceivable 
 reason than to gratify the bitter and implacable grudge that, he bears 
 towards Dr. Thomson. Had he spoken severely of Dr. Thomson’s ex- 
 ertions against the London Committee—had he poured out upon him 
 the whole torrent of his indignation—had he taken up his positions one 
 «by one, and dashed them to pieces—not sparing their author at the same 
 ‘time, but belabouring him as a misrepresenter of facts, and as a shallow 
 ‘reasoner to the bargain, we might have thought him amazingly defective 
 in his judgment, and ungovernable in his temper; but keeping within 
 ‘those limits beyond which the question at issue does not extend, and strug- 
 gling—for it would have been a struggle, and a hard one too—to make no 
 statements which he did not believe to be true, we should have inferred 
 nothing very odious or malignant in the spirit by which he had been 
 | impelled to such vehement expressions of his rage. Very different, how 
 ever, is the mode in which Anglicanus has given utterance to the pas- 
 sions that laboured in his breast. He has made the controversy a mere 
 occasion—a mere pretext, for the indulgence of his malice. He has 
 dragged in allegaticns,—calumnious, if they had been true, and the 
 more calumnious because they are false—which have no bearing on the 
 cause which he aifects to advocate. He riots in mischievous invective, 
 in abusive phraseology, without being able to extract a wherefore from 
 any one point in the case under discussion. He assumes the prerogative 
 _ of omniscience, and adding malignity to profaneness, assures his readers 
 that Dr. Thomson “ delights in truth only when it can be made an in- 
 _ strument of strife ;” that though “ the grand Bible reformer, he is not 
 - squeamish in the company or pursuits to which he gives his hours of re- 
 creation ;” and that “ he will say any thing but his prayers.” Anglica- 
 nus says these things! No; we have stripped off the hypocrite’s mask, 
 and found them to be the sayings of the Rey. Henry Grey. They are the 
 ‘sayings of a man whom, if we had done to him what he has done to us, and 
 traced him through all the windings and wanderings of his probation, we 
 - could havecrushed to insignificance and nothingness. They are the sayings 
 of a man who was in the habit of lamenting the unchristian strain which 
 ‘pervaded the writings of the Anti-apocryphists, and of resting the 
 strength and stress of his argument against them on their hostile bear- 
 ings towards Earl Street. They are the sayings of a man who wears 
 the fair aspect of gentleness, as bloudy Claverhouse did before him, who 
 looks, and speaks, and smiles, as if his heart were full of the milk of 
 human kindness, and whom the short-sighted admirers of soft and 
 downy manhood held up and recommended to Dr. Thomson as the pate 
 tern to which he should conform himself. We thank God that Dr. 
 Thomson knew him too long and too thoroughly to be imposed upon by 
 his blandness, or to take him for his model in contending fur the purity 
 of the Bible. And our readers must now be satisfied, that whatever 
 keenness and acrimony of phrase we may be thought to have employed 
 in expounding our own views, or in denouncing the proceedings of our 
 opponents, these failings utterly disappear when placed in contrast with 
 the dark malignity and vulgar vituperation of the unctuous and melli- 
 fluent Henry Grey, and that whenever we are assailed on, this score, as 
 we have too often been, we have only to appeal to his example in order 
 to put our adversaries to silence and to shame. 
 Much as we have already quoted of the reviling and misrepresenta- 
 “VOL. XXVII. NO. I. aa 
 
26 Review of Anglicanus’ Letters. Jane 
 
 tion with which Mr. Grey’s pamphlet abounds, in regard to Dr. Thom- 
 son, a great deal still remains to be noticed. The task of exposing such 
 malice is not the most agreeable, and some of our readers may feel that 
 they have had more than enough. But we do not intend to let naa 
 canus the impostor escape out of our hands, till we have laid open the 
 whole mystery of his iniquity, and made it unnecessary for us ever to 
 return to the ungrateful and revolting theme. aoe 
 In p. 16, Mr. Grey says, “ Any one may tell toa nicety from what 
 quarter any thing proceeds that loudly and emphatically praises the — 
 second and third statements ‘ known,’ as is said in an article which 
 bears unequivocal marks of his own pen, ‘to have been written by Dr. 
 A. T., who has taken an active, influential, conspicuous, and most 
 powerful part in this controversy.” Now, without meaning to rate the 
 Rev. Henry Grey’s critical acumen very high, we must insist that even” 
 he could not have failed to perceive the striking difference between Dr. 
 Thomson’s style and the style of the article in question. But then, had 
 he recognised this difference, he would have lost the opportunity, too 
 inviting to be disregarded, of branding his opponent as a mean and con-_ 
 ceited egotist. The article bears not one mark of Dr. Thomson’s pen, 
 and not a syllable of it proceeded from him. We refer to the editor of 
 the Scotsman, and to the author of the critique, (known to the editor,) 
 for this fact—that Dr. Thomson not only did not compose any part of 
 the article, but that he did not even see it, or any part of it, before it 
 was printed. We can add, that in truth it was not perused by him till 
 a very considerable time after the publication of the newspaper. Is not 
 Mr. Grey aware that we can retort upon him the charge of self-puffing 2? 
 In page 19, the Rev. Henry Grey is recorded by himself as one of “ the 
 religious characters of note in Edinburgh,” whose very name is a sufficient 
 guarantee for all that is open, honourable, and godly! Poor, vain man ! 
 his name must now be blotted out from the catalogue of such worthies. 
 The veracious Mr. Grey says, in page 15, speaking of Dr. Thomson, 
 «« Why did your redoubted leader array his battery against the feeble 
 folk he called ‘ the saznts,’ more dangerous as victims than as conquer- 
 ors? Was he not aware who owns them as his charge, what Lord it is 
 whom they call Master ?” and then comes a repetition of the craze 
 about Goliath and the Israelites. Anglicanus was not at the meeting 
 where the obnoxious language is alleged to have been uttered; but 
 Anglicana was present, and heard nothing to justify the malignant 
 charge here brought against Dr. Thomson. And in the printed speeches 
 both the calumniators had an opportunity of ascertaining what was true, 
 if they had not been better pleased to imagine what was false. What Dr. 
 Thomson really said is as follows: “ Van Ess is one of the London Com- 
 mittee’s saints ; and for their saints, I confess that I feel any thing but 
 respect. A saint, Sir, in the true and Scriptural sense of that term, 
 is the object of my profoundest homage and regard; it is beyond all 
 comparison the best and highest style of man. But according to the use 
 made of the word by the London Committee, 1 cannot reverence those 
 whom it is employed to designate. Their calendar of saints is about as 
 black as is that of the Church of Rome. Why, Sir, one of their saints 
 is Professor Haffner—he who put such a preface to the Bible as to de- 
 prive that blessed book of all that makes it precious to a sinner’s heart, 
 and honourable to a redeeming God. And another of their saints is 
 Professor Levade of Lausanne—he who violated his ‘solemn engage- 
 ments, and uttered false words to conceal or to palliate his perfidy. 
 
1828. Review of Anglicanus’ Lette‘s. 27 
 
 To get a title to the appellation of saint from the London Committee is 
 the easiest thing in the world. Let a great man condescend to give 
 Dr, Pinkerton an audience ; let a philosopher take a bit of dinner with 
 
 Mr. Owen at an inn ; let any man, whatever he be in other respects, 
 only give, or do, or say something in support of the British and Foreign 
 _ Bible: Society, and immediately the London Committee canonize him, 
 and he becomes one of their worthies.” Now, in the face of this, how 
 _durst Mr. Grey represent Dr. Thomson as:“ arraying his battery against 
 | the saints, whom the Lord owns as his charge?” What is to be thought 
 _ of a man who could allow such a gross calumny to pass from under his 
 | review and sanction, as an attested fact, into a document for public per- 
 | usal? Where was his conscience the while? Or did he wish to rank 
 with Haffner and Levade, and to establish his title, as they had done, 
 _ toa place in the calendar of the London Committee? Be it so. He 
 is, if not in good, at least in suitable company ; and those whom he 
 calls. “ Master,” will no doubt reward him accordingly. And this 
 ious and consistent minister of God, not only “ speaks evil’ of Dr. 
 homson for uttering a sentiment which he never uttered, but does 
 _ himself sneer at the “saints of the Edinburgh Society's calendar,” (page 
 | 8,) as if he might use a freedom with that word which it was unlawful 
 | for his opponent to take. This, however, is nothing to Mr. Grey ; for 
 _ throughout he ridicules all strictness in Christian men, sneers at the 
 | Christians” of Montauban, and thinks it a good joke to compare the 
 _ fine liberal preface to the Bible composed by his favourite Haffner, with 
 | such religious narrow-minded tracts as Mr. Haldane might have been 
 _ supposed to write for the purpose of counteracting it ! 
 __. The account that Mr. Grey gives in p. 40, of the meeting of the new 
 and pure Bible Society in Newcastle, which Dr. Thomson attended on 
 the 4th of October last, is so full of misrepresentation and malignity as 
 to be equaily disgraceful to the man who forged it, and the man who 
 ‘retails it. We donot accuse Mr. Grey of manufacturing it, though 
 there is an extraordinary coincidence between its spirit, phraseology, 
 and object, and those which distinguish the rest of the pamphlet. We 
 believe the information to have been conveyed to him by a base attorney 
 in Newcastle, who has no character to lose, and is incapable of gain- 
 ing one, and is therefore a fit correspondent for such a letter-writer. 
 as Anglicanus. He was at the meeting, and mortified and vexed 
 to the core at the effect which Dr. Thomson’s speech produced, in 
 opening the eyes and exciting the indignation of the people. He en- 
 deavoured to vent his spleen by supplying some of the Newcastle jour- 
 nals with anonymous tirades of abuse, exceedingly like those which are 
 now before us—so like as to convince us that they were from a disciple 
 of the same school. And that he might lose no opportunity of exer- 
 cising his vocation as an inventor of wicked scandals, he addressed him- 
 self to Anglicanus, that through him or her he might secure the most 
 extensive propagation, and has now the pleasure of seeing his device re- 
 corded in a pamphlet which the public voice has already consigned to 
 infamy, and which will prove the winding-sheet of its authors long, it is 
 not improbable, before they are in their graves, and have there “ ceased 
 from troubling.” It is not for Dr. Thomson to come forward and give 
 particular testimony to transactions concerning which he might say 
 ** quarum pars magna fui ;” but we have express authority for saying that 
 he gives a broad, and distinct, and unqualified contradiction to the state- 
 _ ment in question, as a gross and malicious fabrication. Mr. Grey, when 
 
28 Review of Anglicanus’ Letters. . Jane 
 concealing himself under the signature of Anglicanus, says; cpt | 
 given, 
 
 a true account, extracted from one I received from a correspondent 
 was present.” Who was this correspondent? Let his name be 
 that the credibility of his witness-bearing may be properly estimated. 
 And who is Anglicanus that vouches for his anonymous and unknown 
 informer ? We need not again tell this ; but let it be noticed that | 
 Grey, when he flattered himself that he would not be discovered, gave his’ 
 unauthenticated sanction to an unauthenticated document, which he ex 
 pected to cover Dr. Thomson with ridicule and contempt. -He did so, 
 though in the newspapers of Newcastle, which he professes to see re-) 
 gularly, he must have read accounts diametrically cope given by edi-: 
 tors too that were hostile to the cause so strongly advocated by the Edin= 
 burgh Secretary ; and he did so when by writing to persons of greater re=_ 
 spectability than the low attorney, and of equal competency to testify to” 
 the fact, have satisfied himself in three days that the attorney’s brief was! 
 false in all its representations. Nay, Mr. pean Anglicanus, who has’ 
 not again spoken as Anglicanus—but the real and Rev. Mr. — 
 Grey has defended the “ true account,” for in answering the letter al-— 
 ready alluded to, which he received from a clergyman in Northumber-_ 
 land, who was at the meeting, and who assured him that the “ true ac- 
 count” both “ could and would be proved a lie,” he says; “ As for the 
 account of the Newcastle meeting, at which he (Dr. T.) was, I have 
 heard accounts from different persons similar to it ;’ and then adds, 
 «‘ not having been there, I cannot pronounce on their accuracy.” Now, 
 in a declaration already published, quite explicit on the subject, and’ 
 subscribed by no fewer than twenty-six responsible names, the lie has’ 
 been given to his “ true account.” Let him, then, give up his correspond 
 ent, or let him, if he will have it so, remain under the imputation of 
 being a willing instrument, in the hand of a low, pettifogging, cowardly 
 scribe, for calumniating both Dr. Thomson and the meeting which he 
 addressed. We give the declaration referred to, which is as follows: 
 
 > 
 
 «We do not intend to review Anglicanus’ pamphlet, and we reserve for fuller ex- 
 
 posure in another form the gross calumnies contained in the disgraceful paragraph, 
 page 39, relative to the interests, south of the Tweed, of the Edinburgh Bible So- 
 ciety. Our sole purpose by this document is to publish our conscientious testimony 
 to the falsehood of the account of the late public meeting of the Newcastle, North 
 Shields, South Shields, and Sunderland Bible Society, contained in a note, page 40, 
 in the following language :— 
 
 «¢¢ While these passages were passing through the press, a most preposterous ac- 
 count has made its appearance in one of the Edinburgh Newspapers, of what pur- 
 ports to be a meeting of the ‘ Newcastle Bible Society.’ That Society held its very 
 splendid anniversary a few weeks ago supported by Steinkopi#, Montgomery, Marsh- 
 man, and the whole concourse of the «eligious pnblic in the place and neighbour. 
 hood, as all know who are in the way of seeing Newcastle Newspapers ; and of this” 
 little supplementary concern, got up asa foil to the other, principally, perhaps, with 
 a view to the puff that might be made of it in Edinburgh Newspapers, I subjoin a 
 true account extracted from one I received from a correspondent who was present. 
 < There were,” says he, ‘ a considerable number making up the meeting in addition 
 to the handful of Scots-Kirk people to whom the affair properly belonged ; led 
 chiefly from curiosity to see a man who had made a good deal of noise lately in the 
 religious world; but. upon the platform, if we except two very worthy Scotch Mi- 
 nisters, who supported their chieftain, the company was anything but respectable. 
 We were all however very forbearing for some time, expressions of disgust multiply- 
 ing by degrees, till at Jast a story was told us of an agent of the Bible Society at 
 the Society’s expense carrying his wife with him to the Highlands, on an excursion 
 of pleasure, and a daughter accompanying Papa and Mamma, with the hope of pick- 
 
We? #2 
 | 1828. Review of Anglicanus’ Letters. 29 
 
 | ing up a Highland Laird while sentimentalizing on the scenery—=when the indigna- 
 tion became universal and the hiss tremendous! The poor Doctor, he proceeds, 
 _ * turned like ashes, his appearance indicating great mental agony, from which he 
 " never rallied, but went on hammering, with the help of his notes, through the remain- 
 | der of his speech. The collections were so miserably bad that the amount was not: 
 | published, and indeed none who belong to this new association ever did much for: 
 
 the other—their support is worth little or nothing to any institution.” He must 
 | have found out, one would think by this time, that all days are not the 9th of 
 | July, nor scenes of action the George Street Assembly Rooms, and that what is a. 
 | eapital joke in Fife or Dumfries-shire, does not surely bear the same character in 
 | Shields or Newcastle.’ ” 
 
 “ As tothe report alluded to in the above extract, we most distinctly avow that the 
 | Committee of the Newcastle, North Shields, South Shields, and Sunderland Bible 
 | Society, have never sent, on any occasion, a report of their proceedings to any of the. 
 
 newspapers. And as to what is called the * very splendid anniversary’ of the 
 ewcastle Bible Society,’ we will now say nothing more than this:—o affirm. 
 _ that ‘ the whole concourse of the religious public in the place and neighbourhood ’. 
 | Were present, seems to imply that all who were absent were rot religious. From. 
 | this judgment we appeal to him who judgeth righteously—even our Lord and Sa-. 
 | viour Jesus Christ. : 
 ___ * Of our public. meeting held at Newcastle on the 4th of October, Anglicanus 
 _ chooses to speak as a ‘little supplementary concern.’ This is a mere gratuitous. 
 _ slander, expressed in the language of affected contempt. ‘The ‘ concourse’ indeed. 
 _ Was not so large as at the ‘ very splendid anniversary’ which was got up in sup-. 
 _ port of the London Society: but the Lord hath said in condemnation of the spirit. 
 of this false insinuation, ‘ Who hath despised the day of small things?’ Still it 
 was both a large and respectable meeting. About a thousand were present, of all 
 _ denominations of Christians, both of native Scotch and native English, chiefly in- 
 deed of the latter; and if the house could have accommodated more, no one~can 
 say how much greater the assembly would have been, many having gone away un-. 
 able to obtain admission. 
 
 “* Of the respectability of those on the platform we shall not be expected to speak. 
 We should not consider ourselves honoured by the most flattering commendation of 
 aman who could indite such malignant imputations. The two Scotch Ministers; 
 whoever they may be to whom he refers, as redeeming somewhat by their worth the 
 character of the platform, would assuredly esteem the exception he affects to make 
 in their favour by no means complimentary. ; 
 
 «* Anglicanus would have it to be believed that the Meeting felt its patience and 
 forbearance taxed by the speech of the Rev. Dr. Thomson— expressions of dis- 
 gust multiplying by degrees.’ There were certainly manifested symptoms of dis- 
 gust at the evils which Dr. Thomson disclosed. and at those who had committed 
 them. There were also a few individuals who showed their dissatisfaction with Dr. 
 Thomson himself ; but very few indeed were so shameless as to express their dis- 
 gust and dissatisfaction in the way asserted hy Anglicanus. : 
 
 “« The statement imputed to Dr. Thomson, that an agent of the British and Fo: 
 reign Bible Society had travelled with his wife and daughter to the Highlands, at 
 the Society’s expense, is utterly unfounded. The Doctor did indeed mention an in- 
 poe of such abuse, when speaking of the extravagant expenditure of the Religious 
 
 nstitutions of London in general; but not as having been committed by any agent 
 whatever of the British and Foreign Bible Socicty. 
 
 “<The effect produced on the Rey. Doctor by the interruption was obviously the 
 very reverse of what it is asserted to have been by ‘ Anglicanus.’ Even the mo- 
 mentary pause which occurred was occasioned, not by the mean expressions of dis- 
 like employed by his opponents, but by the immense cheering by which the Assem- 
 bly testified its almost universal concurrence with the Rev. Doctor, and its indigna- 
 tion at their rude behaviour, and by which it was instantly and completely checked. 
 And, instead of feeling embarrassment, he proceeded for an hour and a half with 
 greater spirit than before; and tothe close of his speech, kept the meeting in breath- 
 less silence, by his overpowering argument and eloquence. 
 
 __ “The assertion that our ‘ support is worth little or nothing to any institution,’ 
 _We regard with disdain ; convinced that this is the insinuation of a man who knows 
 _nothing of what has been done for the British and Foreign Bible Society by many 
 
80 Review of Anglicanus’ Letiers. i 
 
 of us, and who is not, disposed to do justice to what he knows to have been done 
 others of us; and recollecting that our support, such as it has been, was not 
 former times so lightly esteemed. ¥ ie Py 6 
 
 ** Anglicanus represents his correspondent’s report to be ‘ a true account.’ V 
 declare .it to be utterly false. In witness whereof we subscribe our names, this | 
 
 day of December 1827. d ; pa 
 
 | aaa 
 
 W. Syme, Minister of the United Secession Church, Close, Newcastle. engl 
 
 James Pringle, Minister of the United Secession Chapel, Clavering Place, New. 
 castle... Bilin | me 
 
 John Lockhart, A. M. Minister of the Scotch Church, Neweastle. , “iy 
 
 Tho. Gilmour, Minister of the United Secession Church, North Shields. | 
 
 Charles Thomson, Minister of the Scotch Church, North Shields. |... . » . 
 Hamilton Murray, Minister of the Presbyterian Chapel, Gateshead, Durham. 
 
 Adam Dawson Gillon, Minister of Carliol Street United Secession Chapel, Neva 
 
 castle. 
 Robert Kirk, Minister of the Groat Market Chapel, Newcastle. ie 
 J.T. Paterson, Minister of St. George’s Chapel, Bishopwearmouth, Durham. — . 
 John M+Ewen, Student, of Divinity, Prospect Cottage, Durham. be | 
 Robert Simpson, North Shields, Native Englishman. ;' y — 
 John Anderson, jun. Newcastle, Native Englishman. a 4 
 Thomas Hogg, Newcastle, Native Englishman. ' : ae 
 Andrew Oliver, Newcastle, Native Englishman, eF | 
 James Douglas, Newcastle. , ; i m : 
 John Mitchell, Capt. R. N, Gateshead, Durham, Native Englishman. [ ‘% 
 
 John. M‘Fiee, Newcastle. ; 
 William Slowan, Newcastle. ; i 
 John, Turnbull, Newcastle. a 
 
 Patrick Freeman, Gateshead, Durham, Native Englishman. 
 William. Clarke, Newcastle. : : . ‘ 
 Andrew MacKinnel, Newcastle. “ “ 
 William Wilson, Newcastle. ' sith Y ers 
 W. G. Landells, Newcastle, Native Englishman. Bh ieyiek * 
 Thomas F leming,,Newcastle. ° “ 
 
 James Hood, Elder, Scotch Church, Newcastle, Native Englishman.” 
 
 The next instance that we have to produce of Anglicanus’ enmity to 
 Dr. Thomson cannot fail to shock every man.in whose mind one good 
 feeling is left. will A 
 
 ‘¢ Can we envy,” says Mr. Grey, ‘‘ the pernicious prosperity ef the man, who 
 when he should haye been a guide of-the blind, an instructor of babes, appoints — 
 himself on a home-mission from city to city, declaiming with one speech, and ex- — 
 horting from one sermon, to this effect ; ‘ Beware of good men, be on your guard — 
 against good works, trust none that fear God, have no part with those that put their 
 shoulder to the work of extending Messiah’s kingdom. Be cautious, do little, the 
 less the better; keep your money, you have been fools to give it. You have been 
 doing the devil’s work—they do that in England. We are the men, my friends. 
 Sound principle, genuine christianity, are nowhere but among ourselves ;—as to 
 these southern evangelicals, the best are blockheads, the rest are hypocrites. é 
 have Scotsmen got to learn from the best, or to do for the worst of mankind ? Let 
 us keep to home.concerns, and be thankful.’ In short, the text, * Be zealous,’ has ~ 
 been as strenuously applied to the duty of pulling down the Bible Society, as if that 
 particular good work were of paramount importance,” &c. p. 73. | mis 
 
 Now, most of our readers, we dare say, are of opinion that the writers 
 of such a paragraph should be sent to Bedlam; but knowing 
 them better, we should rather propose that they get an apartment in 
 Bridewell. Nothing can be too severe for those who thus indulge in 
 the most outrageous leasing, and aggravate it by the most cold-blooded - 
 profaneness. And is the criminality diminished, is it not greatly increas- 
 ed, by its belonging to the character, or being sanetioned by the help 
 
1828. Review of Anglicanus’ Letters. 31 
 jand approbation of 4 man, who puffs himself off as one of the “religious 
 
 hatacters of note” in Edinburgh, who is himself a preacher of righteous- 
 ness and truth, and who declaims against all that do not frequent his cote- 
 ries of inanity and scandal as children of the Devil ? Anglicanus pretends 
 | mot to have heard Dr. Thomson preach the discourse which he so infa- 
 | mously falsifies. Surely, surely, he could not get it from a female rela- 
 | tive who heard it at Berwick, but who, we hope, would loathe from the 
 very bottom of her soul such impious mockery.* From whomsoever it 
 | came, he needed no prophet to tell him that such absurd and blasphe- 
 | mous counsels never proceeded, and never could proceed, from the lips 
 -of any preacher on this side of Tweed. And if it be the invention, as 
 | most probably it is, of that triple alliance which we have been so fortu- 
 | Mate as to unveil, where was the conscience, we ask, where the decency, 
 | where the charity, of Mr. Grey and his associates, when they ventured on 
 | such a patody of Dr. Thomson’s sermon on the text, “ Be zealous ?” 
 | We give that portion of the sermon which referred to the Bible Society 
 | question, that it may be seen to whata pitch of iniquity Mr. Grey’s 
 | hatred of Dr. Thomson has carried him on this occasion. 
 
 “Surely, my friends, 1 need not say that your zeal cannot be better employed 
 _ than in the cause of the Bible. There is zeal in reading it for yourselves as the 
 _ message of God to your souls, and the charter of your eternal salvation. This lies 
 "at the foundation of all the other regards you may feel for or pay to the Bible— 
 _ without which it cannot otherwise have any of your countenance, and by which it 
 is that you shall be stimulated to take an interest in all its fortunes. Be persuaded, 
 _ therefore, to make the Bible the subject of your earnest study. Peruse it, with a 
 firm faith in its doctrines—with a spirit of submission to its authority—with fervent 
 prayer for the blessiugs which it promises—and with a longing hope of the future 
 glory which it reveals. 
 ' “ There is, next, zeal in defending the truth of the Bible. When attacked by the 
 abetters of infidelity, you must give it your warm and decided support, according to 
 the opportunities you enjoy, and according to the abilities and means with which 
 God has furnished you—by sound argument, by solemn testimony, by holy living, 
 by ardent supplication. 
 
 “ Then comes zeal for the purity of the Bible: and this will determine you to 
 resist with all your might the attempts of those who would promote their own 
 views by altering or mistranslating that which the Holy Spirit has indited for the 
 instruction of mankind ; and of those who, from motives of expediency, would be 
 guilty of the pious fraud of mixing up Apocryphal writings with the real Canon of 
 Scripture, and giving forth that corrupt mass to the world as the pure and unadul- 
 ‘terated Word of God ; and of those who are reckless of the principles and character 
 ‘of the men to whom the sacred work is intrusted of conveying the message of grace 
 and truth to perishing sinners. To such a combination of folly and impiety as this 
 implies, your zeal will set itself in stern and ceaseless opposition ; and you will have . 
 no approving fellowship with the men who deliberately practise it, and pertinaciously 
 eling to it, and who thus speak wickedly and deceitfully for that God, to whom all 
 deceit and wickedness are abhorrent, by whom every addition to his word is bur- 
 dened with an eternal curse ; and who, requiring that they who bear the vessels of 
 ‘the sanctuary should be clean, must also require that the channel through which 
 his Word is conveyed to the nations shall partake of that sanctity by which its own 
 Pages are distinguished, and to which all unholy and infidel associations must be 
 utterly foreign and repugnant. ‘ 
 
 *¢ And, last of all, there is zeal for the circulation of the Bible. But on the duty 
 and importance of this manifestation of your zeal, I need not expatiate. If you 
 know and believe, and feel that the Bible is essential to yourselves, you cannot fail 
 ‘to be strongly impressed with a conviction of its necessity to your brethren of man- 
 ‘kind. A regard to the honour of ‘Him who has inspired and communicated it as 
 the record of his mercy and will—a desire for the extension of the Redeemer’s king- 
 
 - * At the-same time, we have been startled by some strange coincidences. 
 3 
 
‘82 Review of Anglicanus’ Letters. Ja 
 
 dom, of whose grace, and power, and blessedness, it affords such a faithful am 
 beautiful delineation—compassion for the souls of those myriads of our species 
 are living and dying under the pressure of sin, that great moral calamity,, fi 
 ‘which i¢ alone points out the method and the way of deliverance—all these s 
 ‘ments will constrain you to have this as a constant object of your ambition 
 pursuit, that the word of the Lord may have tree course and be glorified. For this 
 -you will put up the frequent, the fervid, the believing petition to the throne of 
 ‘heaven. For this you will cheerfully give those personal labours by which you 
 sincerity in the cause may be satisfactorily evinced. For this you will not fail | 
 contribute of your worldly substance even as the Lord of all has prospered you 
 And for this you will endeavour to secure the cordial and efficient co-operation 
 those of your neighbours and your friends who have a heart to feel and a mite to be- 
 stow, for the interests of religion. These things I trust, and am persuaded, you have 
 already done. And I have only to express my confidence and my hope, that -you 
 will not weary in this well-doing. ‘here are multitudes perishing for lack 
 knowledge, and who are willing to take the word of life in its native purity, and 
 -are supplicating from you the boon which alone can save their souls. And can yi 
 bear the thought of leaving them in ignorance, and sin, and misery, while you ha 
 it in your power to step in between them and ruin, to bless them with the light of 
 truth, and guide their feet in the way of peace? No; your principles,. your feel» 
 ings, your comfort, your interest, all forbid it. Be zealous then in spreading the 
 Bible, and cease not from the labour of Christian love, till the knowledge of the 
 Lord shall cover the whole earth, as the waters cover the channels of the deep.” 
 
 It seems meet to Mr. Grey to attribute great poverty of mind and 
 ‘resources to Dr. Thomson, as well as the most shameless prostitution of 
 his sacred office. Dr. Thomson ‘“ declaimed from city to city with one 
 speech, and exhorted from one sermon.” But here again he is guilty 
 of a groundless and unprincipled calumny. Dr. Thomson does not, like 
 Henry Grey, and other beardless boys, write his speeches, and commit 
 them to memory ; and still less, like Henry Grey, does he get a blue- 
 stocking to write them for him, and to prescribe to him, verbatim et 
 literatim, what he shall say to the ladies on any givem subject. Neither 
 is he quite so destitute of the powers of composition as his reviler, poor 
 man! who would fain represent his fellow-minister to be equally feeble 
 and destitute as himself. Let those who have had means and opportunities 
 of judging, determine how far there is the shadow of probability in this 
 statement, by which Mr. Grey meanly attempts to underrate the capacity, 
 and laugh at the mental indigence of Dr. Thomson. But, in point of fact, 
 the Doctor did not and could not deliver the same speech ; at any rate, 
 let those who heard him,—and not a few heard him on four successive 
 occasions—say, whether his speeches were characterised by identity. 
 Sure we are, that not one of these conveyed such intelligence; and, 
 therefore, it is a mere fiction of Mr. Grey, who, resembling Ferdinand 
 Mendez Pinto in fertility of invention, but resembling him not in free- 
 dom from malice, forges, with marvellous readiness and ease, whatever 
 may be calculated to be injurious to the individual whom he hates. 
 Aud as to the one sermon, he is equally unfortunate ; for it so happens 
 that, in the “ home-mission,” to which he is said to have ‘ appointed 
 himself,’ Dr. ‘Thomson preached s2x times, and delivered jive sermons, 
 —a variety which was not necessary to satisfy any person of candour or 
 common sense, but which most providentially occurred, to meet and 
 frustrate the contemptible slander of Mr. Henry Grey. PMs 
 
 Really we feel ashamed to dwell upon these things; but we cannot 
 pass them by without giving a colour, in the present state of public 
 feeling, to reproaches which are got up and propagated by the office- 
 bearers of the Corresponding Board, and which they are employing, with 
 the most unremitting industry, to degrade Dr. Thomson, and, in that 
 
l 
 | 1828. Review of Anglicanus’ Letters. 33 
 
 | way, to injure the cause which he has been so strenuous in maintaining. 
 And since Mr. Henry Grey has embarked, at such an expense of man- 
 liness and integrity, in this most reprehensible undertaking, we deem 
 ourselves called upon, not only to resist his encroachments upon the cha- 
 tacters which he dares not openly to assail, but to throw back upon him the 
 obloquy which he so vainly but.so malevolently strives to fasten on his 
 opponents. We, therefore, must express our surprise and indignation 
 that he has had the effrontery to jibe and jeer at Dr. Thomson’s one 
 speech and one sermon ;— He who gets a woman to compose lunatic ser- 
 mons for him, much better fitted to fill the asylum than to support it, 
 and to dictate speeches which, like a school-boy, reciting at an autumnal 
 examination, he repeats to a sickened audience, being equally accurate 
 as to a “ glittering scymitar,” and a “ post-chaise pocket,”—a big 
 sesquipedale, anda little if. He talk of Dr. Thomson’s one speech, who 
 spoke in London what had been prepared for him in Edinburgh, and 
 after it had appeared in good letter press, printed from his own manu- 
 _ script, and corrected by his own hand, (was it not?) got the start of 
 _ him, and was perused here by many who heard him deliver the same 
 
 Se 
 
 Speech from the platform in the Assembly Room, without having alter- 
 1 
 
 _ composed for him, and preaches the worst oftenest because he likes 
 
 ed one word of the bombast, or one syllable of the pretty, with which 
 he had tickled or astounded the ears of the admiring cockneys! He 
 talk of Dr. Thomson’s ove sermon,—who preaches the sermons that are 
 
 them best, and preaches them till they become a by-word and a pro- 
 verb ; who, for example, delivers his favourite oration on drunkenness 
 
 to his own people, that they may know, as well as himself, the allure- 
 ments of whisky shops, and the tricks of dealers in ardent spirits—ad- 
 dresses it next to a congregation, preparing, by the services of a Sa- 
 turday evening, for the solemnity of a communion Sabbath—then whines 
 it out to those who had assembled in the hated St. George’s, for the 
 purpose of informing them, we suppose, what it was that made a So- 
 ciety for Indigent Old Men necessary—carried it soon afterwards across 
 the Irish Channel, and inflicted it upon the Ladies of Dublin, who had 
 come trooping to hear this sweetest and fairest of Scotch divines, and 
 got for their pains an elaborate harangue on the pleasures and the evils 
 of intoxication—and who, last of all, brings it back to serve the purpose 
 of a vade mecum when he perambulates Scotland, to warm with its spi- 
 rit-stirring strains the cold “iron bosoms of the North,” and to excite 
 what he calls, in the character of Anglicanus, a “fume and a splutter 
 among the Caledonian fermentators!” It is not for those who dwell in 
 houses of glass to be forward in throwing stones. It is not for Henry 
 Grey to make a mock of any man whatever for his one sermon or his 
 one speech. And it is not for a minister of the gospel to decry his cle- 
 rical brethren for alleged defects which are the product of his own ma- 
 licious invention, and not in any sense or in any degree realised in the 
 conduct of those whom he nevertheless wantonly traduces.—Our great 
 object in these remarks has been to read Mr. Grey a lesson which we 
 hope he will remember as long as he lives, and for which he will be as 
 grateful, we have no doubt, as he has been for richer favours. had 
 
 Mr. Grey is not contented with pouring forth his maledictions on 
 Dr. Thomson personally ; he must vent his malignity on those also 
 ‘with whom Dr. Thomson is officially and ministerially connected. He 
 speaks of the elders of St. George’s Church as ‘ passably decent men 
 
 VOL. XXVII. NO. I. F 
 
34 Review of Anglicanus’ Letters. J AN. 
 
 of the world, considerably inferior to the characters ordinarily met with 
 in a French Protestant Consistory, and still farther below what the lis 
 of Bible Society contributors present in any eountry.” P. 11. Ho 
 came Anglicanus, who lives so far south, and is such a mere strange) 
 in Edinburgh, to acquire all this minute knowledge of the gentleme 
 whom he honours with his abuse? Had Mr. Grey, the real author o: 
 these calumnies, suspected that his share in their publicity was to be 
 found out, he would have continued to fawn upon the men whom in 
 his unworthy disguise he feels no scruple in reviling. We say nothi a 
 in their defence. Their assailant, with all his pretensions to singulaae 
 piety, is far beneath their notice. And there is not an individual of 
 their number, who would not deem it foul scorn to be thought capable of 
 stooping to a hundredth part of the meanness and duplicity which he ha 
 exercised in the publication of these letters, or of cherishing any portion 
 ef that malevolence which renders them so thoroughly atrocious a 
 revolting. After all, why should they be moved by the detraction of a 
 man who regards the Neologists of the Continent and their patrons in 
 the Earl Street Committee as “ the saints, and the excellent, in whom 
 is all his delight ?” Nor let it be concealed, that Mr. Grey, when he 
 was forming his own Session, did covet and coax one at least of the 
 Session of St. George’s to join his eldership; and that one at least of 
 the Session of St. Mary’s was recommended to Mr. Grey by Dr. Thom- 
 son, from out of his own flock,—so desirous was he to promote the com-_ 
 fort and usefulness of that unthankful brother's ministry.” These, per-— 
 haps, are small matters ; but in the present case they are instructive. 
 And there is an attack on the Ladies of Dr. Thomson’s congrega- 
 tion—called “ the Ladies of Charlotte Square,” who are accused of ut- 
 tering ‘* Pharisaical effusions of thankfulness for their high privileges 
 in being exactly what they are,” &c. P..74. Anglicanus, indeed! No, 
 no; it is impossible that any true Englishman could have perpetrated 
 such an ungallant deed as thus to attack the fair sex, who were not 
 crossing his path with any mischievous intent, and whose only crime 
 consisted in being hearers of Dr. Thomson. Even Mr. Grey, degene- 
 rate as he must have become by his long residence on “ the wrong side of 
 the border,” and strong as his antipathy evidently is to the minister of 
 St. George’s, and all that belongs to him, would have retreated, with a 
 bow and a smile, from such a piece of unmannerly barbarism. It could 
 only be hatched in the ‘ iron bosom” of a grim and grisly female, who 
 has no compassion, no limits to her rage, when provoked by the un- 
 willingness of any of the sisterlood to pay her the attention or the ho- — 
 mage which vanity has taught her to expect. This passage of the Let- 
 ter must have emanated from Anglicana, to whom it could not fail to 
 be galling in the extreme to see the Ladies of St. George’s or Charlotte 
 Square, so little attracted by her own incomparable charms, and by the 
 winning gracefulness of her friend Mr. Grey. And yet we cannot think 
 that they areat all to blame, or that they deserve to be called “ Pha- 
 risaical,” because they have not any relish for the eloquence of a cler- 
 gyman who can see no great harm in circulating the Apocrypha as a 
 part of the word of God, and who even considers it as a proof of Christian 
 iberality to make Mahomedans believe that they are as safe with the 
 Koran as we are with the Bible ; and because they do not readily admit 
 into their circle a woman who would talk them to death with thieveries 
 from the Edinburgh Review, scowl upon them with contempt if they 
 
 1 
 
HH 
 \j 
 
 1828. Review of Anglicanus’ Letters. ‘35 
 
 could not speak about the “coursers of Achilles,” or perhaps insult them 
 with a quotation from one of Congreve’s most indecent comedies. And 
 really they have not yet learned to attach such high value to the ad- 
 vantage of having been born two stages beyond the Tweed, as to think 
 those by whom it is enjoyed, entitled either to demand their obeisance, 
 or to rebuke them for withholding it. ; 
 
 _ What would Mr. Grey have said—what would any man of common 
 feeling have said, if Dr. Thomson had chosen, in the course of this con- 
 troversy, to throw out reproaches against the session and congregation 
 of St. Mary’s? Would not he have been instantly, loudly, universally 
 condemned for such an outrage? And is Mr. Grey, who has so re- 
 | proached the session and congregation of St. George’s, guilty of a lighter 
 offence, or entitled to a better fate? When a controversialist has re- 
 course to such unworthy measures of hostility, as those to which he, 
 Mr. Grey, has in this respect resorted, it proves either that he is mi- 
 serably unqualified for conducting the cause he has undertaken, or that 
 _ his cause is incapable of being defended by fair and honourable means. 
 _ And such is the opinion we entertain both of his elders and his flock, 
 who have our sincere respect and our best wishes, that we doubt not 
 
 | they will be the first to bewail, and not the last to reprobate, the attempt 
 _ which has been made to wound Dr. Thomson’s feelings and reputation 
 
 through the medium of a most indelicate, groundless, and unjustifiable 
 
 attack on the office-bearers and the people of his pastoral care. 
 Although Dr. Thomson is the object of Mr. Grey’s bitterest and 
 most implacable enmity, the Secretary to the Corresponding Board does 
 not allow other individuals to escape. He hits at them himself; and 
 when his own feeble arm is inadequate, as it generally is, to inflict the 
 evil which he purposes in his heart, he calls in the aid of that sturdy 
 termagant and that brilliant hobnail with whom he is associated in this 
 work of scandal. Let us see how the triumvzrate treat their betters. 
 _ It wasnot to be expected that Mr. Haldane would be spoken of with 
 any ceremony. His services in behalf of the pure Bible have been too 
 conspicuous, and too valuable, to excite any thing but hatred in those 
 who are so strongly attached to the Apocrypha and the Koran as Mr. 
 Grey and his fellow-labourers are. And, accordingly, there are various 
 falsehoods got up against him by this club of scandal-mongers, who are 
 so kind as to secure for him the blessedness of being reviled and perse- 
 cuted for righteousness sake. ‘These we shall particularly notice when 
 we come to speak of Anglicanus’ facts. And shall only here observe 
 that his statements, fictitious and untrue as they are, are very naturally 
 accompanied with the corresponding beauties of malicious sneers and 
 acrid invective. 
 
 The Rev. Dr. Gordon also shares in the abuse of Anglicanus. He 
 committed the grievous sin of moving the adoption of our Report in July 
 last ; and, therefore, he is ridiculed by being compared to a “ Baptist 
 of the ultra, or close communion class!’ And that Mr. Grey may not 
 forget for a moment the mendacious vocation to which the Lady has 
 appointed him, he represents the Rev. Doctor as ‘ holding it unlaw- 
 ful to make any communication of truth to professing Christians till 
 they have abjured all error, or to confer on any point of religious opinion, 
 say, with Catholics, previous to their consenting to adopt the Protestant 
 faith !’ Mr, Henry Grey is in no degree to be marvelled at for acute- 
 ness ; but granting that he were a thousand times more obtuse than he 
 is, what shadow of ground could he find in Dr. Gordon’s printed speech 
 
36 Review of Anglicanus’ Letters. J 
 
 for such a gross misrepresentation? He said nothing to give even the 
 faintest colour to such an absurd and monstrous conception. But wh 
 
 could Dr. Gordon’s well-known principles and character, or what co 
 his clearest and most solemn declarations avail him against the hostil: 
 of those who were determined, by whatever means, to pervert ev 
 
 thing that was said on the other side, and to invent when their power 
 of distortion failed them? In this city, such things would not be beliey- 
 ed of men far inferior to Dr. Gordon: But Anglicanus has written for 
 those at a distance, and for those who will swallow any crudity he 
 chooses to administer, provided it can tell against the ministers and the 
 people of Scotland. We write to frustrate his detestable purpose ; and 
 most distinctly avow, in the face of Mr. Grey and of his female prompt- 
 er, that not only did Dr. Gordon utter no such nonsense as they have 
 so indecently ascribed to him, but that he is incapable of uttering it,— 
 and this they themselves know as well as we do. f, 
 
 Anglicanus is very indignant at the Rev. Mr. Irving, because he 
 made some conciliatory proposals at the last annual meeting of the Bri- 
 tish and Foreign Bible Society. Every thing done by Englishmen is, 
 no doubt of it, absolutely perfect. Infallibility belongs to all those who 
 are born on the right side of the Border. And it is not to be endured 
 that any man, especially if he has the least thing Scotch about him, 
 should dare to dissent or to find fault. Mr. Irving, not as the “ dele- 
 gate of the Society's avowed and determined enemies,’—Mr. Grey 
 should have known better—but at the request of those who had been 
 its staunchest and most liberal friends, and eagerly desired that eve 
 ground of misunderstanding should be removed, proposed in the mildest 
 terms, and in the regular order of proceeding, after having been disre- 
 garded in the committee, such things as appeared expedient for pro- 
 ducing a reconciliation. And for doing this Mr. Grey has the hardihood 
 and the malignity (p. 38) to call him a “ knave” that “deserved toss- 
 ing in a blanket!!!” No wonder that, with the consciousness of having 
 prepared such a vile sentence for publication, Mr. Grey had not time to 
 call for Mr. Irving when he was last in London, though he sneaked into 
 his chapel to gratify curiosity by hearing the “ knave,” and though he 
 found abundance of time to visit Mr. Noel at Richmond, and retail his 
 scandals about the bad spirit that prevails in Edinburgh. Truly won- 
 derful is it how some men get infinite credit for a temper of which they 
 do not happen to possess a single particle ! 
 
 We all know the manly independence, the gentlemanly demeanour, 
 the Christian excellence of Mr. Ross. And yet here is the style im 
 which Mr. Grey, who is not worthy to be mentioned in the same twelve- 
 month with him, speaks of that ornament of our religious community. 
 “The very trouble taken by the gentleman (Mr. Ross) who moved 
 thanks to the Rev. Secretary, in asserting his independence, and esta= 
 blishing the entire ignorance of every living soul of the purport of the 
 motion he was about to make, might have indicated what is otherwise © 
 now known, that his free agency is entirely at his superior’s disposal. 
 No privilege may be pretended by him beyond that enjoyed by a West 
 minster fag, of doing always and every where only exactly what he 
 knows, or, by his instinct, can discover to be agreeable to the proprie- 
 tor of his services—of being thrashed by none but himself, and of whistl- 
 ing him to his aid whenever another assailant sets upon him!!!” It 
 is a remarkable circumstance that Mr. Ross had taken his ground firmly, 
 and decidedly, and openly, on the subject of dispute, before Dr. Thom- 
 
1828. Review of Anglicanus’ Letters. ; 37 
 
 son had even heard that the London Committee had circulated a single 
 ypy of the Apocrypha. And every person connected with those many 
 ee clent institutions, in whose management Mr. Ross takes an active 
 part, is aware how attentive he is to the business that is transacted, and 
 ad free he is from the influence of others in forming or declaring his 
 | opinion on whatever cases come before him. Mr. Grey has had nume- 
 Tous opportunities of witnessing this; and it must have given him a 
 ] we should think, to sanction such a scurrilous libel against Mr. Ross 
 } as wehavequoted. But while he could not resist the mandate of the 
 | yirago who has fagged him so unmercifully in the concoction of this pam- 
 | phlet, and whose dark visage we saw becoming darker still when Mr. 
 | moved the thanks of the meeting to Dr. Thomson, he was recon- 
 | eiled to the slander by thus having it in his power to resent that honour 
 which was put upon the hated secretary by an assembly. whose applauses, 
 | could he have obtained them, would have made him intolerable with 
 vanity, and would have gratified any man that is alive to the approba- 
 | tion of these who number with the wisest and best of his fellow- 
 citizens. 
 _ It was quite natural to attack Mr. Ferguson, who seconded Mr. Ross’s 
 motion of thanks ; and of him Mr. Grey thus speaks: << As to the other, 
 who followed with an express declaration that the Doctor was not 
 his king, but only the Defender of his Faith, that he never gave himself 
 more airs than he was entitled to take, nor exacted more submission 
 _ ‘than was his rightful due, what objection can any one take at this? Sup- 
 pose even theobsequious admirer should promote his patron from the rank 
 of Defender of his Faith to that of Sovereign of his understanding, would 
 any jury find it treason!” Here again is an imputation as insolent as 
 it is untrue, against one of the most upright, active, and useful members 
 both of our civil and our religious society. Language is put into his 
 mouth which he never used—a tone of feeling is attributed to him which 
 is at variance with all his habits. He never said that Dr. Thomson 
 was the defender of his faith, he never breathed a sentiment which could 
 encourage any man to aim at the sovereignty of his understanding. If 
 Mr. Grey himself was ignorant of this, he might have learned it from 
 Mr. Craig, who must surely, if he retains any portion of his former self, 
 be wounded by this indignity put upon one of the worthiest of his flock. 
 Are we to trace this wicked misstatement to that female tyrant who holds 
 Mr. Grey in subjection, soul and body of him, and makes him say what 
 he does not think, and publish what he cannot believe? Or are we to 
 account for his easy credence on this occasion likewise, by recollecting 
 the opportunity which it gives him of speaking rudely and contemptu- 
 ously of Dr. Thomson, to wreak his vengeance upon whom, he would 
 willingly make an oblation of his kindest friends? By whatever theory 
 the thing may be explained, we repeat it, that Mr. Grey has stated re- 
 specting Mr. Ferguson what is utterly and wickedly untrue. 
 
 There is another individual to whom we have already alluded, but 
 whom delicacy forbids us to name, against whose character Mr. Grey 
 has thought proper to throw out an injurious insinuation. His amiable- 
 ness and respectability, and the relation in which he stands to the mi- 
 nister of St. Mary’s as one of his congregation, should have ‘saved him 
 from the reproach. But no. It is not in Mr. Grey’s nature to spare 
 any body who has offended him on this question. The individual we 
 refer to had, at Mr. Grey’s request, and from confidence, alas! in his 
 wisdom, agreed to join the Corresponding Board, though we have good 
 
38 Review of Anglicanus’ Letters. S 
 reason for saying, that his name was put into the list of office-bearer 
 without any express authority. But on reading some of the documen 
 which wiser friends had put into his hands, and finding that his way Vv 
 not so clear as he had been made to believe it, and that he was 
 ing to embark in a controversy not befitting his situation and pros 
 pects, he resigned the place allotted to him. And for doing so, Mr. 
 rey has seen meet to hold him up to the world as meanly deserting — | 
 the side he was thought to have espoused, from nothing better than the | 
 fear of obloquy, and of discouragement in his professional ie met | 
 
 What is there so sacred or so delicate in the treatment of other men 
 be Anglicanus will not trample upon to gratify his spleen and ma-— 
 ice !! - 
 
 -It has been attempted to make the country believe that those who are | 
 so active now in opposing the London Committee, did little or nothing 
 formerly in behalf of Bible circulation. The object of this allegation is 
 plain. If the impression were strong and general, that the fact is as 
 our adversaries represent it to be, then the motives of our conduct are 
 found to be unworthy ; all that we say or do must therefore be regard- 
 ed with suspicion and distrust ; and, consequently, the “‘men of pray- Ys 
 er” in Earl Street will get every thing their own way. This artifice — 
 has been resorted to in London, Newcastle, Aberdeen, and many other 
 places. And that he may not be behind his Apoeryphal brethren in any — 
 dishonest manceuvre, the Rev. Henry Grey repeats over and over, and — 
 with the greatest confidence, the gratuitous slander which has been so — 
 basely and industriously propagated. He speaks of the leading oppo- 
 nents here of the London Committee as “ those who sprung tothe ranks _ 
 of the Bible Society only when a harvest of turmoil and discussion 
 opened before them,” (p. 29)—whom “ early and habitual apathy in a 
 good cause may have saved from participation in ingenuous error,” (p.31) 
 —and of whom it may be said that they “ have manifestly nothing 
 to relinquish in quitting the Bible Society,” that “ they claim no part 
 in its disasters or successes,” that ‘it owes nothing to them,” (p- 37) 
 and that “ even while it enjoyed their good opinion, it did not subtract 
 more than a guinea a-year from their liberality.” (p. 62.) It is high 
 time that the public were disabused on the subject ; and in the course of 
 a few paragraphs we shall give Mr. Grey good reason for regretting that 
 he has ever meddled with it. What miseries has he wrought for under 
 the guise ef Anglicanus ! 
 
 Mr. Grey is not unacquainted with what Mr. Haldane has done for 
 promoting Christianity. He is not ignorant of the able, and generous, 
 and successful efforts which that gentleman made on the Continent for 
 inculcating those vital doctrines of the gospel to which the minister of 
 St. Mary’s professes so profound an attachment, and to his preaching 
 which he owes no small share of his darling popularity. And he knows 
 nothing of what he ought to have known before he ventured to pro- 
 nounce the unfounded and iniquitous judgment for which we are taking 
 him to task, if he is unaware of the fact that there is not an individual 
 alive who has expended so much money in the diffusion of the Serip- 
 tures as Mr. Robert Haldane. Mr. Grey must have seen it recorded, 
 that the person whom he so contemptuously describes as giving a guinea 
 a-year, and nothing more, to the great object, subscribed L.100 for the 
 Montauban Bible alone, with an offer of as much more if it were ne- 
 cessary ; and a little inquiry would have discovered to him that’ the 
 same person had given éwelve times that sum to the work of Bible dis- 
 
828. - Review of Anglicanus’ Letters. 39 
 
 bution during the time that he resided in France and Switzerland— 
 nay that, at his own expense, he got part of the New Testament trans- 
 ted into the patois, so as to make the spiritual treasures of that vo- 
 ‘lume accessible to multitudes, to whom, though at their very door, the 
 Jat s even of the London Committee had never extended. But then 
 | all this previous liberality was cancelled in Mr. Grey’s estimation, by 
 that unholy deed which Mr. Haldane committed when he set him- 
 | self to resist the circulation of the Apocrypha as a part of God’s word. 
 | « There's the rub.” Had Mr. Haldane been as zealous for, as he has 
 | been against, the diffusion of spurious scriptures, Mr. Henry Grey 
 | would have discovered no deficiency in that gentleman’s zeal for fur- 
 théring the purposes of the Bible Society. 
 | We next refer to Mr. Ross. Nobody here who pays any attention 
 | to what is done on the wide field of philanthropy, whether it be tem- 
 or spiritual, needs to be told of his «labours of love.” And 
 hough the feigned Anglicanus might not have been apprised of them | 
 at the Land’s-End, where we are to suppose him residing, yet surely 
 the real Mr. Grey, whose abode is in Edinburgh, could not fail to have 
 heard, and read, and seen, what he has so unworthily denied. Mr. 
 Grey acted for some years as Secretary to the Edinburgh Bible So- 
 ciety, and did he not observe Mr. Ross in the list of life-subscribers to 
 the amount of L.30, and subscribing annually two or three guineas 
 besides? And did he not observe him attending the Committee meetings 
 most regularly? And did he not observe him at the Annual meetings 
 of the Society, from which indeed he was scarcely if ever absent? And 
 : did not he observe him on all occasions taking an active share in the busi- 
 ness of the institution, and ready to do every thing in his power for its 
 “prosperity? Did not Mr. Grey observe all this? And yet, becanse 
 he flattered himself that his imposture would never be detected, he 
 “decries Mr. Ross as never having done any thing for the Bible Society 
 beyond the contribution of a guinea a-year, till he had the satisfaction 
 of being embroiled in a controversy ! 
 
 We have no doubt that it is Dr. Thomson who is principally aimed 
 at in those vile aspersions on which we are now animadverting. But 
 we have no objection that Mr. Grey should tell all that can be told of 
 the extent of his services to the Bible Society, previously to the com- 
 ‘mencement of the Apocrypha dispute. On the contrary, we complain 
 of him, that having referred to the point as a ground of reproach, he 
 refrained from stating such specific facts as would have shown what 
 foundation he had for his injurious charges. We do not boast of any 
 thing that Dr. Thomson has performed—all such boasting is vain. 
 But the folly and malignity of Anglicanus obliges us to speak ont. 
 We ask Mr. Grey if it be not true that Dr. Thomson, besides his an- 
 nual subscription of a guinea, has not been a uniform and active pro- 
 moter of Bible Societies? We ask Mr. Grey if he is not sensible 
 that Dr. Thomson has had his full share, from an early period of 
 ‘the Society's existence, of the duties which devolve on its regular 
 ‘directors and acknowledged friends? We ask Mr. Grey if he is not 
 aware (others at least are aware) that Dr. Thomson has preached 
 often for Societies directly auxiliary to the British and Foreign, 
 and for Societies contributing to its funds, through the medium of 
 the Edinburgh Institution? We ask Mr. Grey if he does not know 
 that Dr. Thomson, both by himself and in fellowship with a near 
 connexion of his accuser, wrote a number of papers in defence 
 
40 Review of Anglicanus’ Letters. f 
 
 of the British and Foreign Bible Society, »which appeared in this 
 Magazine at a time when that institution had to struggle with many 
 powerful enemies? We ask Mr. Grey if he can assert that Dr. The 
 son has ever declined any service to the: Bible» Society which. he| 
 could be justly expected, or which he felt himself qualified to: perform 
 And how then can Mr. Grey have the assurance to propagate, und 
 a false name, the lying and malevolent report, that Dr. Thomson h 
 had an “ early and habitual apathy in the good. cause’ —that “ it owes | 
 nothing to him’”—that he “ never sprung to its ranks till a harvest of 
 turmoil and dissension opened before him?” Yet he has done thig| 
 on the spot where correct information was not only within his reach, 
 but staring him in the very face! And he has done it, writing in the | 
 assumed character of an Englishman, residing at such a distance as 
 would have prevented any honest, and still more any Christian Eng- 
 lishman, from putting forth a surmise so injurious, without first making | 
 diligent inquiry into its truth. Senseless and ungenerous calumnie| 
 ator ! 
 And what mighty achievements, we demand, have been performe 
 in support of the Bible Society, by those who have taken it upon t 
 so shamefully to misrepresent us to the public? Where do we 
 recorded the liberal contributions—the helpful movements, which en- 
 title them to sneer at the inefficiency and uselessness of others? Is 
 there one of the Corresponding Beard, from its top to its bottom, 
 
 can specify a single thing that authorises him to hold up his head, 
 
 talk contemptuously of his neighbour? Have all of them taken to. 
 gether been ever worth more than about L.15 or L.16 a-year to the 
 institution to which they have the hardihood to charge the objects of 
 their vituperation with harbouring an ancient and continued indiffer. 
 ence? And what, above all, has the Rev. Henry Grey done that he 
 should oceupy the censor’s chair, and vilify those whom he has alluded 
 to for their want of zeal in behalf-of the Bible Society ? In what corner 
 of its archives shall we search for documents in proof of his exploits? 
 What portion of its history is blazoned with the feats of his intellec- 
 tual and moral prowess, in securing for it either extension or stability ? 
 At what stage of its career shall we erect a monument for commemo- 
 rating the pecuniary largesses by which he enriched its. coffers, and 
 amplified its means of doing good? Will any person, learned in these 
 things, have the kindness to point out the slightest token of Mr. 
 Grey’s superiority in this respect to the men whom he has: deemed 
 himself privileged to revile, as having been apathetic friends, if nat 
 decided enemies to the Bible Society, from the time. of its» establish- 
 ment down to the year 1825? That he recited some orations and 
 preached some sermons we will readily admit: ‘but what. of) the 
 money? There is a great attraction between some’ people's (mo- 
 ney and their pockets,—hardly to be overcome even by the: sup- 
 plications of suffering humanity for a Bible or for bread. »And at 
 is a very extraordinary circumstance, that Mr. Grey’s subscriptions to 
 the Bible Society have not been so great or so regular as those of the 
 men whom he affects to treat with contempt.. He came to Edinburgh 
 in 1813, and we do not see his name in the list of subscribers to the 
 Bible Society till the year 1823, and then it has nothing more ap- 
 pended to it than the despised and worthless guinea, without even am 
 apology for arrears. We know not, indeed, what he may have been 
 communicating in seeret; his right hand may have been giving, and 
 
Review of Angiicanus’ Letters. 41 
 
 1828, 
 | his left hand kept ignorant of the deed ; silently and unostentatiously 
 ay the work of his charity have been going on; it does not follow 
 et he has been idle or niggardly because we have not witnessed the 
 | activities and overflowings of his benevolence. But if this be a candid 
 | construction for him of the blanks in the subscription list, why should 
 | we have been denied the advantage in the estimate that he formed of 
 | our contributions? And how comes it that the modesty of conceal- 
 ment should have ceased exactly in the year 1823, and been practised 
 | mo more? And why should such a pitiful demonstration have embold- 
 + the donor to depreciate all that was bestowed, and all that was 
 effected, in promoting the same object, by those individuals who had 
 | done a vast deal more, and never thought of despising any body’s mite? 
 | Nay, what crowns the absurdity, and exhibits in its full extent the in- 
 | fatuation of Mr. Grey’s conduct, is, that while Mr. Haldane, Mr. Ross, 
 _ and Dr. Thomson, and all their brethren and coadjutors have had no 
 _ additional impetus given to them by the controversy, in labouring for 
 | the Bible Society, (always making allowance for the extraordinary ef- 
 _ fort which an extraordinary exigency requires for the time) but are giv- 
 _ ing it just the same attention and support which it formerly received 
 | from them, the Rev. Henry Grey is discovered to have yielded so far to 
 ' the passion for strife and debate—to have been so intoxicated with the 
 vintage of “turmoil and dissension,” as to increase his Bible bounties 
 | im a marvellous degree: for, having chosen to desert our Committee, — 
 and to array an army against us, all, of course, from his utter dislike 
 to contest, it turns out that whereas he never in times past gave the 
 _ Bible Society more than a guinea a-year, and much oftener nothing at 
 all, he has now got his name down in the list of the Corresponding 
 Board for L.3, 3s. of donation and L.2, 2s. of annual subscription !! ! 
 _ If any one supposes that we must now have exhausted Mr. Grey's 
 vituperations, he is much misteken. There is a sickening number be- 
 hind, which must be noticed. It is a very irksome task to us ; it must 
 be a grievous tax on the patience of our readers. But we wish to settle 
 accounts with Anglicanus once for all ; to unfold his delinquency in all 
 its plenitude; to leave him without excuse and without escape; and 
 thus to give a death-blow to that hydra which has been brought forward 
 under the sanction of one of our Evangelical ministers, for the p 
 of upholding a system of corruption, and profaneness, and mendacity, 
 the most monstrous that modern times have witnessed. 
 _ Nobody will be surprised that Mr. Grey has expressed a very tho- 
 rough detestation of the Instructor. It,has been too zealous in exposing 
 the abuses of Earl Street, not to have earned as much of his ill-will*as 
 he could easily cherish or expend. Its editorship alone, indeed, must 
 have rendered it odious in his eyes, and accordingly he is continually 
 throwing darts at it as he moves along in his scandalous career. But it 
 has often withstood heavier metal than that of its present assailant ; and 
 is too strong, as he has doubtless felt already, to be very much annoyed 
 by him, whether he deals in mendacious railing, or in hurlo-thrumbo 
 phraseology. His new blunderbuss is not a whit more formidable than 
 the old one: it is only more over-loaded, and contains a greater collJec- 
 tion of rusty nails, vitreous fragments, and misshapen slugs ; and will, 
 therefore, prove more formidable by its explosion both to himself and 
 his trembling comrades. 
 But why should Mr. Grey lay himself open so wantonly tosevere and 
 just animadversions on every topic that he broaches? His propensity 
 VOL. XXVII. NO. I. in G 
 
42 Review of Anglicanus’ Letters. AN) 
 (is it one of his “ Anglican propensities ?”) to depart from the'trath is 
 as active here as in any other part of his lucubfations. Avfew examples 
 will be sufficient to‘expose him. wy Widi Beadyend ne did 
 Anglieanus, in page 26; is very violent against ‘the: Instructor’ ft 
 having instigated the opposition that prevails in Scotland to the London’ 
 Committee—no great crime surely, if the London Committee have’ be 
 trayed their trust—and would fain insinuate that it has taught them t 
 speak of “the miscreants in Earl Street, the raseals‘of the London 
 Committee,’—language which we never used, but which this gres 
 logician has found deducible from the preofs that we have given of 
 malversation and corraption among his pious friends in London. No 
 wonder that he is angry with us for being so cruel as toe publish’ 
 “ letters of the Kilwinning people,” whom, by the way, he has so m 
 of a moral sense remaining as to call “ honest’ Mr. Grey and 
 brother Secretaries must have been sorely troubled by the rebukes 
 testimonies which these letters contained, and as the Secretaries’ 
 had the advantage of a college breeding, and a theological educatio 
 they must have been “ cut to the heart” to be so schooled into sou 
 divinity, and the love of what is true and pure, by men whese com 
 nications, pithy, Scriptural, acute, and eloquent, needed some correct 
 (not so much after all) “in grammar and orthography.” Mr. Grey ha 
 the impudence to say that we “ respect the London Committee in 
 hearts.” We assure him, and we assure our readers, that we have no 
 respect for the “men of prayer’ in Earl Street ; that before they can 
 command that homage from us, they must change their ways; and 
 that there is no chance of such a feeling ever having a place in our 
 bosoms, if they have no better advocates to plead for them than Angli- 
 canus, who by his urging principles, and having recourse to practice 
 worse than any which we have laid to tlieir account,” * out-Herod’s 
 Herod,”—and is at pains to prove himself to’ be onthe Apocryphal 
 side, what he only alleges the Instructcr to be with’ respeet ‘to 
 Anti-apocryphal side, « the disgrace of their causé."* 9 9) 0 
 Anglicanus—no—Anglicana is pleased to assert, (page 7;) that “the 
 Instructor was handed in at an auspicious moment, and received under 
 the liberal patronage” of our last Annual Meeting)! “When will this _ 
 lady—we call her so merely in reference to her sex—learn to speak 
 truth? She was present, and knows well that’ no sueh occurrence 
 took place. The printed speeches were open to MriGrey, but wé 
 suppose he durst nut read them, or durst not contradict the female 
 . ‘LLSTHE, 190 94s 
 * In the passage of Anglicanus above referred to, he speaks of “ Scoticunus.” 
 This was a correspondent who replied to him. in the Mereury;demolishing his posi- 
 tions as he went along, and not leaving him a single.refuge in the argum 
 Knowing who he Is, and acquainted with the materials he possessed, we, thes “ 
 dently that had not the editor of the newspaper excluded. all farther cont ve 
 the subject, there would have been no occasion for any thing more in order to dis: 
 eomfit Anglicanus than the'republication of his Letters! © Anglicanus seemed to be 
 conscious of this; for he did not dare to encounter his antagonists; but’ went on in 
 his own mad, reckless style, asserting without proef, and declaiming without mea- 
 sure, and prosing without end. And now, when he condescends to allude to Scoii- 
 canus, all that he can say in answer to him is, that he is “ Instructor learned,” (so 
 much the better,) that he is ‘‘ crammed to the throat with the prejudices of his 
 locality,” (that is, he is prejudiced in favour of the pure Bible and of honest deal- 
 ing, ) and that he imagines ‘* himself a most unprejudiced and independent thinker,” 
 (superlatively so in comparison of the Borderer of “+ Anglican propensity,”) 
 
 if 
 
 6 
 
4828. Review of Anglicanus’ Letters. AS 
 
 authority which set them at nought, and so was compelled; honest man, 
 eave his sanction to a falsehood.* 
 
 , But the grand attack on the Instructor is made by our assailant 
 | under cover of Lord Roden. It was unnecessary for Mr. Grey to in- 
 ) sinuate his veneration for titled men. He carries himself, indeed, so 
 | loftily,and has such an afiinity of spirit for those who have coronets on 
 | their carriages, that one might suppose he had noble blood in his own 
 | weins, though somewhat vitiated by plebeian intermixture. But it is 
 | mather too much to make the authority of a peer conclusive against 
 | the merit of a magazine, especially as Mr. Henry Grey has no mandate 
 | from Lord Roden to express any opinion on the subject. Because Mr. 
 | Grey happened to be in Ireland, and to preach ene sermon twenty 
 | times, it is not to be inferred that he was made the depositary of all 
 | the sentiments entertained by the Irish peerage on religious periodicals. 
 | And yet he tells us, that Lord Roden “ would as soon engage in horse- 
 Facing, or any other pursuit he deems immoral, as in the regular perusal 
 of the Christian Instructor.” It is unfortunate for Anglicanus, that 
 in thuslauding the morality of Lord Roden, he brings into suspicion 
 and discredit the morality of Mr. Henry Grey. For it so happens that 
 _ Mr. Grey. is addicted to this immoral practice. We are quite aware 
 that he ceased to take the Instructor, choosing to. be offended when we 
 
 administered some wholesome chastisement to his brother Secretary, and 
 afew others of the Secession ministers, who had made an unjustifiable 
 
 attack onseur ecclesiastical establishment as it exists in the Highlands. 
 
 As indifferent to the church, whose bread nevertheless he daily con- 
 
 sumes, as he is unwilling to pay for what might come to him unbought, 
 
 he did. cease to be a subscriber for the Instructor. But he -has read. it 
 
 notwithstanding. And for a long while. back he has regularly had. a 
 
 borrowed perusal of its pages,—thus leaving us to infer, irom his own 
 
 showing, that he has not the aversion to immorality which he ascribes to 
 
 Lord Roden, and that. we may not be much astonished if we find him 
 
 entering horses and taking bets for the next. St. Leger’s stake at. New- 
 
 market! . Anglicana would probably take the first reading, that ‘she 
 might be the better able to direct his studies. And as for Anglicanum, 
 we know that he has been in the habit of glancing over our pages, and 
 then tearing from the Number all the discussions that it contained 
 of the Apocrypha question, lest it might be instrumental in making 
 ethers acquainted with the aberrations of Earl Street, and subduing 
 their “Anglican propensity” to circulate adulterated editions of the 
 
 Word of God. 
 
 _ Uhe Ediaburgh Bible Society, it might be expected; would not fail 
 to be spoken of by Anglicanus.in the rudest and most contemptuous 
 terms. It would not consent to adopt those horrid principles incul- 
 cated upon it by Mr. Grey, and by resisting him, declared its resolution 
 not to be under petticoat government. And no doubt it now suffers 
 all sort of reproach and ridicule, because it thus refused to be under 
 the ‘‘ monstrous regiment of women.” We need not add, that the loss 
 of this privilege is not much regretted by our Society, seeing how little 
 respectability and success it has imparted to the Corresponding Board. 
 
 The Committee could not look for better treatment than its constitu- 
 
 ome Jt was still more incorrectly stated in the Letter as it appeared in the Mercury 
 Newspaper ; for there it was affirmed, that Dr. homson had said’ of the 
 
 Instruc- 
 tor, that it had not. * one line which, dying, he would wish to blut.” ; 
 
44 Review of Anglicanus’ Letters. 4 
 
 ents have received from the tripartite coalition. . It consists of ti 
 «« old, querulous, impracticable associates” of the London Committee 
 and resembles “ those assassins who had bound themselves under a vo 
 not to eat or drink till they had killed Paul;” and, in short, is very 
 bad and intolerable, since it lost the services of Mr. Henry Grey, am 
 became obstinately distrustful of the faithless junte in Earl Street. 
 And the Annual Meeting, not having felt the awful and controlling 
 influence of Anglicana’s presence, but feeling and giving expression & 
 its feelings as if she had been a hundred miles “over the border,” ré& 
 ‘ceives some of her worst Billingsgate. This meeting, she says, “did 
 not seem more scrupulous than Dr. T.” whom she had just robbed an 
 obscene play to apostrophise with these words, ‘‘ Thou Lyar of the 
 first magnitude ;’—it was a “« crowd of ruffers and railers”—it betrayet 
 _*¢ intemperate idolatry of an individual”—it “ clamorously triumphed 
 it “* boisterously rejoiced” in <<‘ the course of wilful and habitual sin, 
 falsehood, and dissimulation” of which the London Committee were 
 thought to have been convicted—it was “ far behind in just moral 
 feeling and civilization,” even though it had, heen'made up of the 
 Christian population of this enlightened metropolis,”—which, however, 
 this polite and.charitable stranger Englishwoman appears to consider as 
 very doubtful, probably because it had not such men as Mr. Henry 
 Grey, and others of the same stamp, to grace the platform, and to ur- 
 -nish an antidote to its. “fudge smiles, ready raptures, and vive le rots.” 
 Really. it is a consolation to find that the Society, the Committee, and 
 the Meeting, have provoked the unmeasured abuse of this devotee te 
 Earl Street. Her principles and predilections are such as to make he 
 praises alarming. _ It is only when she censures and condemns us tha 
 we can think ourselves in.a right way. And, therefore, we may take 
 comfort and encouragement from those hostile rhapsodies with whieh 
 she attacks us, and from the assurance that the more bitterly and ex. 
 travagantly she rails, so much the wiser are our measures, and so much 
 the purer our attachments. . AR GS ie ae 
 ‘It has been very long the custom of the clerical members of the Pre; 
 bytery of Edinburgh,—this indeed is the case with all the Presbyterie 
 in the kingdom,—to dine together, after the business of the day is over. 
 It is not easy to conceive a meeting of the kind less liable to objection 
 on any ground whatever. Indeed we have always considered it as 4 
 model for regularity and kindliness. And we could not have thought © 
 it possible for the must reckless writer to bring it forward as the object 
 of censure or of satire. And yet it is thus that Anglicanus speaks of 
 it; “ At their convivial meeting, called the Presbytery dinner, where 
 attendance is entirely voluntary, it is not an unusual thing for the lead- 
 ing men of the confronting parties, to bandy complimentary expressions 
 of esteem, professing that, however they may differ in debate, there is 
 no society more blessed than theirs, in the unfeigned cordiality and cons 
 fiding good-will prevalent among its members.” | This is a piece of im= 
 pertinence which no real English gentleman would have committed. 
 But as proceeding from the Rev. Mr. Grey, it is truly mean and idetest~ 
 able. Mr. Grey is himself a member of the Presbytery—he does him- 
 self attend the “convivial meeting’—and we can say for him, that so 
 far as the eating and drinking is concerned, he plays his part to admi- 
 ration. But what he affirms about ‘‘ the leaders of the confronting par- 
 ties bandying complimentary expressions of esteem,” we declare to be a 
 shameless falsehood. It is a thing understood, that these questions of — 
 
1828. Review of Anglicanus’ Letters. 45 
 
 ecclesiastical polity which divide us in the Church Courts, shall not be 
 introduced, so that not only an occasion of contending may be prevent- 
 “ed, but that the asperities which may have been produced by previous 
 “debate, may be smoothed down by the gentler collisions of social and bro- 
 ‘therly intercourse. But when Mr. Grey talks of the bandying of such 
 | compliments as he alludes to, he says what is a mere figment of his own 
 ! brain—what he never witnessed—and what every other member of 
 Presbytery, on the one side and on the other, will flatly contradict. 
 | We need not stop to consider the folly of inferring, that because men of 
 different sentiments in church government compliment one another at a 
 “ convivial meeting,” there can be no evil in employing Apocryphists 
 | and infidels as our accredited agents in circulating the pure word of 
 | God. This is too silly even for Mr. Grey, and demonstrates nothing 
 | but stupid perversity. But we cannot help wondering that he could 
 | bring “himself thus to malign his brethren, who, on the occasions allud- 
 “ed to, have always treated him with respect and kindness, to act the 
 | 'treachtrous part of not merely exposing such failings as might have oc- 
 -“curred—that would have been bad enough—but of inventing an inju- 
 _ Fidus’réproach against them, because he thought it served the purpose 
 “Gn hand,’ and of ‘telling his lying tale in a tone of sneering contemptu- 
 | Wtisness, which would have been insolent in any case, and in the present 
 ease is rendered incalculably worse by the relation in which he stands 
 _ to those, whom he so indecently attempts to ridicule. We wonder at 
 “this, but we wonder still more that, after his responsibility for the Let- 
 ers of Anglicanus was proclaimed and known, he had the hardihood to 
 come and take his place at the dinner table of the Presbytery, concern- 
 ‘ing whiéh he had just published a groundless calumny. And our won- 
 der will be at its height, if, after this exposure of his unworthiness, he 
 shall again venture into a company whose character he is so little capable 
 ‘of’ appreciating, and whose freedom and comfort must be impaired by 
 ‘the consciousness that their very words are watched by an ungenerous 
 rare: will take the first opportunity of misrepresenting them to the 
 ca an, Rv dike gpg iran ei 
 ~ Aware of the great laxity of Mr. Grey’s principles, we were not much 
 “at aa to find him inimical to the Presbytery, the General Assembly, 
 ‘andthe Established Church of Scotland. At the same time, so fearful 
 is he of forfeiting any of the emoluments which he enjoys as one of our 
 ministers, or of lying under the odium of acting a double and uncon- 
 ‘scientious part, by regularly drawing his stipend, and yet disbelieving 
 and‘dénying the soundness of that polity, from his sworn adherence to 
 which he derives his right to it, that he durst not have announced that 
 he; the Rev. Henry Grey, minister of St. Mary’s, held our church go- 
 vernment to be so ill founded and so corrupt, that no good man could 
 femain in it. But this is exactly the predicament into which he has 
 brought himself by the loose and senseless dogmatism which he has pro- 
 pounded on the subjects in question, whether it has emanated directly 
 from his own pen, or whether he has adopted it from some ill-instructed 
 pretender to knowledge and Christianity. 
 ~ Tt will not do to tell us, in explanation or in apology, that he is 
 merely censuring the abuse of what is intrinsically and constitutionally 
 good—that he is only lamenting a degeneracy from original rectitude 
 and purity—that he is doing nothing more than reprobating the man 
 who makes that a field of unholy contest which is in its own nature 
 and purposé calculated tu Le a scene ‘of harmony and peace. ‘Had’ he 
 
46 Review of Anglicanus’ Letterse+ JAN, 
 
 only done this, we should not have had much to complain of: though 
 even on this limited view, he has so overcharged the pieture which he 
 has drawn, as to indicate his deep-rooted hatred of a system, whose ac- 
 cidental errors he would be thought as desirous to remedy, as he is 
 eager to condemn ; for had he only recollected the discussions and pro- 
 ceedings of that very Assembly in which he last sat as a member, he 
 could not have said, without uttering a conscious untruth, that * every 
 reference to the word of God, or indeéd to the substantial merits of 
 the cases under review, is sedulously guarded against, for reasons better 
 understood, perhaps, than explained, betwixt the contending parties He 
 and it must have occurred to him, that the real merits of the different 
 questions discussed, were gone into with much care, and that references 
 to the word of God were frequent, solemn, and appropriate—always ex- 
 cepting his own one speech, which quoted the authority of Knox, Cal- 
 vin, and Lord Bacon, but never appealed at all to that of Jesus Christ 
 or any of his Apostles! But he has stated such objections to our church, 
 and made such animadversions on her courts, as to show that he does 
 not believe her to rest upon a scriptural foundation. His plea, that 
 Dr. Gordon, who condemns the practice of associating with Apocrypha! 
 
 and Infidel Societies in the work of Bible distribution, should leave the 
 establishment in which corruption exists, though’a very stupid plea, 
 and borrowed from a Newspaper or Herald seribbler, (we forget whichy 
 
 may be excused as an argumentum ad hominem,—the best argument, in- 
 deed, which Anglicanus could devise. While that, however, has ‘no 
 bearing on the essential point of controversy, and may be returned with 
 tremendous force on the most zeslous of the Corresponding Board, Mr. 
 
 Grey has contrived to mix up with this personal hit, such observations 
 
 and statements, as to render his secession as imperative on himself, as 
 
 it must be desirable to all admirers of consistency. He not only rails. 
 at existing abuses, but he represents them as so bad and so inyeterate, 
 that no man of principle can remain attached to the system in which 
 they are found. And he holds such language as could have been used 
 by those only who regard that system not merely as vitiated in practice, 
 but as radically erroneous, unchristian, and indefensible. The inference 
 from this is obvious and isresistible. He may attack particular mea; 
 sures, or he may attack particular assemblies, and be either right er 
 wrong in doing so, without trenching on the grounds of that atiachment 
 
 to the church which he vowed at his ordination. But it is not so when 
 
 he levels his anathemas against the church herself, and lends himself to 
 her disparagement and subversion, as he has too plainly done in various 
 passages of his Letters, (see particularly pp. 10, 68, 69.) Unless he re- 
 tracts much of what he has there advanced, he cannot, asa man of prin- 
 
 ciple and honour, continue to be a mimister of our ecclesiastical esta- 
 blishment. He is a traitor to the cause which he solemnly pledg- 
 ed himself to maintain. He is eating of the bread that was given 
 him for the purpose of upholding that which yet he laboprs tooverturn and 
 destroy. And if after this he persists in remaining within our pale, he 
 gives a demonstration that he is much more ready to devour the loaves 
 and fishes of his benefice, than to observe the conditions on which alone he 
 can honestly enjoy them. This argument does not affect the adherence of 
 Dr. Gordon, who does not admit its applicability or its foree. But it is 
 conclusive with respect to himself ; he holds the Church of Scotland to be 
 
 fundamentally wrong ; and by necessity he must resign his place in it, 
 if he would preserve his character as a man of conscience and integrity. 
 
1828. Review of Anglicanus Leliers. AT 
 
 Mr. Grey represents the ‘“ ministers of religion in Scotland as so 
 marvellously doing their duty, that the very children of their flocks 
 could teach the divines of other countries theirs with regard to the 
 Apocrypha” ‘This sneer at his fathers and his brethren is not very 
 decorous ; but it betrays the insolence of the woman whorules him ; and 
 really we esteem it a compliment, though she meant it not, to the fide- 
 lity of our pastors in town and country, who have stood by the word of 
 God in the midst of its perils from open enemies and from “ false 
 brethren,” and instead of becoming. partakers of the sin of those who 
 have polluted the fountain of living waters—have resisted that un- 
 hallowed act, and, like faithful watchmen, have sounded the alarm 
 throughout the length and breadth of our land. It is greatly to their 
 praise, if they have made the very youth under their care aware of the 
 sin and mischief of mixing the doctrines of God with the fancies and 
 commandments of men, and still more to their henour if they have in- 
 structed that interesting portion of their charge so well as to qualify 
 them for teaching older men the lessons of duty and of truth. We hope 
 that Mr. Grey will not think himself too learned to receive admonition 
 from them on this topic, about which he has shown himself at least 
 ignorant and heretical. Whatever benefit he may reap from his juven- 
 ile teachers, whose schools we are supposing him to attend, perhaps he 
 and Anglicana may know who they are that tutor their children to say 
 everywhere that «* Dr. Thomson is an enemy to all good men.” 
 
 It is very natural for Mr. Grey to despise the “ scientific theologians 
 of the north.” He himself being without either science or theology, 
 cannot have a strong fellow-feeling with men who are possessed of 
 both. And when he thinks of their being distinguished by attain- 
 ments which he can never hope to reach, and observes, moreover, that 
 they do not sympathise with him in his Apocrypha and Koran propen- 
 sities, it is not wonderful that he should rave about them as follows: 
 They “ naturally think it too much to expect of them to break down 
 their well-consolidated systems, to get them to amalgamate with those 
 of foreigners, or even that they should trouble themselves to inquire 
 whether their differences class among the invincible things of truth 
 and a guod conscience, or only among the accidental modifications by 
 which time and custom fortify all established opinions.” If this means 
 any thing, it means that our theologians do wrong in not conforming 
 to the Neologists of Germany and France, and surrendering our stupid 
 prejudices respecting the purity of the Bible to their enlightened and 
 liberal views of the superiority of reason to revelation. ay 
 _, Anglicanus hates every thing Scottish. He tries to hold up the 
 Highlanders to ridicule, under the name of “ Gaels, our neighbours 
 and relations.” He grudges them, the pocket Bible, for no other rea- 
 sonevidently than this, that.it is provided for them by the Edinburgh 
 Bible Society, and not by his friends in Earl Street. He talks of the 
 ‘« type” being “‘ minute,” as if nine-tenths of the Bibles used in the - 
 
 owlands were not in a type as small, and as if it were not necessary 
 for the type to be of this size, in order to get the book in that form, 
 which is found to be so universally acceptable and convenient. And 
 he laughs outright at the idea of the Highlanders needing spectacles, 
 —an exquisite joke to come from a purblind pastor,—and of a grant 
 being made to them of that very useful auxiliary to the sight. What 
 a pity that he did not borrow from his friend Mr. Campbell, who is 
 amazingly rich on this subject, the hypothesis of the Highlanders hav- 
 
48 Review of Anglicanus’ Letiers: Jan 
 
 ing smoky huts, and, therefore, sore eyes; which, of course, can 
 benelited by no book that is not printed in canon type! Does 
 Henry Grey really imagine that he is prometing the cause of religion 
 in this country by making our Highland population the butt of nis 
 silly taunts, and by scoffing at those who are consulting their spiritua 
 interests, in providing them with the Word of Life in a more porta 
 ble size, and in greater abundance, than they have yet enjoyed the 
 gift? Is this in the spirit of an evangelical Englishman? Is it ac 
 cordant with the professions of any Christian whatever? Proh pus 
 
 dor ! ( 
 Our Missionary character is vehemently assailed. Just let on 
 readers peruse, if they have patience for it, the following piece 
 idiocy : % e ‘a 
 «‘ So Scotland seemed to have imparted, with the Bible Society, a glow of a 
 vital communicative heat that is not to be counted among her constitutional qua 
 ties—to be inoculated at last with the spirit of missionary enterprise, so appropriates 
 ly a duty, and so becoming an expression of gratitude on the part of churches, that 
 have long enjoyed rest from persecution, with a pure dispensation of the gospel. 
 But the thing has not taken effect—faith is wanting—diflidence and mistrust ar 
 put in the room of faith and confidence. Scotland has produced mriseinaista, halt 
 have proved successful under the auspices of the societies of other countries, and af 
 ter being swnned in the south ; but when home is their starting’ place, observation 
 leads me to the conclusion, that they go out, for the most part, shackled to the 
 work. True Christian enthusiasm, which is the soul of enterprise, and the suste- 
 nance of persevering labour, is repressed and disowned in the scene where they de- 
 rived their principles, and formed their attachments. The public are mistrustful of 
 the objects which they undertake; the directors of institutions, of the agents they 
 employ ; the agents, of the instruments by which their work is to be accomplishedé 
 6 The carpenter encourages not the goldsmith, nor he that smootheth with the hammer him 
 that smote the anvil.’ Shey are content to succeed, willing to let God bless his 
 work, and fairly wish each other success in their different departments; but it is 
 scarcely made a home concern with any of the parties—expectation lays its bet on 
 the wrong side, and disappointment is not great where hope was hardly put im 
 exercise.” i ) Riaelt! Sars 
 We have called this a piece of idiocey—perhaps we.should rather call 
 it a series of deliberate falsehoods, told for the purpose of manifestin: z 
 the writer's abhorrence of the country which gives bread to himself, his 
 wife, and his children, but on which he pours his dastardly libels, be- 
 cause it will not also feed his consummate vanity, and become the vic- 
 tim of his Apocryphal prejudices. Is not Mr. Grey aware that the 
 Missionary Societies of Scotland, as well as those of England, existed 
 long, long before the British and Foreign Bible Society was thought 
 of, and that therefore he blunders when he speaks of the Bible So- 
 ciety as having originated the spirit of missionary enterprise? Is 
 he not aware, that while both the Glasgow and Edinburgh Mission- 
 ary Societies were in operation—the former seven, the latter eight 
 feo, eo the Bible Society was formed, the Church of Scotland 
 as instituted a mission for itself, while the Church of England has 
 not even projected such a thing ? Is he not aware, that some of 
 the great originators, promoters, and supporters of Missionary Societies 
 in England were Scotchmen by birth, Scotchmen in education, Seotch- 
 men in spirit, Scotchmen in invincible attachment te their native coun- 
 try, Scotchmen out and out even to their dying day? Is he not aware 
 that when he talks of a “ want of faith” and ot “ true Christian enthu- 
 siasm,” he talks fables and nonsense, conjuring up evils which have no 
 more existence and no greater influence here than at Morpeth, and throw- 
 
1825. Review of Anglicanus’ Lellers. 49 
 ing out vague assertions which he does not even attempt to prove? Is 
 he not aware that Scotland has produced missionaries, and that she is at 
 this moment employing missionaries, able, zealous, persevering, and suc- 
 a in various departments of the heathen world? Is he not aware 
 at many of the missionaries who do the work of the English Societies 
 abroad are Scotchmen, who were chosen by these societies because they 
 ‘were willing to spend and be spent in the service of Christ wherever they 
 might be sent, and who owed nothing of their essential qualifications, 
 their Christian principles, their native energy, their intellectual talent, 
 their compassion to perishing souls, their devotedness to the cause of 
 the gospel, to the boasted process of sunning in the south? Is he not- 
 aware that when Scotch missionaries start from their native country, 
 he says what is untrue when he attirms that they are “ shackled,” not . 
 ‘one of them being so much restricted in their movements as those of. 
 the Church Missionary Society, or more. restricted than those of the: 
 London, and Baptist, and Methodist Missionary Societies? Is he not 
 aware that the public, so far from being “ mistrustful of the objects 
 which they undertake,” have so much confidence in them as not only to 
 contribute liberally and regularly for their support, but also to give te- 
 those marauders who come down annually from Anglicanus’ “ beloved 
 country” to fleece the poor, cold-hearted, close-fisted Scotch of their: 
 money, for purposes to which Mr. Grey would have us to believe the 
 Scotch have no liking or no devotedness? Is he not aware that he 
 himself is a Director of the Scottish Missionary Society, and that he 
 never expresses any mistrust of the agents employed by that Institu- 
 tion, and that he never hears the other members express any such sen- 
 timent, except where a specific case occurs to call for and to justify it, 
 when it. would even be experienced by the generous bosoms, and. con= 
 fessed: by the open mouths, that feel and speak so much in the sunny 
 south? Is he not aware that he cannot cundescend upon a single in-' 
 stance in which the agents are mistrustfui of the instruments by which 
 their work’ is to be accomplished ; but that, on the contrary, they have 
 the greatest confidence that by the divine blessing the preaching of the 
 true Evangel, and the reading of the pure Bible—not the preaching of 
 a: Neological Evangel, nor the reading of an adulterated Bible, of which | 
 Mr. Grey it seems has no ‘“ mistrust,’—will prove efficacious for the’ 
 conversion and salvation of those among whom they are appointed to” 
 labour?» In short, is not he aware that in uttering those opinions and 
 statements ‘to which we-have been adverting, he has been indulging 
 himself ‘in misrepresentations, by which every wise and every holy 
 man among us must be deeply offended ; and-that-in his ambition to 
 get up*a few well-turned periods, and to play off his hostilities against’ 
 the very community that-nourishes him, he has “‘ made shipwreck of © 
 faith anda good conscience?” ~ G / 
 Mr. Grey shows ‘mercy neither to the living nor to the dead, pro-~ 
 vided: only they have the original sin of being Scotch. The very Mar- 
 tyrs, to whose Christian heroism we owe much of that freedom, and 
 many of those privileges in which we now rejoice as a cherished birth- 
 right, whose memories are dear to every man who is capable of appre- 
 ciating high principle, patient endurance, holy and unconquerable faith, 
 and by whese humble graves the soil of our country is consecrated and 
 hallowed,—these very Martyrs he has tried to rob of their peculiar ho- 
 nour, and to lower im the ¢stimation of the people for whose liberties 
 VOL. XXVII. NO. I. H 
 
50 Review of Anglicanus’ Leiters. JAN. 
 
 they fought and died. He might haye spared us this outrage at le 
 on our feelings, when he had so many other topics on which to layi 
 his malice and his vituperations,—though, when we think of the Ma 
 tyrs, and when we look to him, we need not be afraid of the permane 
 cy of their fame. Their exploits of piety and patriotism will be re= 
 membered with admiration, long after all that he is and all that he hag” 
 done have been shrouded in the mantle of oblivion. But this cannot 
 diminish the worthlessness of his attempt to detract from their merit, and 
 to blast their dearly purchased reputation. Even if he had been at once 
 a native and a resident of England, it was in miserable taste to make the 
 Apocrypha dispute an occasion of heaping insult on those ancestors, 
 whom we venerate for their noble services in the cause of truth and 
 independence. But it is intolerable that this should be done by one 
 who, like Mr. Grey, has voluntarily migrated into our land, has been’ 
 received into the bosom of our church, has sworn allegiance to that 
 polity for which our Martyrs. struggled so nobly, and at the very mo- 
 ment that he publishes the calumny, is eating the pleasant fruits of that 
 plant of renown which these very Martyrs rooted with their own 
 hand, and watered with their own blood. He represents them as men’ 
 «© who, mistaken as to a part of the work that God required of them, 
 and ruffled internally by strife of inharmonious cares, fell sometimes 
 like Homer’s heroes rather than Christ’s confessors, prophesying the 
 day of retribution, and denouncing judgments against the oppressors, 
 whose injuries, they well knew, entitled them, on New Testament 
 principles, to the requital of their prayers.” O, it is easy for those 
 whom their forefathers have left nothing to fear, and nothing to suffer 
 from the oppressor’s arm—for whom the battle has been won, and the 
 yoke breken, and the blessing secured— and to whom has descended the 
 privilege of living secure, and dying in peace ;—it is easy for those who 
 are thus circumstanced, to talk of the failings and aberrations that oc- 
 casionally mingled with the virtuous achievements by which this great 
 deliverance was wrought out, and to please themselves with applying 
 to them the standard of their own speculative morality, and illustrating 
 them with a careless mixture of Christian and classical allusion, 
 But O it is base—base beyond calculation, and base beyond endurance, 
 thus to requite the doings and the sufferings of those ancient worthies, 
 who, at the expense of life itself, asserted for themselves and their 
 posterity that precious freedom without which all other possessions are 
 poor and unsatisfying, and thus entailed upon us a debt of gratitude 
 which we can neither estimate nor cancel. Of this baseness we accuse 
 Mr. Grey. And we must tell him, that before he can be entitled to 
 speak of the Covenanters, he must not only have more correct know= 
 ledge of their character and their history than what he has yet acquired, 
 but a deeper sense of the value of those benefits which they bequeathed 
 to the country and to the church which they sacrificed so much 
 to save, and a heart more pervaded by that sympathy which enters’ 
 thoroughly inte all the difficulties, and temptations, and sorrows of 
 the persecuted and oppressed. Nor can we help declaring our con- 
 viction, that had not these holy and faithful men whom he has calum- 
 niated been characterised by that rigorous strictness of principle, that’ 
 unquenchable zeal for truth, that constant appeal “ to the law and to 
 the testimony,” that determined opposition to all the attempts which 
 were made to engraft upon the lessons and appointments of God's 
 
lf 
 
 } 1828. - Review of Anglicanus’ Letters. 51 
 
 Word the traditions and the fancies of erring men, to which the laxity 
 ' and compromising system of the London Committee and their adherents 
 | forms such a melancholy contrast, we should have had no opportunity of 
 | reprobating his endeavour to stigmatise the Martyrs and Confessors of 
 | the Scottish-Church. 
 _ Anglicanus seems to have a deadly hatred at the newspaper press of 
 Scotland. «Scotch newspapers, to be sure,” says he, “have nothing 
 _ to do with being original; they do not guide, but follow the multitude— 
 
 : ‘In duty bound, as all the Jearned think, 
 To uphold the cause by which they eat and drink.’ 
 
 _ Yet they know that in this instance it is not the sentiment of the many 
 _somuch as the tyranny of the few that compels them, while giving pub= 
  licity to the most impudent and violent things on the one side, to shun, 
 under the alarming name of controversy, all that is written on the 
 other.” The Scotch newspapers can defend their ewn honour; yet we 
 must be allowed to say, that Mr. Grey and his fellow-libellers are as far 
 wrong in this as in other points. By being original, Mr. Grey evidently 
 Means stating as facts what are not facts, and propounding doctrines 
 which the author of them believes to be unfounded at the very moment 
 that he givesthem out. This is the sort of or7g¢nality which Anglicanus 
 desiderates, and of which he gives such a beautiful example in his 
 *« Seven Letters.” No doubt their editors must eat and drink like other 
 men, and they must live by their vocation’; but they are not bound, 
 like Mr. Grey, to adhere to a certain formula, as the condition of their 
 drawing that income which supports them, and if they should occasion= 
 ally say what is not agreeable to the Edinburgh Bible Committee, or to 
 the Corresponding Board, they are not liable to the imputation of com- 
 mitting perjury, or breaking a solemn vow, which that man certainly 
 does, who labours openly—or if covertly so much the worse—for “ the 
 prejudice and subversion” of the establishment which maintains him, 
 and which he has sworn to defend. The Scotch newspapers both guide 
 and follow the multitude ; and why should not they? But does Mr. 
 Grey mean to say that the editor of a newspaper should thwart, and 
 eontradict, and mislead the people, when they are right, as well as take 
 charge of their opinions when they are going wrong?) When he talks 
 of the tyranny of the few as compelling the Scotch newspapers to act 
 80 offensively to his feelings, he affirms what he not only cannot substan- 
 tiate, but what he knows to be altogether a fiction of his own. If they 
 have been under influence at all, never was there a case in which 
 “ the sentiment of the many” was so loudly and unequivocally ex- 
 pressed, and never was there a case in which they might more safely 
 and legitimately obey the voice of the country—for it is a case in 
 which the country has united against Bible adulteration, and. faith- 
 less, dishonest management. But does not the stupid libeller perceive, 
 that it is the many, and not the few, by whose patronage the editors 
 of the Scotch newspapers must be enabled to “ eat and drink?” And 
 how then can his one charge be reconciled with the other? But 
 consistency is a virtue which this heterogeneous Englishman never 
 seems to aim at, and never even by accident acquires. We do not 
 know, after all, what he alludes to when he speaks of the “ newspa- 
 pers of Scotland giving publicity to the most impudent and violent things 
 on the one side, and shunning, under the alarming name of controversy, 
 all that is written on the other.” The “ most impudent and violent 
 
52 Review of Anglicanus’ Letters. Jam. 
 
 things” on the subject of dispute, so far as we have seen, have appeared on 
 the Apocryphal side. For example, in the “ Aberdeen Journal,” amo1 
 other scurrilities, it is gravely asserted that the sole object of Dr. Thom- 
 son’s outcry against the extravagance of the London Committee is to 
 secure for himself a handsome salary, for give the cur his bone, they 
 say, and he will cease barking! Where will Anglicanus find a ae 
 for this combination of impudence and violence, not to say nonsense, on 
 the opposite side of the question, in any newspaper in the kingdom? 
 But perhaps Mr. Grey refers to what appeared in the Scotsman some 
 time ago, respecting what Mr. Percival White said in a meeting of the 
 London Committee. And did the Scotsman refuse to give a place to the 
 letter which Mr. Grey received from Mr. White, assuring him that the 
 statement was quite correct? Answer that question, Mr. Grey, if you 
 wish to be candid and upright in this matter. But really, if the Let- 
 ters of Anglicanus” are to be considered as a specimen of what has been 
 sent to the Scotch papers for insertion, in favour of the worthies in Earl 
 Street, who can be so-unreasonable as to blame the editors for rejecting 
 such trash? Their character for mental sanity, as well as their pecuni- 
 ary interest; would have been put in the greatest jeopardy. And surely 
 there is no reason for any man exposing himself to the charge’of mad= 
 ness, or to an action of damages, in order to gratify the malignity of Mr. 
 Henry Grey, or even to prop up the credit of Dr. Pinkerton, and Mr. 
 Zachary Macaulay. ‘The editor of the Mercury found room for some — 
 of the letters of Anglicanus. Even these he was under the necessity of — 
 pruning, by cutting out the “‘ most impudent and violent things’ that 
 ever were put upon paper ; and such was the torrent.of abuse that con-_ 
 tinued to pour in upon his pages and his readers from the same pen, 
 that he felt himself constrained to put an interdict on any further com-_ 
 munications. But no matter: the newspapers which decline being the — 
 channel of Mr. Grey’s ribaldry and slanders are Scotch, and ther¢fore 
 they must be held up as base and contemptible publications. : 
 Anglicanus abhors Scotland altogether. In this country we have so 
 little love to the Scriptures, and so little desire to circulate them, that 
 the Bible Society has exercised nothing more than a “ cold derivative 
 influence” among us. (p. 59.) We in ‘“* the North” have ‘iron bosoms” 
 to which “ the people of England have gladly resigned the gift to stig- 
 matise the noble and vilify the good,—to repay distinguished services, 
 as Carthaginians did their generals in the despairing days of their re- 
 public, by recalling them, if a battle was lost, fo be crucified, or if won, 
 to give an account of the spoil.” (p. 63.) << Self righteousness among the 
 religious, veiled under a nationality of character that gives it populari< 
 ty, is the order of the day.” (p. 73.) ‘ Instead of the old topies of Sab- 
 bath decency, high intellectual endowments, and superior education of 
 the lower orders, in which our politeness was wont to be put in requisi- 
 tion in visiting the north,” &c. (p. 73, 74.) “ As well might Scotland 
 pretend, in her forty-tive close-borough representatives, and peerage of 
 sixteen nominees ot the crown, to give an exhibition of the British con- 
 stitution”—as give birth, or form a counterpart to the Bible Society. 
 «« She derives wealth, dignity, liberty, and in some degree enlargement 
 and liberality of sentiment from her association with that polity, to 
 which she hangs appended as a dead weight, but whatever return she 
 makes for these advantages, it is certain the composition is not given in 
 kind.” (p. 73 or 75.) After referring to the conduct of the Secession 
 churches towards Mr Whitfield nearly a hundred years ago,. for which 
 
7828. Review of Anglicanus’ Letters. 53 
 they are called “zealous pietists,”* and to that of a “ little congrega- 
 
 : 
 they = ee: 
 tion of sober and zealous-minded Christians fifty miles off in the coun- 
 try,” who “applied, with all fervour and spiritual operation, in humili- 
 | ation and prayer,” for repairing or removing the evil which they 
 _ thought to exist in the oratorios performed some years ago in Edinburgh 
 —after referring to these, as he callsthem, “over-righteous and under- 
 ‘wise proceedings,” he makes them characteristic of the Scotch, and con- 
 ‘siders them as proving our ‘‘absoluteness of opinion, with exclusion of 
 all who differ from the privilege of judging”—of our “tenacity about 
 | monotonous correctness in practice, with our incapacity for discerning 
 ' the power of God in any thing that excels it’”—our “hopeless fastidi- 
 ‘ousness in the choice of means, with a masterful determination to be 
 _ ‘the conscience of the community, at the charge of all mistakes ; the 
 ensuring partner for every man’s fidelity, for every measure’s correctness 
 ‘and success.” (p. 75.) 
 + On these passages, the strain of which pervades the whole pamphlet, 
 ‘Many remarks suggest themselves to our minds. But we can only in- 
 _‘duige in a very few, as so much still remains to be noticed. So far 
 - from disclaiming nationality of feeling, we very cheerfully plead guilty 
 to the charge. Were it to make us blind to the faults or disadvantages 
 -which attach to the character and condition of Scotland, and still more, 
 were it to render us insensible to any portion of the greatness and ex- 
 ellence by which England is distinguished, we should so far account 
 it a vice, and deserve to be reproved for cherishing the sentiment. But 
 ‘our attachment to our native -country bas in it no such selfish partiali- 
 ‘ty, no such illiberal exclusiveness. Nor are we conscious of having 
 ‘either said or done any thing which a candid man would regard as, in 
 these respects, a ground of accusation. After all, however, we do con- 
 fess that we are national, so far as the term does not imply bigotry. 
 We are national by instinct ; we are national on principle ; we are na- 
 ‘tional from habit. And who is it that dares to reproach us for being 
 ‘thus what every man has been, with the sanction of God and nature, 
 from the beginning of the world until the present hour—whether he 
 Was a savage or a sage—whether he was a Jew, a heathen, or a Chris- 
 ‘tian—whether he was bond or free—whether ke dwelt in a “ land flow- 
 ing with milk and honey,” or inhabited the wilderness, and “ embraced 
 the rock for want of a shelter >” He who frowns upon such devotedness 
 _ to the land that gave us birth, and in which the ashes of our fathers re- 
 pose, and where we have formed our earliest friendships, and where we 
 ‘have learned to believe and pray and worship, and where have been 
 generated and nourished all our best, fondest, most sacred and delight- 
 ful associations,—may deem that he is under the influence ef an en- 
 larged philosophy, or that he is actuated by the free and unbounded 
 charity of the gospel. But philosophy and the gospel alike disown 
 him, as a recreant to what they unite in dictating to every under- 
 Standing and impressing on every heart. We avow this love of Scot- 
 land as our natal country. We ieel it as that which took pessession of 
 our minds before we could reason on the subject, and which has “ grown 
 with our growth, and strengthened with our strength.” We have cher- 
 
 i 
 
 < * The piety of the poor and of the persecuted is always spoken of with a sneer 
 by Anglicanus. Who would have believed that Mr. Grey could sanction such a 
 thing? But then some men will do under a mask what they would be afraid to do 
 . were their face to be seen. 
 3 
 
‘ “4 
 5a Review of Anglicanus’ Letters. Jax 
 ished it by the contemplation of those peculiar and high distinctions | 
 which render Scotland an object of respect and admiration to others, 
 it is an object of just and passionate endearment to ourselves. And of 
 all those features in her character, and of all those passages in her hi: 
 tory, by which she is recommended to our fond and filial regard, th 
 is none which operates more powerfully in strengthening and elevating 
 this affection in our souls, than the glorious struggle she has lately made 
 for preserving the purity and integrity of the word of God. For this 
 nationality, however, we have been made the butt of mockery and 
 scorn. And by whom? By Anglicanus,—by Mr. Grey, who can 
 scarcely write a paragraph without manifesting the same species of 
 attachment, which he attributes to us as a heinous crime, or a debasing 
 prejudice, and to whom it is imputable in that very form, and with 
 those very accompaniments, which convert it into a vice equally mea 
 offensive, and pernicious. With him, to be an Englishman is eve 
 thing that is great, and good, and happy. So much importance does 
 he attach to the simple circumstance of having a legal title to that ap- 
 pellation, that he boasts of it even though he drew his first breath no 
 farther south than Morpeth or its vicinage—though he had but a poor 
 life of it during his juvenile abode in that semi-Caledonian district— 
 and though he owes all the education, and prosperity, and comfort of his 
 maturer days, to the country on this side of the Tweed. Whatever is 
 English is perfect in his eyes. All excellence, religious, moral, politi-< — 
 cal, commercial, scientific—all excellence resides in that quarter, and 
 emanates from it. There is not a virtue, nor a shilling, in any part of — 
 the world, which, according to him, did not come from England. Take — 
 his word for it, and unless England willed it so, we should neither have 
 food for soul, nor food for body ; the sun would not shine upon us by 
 day, nor the moon and the stars by night ; our rivers would all run dry; 
 our fields would all become barren ; our cattle would all die ; and our 
 people would be all slaves or beggars. In short, if ever nationality was 
 a real, literal madness, it has been exemplified in that character by the 
 responsible author of these “ Seven Letters.” We should have allowed 
 him to bless himself for being an Englishman as much as he pleased, 
 and to have praised his country, and even the highly favoured spot of 
 his nativity, in terms as eulogistic and flattering as he could find in his — 
 own language. We might have thought him excessively foolish for in- 
 dulging so much in hyperbole ; still, however, if it gave much gratifica- 
 tion to himself, it would have excited neither pain nor displeasure in 
 us. But what apology can he offer for not being contented with the 
 privilege of applauding England, unless at the same time he takes li — 
 cence to underrate and vilify Scotland? Could he not rest satisfied 
 with proclaiming his love for the former, that he must also let it be 
 known how cordially and inveterately he hates the latter? Was the 
 measure of his joy not completed by his revelling amid the beauties 
 and glories of the one, till he had carefully contrasted with these the 
 deformities, and degradation, and misery of the other ? i 
 
 Ah! Mr. Grey, is it thus you requite the country which received 
 you into its bosom when you were a sort of outcast from your own na- 
 tive soil—whose schools and universities stored your mind with what- 
 ever knowledge and erudition you possess—whose church invested you 
 with the honours of the sacred office—whose ministers showed you the 
 affection and the confidence of brethren—whose patrons introduced you 
 to their best and richest benefices—whose congregations:cheered your 
 
1828, Review of Anglicanus’ Leiters. 55 
 
 f and animated your labours, by their crowded attendance and their 
 + hg testimonies—and whose whole population, as often as they 
 had opportunity, welcomed you under their hospitable roofs, and treat- 
 ed you with every token of sincere respect and Christian kindness? 
 You have experiencedall this; but it has not excited one emotion of good- 
 will or thankfulness in your breast. You have indeed “made a return 
 for these advantages, but it is certain the compensation has not been 
 given in kind.” You have made the return of base and black ingratitude 
 —of mean and malignant defamation. And “the more abundantly 
 ‘Scotland has loved you, the less it has been loved” by you, its adopted 
 son. The demerit of your conduct is aggravated by the causes in which 
 it originates. You abominate and traduce Scotland because she is so 
 illiberal as not to acquiesce in your views on the Apocrypha Controversy, 
 and give you the dominion and direction of her faith, that you may lead 
 her back to Earl Street—so illiberal as to feel no concern and indignation 
 when the Directors of a Bible Society adulterate that book which they 
 Greulate as the pure Word of God—so illiberal as not willingly to contide 
 in those who have been guilty of a course of fraudulent dealing, and are 
 too proud to acknowledge their offence—so illiberal as to shrink with 
 horror from alliances with Apocryphists, Neologians, and infidels, in 
 the work of disseminating the Oracles of Divine Truth—so illiberal as 
 to be displeased at wasteful and extravagant expenditure in those who 
 get their money, that it may be applied to the one great object of mul- 
 tiplying editions of the Scriptures, and diffusing them over the world. 
 These furnish the strongest reasons that a minister of the Gospel could 
 possibly have for being kindly affectioned, enthusiastically attached 
 to Scotland. And yet you make them the grounds of keen resent- 
 ment and deadly malevolence against her. Because she has been thus 
 jealous for the honour of God and of his Word, you have spoken of her 
 with unsparing obloquy, with sovereign contempt. You have ascribed 
 to her every thing that is odious in spirit, degenerate in character, 
 mean in circumstances. Her comparative indigence you have even 
 made a reproach. And to show how thoroughly you despise her, you 
 let us know that any worth or advantage she may be allowed to possess 
 is only borrowed from her wealthier, more enlightened, and more power- 
 ful neighbour. As Scotchmen, we can tell you, Sir, that you are no 
 longer worthy to tread upon our soil. Leave us ; we are well contented 
 to be without you, and without all that think and act as you do. Go 
 back to the blessed land which bore and cradled you. And if we follow 
 you with our reproaches, your conscience will say whether they are not 
 at least deserved. But we will not make these reproaches extend to 
 England herself ; she is a great and mighty kingdom. We shall say no- 
 thing against your countrymen ; they possess many qualities which 
 command our sympathy and admiration. We will not rail at the religion- 
 ists by whom the Bible Society is upheld ; they have been industriously 
 kept in ignorance by those whose duty it was to inform them, and have 
 aut walked according to their imperfect light. Our nationality will not 
 permit us to expatiate even on the faults which we see; it teaches us 
 to abhor the practice of exaggerating and inventing faults, that we may 
 have wherewithal to nourish our prejudices and sharpen our censures. 
 The only contrast we would draw is between the “rich” men of Earl 
 Street, who have profaned and corrupted the Word of God, and the 
 “‘ poor” men of the north, who have lifted their energetic and united 
 
56 Review of Anglicanus’ Letters. 
 testimony against that abomination, and against ‘those who have come | 
 mitted it. And as for yourself, the only evil we wish you is, that you | 
 may prove more grateful, and be more happy in England than, with al 
 the blessings that have been poured into your lot, you have contrived 1 
 be in Scotland. art ae 
 Of all the heartless passages in this heartless pamphlet, the follows | 
 ing may be considered ‘as in some respects the most deserving of cone | 
 demnation. t cA) is 2 
 
 But we are told that these views are gaining ground im the North of England 
 and that even from London some contributions have been received by the Edin- 
 burgh Society. And who are those English abettors of Edinburgh principles? | 
 Let us see. There is not, I will answer for it, a native’ Englishman amongst. | 
 them. Poor ministers the chief of them, of small Scottish congregations, sta- 
 tioned on the wrong side of the border, who sigh in obsequious fondness after 
 a church that has not cherished them with reciprocal attachment. Their | 
 highest conceptions of worldly glory and felicity do not surmount the dome | 
 of St. George’s. It would not do for them to slight what they consider 
 to be the road to preferment, or to set up for independence before the time 
 arrive when they, as others have done, may exchange the care of a little flock 
 at Berwick or Newcastle, for a‘ parochial charge’ with a benefice of L.1 
 per annum, in some obscure glen, or some dreary heath of their and Dr. Thom. 
 son's ‘ beloved country.’ Such individuals send their homage and their mite t¢ 
 the Ldinburgh Society. And of the tribe of needy adventurers who every year 
 migrate to the genial south, there are hur:dreds whose rank does not entitle them’ | 
 to forget, as their betters for the most part do, their presbyterian education and) | 
 early predilections, and whom sordid sentiments, vulgar manners, and oe eh 
 habits, preclude from the amiable circles of cultivated religious society. These do | 
 not for a long time change their sentiments or society with the scene of their exis- 
 tence. They continue to read and rail, for the sake of old times, with the Edin. | 
 burgh Instructor ; and if they have any thing to spare, to show their detestation of — 
 the men they do not know, and of ‘the affairs they do not understand, they send it — 
 north, to swell the coffers and the pride of the Edinburgh Bible Society. But such | 
 contributions, like picturesque scenery on other men’s estates, will do more to 
 gratify the taste than to extend the resources of the Society that; has the benefit 
 of them. 1 would not, however, by any means say that all Scottish ministers” 
 settled in the North of England, or that all poor laymen removing to London, are 
 of this character; only that in most cases there is a spirit of prejudice and cynical 
 discontent which leads men so situated to send money to Edinburgh, in preference ~ 
 to giving it where their more pious and Christianly-affectioned neighbours give 
 theirs. It is as easy to tell from what quarters the Edinburgh Society, as the Auxili- 
 ary in correspondence with the British and Foreign, will draw its support. Some, 
 it may be, cleave to it from Jove, and pure congeniality of feeling with its august 
 leaders—many from dread of the fearful drubbing that would attend them, were 
 they to venture to withdraw ; and a good many, perhaps the larger proportion, may 
 have credit for the cordial autipathy and ill-will they make a brag of, against men 
 who have been provokingly long signalized with the title of the Just.” TSS te 
 
 ; beg, 
 
 It is impossible to paint in sufficiently dark colours the ckgtenes of the 
 man who could be guilty of sucha wanton and unprovoked outrage as 
 is contained in this paragraph. We have never been doomed to peruse 
 any thing more cowardly, malignant, and base. And nothing eould 
 have prompted it but a spirit so, diabolical as to render him by whom 
 it is cherished an object of unqualified detestation and scorn. Two of 
 the gentlemen whom it so cruelly calumniates have resented the injury 
 in pamphlets* which we recommend to our readers, as eharacterised by 
 the manly indignation which they might have been expected to feel at 
 such an insult to themselves, their brethren, and their people, and by 
 
 *  Anglicanus Scotched,” by the Rev. Marcus Dods, of Belford, and “ A Letter 
 to the Rev. Henry Grey,” by the Rev. Charles Thomson of North Shields. 
 
(1828. Review of Anglicanus’ Letters. 57 
 
 far more intellect than their slanderer was ever able to bring into 
 any field of controversy or discussion on which he had the courage 
 toenter.. They have saved us the trouble of being so particular in 
 our remarks, as we should have otherwise found it necessary to be. 
 But still we cannot allow such a piece of insolence and pride to pass‘ 
 without bestowing upon it some tokens of a just reprobation. eat) 
 _ The whole offence which the objects of his vituperation have com- 
 mitted evidently consists in their having separated from the British and 
 Foreign Bible Society, and formed a society in connection with that. of 
 Edinburgh. Supposing them to have been as far wrong as we deem 
 them to have been right in taking this step, the crime surely was not so 
 heinous as to deserve that torrent of wrath with which it has been visited. 
 If they were so inconsiderable in number, and so poor in circumstances, 
 surely it would have been more becoming te pass them over in silent 
 contempt, than to level 2t them such an artillery of abuse. And, be~ 
 sides, how does this square with that indulgent sentence which occurs 
 in the preface to the ‘‘ Seven Letters,”’ and which is artfully affixed to 
 the advertisement of that vile production, in order to mislead the public 
 as toits real tone and temper?--a sentence in which, after sending through 
 the press all the abominations that pollute his seventy-five pages, Mr. 
 Grey, with matchless effrontery, says: <‘« All Bible Societies ought to 
 be the objects of our good will, and their usefulness more than their 
 unity. Let them sever if they will, but in a character worthy of them-: 
 selves ; let them part in peace, for any, or, since the change is agree- 
 able to them, for no specific reason ; but let them not contend acrimo-' 
 niously, and without end,” &c. The recently formed Society of New- 
 castle did part in peace, and for specificreasons. Their enemies in that 
 quarter attacked them with more talent than Anglicanus, but with 
 equal rudeness and violence ; and they were necessitated to repel. what 
 they felt to be both unjust and unmannerly. And here is the author 
 of the “Seven Letters,” in spite of the artful and hypoeritical pre- 
 tences of his preface, not making them the “ objects of good will,” but 
 frowning upon them with demoniacal hatred, and instead of merely de- 
 claiming against them for getting up a new institution, though that is 
 the cause of all his malignity, labouring, by the use of contemptuous 
 language and foul defamation, to wound their feelings, to blast their 
 pepertalstity, and to destroy their usefulness. 
 de sets out with a falsehood, and a reckless one; for, without any 
 means of ascertaining or knowing the fact, he ventures to assert that 
 “there is not a native Englishman among the abettors of Edinburgh 
 Bible Society principles in the north of England.” The truth is, that 
 the greatest proportion of the individuals in question are native Eng- 
 lishmen. Having been deliberately guilty of mis-statement; he was pre- 
 red to indulge in the most unfeeling outrage that one clergyman can 
 ‘guilty ef towards another. He sneers at the poverty of those minis- 
 ters of Christ who have gone from this country into England, as if 
 poverty was a sin in such as promote the cause, or walk in the footsteps 
 of the lowly Jesus. They are the more unworthy that they take charge 
 of “ small Scottish congregations,” as if the very souls of the Scottish 
 did not deserve to be cared for, and as if Christ’s people altogether did 
 Not constitute but a “little flock.” They are “stationed on the wrong side 
 of the border,” as if there could be a right and a wrong side, where the 
 VOL. XXVII. NO. I. 1 be $33 
 
53. Review of Anglhcanus’. Letters. ~ Jan. 
 inhubitants are perishing for lack of knowledge; and the nien of Maces 
 denia are erying “Come over and help us.” They sigh in obsequious 
 fondness after a church which has not cherished them with reciprocal 
 attachment,” as if it were a transgression of God’s law to wish for a‘set- 
 tlement in the bosom of that establishment for whose services they w re 
 educated, to whose prosperity they were devoted, and within whose 
 pale are all their earliest, tenderest, and most sacred =o al 
 
 and as if it. could justly be chargeable with carelessness or iner: 
 titude, because it has not. been able to provide for ‘all whom neverthe= 
 less it has qualified and authorised to bear the honourable character of 
 preachers of the everlasting gospel, and candidates for the holy ministry 
 in a church that has been long the glory of the land which’ ove he 
 And let it not be forgotten, that. all these cruel upbraidings and bitter 
 calumnies come forth with the countenance and approbation of one 
 who is a minister of the Son of God ; who is wallowing in coniparative 
 wealth, and knows not what it is to toil hard and get little for it ; who 
 has been elevated to one of the highest and most lucrative places which 
 our metropolitan patrons have to bestow ;, who discharges his clerical du- 
 ties to a large and opulent congregation ; and who has been thus cherish- | 
 ed, thus promoted, thus honoured, by a chureh into which he has with 
 “ obsequious fondness” transplanted himself from his native Northum-— 
 berland, in which he occupies a situation that might have been better 
 occupied by one of the very brethren on whom he scowls with unmea- 
 sured disdain, and whose misjudging partiality he has requited not with 
 “* reciprocal attachment,” but with a species of obloquy by which the 
 lowest and the vilest of her outcasts would have been disgraced. 
 Anglicanus goes on to rant and rave in a similarstrain against those 
 whom he delights to abuse. ‘“ Their highest conceptions of worldly 
 glory and felicity do not surmount the dome of St. George’s.” Did 
 any body ever read. greater nonsense? There is no worldly glory~or 
 felicity either, in the dome of St. George’s—even the steeple of St. 
 Mary’s has nothing of the kind. But then the Scottish presbyterian 
 ministers in England are mean fellows—they seek for nothing but pre-— 
 ferment—in order to obtain it they are willing to sacrifice all inde- 
 pendence of character, till they have gained their object, when, like a 
 certain man of misty, if not of “lofty conceptions,” they may kick away 
 the ladder by which they have ascended—and they are so exclusively — 
 bent on the filthy lucre, that they will rather take any thing than want, — 
 and will be delighted to sit down in an obscure glen, or on a dreary 
 heath in Scotland, provided only they can get the L.150a-year. A 
 man who is himself troubled with the love of a shilling, as Dr. Johnson — 
 expressed it, is very apt to impute to others the same grovelling passion: — 
 but after all, though Mr. Grey has had the good fortune to slide into — 
 one of the best benefices in this country,—L.150 a-year, with manse and 
 glebe, is not so very contemptible, and most assuredly will mot be de- 
 spised by those who, unlike their slanderer, have embraced the maxim, 
 that “a man’s life consisteth net in the abundance of the things that he 
 possesseth.” And does Mr. Grey mean to insinuate that the people 
 who inhabit an ‘‘ obscure glen,” or a‘ dreary heath” in our beloved 
 country, should be left uninstructed in the gospel of salvation and in ~ 
 the way to heaven, or that any minister is to be held up to scorn be- 
 cause he goes (Mr. Grey would say “ condescends”) to deliver his mas- 
 ter’s message to them that dwell in. the wild and sequestered places of — 
 
 - 
 
1828. Review of Anglicanus’ Leifers. 59 
 
 the land, and to console them in the midst of their want and their so- 
 litude with the glad tidings of redemption and immortality ?* only 
 _Anglicanus seems to have forgotten the ministers of the secession 
 ehurch in the north of England, by whom the principles of ‘Bible 
 cireulation have been cordially espoused, and ably and zealously sup- 
 orted. Whether he has overlooked them from ignorance or contempt 
 it is of no consequence to inquire. But we take this opportunity of of- 
 fering them the tribute of our respect and gratitude. © Laying aside all 
 consideration of ecclesiastical differences, they have united with their 
 brethren of the Scottish Establishment in lifting up a standard for the 
 truth, and from what we ourselves have both heard and seen, we should 
 find it impossible to say to which of the two bodies the great cause has 
 been most largely indebted. There has been between them, one mind, 
 one object; one effort. And thus combined for the purity of that divine 
 Word to which they both appeal, and contending together, with pious 
 ardour and uncompromising fidelity against those by whom it has been 
 corrupted and profaned, they have claims on our affection and regard 
 which we cheerfully acknowledge ; and we are quite sure that the Edin- 
 Society will gratefully accept the “ homage”—the more weleome 
 that it is independent, as well as willing—and also the “ mite” —spoken 
 of*by Mr. Grey with supercilious scorn, but not the less acceptable in 
 the sight of God, though it did deserve the name—which they have 
 sent for the help and the encouragement of that institution to which, 
 from principle and from choice, they have become attached. 
 _ It is really amusing'to hear Mr. Grey talk of the “ needy adventur- 
 ers who every year migrate to the genial south.” Was not he himself 
 a “ needy adventurer who migrated to the genial” north? And has he 
 not brought with him another needy adventurer to add to the popula- 
 tion of the country, as well as to devour some of the best of its good 
 things? And after all this, is it for him to rail at the Scotch, who, 
 from want of employment and subsistence at home, seek in England 
 what was not so easily to be obtained in Scotland? Is it Mr. Grey’s 
 opinion that rank “ eniitles” a man to forget his “ presbyterian educa- 
 tion and early predilections,” and that nothing but “ sordid sentiments, 
 vulgar manners, and money-loving habits,” are suitable to the recollec- 
 tion of these distinctions? Is not Mr..Grey a man of “ presbyterian 
 education,’ and would he forget that if he could, though it has made 
 him what he is? Does he prefer the “ early predilections” which he 
 acquired in Northumberland, and under the tuition of a Socinian mi- 
 nister, to the later predilections which he acquired in the kingdom 
 that has cherished him from his youth up, and given him one of her 
 best endowments? Is there no part of the indictment of “ sordid sen- 
 timents, vulgar manners, and money-loving habits,” to which even he, 
 with all his gentility and advantages, may not plead guilty, or of which 
 he would not be convicted by those who know him? Where are the 
 « amiable circles of cultivated religious society” from which Scotchmen 
 
 * The allusion to “ Berwick” is an unhappy one—for it obliges us to say, that 
 when one of the best-and most esteemed of our pastors was brought from that 
 quarter to one of the Chapels of Ease in Edinburgh, mortal offence was taken at 
 those who were instrumental in accomplishing the “ exchange,”’ and vehement and 
 intemperate treatment was given them, on no other ground than the vicinity of 
 this Chapel to St: Mary’s, and the apprehension of a contest for the darling popu- 
 larity. : 
 
60 Review of Anglicanus’ Letters. «SAN. 
 are precluded (excluded ?) Is it Mr. Grey’s creed, that all’ who support 
 the Bible Society are “ amiable, cultivated, religious,” or that’ no: mal 
 has any right to give it his “ mite,” who cannot simper like Anglicant 
 write like Anglicana, or harangue like Anglicanum? ‘ And does Mr 
 Grey admit all the vulgar English that migrate or that visit here, i 
 that ‘“‘ amiable circle of cultivated religious society,” which takes i 
 laws equally of politeness and of gospel, from’ his teaching and ex 
 ample? Where is the candour, and where the conscience, of th 
 champion for truth and charity, when he asserts, ‘wholesale, that 
 Scotch residents in England are inferior to their neighbours in pie 
 and Christian affection, and cannot give them credit for one good mo 
 tive in preferring the Edinburgh to the London Society? Does he 
 judge of their motives, by the motives which determined him to act tl 
 part that he has done in this controversy,—a part so discreditable te 
 himself and so mortifying to his friends? Must Scotchmen suffer : 
 this wicked and ignominious treatment because they will not, wherev: 
 -they are, acquiesce in the adulteration of God’s word, and because their 
 accuser happens to have been born on the English border, * and snug 
 planted in the church of St. Mary’s and city of Edinburgh? And can 
 they hope to escape the slanderer’s attacks only when they commit or 
 tronize the delinquencies which we have over and over established a 
 the London Committee? For was not Mr. Steven a Scotchman ? Is 
 Mr. Macaulay a Scotchman? Is not Dr. Pinkerton a Scotchman? Did 
 they migrate as needy adventurers to the genial south ?' Were’they pro 
 against the charge of “sordid sentiments, vulgar manners, money- 
 ‘loving habits? Have they been precluded from “ the amiable circles 
 of cultivated religious society?” Or have they been made to run the 
 gauntlet of this trio of calumniators, who have tried to shroud them 
 _selves under the disgraced signature of “ Anglicanus ?” No: the an+ 
 tipathy to Scotland has been abated in their case, by the fact that the 
 have been members or agents of the London Committee, and thus pos: 
 sess a status which, though it implies more guilt than we should be 
 willing to have ascribed to us, and proved against ‘us, cancels every 
 offence, and invests with all excellence, in the estimation of the Secre- 
 tary to the Corresponding Board. es ye OLR Fee le 
 « Facts in this case are nothing,” said Anglicanus in one of his 
 Letters, as it appeared in the Mercury. This strange declaration has 
 been cancelled, so far as we can observe, in the Letter as it appears in 
 
 * Since Mr. Grey seems to have so much pride in being a Borderer, we submit 
 the following anecdote to his perusal. He may not be able, not being a Scotchman, 
 to understand some of the expressions, but we have no doubt he will find indi- 
 viduals in the Corresponding Board learned and ‘* vulgar” enough to be inter- 
 
 reters. ; i ih A 1b Ree 
 mn A native of Morpeth, by lawful calling a packman, and a “ needy adventurer” 
 from the south, was vending his goods in a farm house not many miles from Edin- 
 burgh, where an old eccentric man was wont to visit, ycleped Saunders Somer- 
 ville. ‘The mercer, like a certain pamphleteer, had words and wares in abundance, 
 but was sadly deficient in the article of thought. Saunders again was exactly the 
 opposite; and as he had) listened with exemplary patience for along time, in the 
 hope that the man’s stories, which were not unlike those of Ferdinand Mendez Pin- 
 to, would draw to a close, he seemed to enjoy a mental satisfaction in getting bare 
 time to speare ** And whar do ye come frae, billy?” .‘* From the Boa’der, Sir,” 
 answered the Southron. ‘‘ I thought sae,” said Saunders, “‘ weel its a pity.”’ “ And 
 wherefore is it a pity ?” said the man of words, rather angry. ‘ Ou,” answered 
 Saunders, “ because we aye count the selvage the warst pairt o” the wab.” 
 
7828. Review of Anglicanus’ Letters. 61 
 ‘its new form. We donot, however, part with it soeasily. Anglicanus 
 thas said that “‘ Facts in this case are nothing.” When we read this 
 absurd dogma we were not surprised, for we had heard it before. It 
 ‘was a favourite saying of Mr. Grey, when he was beating about for 
 ‘recruits against the “‘ Second Statement.” He said that he did not 
 ‘eare for the facts of that pamphlet ; it was the spirit of it that he look- 
 edto. A gentleman to whom he applied, very naturally and properly 
 ‘answered, that in his opinion the facts were every thing ; if the facts 
 “were incorrect, then he acknowledged the spirit was very bad ; but if 
 ‘the facts were true, then he could not see that there was any bad 
 | spirit in the case. But still the Reverend Dissentient insisted—he 
 had got his lesson, and could not unsay it—that facts were nothing ; 
 and, strange coincidence! so says Anglicanus. “Facts in this case are 
 nothing.” This absurdity may be taken in two different senses, and 
 ‘exemplified im two different ways. In his Reasons of Dissent, as our 
 readers may remember, Mr. Grey was so abhorrent of facts that he did 
 not venture to state one on his own side of the question, or to contra- 
 dict one that had been advanced on the other. He pleased himself 
 with a tissue of turgid and declamatory nonsense. This was exceed- 
 “ingly politic. But the same policy has not been observed by his other 
 self, Anglicanus. With him the facts are nothing. That is, it is of 
 no importance whether he denies facts that are true, or asserts facts 
 that are false ; whether his facts bear on the question at issue, or be 
 ~merely personal attacks on his opponents; whether he states them as 
 ‘they really exist, and in their proper connection, or modifies and alters 
 _ them: to suit his own base and malignant purposes. In these ways he 
 - illustrates the proposition that “‘ Facts in this case are nothing.” We 
 shall now proceed to give some specimens of the regard to fact paid by 
 _ the authors of this pamphlet. 
 --» The first that we mention respects the English Apocrypha Bible, 
 about which Anglicanus pretends to be remarkably well informed. 
 ' & Tn one instanee,” says he, ‘‘ many years ago, great part of a large quarto edi- 
 _ tion, in English, had the Apoerypha printed for it, through mistake of the Univer- 
 sity printer employed in the work, who had never printed an edition of that size 
 without it, and had neglected the instructions given him early in the progress of 
 the work for its omission. The Committee, immediately on discovering the mis- 
 - take, withdrew the Apocrypha from the whole edition ; four copies only having 
 been previously issued, the same, or within one of the number of farthings comed in 
 Queen Anne’s reign, and sought with perhaps as great assiduity as these are by 
 antiquarians, since two of them, we understand, have found their way to Edin- 
 
 burgh.” p. 64, note. 
 
 _ Noy, in the jirst place, the edition is not quarto ; it is octavo. Se- 
 condly, it was not printed by the University* printer, but by the King’s 
 printers. Thirdly, there are octavo editions printed without the Apo- 
 erypha. Fourthly, no instructions were given for its omission at any 
 
 iod in the progress of the work. Where are they? and who says 
 so? Fifthly, the Committee did not withdraw the Apocrypha, till one 
 of our Secretaries remonstrated with them on the subject. Sizihly, 
 their answer to his remonstrances were, that “ on re-consideration, the 
 Committee had determined to leave out the Apocrypha, Index, and 
 ‘Translator’s Preface.” . And what can this mean, but that they had 
 
 ~ © Does not the learned Southron know that both Cambridge and Oxford have 
 the right of printing Bibles ? : 
 3 
 
62 Review of Anglicanus’ Leilters. Jan. 
 
 reviously considered it proper to have these appendages in that editi 
 af the Enelish Bible ? Tid if the ‘* mistake” was the printer's, a 
 not theirs, how did it happen that the Apocrypha sheets, which in th 
 case belonged to the printer, and could net have been:paid for by 
 Committee, were in Earl Street ware-rooms jive years after the tran< 
 saction took place? Seventhly, the Apocrypha was not withdrawn from 
 the whole edition as soon as. the mistake was discovered ; for, thous 
 on. the 3d November 1817, it was formally ‘ Resolved, that no more 
 copies of the above Bible be issued,”—(and if the printing of the — 
 crypha was a mere mistake of the printer's, what necessity was t 
 for such a resolution?) this Bible was actually sold at the Society house 
 so late as May 1819. Eighthly, if four copies were sold previously to 
 the alleged subtraction of the Apocrypha, the fact just mentioned shows’ 
 that there was a greater number issued than Anglicanus so positively 
 asserts ; and indeed it is impossible to say how extensive the issue was, 
 since the Committee, or Depositary, continued to sell after the sale~ 
 was professedly stopped. And, lastly, while the joke about Queen 
 Anne’s farthings is a bad one at the best, it is annihilated by the con- 
 sideration that there was not, as Anglicanus insinuates, any assiduity — 
 on our part to obtain the Apocrypha Bibles that were sold,—Mr. An-— 
 derson, one of our Secretaries, having got two copies as soon as the — 
 edition was published, and it having been in this way that the Apocry-— 
 phal appendage was discovered. ‘Thus, every one position of Angli- 
 canus respecting this curious affair is demolished ; and we are left to 
 wonder at his impudence, when he concludes with saying, that “the 
 incident would not be worthy of being mentioned, were it not for the 
 very unjust account that is still incessantly given of it by members of — 
 the Edinburgh Committee !” » Spal n 
 
 Had Anglicanus published his pamphlet before the Annual Report — 
 
 of our Society appeared in print, we could have excused some blun-— 
 ders in reporting what it contained according to his recollection. But — 
 there is no excuse for his blundering after he had the Report before — 
 him, and had only to look into its pages to keep him right. We 
 therefore accuse him of misrepresentation when he says, in page 5, 
 that the Edinburgh “‘ Committee found they had under-rated the ~ 
 difficulty of procuring entrance for the Scriptures abroad without — 
 the Apocrypha ;—affecting, however, to ascribe the greater part of — 
 that: difficulty to. the influence and example of the Bible Society.” The 
 language of the Committee is very different. They say, “ the obstacles, 
 then, which your Committee have encountered in their attempts to ope- 
 rate on the Continent, show—not that they had over-rated the willing- 
 ness of the people to accept the pure Bibles, but only that they had 
 somewhat under-rated the difficulties occasioned by the long-continued — 
 Apocryphal practices of the London Committee. It would appear that 
 the direct encouragement which they formerly. gave to Apocryphal — 
 Societies, and the friendly and influential alliance which they still 
 maintained with them, have planted barriers in our way that will require 
 more time and pains for their removal than we at first imagined.” All 
 that is implied in these sentences and in the illustrations with which 
 they are accompanied, is confirmed more and more every day, by the 
 experience of the British and Foreign itself. The Appendix to its 
 last Annual Report and the Monthly Extracts, give large and increasing 
 demonstration of the readiness with which the people on the Continent — 
 will receive pure Bibles, of the difficulties being confined to the prejudices 
 
 9.0K 
 
1828. Review of Anglicanus’ Letters.” 63 
 
 of those with whom the London Committee had formed and maintained 
 their Apocryphal compact, and what is still worse, of the unwillingness 
 of the Committee to embrace the offers and opportunities that are put 
 in their power for circulating the pure Scriptures through pure chan- 
 nels. The figure of the “ small hoe” and the “ mighty share,” which 
 evidently comes from Northumberland, is inapplicable and absurd. 
 
 The “ mighty share” is a reckless implement, which, dragged by a 
 team of stupid oxen, tears up all that it passes through, and gives as 
 
 od a chance to the tares as the wheat; while the “ small hoe,” used 
 by a skilful hand, does its work discriminately, and by taking out the 
 weeds as it goes along, allows the genuine grain which is sown, to 
 spring up more freely, and to produce an unmixed and wholesome har- 
 vest. Instead of one “ of Mr. Haldane’s strongholds crumbling down,” 
 
 “ the fact,” at which the truthful Anglicanus sneers, is more abundant- 
 
 ly proved than ever ; and while his sneer is altogether misapplied, his 
 assertion is altogether false, that our Committee “ suspend their pri- 
 mary movement towards a negotiation with foreigners, till they have 
 ascertained that they hold exactly the same opinions with themselves.” 
 When he affirmed this, he was perfectly aware—it could not be other- 
 wise—that he was affirming falsely. 
 _ In the same page Anglicanus accuses Mr. Haldane of a “ snug con- 
 cealment” about the Mantauban Bible. As Mr. Haldane himself in- 
 tends to reply to the abominable slander with which this miserable 
 being has assailed him, we enter not into particulars, but content our- 
 selves with saying that the charge is completely false. 
 
 Anglicanus says (p. 5.) that’ our Committee in their report used 
 
 nguage ‘‘ purporting that the adulteration of God’s word had been as 
 it were an object of the Bible Society, and the Scriptures had been cir- 
 culated only as a sort of bye-way for introducing the Apocrypha.” Our 
 readers may consult the report itself to ascertain the deliberate disin- 
 genuousness of this statement. There is not a portion of truth in it. 
 The subject of dispute is not the circulation of the Bible, but the circu- 
 lation of the Apocrypha, and it might have been very convenient for 
 the London Committee that nothing bad should have been said of the 
 latter, and every thing good of the former; but the Edinburgh Com- 
 mittee knew their subject and their duty too well to compliment away 
 the purity of Scripture and of Bible distribution, in order that the vio- 
 lation of both might receive more praise than censure from the Christian 
 
 ublic. 
 4 No attemptis made by Anglicanus to deny the circulation of the 
 Apocrypha, both appended and intermixed, by the London Committee ; 
 but this undeniable fact he endeavours to mistify and extenuate so as 
 to make it very innocent. 
 
 “Tt is within my own knowledge,” says he, ‘that both the Protestant and Lu- 
 theran editions, comprehending by far the greater proportion of the European 
 publications in which the Bible Society has had a hand, presenting the Apocrypha 
 in as harmless a way as can be imagined, generally at the close of both Old and 
 New Testaments, in a different type, and always preceded by a preface explanatory 
 of its inferior origin and authority.” 
 
 Such impudence! Who is Anglicanus that we must rely on “ his 
 own knowledge?” Judging of him by his pamphlet, we would much 
 rather trust the hearsay of any body else. Perhaps it is Mr. Grey, whose 
 authority is given for the statement now made. Probably it is, for there 
 is a very similar statement in Mr. Grey’s former publication about the 
 
64 Review of Anglicanus’ Letters. Jan. 
 harmiess way in which the Apocrypha is affixed fo shaieouitiants stant Bible 
 en the pi Pe and his 4 acaboill inspection of it when abroa 
 But be it Mr. Grey, or be it Mr. any body, it is nothing to the purp 
 It is not the case that the Apocrypha is always in a different type, or | 
 always preceded by an explanatory preface. And though it were, does 
 a “ different type” give evidence of its spurious character? Or will the 
 preface be read, understood, and believed by one half of those to whom | 
 it is given? All such matter, however, is superseded by the avermen 
 made over and over in the published documents of the British and Fos 
 reign Bible Society, and perfecily well known to the falsifier with whom 
 we are dealing, that the Protestants on the continent, who, by his 
 showing, as well as by that of his clients, will not take the Bible with- 
 out the Apocrypha, ground their refusal on this, that such a Bible is an 
 incomplete copy of the Word of God, and consequently, that when they 
 get the Apocrypha they use it.as an essential part of the canon! The 
 very argument for distributing Apocrypha Bibles has this for its founda- 
 tion ; and yet Anglicanus would persuade us that the appending of the 
 Apocrypha is harmless ! dibs Oto i. 
 « Of Old Testaments,” he adds, in a note, p. 6, * issued by the Bible 
 Society, I have ascertained that the proportion containing an inter- 
 mingled Apocrypha amounts to no more than one si«ly-third of. the 
 whole, comprised in editions of .Martini’s Italian, De Sacy’s Frenchy 
 Pereira’s Portuguese, and Scio’s Spanish Versions, in all 33,494 copies. 
 The total number of whole Bibles that had been issued on account of | 
 the Society up to Mareh last, was 2,095,245.” + BO? Abeby L 
 . Here is “ snug concealment” with a vengeance. In this enumeration, 
 pretending to be very accurate even to a unit, and given in the pledg 
 word of the anonymous Englishman, we have an acknowledgment of the. 
 circulation of zntermingled apocryphas to the extent of no fewer than 
 33,494 by the Bible Society. And is this little or nothing? Is it.to be 
 considered as_a trifle that above thirty-three thousand adulterated copies 
 of the Word of God have been circulated by a Syciety constituted nm 
 the principle that nothing but the pure Word of God should be cire 
 lated, and giving forth its books under that sacred title? Or is the guilt - 
 of such conduct to be palliated because the number is only one staty-third 
 of their whole issues ?—as if a man were very excusablefor having mur- 
 dered only-one of his neighbours, seeing that he had allowed other sixty-two 
 to live! But Anglicanus wilfully and shamefully hides the enormity of 
 the transaction. He leaves out of his calculation the 118,000 Slavonian 
 Bibles which the Russian Bible Society brought out by the help of the 
 British and Foreign ; and he leaves out the many, many thousands of 
 German Bibles which have been circulated among. Roman Catholics by. 
 the assistance and liberality of the London Committee ; andihe leaves 
 out all the same sort of Bibles which they have given to Roman Catho- 
 lics of other countries and other tongues. These may be considered as 
 altogether amounting to not fewer than 167,000; and then adding to 
 them the 33,000, we have 200,000 Bibles with the Apocrypha inter- 
 mixed ; and then counting a million of whole Bibles to have been cireu- 
 lated by the Societies on the continent with the aid of the British and 
 Foreign, which is a large, or rather an extravagant allowance, the fact 
 will turn out to be, as Cocker may teach Mr. Grey, that instead of one 
 sialy-third, not less than one-fificenth of the issues of the British and 
 Foreign Bible Society has censisted of Bibles corrupted and’ composed 
 according to the Decree of the Council of Trent! _ Dube TS oo Ad 
 
 ose 
 
 stipe | 
 
| 
 
 1828. Review of Anglicanus’ Letiers:. 65 
 ‘)Vanr Ess'is a great embarrassment to the Apocryphists,‘and fo An- 
 glicanus of course. Many’a struggle they make to ‘get ‘out of the diffis 
 ity in which he has-involved them. But it isallin vain. ‘And what 
 a pity that a man of Mr. Grey’s pretensions should be so far left to him- 
 f, as to sanction and father inventions on the subject. which Ferdi- 
 nd Mendez Pinto himself would have been ashamed of! - For exam 
 ple, Anglicanus avers, (page 6,) that “ the copyright of Van Ess’s New 
 ‘Testament is in fact still at this moment in his own possession ;” and, 
 in] age 21, he repeats the averment in these insolent terms, “ I merely 
 tell him,” (Scoticanus,) ‘as I have the opportunity, that Dr. Van Ess 
 retains still undisposed of the copyright of his translation of the New 
 Testament.” We have over and over stated the contrary to our readers 
 on the best autho-ity ; but we now produce authority to which even 
 Anglicanus cannot demur. In a communication from Dr. Pinkerton 
 and Mr. Sibthorpe, dated Stuttgardt, October 1, 1827, and published in 
 p- 79 of the Monthly Extracts for December, these gentlemen write 
 thus, “‘ With respect to one of the objects for which we came to this 
 lace, (viz. to make inquiries into the particulars relating to the pub- 
 ication of Van Ess’s Testament, of the copy-right of which M. Von 
 Seidel became the proprietor, by purchase, as early as the year 1807, 
 before Van Ess’s connection, with our Society,) we found M. Von 
 Seidel was willing to afford us every facility,’ &c. What does 
 Anglicanus say to this? What becomes of his positive and dogmatic 
 assertions? How will he contrive to get out of the scrape? It may 
 be true that Van Ess sold the copy-right of his New Testament so early 
 as the year 1807: but why was this so carefully concealed from the 
 London Committee till last year? And why was he treated as if his 
 work was still, “ in fact, at this moment in his own possession?” It 
 may also be true, that in selling his copy-right he managed matters so 
 as to have a part of his payment, or the whole of it, derived from the 
 annual sale of the book. But still the copy-right is sold, and away 
 from the control of the London Committee, whatever may be its er- 
 rors ; and besides, there is here a' temptation, irresistible by such a 
 mercantile mercenary man as Van Ess has proved himself to be, to be 
 et liberal to himself, in purchasing as many of his own New Testa- 
 ents as possible with the money-grants of the London Committee, 
 that he might draw the larger profit—a supposition greatly strength- 
 ened and confirmed by this farther information conveyed by Dr. Pink- 
 erton and Mr. Sibthorpe, that on “ comparing the prices of Van Ess’s 
 Testaments with those of other editions and of other booksellers, they 
 thought it right to require a farther reduction of the prices, which they 
 succeeded in obtaining !” * 
 © As to Van Ess’s audited accounts, showing how the whole L.20,000 
 was expended, we adhere to our former statements. Anglicanus gives 
 us nothing in opposition to them but his ipse dixit, and a request to take 
 a jaunt to London, call at Earl Street, and examine the books. On 
 the other hand, we have repeatedly called for documentary proof, and 
 it has been withheld. We have asked members: of the committee if 
 such a thing existed, and the answer was, that it could not be found. And 
 
 » “Mr. G. Stokes tells us, that of Van Ess’s New Testament, the issue has been 
 32,000 per annum. Supposing the Doctor to have had’a profit of one penny on 
 each copy, the annual revenue from that source would have been L,133; at three 
 farthings, it would have been about L.100 ! 
 
 VOL. XXVII. NO. I. K 
 
66 Review of Anglicanus’ Letters. 
 
 even Mr. G. Stokes, when discussing the subject of Van Ess in his 
 pamphlet, most religiously avoids saying a word about the audited ¢ 
 counts. Let the accounts themselves be given ; they will be more 1 R 
 ful and important than two-thirds of the epistles crammed into the 
 Appendix of the Annual Reports ; and then we shall be able to judge o} 
 the matter. Till that be done we deny that Van Ess has accounte¢ 
 properly and satisfactorily for his intromissions with the grants of the 
 London Committee. igi. ; tf 
 
 We scorn to enter into any defence of the gentleman whom Angli 
 canus, with even more than his usual rudeness, attacks in p. 21, when 
 speaking of Van Ess. That gentleman has acted in a manner that deserves 
 the gratitude of every sincere lover of the Bible, and this is the ve 
 thing which makes him so obnoxious to the Apoeryphists. We must 
 say; though in truth it is not.saying much for him, that whether » 
 look to principle, talent, or character, he is worth a thousand He 
 Greys. He has stood firmly and perseveringly for the pure Bible. | 
 “Grey has been the staunch adherent, the devoted panegyrist, of 
 adulterators. “4 
 
 Hear the correct and veracious Anglicanus again on his favourite 
 Van Ess. a 
 
 «¢ T would tell your correspondent, (Scoticanus) also, for the most eiféctual misre. 
 presentations have been contrived by confounding dates, that the term ‘ disinteres 
 ed’, applied to Van Ess’s labours, from which such harsh and reiterated imputations 
 of duplicity have been drawn, occurs in the Report at a time previous to his receiv- 
 ing any salary from the Society, in describing those labours that recommend him 
 justly to their wishes. Disinterested they were appropriately called, for they in- 
 volved the constant expenditure of all his private substance, with forfeiture of 
 prospect of preferment in the church to which he belenged,” &c. p. 21, 22. 
 
 He pretends to think that when we applied the term « disinterested” 
 to the labours of Van Ess, we did so as quoting it from the Society’s 
 Reports. He. knows perfectly that we did no such thing, He knows 
 that we used the term as conveying the character which they wished us 
 to attach to Van Ess. And he knows that we were wholly justified in 
 doing so, by the language and representations contained in the annual 
 reports, after the time when Van Ess became a salaried agent ! He talks 
 of our ‘‘ confounding dates,” but he takes care to give no dates at all, 
 except that of Van Ess’s appointment to his agency. That was in the 
 year eighteen hundred and eighteen. We bid Mr. Grey then and his 
 coadjutors, look to the Seventeenth Report of the British and Foreign 
 Bible Society, p. 18 of Appendix, and read as follows, from a letter of 
 Dr. Steinkoptt’s, dated August 30th, eighteen hundred and twenty, 
 and published by the Committee in eighteen hundred and twenty-one— 
 « Leander Van Ess seeks no earthly emoluments, nor is the applause of . 
 a vain world his aim; he desires not treasures which the moth and the 
 rust consume ; no, the glory of God and the salvation of souls—these 
 are lhe pure and heavenly principles which influence his mind and sti- 
 mulate him to action.” Does not this describe the Doctor as most 
 “« disinterested,” and had not he been receiving ample salary and emo- 
 luments during several years for all the services he performed? It maybe 
 true that the word “ disinterested” does not occur in the Committee’s 
 ‘Reports after the 1818—perhaps not before that date either—but is it 
 not also true that they annually heaped upon him the highest eulogiums, 
 and that we were necessitated to conclude him to be as “ disinterested” 
 as ever, since the fact was industriously kept secret that he received any 
 remuneration for his labours ? 
 
Review of Anglicanus’ Letters. 67 
 
 We have still to expose the obstinate mendacity of Anglicanus. He 
 a Van Ess’s employers exercised a discretion in what they published to the 
 h ‘orld of | his connection with them, their reserve had respect, not to their own con- 
 stitue ats, but to his embarrassing relation with forcizn ecclesiastical authorities.” 
 
 - ee ee) 
 
 This is as dishonest as the concealment of the Committee itself. For 
 inglicanus, on examining the reports, as he pretends te have done, could 
 E fail to perceive that the Committee practised ne such delicacy as 
 gratuitously and cunningly ascribes tothem. On the contrary, 
 published what, if Van Ess was exposed to any of that danger 
 ch he has alleged, must have overwhelmed him inruin. In the Ap- 
 to the Report for that very year (1818) in which the Doctor be- 
 }eame a 
 se h 
 
 salaried agent, they insert several of his own letters. In one of 
 e thus expresses himself. “ There is a great and inevitable de- 
 Sire in the people to have the Bible ; the newly issued mandates* against 
 reading the Scriptures, have only tended to quicken attention, and te 
 this desire. There is now a spirit ardently rising against the 
 Gilated rights of conscieace, which neither the world nor any canonical 
 : eflings can possibly stifle; and what right is more sacred than the 
 disturbed possession of that inestimable book, which is the property 
 of all >” &c. In another letter, he says, ‘* The more inveterate, and 
 consequently the more dangerous the Jesuits and their agents, posted 
 im every direction, become, being in no wise ignorant of my activity, the 
 oe I feel, through the unmerited grace of God, an increase of confi- 
 ce in the defence of the Almighty.” And in a third letter he de- 
 elares, “ I shall keep in everlasting remembrance the confidence by 
 which the British and Foreign Bible Society has made me so happy ; 
 with cordial gratitude and delicht, I shall continue to act as their in- 
 strument ; while I offer all my little strength as a mite to the Lerd,” 
 &c. Extracts similar to these may be taken from many others of Van 
 Ess’s epistles, all intimating his defiance of the “ foreign ecclesiastical 
 authorities,” under whom he was placed as a Roman Catholic priest. 
 Bec the London Committee published. They at the same time told 
 e 
 
 | ae 
 ‘pro 
 : 
 
 = 
 
 church of Rome and the world, that in the course of the year, they 
 
 ad given Van Ess no Jess than L.5000 for Bible purposes, (Report 
 
 eventeenth, p. xiv.) And now they and their supporters, affect to 
 
 say that they kept his salary out of the accounts, lest he should be 
 
 thereby exposed to suspicion or trouble from his Papal superiors! And 
 
 pelicans adopts this view, and puts it down as a-clear and settled 
 int : 
 
 The bas-bleu says in the first Letter, p. 7,—we had almost forgotten to 
 mention it—“ that Dr. Thomson, in his speech at the last Annual Meet- 
 ing, dragged out the name of poor Lessignol, a precious servant of 
 Christ, to reproach and dishonour.” This is a gross misrepresentation. 
 Dr. Thomson did not say a single word disparaging to Lessignol: but 
 he said this—on which Anglicanus has maintained a disingenuous si- 
 lence—that Lessignol acknowledged in a letter which Dr. Thomson 
 had himself read, that he had been employed by the Loxdon Committee, 
 and paid by them for his services, in circulating De Sacy’s Bible, (with 
 the Apocrypha intermixed) for no less a period than two years after the 
 Commitiee had, in August 1822, resolved, in compliance with the inter- 
 
 * By the Papal authorities —ED1ToR. 
 
68 Review of Anglicanus’ Letters. 
 
 pretation put upon the law of the Society by the great body of itsmem- | 
 bers, fo circulate no more Apocryphas !_ The “ reproach and dishonour” 
 were attached by Dr. Thomson, not to Lessignol, but to the Londo 
 Committee. And the transaction shows that, whatever Lessignol is, | 
 the Committee, at least, are not very much, or very clearly entitled 
 the praise of “ precious servants of Christ,” who has required no man | 
 to sin and falsify for the promotion of his cause. But “ reproach and | 
 dishonour” belong to more than the Committee. Anglicana, though | 
 present at the meeting, did not, because she could not, hear Dr. Thom | 
 son say any thing resembling what she lays to his charge. There is | 
 nothing of it in his printed speech. And long before the publication | 
 of the pamphlet, she saw her mis-statement corrected by Scoticanus ii 
 the Mercury. Such, however, is her “ predilection” (not “ Anglican” | 
 surely) for mendacity, that she deliberately repeats the falsehood, and | 
 gets the Rev. Mr. Grey to give it his imprimatur. - 
 __ “ Brevity requires” Anglicanus “ to state no more than his know- | 
 ledge of the last elected members of the London Committee being men 
 of exemplary piety and virtue,” (page 23,) and having said this, he tells” 
 a story about somebody writing to Mr. Broadly Wilson, one of th 
 and getting an answer disclaiming all “ use of the Apocrypha in 
 portion of the Society’s work as nothing less than the grosse: 
 immorality.” We should like to know what fool it was that ex- 
 pected Mr. Wilson to confess that he was an ga age And on | 
 his alleged reply, to this idiotical inquiry, we are to believe that all the 
 four are the very opposite of what Mr. Percival White declared them to 
 be in open Committee, without being met by contradiction or de- | 
 mur ! on ‘ 
 
 * Anglicanus talks of “ our own honest Dudley,” (page 7,) and longs — 
 for an opportunity of unfolding the ‘‘ extreme benefit of his department,” 
 (page 23.) Was it honest in Mr. Dudley ‘to tell the world in his 
 ** Analysis,” that the Bible Society did not and could not cireulate any 
 uninspired book, at the very time that he was aware of the Apoery> 
 phal circulation of the London Committee? Was it honest to allow 
 his friends to plead in public, and in his presence and his name, for the 
 Bible Society, on the ground that it circulated nothing but the pure 
 ‘Word of God, though he knew all the while that it was circulating the 
 Apocrypha along with, or as a part of, that Word? And was it honest 
 in him, when he wrote his answer to the Rector of Sunderland, to give ~ 
 a denial to the story of his presenting to a young lady, as a token of 
 his gratitude for Bible Society services, three hairs of the Dairyman’s 
 Daughter? This may be the honesty that Mr. Grey admires; but it 
 strikes us that Mr. Dudley would be better without it, though “ our 
 own honest Dudley” does sound a vast deal better, we must confess, 
 than does “ our own honest Anglicanus.” ° i ‘ 
 
 ' It has never been said any where, or on any oceasion, that the no- 
 blemen and gentlemen mentioned by Mr. Grey in page 8, are known 
 by nothing more commendable than as patrons of Apocryphal delin- 
 quency. And it is only a mean artifice of Anglicanus to insinuate any 
 thing of the kind. At the same time, by what have they, with. an 
 exception or two which we gladly make, been known, in this contro- 
 versy, except as Apocryphal men? Was not Mr. Simeon so from the 
 very beginning? i not Mr. Macaulay so to this good hour? Has 
 not Mr. Wilson even supported the ‘“ studied concealment” of salaries? 
 And did not Mr. Buxton maintain at the last Annual Meeting in 
 
7. ~~» Review of Anglicanus’ Letters. 69 
 
 -Freemason’s Hall, that the Committee, having done more good than evil, 
 are deserving of commendation and support; a method this of deter- 
 mining the morality of character which Anglicanus evidently sane- 
 tions, but which no Bible nor any other Christian Society should either 
 acknowledge or require ? 
 __ Mr. Grey calls Dr. Thomson a “ champion of immaculate editions” 
 of the Bible. Does the Reverend Gentleman intend us to believe that 
 he is a champion of corrupt editions of the Bible? That may be 
 true; itis true. But Dr. Thomson is a “ champion,” as he calls him, 
 inst Anglicanus and the London Committee, and all who adulterate 
 the Bible, and thus dishonour God and mislead men. He does not ex- 
 pect to see an immaculate edition of the Bible; but neither did he ex- 
 to see Mr. Grey an advocate for corrupt editions of it. That is the 
 fact, and let Mr. Grey make the most of it that he can. 
 _ Anglicanus denies that any exertions have been used by the friends 
 of the London Committee to “‘ check the course of information,” re- 
 specting their delinquencies. How is it possible for him to have any 
 sufficient grounds for such a denial? What can all that he knows on 
 the subject avail to invalidate or disprove facts which have come un- 
 der our own cognizance? If those who should have been the channels 
 for diffusing the public appeals which we felt ourselves obliged to 
 make, positively refused to do so, are we tobe told by this anonymous 
 dogmatizer that no such refusal took place? And if they ascribe their 
 refusal to an unwillingness to expose their friends in Earl Street, is he 
 entitled to trace it to the incredible nature of the charges, and the utter 
 ‘impossibility of believing them? We donot speak hypothetically ; we 
 speak from documents in our possession, and from evidence which Mr. 
 Grey could not gainsay, though he might despise it. All the heavy 
 humour that he burdens this topic withal is mere trash. But no won- 
 der that he hates the Second Statement, and desires to bring its cir- 
 culation into discredit ; it has revealed too much truth, and produced 
 too much effect, to be honoured even with his forbearance. And then 
 he cannot but recollect the feebleness and inefficiency of those waggon- 
 loads of circulars which he sent to all parts of the country, in the name 
 and on the account of the Corresponding Board, and the pungent and 
 provoking answers which he received from almost every one of the 
 Societies, whom he thus pestered with his entreaties to restore their 
 allegiance to Earl Street. 
 
 The story about Mrs. H. More in page 15 is not correct. Something 
 of the kind didtake place. But that lady said no such thing as is basely 
 imputed to her about Edinburgh ; and did she but know that this is 
 Mr. Grey’s fabrication, he would no longer have it in his power to call 
 her “ his friend.” The truth is, that Mrs. More did not read even a 
 
 of the Statement; but a cunning Secretary of the London So- 
 ciety called on her, and seeing the pamphlet, to which she directed his at- 
 tention as one she had received for perusal, he opened it, selected and 
 read a single sentence which he knew well would, in its insulated 
 state, offend her feelings and shock her prepossessions ; and in this 
 artful, jesuitical way, deterred her from reading what otherwise would 
 have engaged her attention. But Mr. Grey puts a speech into her 
 mouth which she never used, and gives a colouring to the anecdote 
 which he knows well to be unjust. Mr. Hughes, perhaps, can give 
 him some explanation. 
 
 All that is told us, (p. 19,) of the people of England, church- 
 
70 Review of Anglicanus’ Letters. JAN 
 men and dissenters, clergymen and laymen, continuing steady in 
 their attachment to the London Committee, is bad in principle and 
 erroneous in fact. We need not repeat it, for it is well kno vn, 
 that the people of England are exceedingly ill-informed on the si 
 ject, and that their alleged adherence is, in numerous instances, ow- 
 ing to their real ignorance. But what a maxim to press upon us, 
 that because the multitude or the majority take a particular course, we 
 should follow them in defiance of our knowledge and conviction! A 
 granting that it were as Anglicanus has represented it, we hold it to 
 be just the more alarming to every lover of the pure Bible ; for we 
 cannot forget what Mr. Pratt has told us in his Register, that the 
 great body of the Wesleyan Methodists, the great bulk of the Quake 
 and a large proportion besides both of Churchmen and Dissenters in 
 England, are decidedly favourable to Apocryphal cireulation! Be- 
 lieving this statement to be true, and looking to the Apocryphal senti-— 
 ments and habits of the London Committee, we hold the circumstance 
 referred to so triumphantly by Mr. Grey, as the most powerful reason 
 he could have adduced for our entertaining a continued distrust of the — 
 administration of Earl Street, and for our withholding from it all man- | 
 ner of countenance and support. yo ei) Se 
 
 Mr. Grey denies (p. 27) that the Apocrypha was forced upon the — 
 people in the cases of the Toulouse and Montauban Bibles. He says it — 
 1s ‘‘ falsely asserted to have been so.” But this is all. He gives no 
 particulars, no proof. Mr. Gorham long ago established this penta a 
 documentary evidence, taken from the Committee’s own minutes; and 
 Mr. Haldane testified it from personal knowledge. But no matter, 
 Anglicanus says that is false ; and that is quite enough for sucha man, 
 in defence of the immaculates, iF 
 
 We enter into no controversy with Mr. Grey about the devotion of 
 Dr. Steinkopff, or the “ high spirituality” of Dr. Pinkerton, so extra-_ 
 vagantly puffed in p. 28. We cannot judge of the former, it seems, 
 because we have not “ passed the midnight hours with him,” as Angli- 
 canus of course has done, “ in his little chapel,” and heard the humble 
 man saying his prayers !* And we cannot judge of the latter because we 
 have not happened to be in Russia, or to know any thing about the 
 north of Europe. Be it so. But we cannot conceal from ourselves this 
 fact, that Dr. Steinkopff, though a secretary of the Bible Society, pub- 
 lished a remonstrance against ceasing to circulate the Apoeryphal Scrip- — 
 tures, as being a neglect of the leadings of Divine Providence, and re- 
 presented Dr. Van Ess as the most “ disinterested” of mortal men, 
 while aware that this disinterestedness consisted im receiving a hand- 
 some salary and liberal allowances for all his services inGermany ; and that 
 Dr. Pinkerton, though sent out with full remuneration to prosecute the 
 objects of the Bible Society, fulfilled his mission by establishing every- 
 where Bible and Apocrypha Societies, and never making an effort in 
 behalf of the pure and unadulterated canon of Scripture. 
 
 *« T have credible information on the fact,” says Anglicanus, speaking 
 of the spiritual effects that have resulted from the efforts of that “ high- 
 
 * Did Mr. Grey’s Newcastle correspondent not inform him, that at the ‘* splen- 
 did anniversary,” (which, however, was not an anniversary) Dr. Steinkopff offered 
 up a public petition for prosperity to the Edinburgh Bible Society ? He made no 
 mention of the Corresponding Board. This, we suppose, will be reserved for some 
 * midnight hour” that Mr. Grey is to spend with him in his ‘* little chapel.” 
 
1828. Review of Anglicanus’ Letters. 71 
 
 ly spiritual” man, Dr, Pinkerton. How can we know whether the in- 
 formation is credible or not, unless we know the person who gives it, 
 or the person who attests it? The latter is Mr. Grey ; but after giving 
 his responsibility to the «‘ Seven Letters,” what may his assertion be 
 | worth ? The former we believe to be a Corresponding Board Director, 
 whose extravagant paintings of the religious state of Russia, which he 
 exhibited at Sunderland and other places, give us a stronger impres- 
 Sion of the vividness of his fancy and the facility of his faith, than of 
 the diserimination of his judgment or the depth of his Christianity. 
 
 Mr. Grey denies like a man the charge of intentional concealment on 
 the part of the London Committee, as both unreasonable and untrue. 
 There is nothing like obstinacy, it seems, in the estimation of the “ Eng- 
 lishman.” He does not wish to believe, and therefore he remains in 
 
 | unbelief. We gave documentary and circumstantial proof, sufficient to 
 convince any rational man ; but no, the thing is untrue. The Deputa- 
 tion, with Dr. Thorpe at their head, confessed it openly and explicitly ; 
 but what of that ? Anglicanus says it is not true. Mr. Platt puts fortha 
 _ pamphlet, inaking ample acknowledgment of it ; but still, I will not ad- 
 Init it, says Mr. Grey, it isnot true. Mr. G. Stokes undertakes the de- 
 fence of the Committee, and all that he can assert is, that the Committee 
 did not hide their own transactions from their own knowledge ; to most 
 men this would be pretty conclusive; but no, the strange author before 
 us'is as far from being convinced as ever, and he still insists that the 
 charge is not true. Well, just let him persevere in this unbelieving 
 mood ; but don’t let him blame any man after this for resisting the force 
 of evidence, or walking in darkness when he has abundancé of light. 
 _ Anglicanus is stiff in afirming the ambiguity of the original law of 
 the Society, and goes so far as to say that it is allowedly ambiguous 
 (p. 35.) This point is settled demonstratively in the Second Statement, 
 and in Dr. Thomson’s letter to Lord Bexley. But it ismarvellous—no, 
 there is nothing, however absurd, that is marvellous in such a quarter— 
 that Mr. Grey should appeal for this absurdity to the resolution of 
 August 1822, in which the Committee plainly acknowledged it to be the 
 judgment of their constituents, that,the law of the Society did not ad- 
 mit of Apocryphal circulation. All that he says on this topic is gra- 
 tuitous assertion, and contradicted and disproved by the very evidence to 
 which he so perversely refers. 
 
 Mr. Grey has told some stories, not very intelligible, about the Third 
 Statement, (p. 42) from which he evidently wishes it to be inferred 
 that there was very reprehensible conduct in the production of it. When- 
 ever the two “ paper secretaries,” as he insolently calls Dr. Peddie 
 and Mr. Anderson, shall think proper to arraign this proceeding, we are 
 quite prepared to meet them. And in the meantime we tell Mr. Grey 
 plainly to his face, that on this point, he is a falsifier and a slanderer. 
 
 What he says in p. 43 about the Society of Friends not acting accord- 
 ing to their conviction, from “fear of spoiling their business,” is a fine 
 compliment to that body of Christians. It is much of a piece with Mr. 
 Grey’s usual treatment of his supposed allies in the subject of dispute. 
 He neither consults truth nor tenderness in what he says of them. All 
 that he aims at is to be very smart, as well as very malicious, and the 
 consequence is, that those who are wiih him sometimes suffer as much 
 as those that are against him. But verity has always the misfortune 
 to suffer most. ' 
 
 In p. 44, we have the old story of twenty-five millions of souls in 
 
72 Review of Anglicanus’ Letters: 
 France longing for salvation. | So said: Professor Kieffer in a ‘letter : 
 over to the London Committee. ‘But Mr. Grey, who has been in! 
 for a week or two, and is minutely necianitiee with the language, of 
 that we translated “ qui demandent d’etre sduvées,” most erroneously 
 because the phrase merely signifies “ requiring, or standing in need t 
 be saved.” Now, in the jirst place, we advise Mr. Grey to inqui: 
 whether the word demander has the méaning he attaches to it, w 
 applied to the case of rational beings, and whether he makes no diff 
 ence between a man and a vegetable. And in the second place, 
 have to tell him, as a fact—though he very conveniently holds that facts 
 are nothing—that the translation is neither ours nor Mr. Haldane 
 We took it from Mr. Venn, who could not come fairly by it, except 
 by receiving it from the London Committee. The translation is theirs; 
 and whatever may become of their character for French learning, cei 
 tainly they believed Professor Kieffer to say, that the whole population | 
 of France, man, woman, and child, was longing for salvation ! Mr. 
 Grey, therefore, instead of misrepresenting his opponents, should seek | 
 for a solution of the difficulty among his friends in Earl Street. 
 
 His charge against us for incorrect statements about what takes plac 
 in the London Committee is altogether unsupported. And the great 
 cause of offence and vexation is, that we have told upon this subject more 
 truth in a single sentence, than Anglicanus has been able or disposed — 
 to doin all his fourscore pages. But before he specifies any thing as to the — 
 London Committee, he lets out his resentment (p. 46) against Dr. Thom- — 
 son for his joke respecting the “ seven wise men” who originated the 
 Corresponding Board. We must say that there was a great misapplica- 
 tion of the term “ wise,” but we are not yet convinced that there was 
 any mistake as to the number “ seven.” Anglicanus says, “ J do now state — 
 the fact in writing ;” but who are you, Anglicanus? Do you mean to 
 stake your credit on your pamphlet ; and to make us infer that you are 
 to be believed on this point, because you have taken good care to be dis- — 
 believed on every other point? At all events, if there were not 
 © seven wise men,” we have at least before us “ seven foolish Let- 
 ters.” ; : . 
 
 As to the outfit of Earl Street (p. 47) we maintain that errors, in triflin 
 and unessential circumstances, do not in any degree affect thesubstance an 
 truth of the accusation. If Mr. Grey, forinstance, should be giving an 
 account of his reception last summer from the ‘ poor Scottish congre- 
 gation” at Monkwearmouth,—the men of “ sordid sentiments, vulgar 
 manners, and money-loving habits” there, as he now calls them,—if he 
 should be giving anaccount of the unaffected kindness, the frank hospitali- 
 ty, the liberal gratitude with which he was treated,—and if, in telling 
 us that he was entertained by a great number of the Scotch, he shoul 
 have unluckily said twelve instead of eleven families,—or if, in stating 
 that he had a carriage at his command to take him where he pleased, 
 he should happen to call it a coach instead of a chaise,—or if, in inform- 
 ing us that he was paid so fully for his travelling expenses as to be 
 obliged in honour to give back a considerable sum, he should say L.3 
 in place of L.2, 15s. 6d.,—would Mr. Grey, we ask himself, on account 
 of these paltry mistakes, be entitled to no credence as to all that he 
 meant to convey to us respecting the cordial and generous attentions 
 which were shown him on theoccasion by the persons alluded to? Certain- 
 lynot. And why should we be dealt with differently? Though some other 
 dashing upholsterer than Sheddon was employed, does that in the least 
 
 5 
 
Review of Anglicanus’ Lelters. 78 
 
 |degree alter the case as to the extravagance of the furniture, and the 
 
 steful outlay of money, that should have been spent on Bibles? And 
 when Mr. Grey affirms that “ the Bible Society have escaped all ani- 
 madversion from those who had been in the habit for years of frequent- 
 ing it,” he affirms what is not true. It did not escape animadversion,— 
 aye, and severe animadversion. Good men complained. Their com- 
 plaint was answered by the assurance, that in future there would be a 
 system of economy pursued. But that system never was even devised. 
 And the fact remains unqualified and undeniable, that hundreds and 
 thousands of pounds were uselessly expended on the premises in Earl 
 
 | We need not say that the insinuation about the Post-office, (p. 48,) is 
 the most absurd stuff that ever entered into the brain of the wildest vision- 
 ary- And yet from this we may deduce an inference directly favourable to 
 pur accuracy of statement. So much convinced is Mr. Grey that we 
 have excelled in this quality, that he cannot account for the extent and 
 prrectness of our information, except by supposing that we have << in- 
 ors of the Post-office,” to peep into other people’s letters, and ex- 
 ract for us what they discover in these confidential communications ! 
 Now, we.do assure Mr. Grey that no such freedom was used, so far as 
 we are concerned, with the letter he wrote to Mr. Percival White, or 
 with the answer he received from that gentleman, nor with the corre- 
 spondence carried on between him and Mr. Zachary Macaulay ; and yet 
 |we can tell him that the information he received from these members 
 of Committee either gave no contradiction to the accounts we pub- 
 lished of the matters they referred to, or furnished an ample 
 and positive confirmation of them. He is pleased to allege that, 
 if our materials were set down with the names of those who pre- 
 ivide them, their credit would be blasted. He says this in defiance 
 of his own convictions. And if names are so requisite on our part, 
 why does he withhold a name on his? The story that he tells about 
 the minutes in the case of the Lausanne Bible is a romance of his 
 own. We have discussed the subject till we are tired with it. 
 And to answer the lying Anglicanus, by a minute repetition of what 
 we have so fully argued before, is quite out of the question. But we 
 »are happy to refer our readers, not excepting Mr. Grey, who must be 
 guy of the “immorality” of perusing the present article,to Mr. Alexan- 
 Haldane’s Letter to the Rev. Andrew Brandram, recently published. 
 -We shall only observe, that it is not altogether unedifying to find Mr. 
 -Grey treating so lightly the delinquency of any Secretary, taking it 
 | upon him to cut out fifty or sixty leaves from the records of the Society, 
 whose confidential servant he is, and so appropriating them that, but 
 for an accidental circumstance, they must have been irrecoverably lost. 
 Mr. Grey will tolerate any thing in those whom he calls “ precious 
 saints.” No matter to him what the fact really be, for with him, “ faets 
 inthis case are nothing.” 
 
 The fact of mutilation and suppression of documents is got over by 
 Mr, Grey with unspeakable ease. We have given many proofs of the 
 dishonest freedom used by the London Committee with their documents. 
 We particularly showed, in one instance, that they had composed a 
 Jong sentence for one of their agents—and thus conveyed an impression 
 for which. there was no authority in his letter. But this, according to 
 Mr, Grey, (p. 50,) was an usual and an innocent freedom with Epis- 
 tolary writings! Is it right to place any confidence in the statements 
 
 VOL. XXVII. NO. I. L 
 
74 Review of Anglicanus’ Letters. x 
 
 or the fidelity of a man who would thus apologize for one of 
 treacherous, disingenuous, and unfaithful doings, of which any 
 of the public can possibly be guilty? If this is to be exeused, wh 
 be condemned ? If a Bible Committee may thus manufacture doc 
 to impose upon their constituents, why should the managers of 
 lar concern be blamed for any thing they do? What would Lo: 
 den think of this immorality ? And what would Mrs. H. More s 
 those who commit, and of those who defend it? dy z 
 It is said by Mr. Grey, (p. 53) that « the Committee in London 
 been most unjustly charged with the errors of every Bible Society, 
 members of a Bible Society, throughout Europe.” No such charge | 
 ever advanced. It is a figment of Anglicanus. But when he pre 
 to assert the innocence of the Committee with respect to Hatin 
 the Strasburg Preface, he asserts what neither he, nor all the powers 
 ‘Christendom, can ever establish. We discussed this subject at gre 
 length in our Number for January 1827, and cannot afford time 
 room for a repetition of what we said. But really we must say, th 
 Mr. Grey has read that Review, and the Minutes and Correspond 
 of which it treated, he is the boldest and most unblushing assertor 
 mis-statements and untruths that we have ever had the misfortune 
 encounter. And, indeed, what may not be expected, of all that j 
 wicked and unjustifiable in this respect, from a minister of the gos) 
 who can gravely speak of this Preface—this Neologian, infidel, dete 
 able Preface—as a “ Mole-hill in the path,” over which it was the di 
 both of the London and the Edinburgh Committees to “ slide,” vy 
 engaged in the work of Bible circulation ! !! i 
 Then comes the fact, (p. 56) broadly asserted by Mr. Grey, that I 
 Haldane and we “ had-thoughts of trying the establishing our char 
 of it in a translation,” but for fear of showing that it had redeeming 
 qualities, we Jet it alone. This is a shameless falsehood. The 
 contrary is the truth. A proposal was made by a gentleman in 
 don that we should publish a translation of the Preface. But both 
 Haldane and we, without communication, resisted the proposal at 
 and decidedly. And we did so on the ground, that we could no 
 aecessary to the publication of any thing so irreligious and profane. 
 That is the fact. But the Preface seems to beara different aspect in 
 the eye of Mr. Grey. He speaks of it with great indulgence. It has” 
 redeeming qualities. Perhaps, like Dr. Pye Smith, he considers it te 
 be a ‘‘ valuable and interesting performance.” Well then, let him pub-— 
 lish it if he will. It will not disgrace him much more than the ‘“ Let-— 
 ters of Anglicanus.” And we shall uot fail to notice the article mil 
 in connection with the minister of St. Mary’s. ok S 
 «« Where,” says Mr. Grey, “is the royal Duke, or popular Parliament- 
 man, or place-holding nobleman, that has ever meddled with a move=_ 
 ment, or influenced a decision in the Bible Society ?” (p.60.) Thisis ra-_ 
 ther an odd sort of challenge. But we can answer it with a fact. Asto 
 royal dukes, if they have not meddled with the Bible Society, it has 
 not been for want of solicitation ; and in a newspaper defence of the 
 Londen Committee which we lately read, we were very much edified to 
 find at the very head of those great men who had supported the Bible 
 Society, no less a personage than the Duke of Cumberland! As to po-_ 
 pular Parlament-men, we certainly have read of the great effect pro-— 
 duced upon the last Annual Meeting by an exhibition of the newlyinvent-_ 
 ed moral balance cf Mr. Buxton. And as to place-holding neblemen, how 
 
9828. Review of Anglicanus’ Letters. 75 
 
 comes it that Anglicanus has forgotten my Lord Bexley, who is so fond of 
 place that he remains in the Cabinet, whether it consists of Whigs or 
 | -‘Pories, Ultra-Whigs or Ultra-Tories, or Whigs and Tories united, and 
 who presides, when not better engaged, at the meetings in Earl Street, 
 wand makes such vigorous and cloquent speeches in vindication of the 
 Committee, that they scatter them like a shower of flaky snow over 
 the whole united kingdom ? 
 
 _ It has been alleged, and Anglicanus, p. 33, has repeated the charge, 
 that the Edinburgh Bible Society have been art and part guilty of what- 
 ever the London Committee have done wrong as to the Apocrypha. 
 | We have nothing for it but to give a broad and unqualified denial. We 
 believed that the London Committee were observing their solemn 
 ge, and performing their bounden duty. We had not even asuspi- 
 gion of their unfaithfulness. And because our gocd opinion of them 
 
 Jaid us open to their vile imposture, we are to be burdened as well as 
 
 , with the sin of having broken the law of the Society, and corrupt- 
 ed the Word of God!!! Anglicanus attempts to be witty and severe 
 on the clergymen and men of learning who did not make such a good 
 use of their theology and erudition, as to discover that the divinities in 
 
 Ear! Street meant by the pure word of God, the word of God polluted 
 
 with lying fables. What a pity that the blue-stocking had not been 
 
 in our Committee, to have preserved us all from the dominion of * pi- 
 tiable ignorance!” Then she knew, and kept it a secret, like her 
 
 friends up the way, and thought the distribution of the Apocrypha a 
 
 very right and lawful thing, and would have this country to take her 
 
 as an honest and pure guide in all matters pertaining to Bible circula- 
 
 tion! But what has become of Mr. Grey’s “« education ?”—for he did 
 
 not know of the Apocryphal practices in Earl Street, though one of our 
 
 Secretaries ; the discovery of these amazed him, as it did all the rest. 
 
 And he. never pleaded his previous knowledge, or the participation of 
 
 our Committee in the delinquency of the London Committee, till he 
 
 published his Reasons of Dissent, when he got some new light, and 
 among other pieces of absurdity and mis-statement, brought forward 
 this “ injected crotchet of individual opinion,’—this invention of a more 
 fertile, and more reckless imagination than his own, to serve the purpose of 
 a Tecrimination or counteraction in favour of those whom he very well 
 knew to be the only criminals iu the case. 
 
 From the details into which we have reluctantly, and, perhaps, too 
 minutely gone, it must be evident, how utterly regardless of fact the 
 authors of this pamphlet are ;—how correct the saying is, that, as they 
 deem, “ facts in this case are nothing.” It has been remarked 
 that, such is the constitution of human nature, and such the circum- 
 stances in which it is placed. that the most mendacious man on the face 
 of the earth will actually tell a hundred truths for one lie. After 
 reading these letters, we see clearly that the proposition has been stated 
 too absolutely and too broadly. And if it should hold generally, yet we 
 have at least feund one instance—that of Anglicanus—in which a man 
 has so much of what the Owenites call imaginativeness, as to tell a 
 hundred lies for one truth. 
 
 . Anglicanus (p. 34) has struggled to revive the credit of Amicus’ 
 Letters on the Apocrypha Controversy, which we completely destroyed 
 by a very full and minute review of them in our Number for June 1826. 
 Considering the demerits of these Letters, and the melancholy fate of 
 their author, we must denounce this attempt as unspeakably base and 
 
76 Review of Anglicunus’ Letiers. 
 
 heartless. From Anglicanus we could not expect-any kind of feeling | 
 or delicacy in the gratification of his malice ; but had we been his Pub: 
 lisher, we would sooner have shut shop for ever, than been the instr 
 ment of putting forth the paragraph to which we are now advertin; 
 Gladly would we have refrained from any farther allusion to Amicu 
 and his productions, could we have avoided it. Sinee, however, the) 
 are forced upon our attention, and again blazoned in public advertise. 
 ments, we must make them the subject of a few remarks. The object 
 of Amicus in his Letters, was to prove, first, that the circulation of thé 
 Apocrypha was agreeable to the law of the Bible Society ; and, seconds 
 ly, that it was conformable to the law of God himself! The enterpris: 
 was sufliciently daring ; and this may have recommended it to Angli 
 nus, whose courage is not easily damped either by the folly or the in 
 piety of its aims. And the means employed by Amicus, to accomplish 
 his object, were of a corresponding character—unscriptural principles 
 gross misrepresentations, improbable theories, and personal incivilities,— 
 which must be a still stronger recommendation to such a writer as Ans 
 glicanus, always excepting this, that Amicus manifested no particular 
 enmity to Dr. Thomson. When we demolished the miserable structure - 
 which he had reared, we knew not who Amicus was; nor did we learn | 
 this till what we had written was irrevocable. We then saw a letter 
 from his own hand, in which he acknowledged himself to be the author, 
 lamented the part he had acted, wondered what demon had tempted him 
 to engage in the dispute, implored a forbearance which could ‘not then 
 be shown, confessed that he had got assistance in the compilation of his 
 epistles, and expressed a determination to have nothing more to do with 
 the controversy—a determination which he carried into effect by recall< 
 ing a third Letter that was already on its march to publicity.. We were 
 actuated by no unkindness towards that individual, and we know, not 
 only that he felt no resentment towards us, but that when he was in- 
 stigated to this by one, especially, who had misled him as to many facts, 
 and who wished him te come to an open rupture with us, he indignant- 
 ly resisted the attempt, and so far as we know, never betrayed any per- 
 sonal hostility during the brief remainder of his life. Yet a minister of 
 the gospel, whom we offended by telling what was true, namely, that 
 he supported the London Committee’s Apocryphal aberrations, by hold- 
 ing that the canon of Scripture is not yet settled, has been industrious 
 in his efforts to malign and misrepresent us in respect to this affair, and 
 to awaken feelings against us, for which there is no just cause, and 
 among those who were not likely to be speedily or effectually disa« 
 bused. This cunning, like that of Anglicanus, has not preserved him 
 from detection; and we state it as our honest conviction, that could 
 Amicus lift up his head to see what they have been doing to disturb 
 the repose of his memory, and to make him the instrument of their 
 vengeance against others, he would cordially detest and reprobate the 
 eonduct ef both. : ; 
 
 We must now animadvert shortly on certain doctrines or principles, 
 which we should scarcely have expected in a work which an orthodox di-« 
 vine has sanctioned with his responsibility. But the Apocrypha Contro- 
 versy has brought many things to light, which we did not even suspect to 
 have an existence. And while there are some whom it has demonstrat- 
 ed to be capable of conduct which before was deemed most abhorrent to 
 their minds, there are others from whom it has extracted opinions most 
 inconsistent with all that we had supposed to constitute their religious 
 creed and their meral system. 
 
Review of Anglicanus’ Leiters. 77 
 ir. Grey has loose notions of the Canon of Scripture—at least he 
 iches such in this publication. ‘‘ Must the question of the Canon,” 
 says he, p. S, “‘ which is a point of erudition, not of divine revelation, 
 
 ake precedence of every other point of discussion ; and must the New 
 Testament, comprising all that is necessary for salvation, and which is 
 all that the Catholics will, for the most part, accept of us, be withheld, 
 fill we have settled in every case what books are properly included in 
 the Old?” The question contained in the latter part of the sentence 
 -=impertinently put to Dr. Gordon—is sheer nonsense. Nobody ever 
 te do what is here so absurdly insinuated. And if Anglicanus 
 . ‘read the hated Statements with the least care, he must have seen 
 that the giving of the New Testament to Roman Catholics was pro 
 and insisted upon, as a measure that could be safely adopted, and adopt- 
 ed without difficulty—though none of us ever spoke lightly, even by 
 mplication, of the value and importance of the Old Testament, as Mr. 
 prey appears todo. But what a strange position to advance, that the 
 anon of Scripture is “ a point of erudition, not of divine revelation !” 
 ‘This is the nonsensical and most unsound dogma of Mr. Cunningham of 
 Harrow, and the Eclectic Reviewers. It is just an attempt to under- 
 value the importance and certainty of the Canon; and has not an inch 
 of ground to stand upon. Does Mr. Grey deny, that what was spoken 
 by our Saviour and his Apostles, as messengers from heaven, and as ouF 
 teachers in divine thines, was strictly of the nature of revelation? 
 Does he deny that they gave their testimony to the law of Moses, the 
 Prophets, and the Hagiographa? And if he admits these things, as 
 he must do, by what process of reasoning does he get quit of the conclu- 
 Sion flowing from such premises, that revelation gives its. sanction to 
 the canonical authority of the Old Testament? Then again, why 
 should not “ this question of the Canon take precedence of every other 
 point of discussion?” How can any man believe for salvation, till he 
 has ascertained that which he is to believe to be the word of God? 
 How can we combine to circulate a book, till we know what book it is 
 which we are to circulate? How can we unite in disseminating the 
 Bible, till we have fixed what the Bible really and truly is? The 
 question of the Canon, therefore, must take the precedence. And 
 what is more, it did take the precedence. Some Methodist defenders 
 of the London Committee, are, through the medium of the public jour- 
 nals, defying Dr. Thomson to prove that the books of our Old Testa- 
 ment are, and that the books of the Apocrypha are zof, inspired and 
 canonical. Were this challenge to be accepted of, it would lead the 
 combatants to a field of contest altogether different frum that which 
 they 2t present occupy. For our part, we say that the challenge is 
 too late. The canon of Scripture was settled before the Bible Society 
 jwas formed. The constitution and laws of the Society rest upon that 
 settlement as their foundation. And the circulation of the Apocrypha 
 is wholly excluded, because it is no part of the canon. We take our stand 
 here. And Mr. Grey himself allows, (page 11), that “ the Committee 
 of the Bible Society were not the settlers of the canon of Scripture.” 
 They were not ; and we cannot be sufficiently thankful that they had 
 ine to do with the determination of that momentous point. But 
 when he adds, that “« they have added nothing to what they found pre- 
 viously in connection with the canonical books,” he becomes a quibbler, 
 and predicates what is not true, as bearing on the present discussion. 
 By the law of the Society, they were entitled to circulate nothing but 
 
78 Review of Anglicanus’ Letters. 
 
 the canon,—not the canon and any thing else they pleased, for in» 
 case they might have circulated Henry’s or Whitby’s Commentaries. 
 they did add something to the Canon of Scripture. ‘They added 
 Apocryphal books, sometimes mixing them up with the Canon for 
 Roman Catholics, and. sometimes appending them to it for the Pro 
 tants, who, it is said by themselves, required them as a part of 
 Word of God! And to vindicate them for so doing, Mr. Grey quotes 
 the Reformers, and the mode in which they left the Bible. Did thé 
 Reformers leave the Bible with the Apocrypha intermixed? Or did the 
 Reformers tell those who came after them to give the Apocrypha, ever 
 appended only, as a part of the canonical Scriptures? Must it be t 
 not only the Edinbargh Society, but the ancient Reformers, shall be 
 plicated in the guilt of the London Committee? Is there no other way 
 exculpating that body than by violating all truth and decency? Su 
 task may be very suitable to Anglicanus, but it is ignominious to a 
 minister of the gospel, or to any man of understanding who eng 
 in it. And we must tell Mr. Grey, that he has not even the a 
 pearance of that success which, though it never can justify, may 
 least give some eclat, and secure some indulgente, to a guilty ente 
 rise. 
 f We are every where in this pamphlet assailed with sneers at ou 
 anxiety about the purity of the canon. For instance, in page 65, the 
 ulira-apocryphism of the Slavonian Bible is made the theme of ~—_ 
 very wretched jokes about the “ sins of all times being put upon the 
 London Committee,” and the ceremony of * conflagration” (* burning 
 would have been more humorous) “ by the hands of the common 
 1angman.” And to apologise for and recommend the wlfra-apocryphal — 
 Bible in question, we have an eulogium on “ the third book of Macca: 
 bees,” as being “ not less authentic and informing, according to Pris” 
 deaux and others, than the former two.” That is to say, two Apocry- 
 phal Looks are intermixed with the Word of God, and a third Apocry- — 
 phal book is added, and its insertion is justified because it is as good as — 
 the other two! Nay, there is nothing wrong in adding, in the way of © 
 intermixture, this third book of Maccabees, because it “may by possi- 
 bility have engaged the perusal of St. Paul before or after his conver- 
 sion!!” And why not then all the books, sacred and prefane, which 
 St. Paul ever read, or couid “ by possibility” be supposed to have read ? — 
 To complete the climax of absurdity, and to give a finishing proof of © 
 Mr. Grey’s contempt for the purity of the Canon, we have next the — 
 following hypothesis, prefaced by a very characteristic scoff: “ Nay, 
 if any Apocryphal conjecture were not absolutely profane in our time 
 and country, why might not we suppose it,” (the third book of Mac- 
 cabees) “ as readily as any other work of human origin, to have formed 
 one of the small vade mecum collection which the Apostle conde- 
 scends to give instructions about after his departure from Troas!!!” 
 Our inost learned and approved critics on the Canon of Seripture are 
 mere drivellers compared to Anglicanus. Had they only adopted his 
 principle, they might have saved themselves much trouble, and done a — 
 world of geod to—the British and Foreign Bible Society. For all that 
 they had to ascertain was, whether any book pretending to be canoni- 
 cal was * interesting to all students of church history or martyrology ;” 
 and especially whether it was “ possibly” perused, simply perused by — 
 the Apostle Paul, and could be merely “ conjectured” to have been one 
 of the parchments which he left at Troas! This is a fair representa- 
 
’ 
 
 1828. Review of Anglicanus’ Letters. 79 
 
 | tion of Mr. Grey’s doctrine, as laid down by himself in the passage on 
 
 which we have been commenting. And though he allows that such a 
 circumstance as that of the third Maccabees being a part of Paul’s va- 
 de mecum, * could never alter its uninspired character, or make it a 
 part of the Bible,” yet still he sees no harm in intermixing it with 
 ‘the Word of God, so that in the people’s estimation it may form a part 
 of that Word, because, he ingeniously asks—profaning the language of 
 the Holy Ghost, by applying it to justify the corruption of what the 
 Holy Ghost has inspired—« What is the chaff to the wheat? Is there 
 power in it to defeat the efficacy of the inspired Word, or to make the 
 
 | oar of that no benefit?” “ What is the chatf to the wheat ?” 
 
 Preach on that text Mr. Grey, to your people, and tell them if you 
 
 dare, that its meaning is such as you allege ; or if it does not strongly 
 and emphatically declare that all spurious writings should be relentless- 
 ly expunged from the volume of inspiration, as unworthy in every re- 
 ‘spect to hold a place in its sacred pages. The horrible opinion of 
 
 _Anglicanus on this most momentous of all religious doctrines corresponds 
 
 with what is too prevalent both in the London Committee and among 
 the Apocryphists of England. Our readers can be at no loss to per~ 
 -eeive its fatal tendency, as well as its inherent erroneousness. And 
 we hope that they will not forget that it is deliberately sanctioned by 
 ‘one of the Secretaries to the Corresponding Board, while this pamphlet 
 containing it, and containing many other things not much less here- 
 tical and dangerous, is countenanced, applauded, and recommended by 
 ‘the members of that Institution. 
 
 Anglicanus labours to found a defence of the London Committee on the 
 strength of their individual character. As they are all good men, we need 
 ‘Not, it seems, enter into any examination of the charges which have been 
 brought against them, because these cannot have been guilty. And he 
 states as a “ fairly parallel case,” that had the Rev. Mr. Dealtry, or Mr. 
 ‘Cunningham of Harrow accused certain individuals of Edinburgh, such 
 as ‘“ Dr. Gordon, Dr. Peddie, and Henry Grey, of being hypocrites 
 and impostors :* Sir Wm. Forbes of being a thief, Colonel M‘Gregor a 
 liar, Mr. Thomas Erskine, 2 man whose werd could not be received on 
 any important occasion; and that all the religious characters of any 
 mote in Edinburgh, were engaged with them in nefarious transactions ;” 
 ‘such representations would have been received with nothing but con- 
 tempt. The cases are not parallel. Ali the men of religious note in 
 London are not engaged in the nefarious transactions of the London 
 ‘Committee ; and what is more important still, we do not accuse the 
 members of that Committee vaguely, or of a general offence. We 
 ‘accuse them definitely of having circulated spurious Scriptures, in di- 
 ‘rect violation of the law which they were bound to administer, and we 
 ‘accuse them of industriously and dishonestly concealing that illegal prac- 
 tice from their constituents, and we accuse them of other delinquencies 
 which we specify ; and instead of resting with these accusations, we bring 
 forward proofs, numerous and strong, by which they are substantiated. 
 And are we then to be told, that this is like accusing, and merely ac- 
 eusing Sir Wm. Forbes of being a thief, or Colonel M‘Gregor of being 
 a liar ? And does Anglicanus mean to say, that if once a man establishes 
 his Christian reputation, he may steal and lie, and do whatever his pas- 
 sions dictate, and be held innocent in the previous possession of a good 
 
 * What a curious juxta-position ! 
 
80 Review of Anglicanus’ Leiters.. Jax 
 
 name? Most unfortunate as well as most illogical reasoner! For wh 
 would have believed Henry Grey to be “ hypocrite and imposter?” And 
 yet if he has put forth the Letters of Anglicanus is he not liable to the 
 imputation of being both ? And does not his own conscience tell him that 
 the assertion of his being Anglicanus “ has foundation in truth?” and | 
 must we tell lim again that we have discovered and ascertained him to | 
 be responsible for every piece of falsehood and of vileness that is com. | 
 tained in this pamphlet ? Here is the “‘ parallel case :” let Mr. Grey, 
 if he likes the feigned signature better, let Anglicanus make of it what | 
 he can. z 
 Mr. Grey, in his Reasons of Dissent alleged, that we were violating the | 
 rights of conscience, by refusing the foreign A pocryphal Societies permission 
 to put the Apocrypha in their Bibles. This our readers must be aware 
 was maintaining the propriety of Apocryphal circulation on a groun 
 whichif otherwise sound, was likely to find a favourable response in ever 
 ‘enlightened mind. The same thing*is brought forward by Anglicanus | 
 in p. 27, and insisted upon with the greatest composure.  “ Liberty of | 
 conscience,” indeed! Do we abridge any man’s liberty of conscience, | 
 because we, the donors, withhold from him the Bible in any form he | 
 chooses to demand it? Is not this—as we formerly told Mr. Grey, with- 
 out any other apparent effect than that of stupifying him—to make our | 
 conscience subservient to the conscience of those who experience our 
 bounty ? Are we to break the law of the Bible Society, and todishonour | 
 God by corrupting his word, in order to please the ignorant and the pre- | 
 judiced? And because we say that we will give them nothing but the 
 -pure revelation—the unadulterated Canon of Seripture—leaving those 
 who reject the gift to their own resources, are we to be loaded with — 
 the folly and the oppressiveness of obliging “ foreigners to put their 
 understandings and purse unconditionally at our disposal in most im- — 
 portant points of faith and practice ?” We cannot conceive any thing 
 more preposterous and irrational than this, and yet it is exactly the 
 mode in which Mr. Grey pleads his cause. Let it not be forgotten that — 
 we were the givers, and the Foreign Societies were the recipients, of — 
 our free-will offerings. AL dle) oe 
 After all, however, it is not wonderful, when we recollect what Mr. 
 Grey formerly predicated on the subject of the Koran, and produces in 
 this pamphlet on the subject of the Apocrypha. His doctrine is, that we 
 need be at no extraordinary pains to keep the Scripturesso pure. He 
 seems to imagine that they have a sort of self-rectifying power, which is 
 just the silliness of Mr. Simeon over again. At any rate, if they do 
 not commend themselves to those te whom they are given along with their 
 Apocryphal accompaniments, he contents himself with thinking that all 
 is well with those te whom the offer is made, whatever decision they 
 come to, provided only they compare the one set of documents with the 
 other. He says to the Mahomedans, giving them the Koran, and to 
 the Catholics, giving them the Apocrypha, and to the Infidels, giving 
 them Tom Paine, and to the children, giving them Tommy Thumb— 
 presenting each of them at the same time the Holy Bible: “ That is 
 your book, this is mine ; examine their respective claims to your submis- 
 sion ; explore the evidences of their truth ; and if, after this careful and | 
 conscientious inquiry, you reject my bock and retain your own, be not 
 afraid—you stand acquitted—and may look for heaven,” This is a fair. 
 representation of the principles strictly maintained by Mr. Grey in his 
 Reasons of Dissent ; and alas! there.is too much to sanction it in the 
 pages we are now reviewing. 
 
828. Review of Anglicanus’ Letters, 81 
 
 » The notions which Mr. Grey, or Anglicanus sports on sin, and pardon, 
 -and the test of holiness, are exceedingly lax and reprehensible. For 
 ‘example, he holds (p. 28,) that such men as Steinkopff and Pinkerton 
 are “ blessed even in their mistakes, more than others in their correctness.” 
 | By this he evidently means, as appears from the context, that these 
 men have more of the divine blessing attending their mistakes, in giving 
 as God’s word what is not his word, than others have who are so correct 
 as to deem that impiety, and to protest and strive against it. Again, he 
 ‘says, (p. 37,) that the offences which we have censured in the London 
 mittee, “‘ it may be, were divinely cancelled in the committing of 
 them.” This is quite shocking ; and only shows how far our Philo-Apo- 
 eryphists will go in their desire to extenuate the guilt of their friends. 
 It is antinomian—unscriptural—pernicious doctrine ; and deserves to 
 be held up to unmitigated and universal reprobation. Once more, Mr. 
 Grey tells us, (p. 52,) that «“ those affairs cannot be said to have been 
 ill-conducted which God has conspicuously prospered.” Here success is 
 made. the proof that not only is the cause good, but that its manage- 
 ment has been worthy. The Bible should, we opine, be a better stand- 
 ard of judgment. But probably the “ glittering scymitar” of the Pro- 
 phet had occurred to Anglicanus, and why should not the Koran have 
 its share of the wise saws that are going? How much does all this cor- 
 respond with the general looseness of principle, which pervades the writ- 
 ings of our opponents on the great question at issue! 
 
 _ We omitted, in speaking of Mr. Grey’s abuse of Scotland, to notice 
 the sneer he throws out at her *‘ dull and decent Sabbaths, preserved b 
 Many as something too good even for religious uses.” We should be hap- 
 py, indeed, to see the Lord’s day better, more wisely, and more usefully 
 observed in this country than it is,—but it is worse than ludicrous to 
 hear a pious Englishman finding fault with its dulness and its decency. 
 Does he mean that it should be spent in musical parties within doors, 
 and foot-ball rioting in the fields, as it often is in his native land? No; 
 but perhaps he intends that we should pay that regard to it which has 
 been paid by the leading members and patrons of the British and Foreign 
 Bible Society, of which we shall offer a few examples for the edification 
 of our readers. 1. One of its noble Vice-Presidents, and valiant defen- 
 ders, chooses to have his political dinner parties on the Sunday, for he must 
 either do so, or renounce place,—and that would be greatly worse than 
 not <‘ remembering the Sabbath to keepit holy !’ 2. A deputation of the 
 British and Foreign Bible Society were appointed to,wait upon the 
 Emperor Alexander of Russia, when he was in England, with a dutiful 
 address ; and the Sabbath was the day on which the ceremonious visit 
 was performed by three Bishops, two Lords, Mr. Vansittart, Mr. Wil- 
 berforce, and the three Secretaries! “3. Mr. Monod, sen. was received 
 by the London Society as a deputy from the Paris Society ; and Dr. 
 Steinkopff wrote to the Bible friends in Paris that «‘ Mr. Monod had 
 been very agreeable, not only to the Committee of the British and Fo- 
 reign, but also to the general meeting of its members.” This eulogium, 
 we presume, was the more cordial that Mr. Monod was not only an Arian, 
 but that when coming out of church in London, he strongly urged some 
 ministers of the Gospel to spend the afternoon of the Lord's day in play 
 ing cards with him. No wonder he was so agreeable to the Committee 
 and the general meeting! 4. But to come nearer the place of Anglica- 
 nus’ birth ; the Mayor of Newcastle, who presided at the “ splendid an- 
 
 VOL. XXVII. NO. I. M 
 
82 Review of Anglicanus’ Leliers., 
 
 niversary,” which was attended by “ the whole concourse of the religi- 
 ous public in the place and neighbourhood,” and whom all the goc 
 Biblicists applauded with voice, hand, and foot,—sympathising with his 
 Bible friends in their antipathy to “adull and decent Sabbath,”— 
 thought proper to give his farewell official dinner on the Lord's day, (a 
 few weeks after the Bible meeting in Brunswick Chapel,) and the next 
 newspaper was partly occupied in describing the oy we and in re 
 porting the toasts that were given, and the speeches that were deliver 
 ed, on that solemn and convivial occasion ! : tee ae 
 Mr. Grey has most exalted ideas of the British and Foreign Bibl 
 Society. We all recollect his high flown eulogy on that Institution in 
 the Reasons of Dissent. It was so extravagant as to run the risk of be- 
 ing taken for burlesque. Now, he is somewhat more sober, but not 
 one whit more sound. He promulgatesa doctrine, indeed, which is cal- 
 culated, if it appeared in a pamphlet otherwise decent and respectable, 
 to do a great deal of harm. We have been accustomed to regard con= 
 formity to the Bible as that which makes any man a Christian ; but 
 Mr. Grey has substituted for conformity to the Bible, connectio 
 with the Bible Society. This is the passport to heaven which has his, 
 sanction. And he speaks of it as a noble and distinguished feature in 
 the character of his native country. Happy Scotland ! if preserved from 
 such a delusion as is put forth and pressed upon us in the following 
 sentences of Anglicanus :— istrenaa 4 
 “In England, where among the clergy a profession of serious’ religion is to this 
 day in many cases the most costly offering that can be made to it, connection with 
 the Bible Society became a standing test of character. The decided Christian, the 
 Evangelical minister, might be known by it. Their number might be reckoned up 
 as having given a pledge to the Gospel cause with their first subscription! and in 
 every station no man’s profession was disputed who chose to act in this relation the 
 part of a brother.” Page 60. by Ge : 
 - We have been often told of late, told till we are sick of hearing it 
 that the Bible Society is not a religious society. This is the stand 1 
 doctrine in Ear] Street, and it is echoed through the land by all the 
 Philo-Apocryphists. How very different is the doctrine of Raia 
 gious 
 ed. 
 
 propounded in the passage now quoted! The Bible Society is reli 
 in a way and to an extent which we never before had even ima : 
 It is so much so, that whoever joins and supports it becomes a real dis-' 
 ciple of Christ, and is sure of being saved! ‘The belief of this tenet may — 
 rocure subscribers, but it can never accompany salvation ; and every 
 man who prefers divine truth to the pecuniary advantage of an institu- 
 tion, and who knows how apt the generality of people are to rest in-out 
 ward performances, will be cautious of giving any countenance to a de- 
 lusion so fond and so fatal, or that to which the unhappy Anglicanus 
 has lent his unequivocal sanction. 1 ee 
 We have already adverted to Mr. Grey’s heretical notions about ‘the 
 canon of Scripture. A further proof of his recklessness on the subject 
 may be found in the following very extraordinary passage :—— 
 “ Not content to support Scripture truths by Scriptural means, and in a Scrip- 
 tural spirit,* the more zealous are out of patience, like Jonah, that the work < 
 evangelising the nations should actually be making progress by men and means 
 which they have sentenced to perdition—they are vexed that the Bible will say no 
 more for them—that the names and number of its books being no where recorded in. 
 it, and a conjunction of common with sacred having by some means existed and been, 
 
 i ot 
 
 - How admirably has Anglicanus exemplified this species of discontent. j 
 y & P 
 
1828. Review of Anglicanus’ Letiers. 83 
 
 tolerated im it, ever since its canon was complete, it is not possible for them now, 
 ' to the conviction of common sense, to establish the damnatory sentence of adding to 
 the word, against those who, without exploring antiquity, advancing an opinion, or 
 | imposing any thing on men’s consciences, have received, used, given and left the sacred 
 yolume as they found it.” Page 76. 
 
 __ This is a beautiful specimen of blue-stocking divinity, and London- 
 Committee doctrine on pure and unadulterated Bibles. What contempt 
 
 of principle! What disregard to fact! What confusion of ideas ! 
 What dreadful proof of the danger of “allowing a woman to speak!” But 
 the subject of translations is about as well handled as the subject of the 
 Canon. And without a single comment but this, that we have seldom 
 ag any thing so crude, senseless, and unsound, we give the fol- 
 Jowing extract: 
 
 ~ Of every translation in its first and necessarily most. imperfect stage, we would 
 say, ‘ destroy it not, for a blessing is in it’—the mind of the spirit lodges there ; ‘it 
 is the substance of what is yet to be perfected. The gift of tongues was conferred 
 on many in whom it was not accompanied by the gift of prophecy, and those 
 that received it did not of course keep silence. It is not by forbearing work which 
 we can do only imperfectiy, but by stirring up and diligently exploring what God 
 ‘bestows, that we become his creditors for still larger endowments. Accordingly, the 
 first teachers of Christianity disparage no talent that God renders available ;. they 
 ‘wrap up the lively oracles in no sacred Janguage or exclusive character ; they distract 
 us with no preference or comparison betwixt the original text and Septuagint transia- 
 tion, from which they indiscriminately quote; they check ne willing interpreter, 
 ‘dread no incompetent translator; but commit the word to its work in the mouths 
 of the multitude of its publishers, rejoicing that in every tongue were to be heard 
 the wonderful words of God.” Page 76, 77. : “lib 
 
 _ Anglicanus, who carries himself as loftily as my Lord Grey of Northum- 
 berland, is clearly and decidedly against the London Committee being oblig- 
 ed to recant and confess their errors. We should not have marvelled 
 much at this sentiment coming from one who is of opinion that the Com- 
 mittee did nothing wrong. It would have been absurd in them to haye 
 apologised for putting into the Canon what by “ possibility” or “‘ conjec- 
 ture” formed a part of the apostle Paul’s travelling library, or for telling 
 their constituents that they were doing one thing when they were doing 
 its very opposite—that being only expressive of a dislike to all ostenta- 
 tion! But to talk of its being a “ preposterous demand,” to require ac- 
 knowledgment at least from those who had been guilty of great moral 
 offences as Directors of the Bible Society, because it would have 
 been acknowledging the “errors of Owen, Butterworth, Steven, and 
 other precious saints, honoured upon earth and glorified in heaven,” 
 is to say very little either for the Christian feeling or good sense of 
 Anglicanus. The “majestic public,” thet this worshipper of worldly 
 greatness so magnificently refers to, might have considered it an “out- 
 rage on its feelings,” but not so the Christian public, who take their creed 
 and their law from that book in whose divine authority they believe. 
 We decide not as to the saintship of the individuals specified, and what- 
 ever befel them on earth, should be sorry to doubt of their glorification 
 in heaven. But quoad hoc—with respect to their concern in the de- 
 linquencies of Ear! Street, we are not to be gulled by the slang and the 
 cant of such perverters of truth as this threepenny coalition of Apo- 
 cryphists. We cannot forget that Mr. Owen, though he told the public 
 in his history that the Bible Society was to circulate that book alone 
 which has “‘ God for its author, salvation for its end, and truth without 
 any mixture of error for its matter,” was guilty in chief—not to give 
 
84 Review of Anglicanus’ Letiers. Jan 
 
 him, according to the theory of his friend Mr. Platt; a monopoly of t 
 sin—of mixing up with that book, a collection of other books which 
 have foolish or wicked men for their authors, which contain what is de 
 structive to the soul, and which are full of the most important errors 
 while they have no truth at all as a part of Revelation. We cannot fc 
 get that Mr. Butterworth made no secret of vindicating the circula- 
 tion of the Apocrypha, as being not only innocent but useful, and ¢ | 
 enamoured of it, as other men became averse to it, that he introdu ced 
 the reading of it into his family worship. And we cannot forget that Mr, 
 Steven, while he acknowledged that the fundamental law intention- 
 ally and fully excluded every thing but the canonical Scriptures: as re 
 ceived in this country, did give his consent and his support to the prac. 
 tice of circulating along with them spurious writings, both appended and 
 intermixed ; and that he was fully aware and openly acknowledged that | 
 the London Committee had been long in a badistate, and required a 
 thorough purgation in some most essential particulars:*) = 
 We have already adverted to the preface with which Mr. Grey intro- 
 duces the “ Seven Letters.” And we conclude with again calling the 
 attention of our readers to it. We request. them to bear it in mind, — 
 that the Preface was written by Mr. Grey, after all the) other parts of © 
 the pamphlet had been coolly, and over and over perused by him, . Let 
 them consider whether he has got “a clear answer to those who will 
 ‘surely say to him ‘ Physician heal thyselff in regard to ‘the free u: 
 for the purposes of censure and crimination, of the names of more than 
 one individual.” He has not acted, and he never meant to act the 
 part of a physician. For that office he has neither skill nor heart. 1 
 he has attempted to play the part of an assassin, for which he is bet 
 fitted. And if his want of success must rob him of that appellation ; 
 80, he may at least be truly denominated, to use his own words, m 
 unjustly applied to those who came openly forward to arraign his friends 
 in the face of the church and of the world, “a skulking, nameless 
 cuser, who without the courage to be an antagonist, does not lack the 
 malice to be an enemy,” (page 48.) Mr. Grey has the unparalleled 
 hardihood to call his “ reproofs just,” and to say that they have been 
 administered in vindication of those “ who have none offended,” bo 
 against whom our “ reproaches” were “ unmerited.” But after what 
 has been seen of his opinions of the Canon of Scripture, of Christian 
 morality, of the law of the Bible Society, and of various other points 
 of essential consequence; aud above all, of his total disregard to 
 truth and honour, when they stand in the way of his attachment to the 
 Bible adulterators in Earl Street, and of his personal malevolence to- 
 wards most of his opponents, we may safely regard his dicia, with re- 
 spect to the general merits of this dispute, or of any other, as undeserving 
 of the slightest consideration from any man of principle or of sense. 
 Even the Corresponding Board may be ashamed of them. = 
 , ; id toons 
 
 * Are not there many gentlemen, who either are or were members of the Committee, 
 in whose recollection it is that a small pamphlet was once put into their hands, ein 4 
 that the Lord had a controversy with the Society, and explaining the causes of this 
 consist in too much dependence upon human efforts—tvo little reference to God—too 
 worldly a spirit? &e. Whether the Apocryphal proceedings were mentioned in th 
 enumeration we cannot tell. The pamphlet was written by Mr. Steven; but. he 
 only circulated it privately, and did not put his name to it, or let it he known that 
 it came from him, “+ Because,” said he, when relating the fact, ‘*many of us are 
 too ‘great to be approached with censure.” Our readers may depend upon the truth 
 of this anecdote. 
 
| 
 | wade. Review of Anglicanus’ Leticrs. 85 
 
 But then it was “ meet and allowable, on his own ground, to confront 
 | the boaster that came forth daily as an alien to defy the armies of the 
 living God.” Mr. Grey, of course, is David, the “ stripling’—not so 
 _ young, however, as the son of Jesse—“ruddy, and of a fair counte- 
 nance.” Thus far the parallel holds, but no farther. For Mr. Grey has 
 | never done any thing that could once be compared with having slain a 
 lion and a bear ; and though he has put on as unsuitable armour as that 
 _ with which David was at first equipped, he has not had the sense to put 
 _ it off again, and to trust to the only weapons that he can legitimately or 
 | safely wield. David also came forth openly to the combat, instead of 
 
 fighting behind a bush, whereas Mr. Grey has chosen to remain in am- 
 _ Duscade, that he might save his own bones in attempting to smash those 
 ! ‘of his antagonist. And then in the issue of the battle he is as unlike 
 | David as possible, for David succeeded and triumphed over the “ giant 
 | -pugilist,” Goliath, but Mr. Grey’s opponent, Dr. Thomson, is still in life 
 _ and health, and after demolishing Anglicanus, quite ready to encounter 
 ‘a hundred such ‘adversaries of the truth as he. Dr. Thomson protests 
 {against being thought an “alien,” and indeed, since he is called so by 
 _ the man who has taken upon him the responsibility of Anglicanus, his 
 _ elaim to the opposite title may be considered as pretty well established. 
 He also protests against having any thing but deep-felt and devoted at- 
 tachment to “ the armies of the living God.” If it pleases the great 
 Captain of salvation” to spare him, he will be delighted to remain in 
 their ranks, to fight under their banner, and to die in their cause... But 
 ‘we must express—not our astonishment—but our indignation at such a 
 9 Ae of Scripture language as Anglicanus has been guilty of, in 
 ‘dignifying the dishonest and impenitent adulterators of the Bible, and their 
 ‘Apocryphal and Neological coadjutors on the continent, with thesa- 
 ered designation by which he has distinguished them. <‘ The armies of 
 ‘the living God!” No: they are the “armies of the Aliens ;” and: we 
 ‘shall feel ourselves bound to contend earnestly against them as long as 
 ‘they are commanded by men of such principles and such practices in 
 reference to the word of God, as Simeon and Schwartz—Kieffer ‘and 
 ‘Cunningham—Macaulay and Monod pere—Lee and Levade—Venn 
 ‘and Van Ess—Steinkopff and Stokes—Brandram and Bexley—Haslope, 
 Hughes, Haffner, and Henry Grey!!! ; 
 
 One word more, and we have done. An attempt has been made, both 
 
 ‘in public and in private, to exculpate Mr. Grey from any share in the 
 ‘authorship of these Letters. Knowing what we do of the matter of 
 ‘fact, we must say, that the attempt, though very natural, is highly dis- 
 honourable, and by its duplicity and dishonesty serves only to aggra- 
 vate the original offence. We admonish Mr. Grey to be cautious as_ to 
 ‘what advice he follows, and what measures he pursues. We assure him, 
 that the “assertion” respecting his concern in the Seven Letters is neither 
 “< impudent,” nor “unsupported by evidence.” Ié 2s most true. And 
 though the “home thrusts” on this occasion have been those of Dr. Thom- 
 ‘son, and are to be “ followed up” by the rebukes of his “ colleague,” Mr. 
 Haldane, and though Dr. Thomson desires and looks for no recompence 
 beyond the triumph of truth and justice, it is not uninstructive to re- 
 collect the victorious and insulting tone in which Anglicanus unwit- 
 ‘tingly predicted his own doom when he said, (p. 36)—if Dr. ‘Thomson 
 with ‘his petrifying accusations, his slultifying and confounding charges, 
 have left hypocrisy no hole to hide her head in, no shred to veil the 
 blushes, or shelter the reputation of skulking imposture,—let a civic 
 crown be awarded him !” 
 
86 Thanks to Aliquis. Jas 
 The Anti-Apocryphal Beauties of the Edinburgh Christian Instructor, | 
 ge. By Axniguis. bylat pty eal 
 
 Axiguis is fully as malevolent as Anglicanus. But he a 
 ceal his malevolence under the veil of humour; and though he does not | 
 altogether succeed in the attempt, he sueceeds so far.as to outwif 
 himself, and to do a great deal of ,good where he certainly intended t 
 do a great deal of evil. We really feel thankful to this Apocryphist; | 
 and we shall shortly state the grounds on which we. request him 
 cept the tribute of our sincere and ardent gratitude. 5 
 
 1, We thank him for his careful perusal of our Magazine, V 
 publish it, that it may be read ; and it is gratifying to find that ov 
 views are not wholly frustrated, even though it .has been decided - 
 Mr. Grey, on the conjectural authority of Lord Reden, that to rea 
 the Instructor is as great an immorality as horse-racing! . Aliquis has | 
 been on the whole an industrious, plodding student of our pages. F 
 has pretty often, indeed, misunderstood our argument, and oftener mis- 
 represented our facts. But then we have long since learnt to expec 
 considerable deficiency of intellect and honesty. in our | Apoeryph 
 antagonists ; and as. Aliquis seems resolved to consult our feelings, a 
 not to afflict us with disappointment, this increases, our obligation. — 
 We hope he will be still kinder by insisting on~all his brethren in the 
 Corresponding Board giving their days and their nights to the Instrue- 
 tor ; for had they only studied it more, they would probably have con- 
 ducted themselves better. eee ae 
 
 2. We are much obliged to Aliquis for his personal attentions. This — 
 does a world of good to our cause ; and justly so, for if such men’as the — 
 Apocryphists, instead of rationally discussing the subject, devote their 
 own care, and call the regards of others, to what they think faulty in th 
 individual character of their opponents, how can people avoid conclud- 
 ing that they are conscious of having nothing to say for Karl Street ? Josiah 
 Conder began this style of proceeding: Aliquis is. so good as to follow 
 in his steps. There is this difference, however; the former Apocry- 
 phist was in a perfect rage, whereas the latter puts on a Sardoni¢e 
 smile, and even makes a frightful effort tolaughe = =§= 
 
 3. We cannot sufliciently acknowledge the trouble which Aliquis has 
 taken in giving more enlarged publicity to our strictures on the Apo- 
 crypha question. He has even exercised much taste and ingenuity— 
 that is to say, all the taste and ingenuity he possesses—in selecting the 
 very choicest pieces of our composition ; and he has been at no | eX= 
 pense in getting them printed; and having stamped them on a finer 
 paper than we can afford, he has made them more accessible to the 
 Apocryphists, and has rendered it possible, we suppose, to read them 
 without any breach of Mr. Grey’s morality. He has even done us this 
 favour, though he has thereby immolated some of his best A il 
 friends. For instance, he holds up the Chairman of the Corresponding 
 Board to be laughed at in the following quotation ; t “W 
 
 “ At the Annual Meeting of the Edinburgh Bible Society, Mr. Campbell had an 
 opportunity of exerting his eloquence in support of the side which he had so warm- 
 ly espoused, and yet there was no re-action ;*—-a few donkey-heels, and one or two 
 parasols, were in requisition, and made some noise as a sort of echo to the louder 
 parts of his speech,” PE She? 
 
 * Mr. Campbell had boasted of a re-action taking place in favour of the London 
 Committee.—Epiror. ; 
 
| 
 
 1828. Thanks to Aliquis. 87 
 
 ! In a similar manner he has sacrificed Mr. Platt, Mr. Conder, Mr. Ew-' 
 ing, Mr. Simeon, Mr. Brandram, Dr. Wardlaw, &c. We only marvel that 
 
 Mr. Craig has been omitted. Surely there must have been some potent 
 
 reason for this. Was the offering deemed too costly? Beit so; Aliquis’ 
 is entitled to our thanks, and he has them, for recommending and cireu- 
 
 lating our paragraphs. And though the gentlemen above named will 
 
 not laud him for it, let him be contented with the praises of those who, 
 
 like ourselves, know better how to appreciate his liberality. 
 
 4. We have been often accused by the Apocryphists of inaccuracy of 
 Statement, and Anglicanus goes so far as to allege that we are never ac- 
 eurate at all. But Aliquis has undertaken our defence on this point, 
 and has not undertaken it in vain—though it must be confessed his task 
 was very easy—no matter, it shows his resolute and dogged good-will 
 towards us. ‘Taking it for granted that we never professed perfection 
 or infallibility, he has specified the instances of incorrectness into which 
 we have fallen. And as they amount to three or four only, and these of 
 the most trifling description, and as they are all that this diligent in- 
 quirer could discover, after sifting the multitude of statements that we 
 have made in the course of this lengthened controversy, our character 
 for accuracy may be considered as established, and the more so, that 
 “an enemy hath done this.” Even the few mistakes that Aliquis has 
 so generously pointed out, might have been modified and explained, had 
 he looked sufficiently to the context. But he could not be expected to 
 be perfect more than ourselves ; Aliquando bonus dormitat Homerus. 
 And we proffer him our humble and hearty acknowledgments. 
 
 5. There is another thing that we must not forget to mention. All 
 the opposition we have given to the London Committee has been attri- 
 buted to an alleged dislike on our part tothe individuals composing that 
 body, and we have been repeatedly charged with never having taken 
 a part in the Bible Society cause, till this dispute commenced. We 
 have often endeavoured to rebut these charges ; but still have they been 
 re-iterated—for our opponents, if they should be destitute of all other’ 
 virtues, have the virtue at least of obstinacy in its highest exercise—and 
 Anglicanus urges them as if they had become true, merely by being fre- 
 quently advanced. _ But our great admirer and staunch friend Aliquis, 
 has come to our aid, and brought an auxiliary force that cannot be resist- 
 ed. He has extracted from our work a great variety of passages, which 
 demonstrate that we were early and strenuous’ advocates of the 
 British and. Foreign Bible Society ; that we entertained a very high 
 opinion of its Directors; that we placed the greatest confidence in the 
 piety, candour, and fidelity, of its agents and servants. So that what 
 has been so. often and so remorselessly pleaded against’ us in the res~ 
 pects alluded to, is proved, by the help of Aliquis himself, to be utterly 
 without foundation. He has just omitted one thing,—but who is per- 
 fect ?—he has, omitted the chronology of the case. He should: have 
 told when it was that these eulogiums were pronounced by us, that his 
 readers might see how much attached we were to the Bible Society,’ 
 when we believed it pure and upright, and how we only changed our 
 tone when we discovered Earl Street to be the haunt of Bible corrup- 
 tion, dishonest concealment, and other vices, which. should. have chan- 
 ged the ‘sentiments, and alienated the affections, of every man who 
 reveres the Book of God. Most readers, we believe, will have sagacity 
 enough to perceive, that this is only an unintentional omission of Ali- 
 quis, and we would not have him to distress himself very much on account 
 
 3 
 
| 
 
 88 Thanks to Aliquis. Jaa 
 of it. But we thought it right to supply the defect for the benefit of 
 
 the simple and unlearned. Again we thank him. . ‘ 
 
 6. There is another item of the same kind, in which he has showm 
 equal kindness, though he has unfortunately “ slidden” into the same 
 mistake, just as, according to Anglicanus, the London Committee 
 slid into those Apoeryphal practices, owt of which, however, they had not 
 an equal tendency to slide. We allude to the case of Mr. M-Gavin. 
 Aliquis shows, that we have expressed two different sets of opinions 
 respecting that gentleman. In this he is quite correct. Only he should 
 have hinted that the one set of opinions was held in reference to Mr. 
 M‘Gavin as the author of the Protestant, &c.; and that when he more 
 fully developed himself in his speech and pamphlets on the Apocrypha” 
 question, we changed our views both of his talents and his principles. 
 This is a slight inadvertency on the part of Aliquis, which will do ne 
 great harm, since he has proved so clearly that we were previously dis: 
 posed to think well and kindly of Mr. M‘Gavin. And we are the more” 
 reconciled to the opposing-column plan which Aliquis has chosen fo; 
 setting forth our regards towards that gentleman, because it will recal’ 
 to the memory of his readers our own double-columns, in which, by | 
 confronting the real documents of Earl Street with its published ones, 
 we showed how much the Committee were given to mutilate and manu- | 
 facture letters for answering their own base purposes. The more grate- 
 ful are we on this account to Aliquis. ig 
 
 We could specify many other grounds of thankfulness to our new 
 ally: such as his very striking evidences of our modesty, dignity, &c., — 
 and of the economy and caution of the Edinburgh Bible Sociey, in rather _ 
 laying up their money for a lime, than expending it on Bel and the Dra- _ 
 gon, or entrusting it with Neologians and Infidels ; and of the small’ 
 quantity of matter—being the smallest quantity possible—that can be 
 brought in the shape of argument, against the Pocket Gaelic Bible, and — 
 other good works of the Anti-Apocryphists. But we must hasten toa 
 close, and therefore mention rb Him 
 
 7. In the last place, our obligations to him for re-publishing the ad- 
 vices we once received from Mr. Haldane. They were very good in- 
 deed ; and we have to regret that we prized them so little. And as a — 
 smal] return to Aliquis for this and all his undeserved favours, we beg to 
 inculcate upon him a diligent study of the ninth commandment, and a — 
 very strict regard to truth and integrity. These are graces that hemay — 
 probably acquire. The gifts of the understanding are on a different 
 footing, and respecting these we give him no admonition. But we con- 
 sider it as a great consolation, when moral obliquities and intellectual 
 wants are so over-ruled, as to become subservient to the interests of — 
 religion and virtue. 
 
 P. S. We heard some time ago, that Mr. Craig was constructing a 
 Mill, with which he boasted that he was to grind Dr. Thomson to pow- — 
 der! Can this be the Mill? What a piece of machinery ! 
 
 ’ “© The Edinburgh Bible Society has received during the last month, donations 
 from the Aberdeen Bible Society—from the Ayrshire ditto (for the Gaelic Bibles)— 
 from Birmingham, &c. &c. &c. But our limits oblige us to defer the list tilk next 
 month. 
 
REMARKS 
 
 RELATIVE TO HIS CONNECTION 
 LETTERS OF ANGLICANUS: 
 REPLY 
 
 TO 
 MR. HALDANE’S PROFESSED “EXPOSURE 
 OF PERSONAL MISREPRESENTATIONS, DOCTRINAL 
 HERESIES, AND IMPORTANT MISSTATEMENTS, 
 RESPECTING THE BIBLE SOCIETY :” 
 
 BY 
 
 THE REV. HENRY GREY, M.A. 
 
 MINISTER OF ST. MARY'S. 
 
 EDINBURGH: 
 
 PRINTED FOR BROWN & WARDLAW, 
 16, ST. ANDREW’S STREET: 
 
 AND SOLD BY W. COLLINS, M. OGLE, AND WARDLAW & Co. 
 . GLASGOW ; JAMES FORMAN, STIRLING; C. SIDEY, 
 PERTH ; E. CHARNLEY, NEWCASTLE ; AND 
 JAMES DUNCAN, LONDON. 
 
 1828. 
 
© a ‘ 
 ee ae he aes | 
 2 e 
 \ ~ 
 4 
 V4 
 “at Sh Oat 
 ¥ ae | 
 - arin & 
 i “£ 
 ' 
 ‘ ¢ 
 ; . etd 
 ' 
 - ' 
 ' 
 t{ ’ 
 ; . 
 : A 
 ' eo . 
 A bie A 
 { fy } 
 intl p*) Rei 
 t 4 
 
 i pie, ib eee 
 nt be oh bento a 
 Ch dey, SHEA othe eh a satan bs 
 
 5 Mie Se at teh ake 
 
 t my ’ ry Heh (af 
 
 iz 
 
 g “ 
 He 
 Be 
 
REMARKS, &c. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 Containing Remarks relative to my connection with the Letters of 
 Anglicanus. 
 
 I HAVE; I believe, allowed myself to appear, not only much 
 more fau!ty in conduct than I am prepared to admit myself 
 to be, but also obtuse and insensible to the voice of obloquy 
 _ and censure raised against me in many quarters, by de- 
 clining so long to gratify public curiosity to the extent that 
 has been demanded, respecting the share I have had in the 
 publication of Anglicanus’ Letters. I felt that it was ex- 
 treme injustice on the part of the public to identify me, mind 
 for mind, with another—to impute to me sentiments, on 
 particular subjects, which I had never professed, even after 
 my express renunciation of them—to refuse me the nght of 
 private opinion even on speculative questions—to prohibit 
 to me, where I fully coincided with the author, all sensibi- 
 lity to injustice or expression of disapprobation in regard to 
 those who had made my own conduct, as well as that of 
 many of my most esteemed friends, the subject of public 
 censure and ridicule—to charge me, as some have seemed 
 inclined to do, with all the odious consequences that have 
 sprung from this controversy. Such treatment seemed to 
 absolve me from all obligation to gratify the unreasonable in- 
 A 
 
2 
 
 quisitorial Beeoeae made on me with explanations, and ren- , 
 dered me indifferent about the opinion of those who were 
 pleased to hold me convicted of all that was imputed to me ) 
 by my adversaries. It is to me so obvious, that I think 
 none who impartially reflect can fail to discern—that the 
 immense, the aggravated, the accumulated evils that have 
 sprung out of this affair, have arisen, not so much from the 
 publication itself, as from the incidental circumstances com- 
 bined with, or perversely deduced from it; and that the 
 views of the author, which appear to me to comprise useful 
 and original reflections, even on subjects on which I ma- 
 terially differ from him, would have been considered as 
 neither mischievous nor very important in their character, if _ 
 the public had taken no greater charge of them, nor interest 
 in them, than in the pamphlets previously published on the 
 subject, or had viewed them as coming, as they professedly 
 did, from an Englishman and a layman, associated differ- 
 ently in church-fellowship from ourselves. 
 
 I do not even see that the assumption of such a charac- 
 ter by one to whom all the assumed circumstances may not 
 belong, for the sake of giving prominence to views and rea- 
 sonings that were the genuine property of his mind, has in 
 it any degree of insincerity or affectation—any more than 
 the supposition of a set of circumstances for the purpose of 
 giving point and force to his reproof, had, in the ease of the 
 prophet Nathan, when he set himself to rouse the slumber- 
 img conscience of David. And there may be, after all, 
 greater exactness in the supposititious circumstances than is 
 generally believed. 1 say, the author may be English, 
 Scotch, or Irish, without violation of propriety: the public 
 have mistakenly, I cannot help thinking, assumed a right 
 to be informed of all I happen to know in that respeet, de- 
 manding of me what had been imparted to me in terms of 
 confidence, and under solemn obligations. It was -undoubt- 
 edly a matter of choice with me to take charge of such a se- 
 
3 
 
 eret or not: but fidelity to my engagement, when once 
 formed, was no longer optional, but imperative. 
 
 The Preface preceding the second edition of Anglicanus’ 
 Letters, the publication of which is given up, in compliance 
 with the understood wish of many Christian friends, gives 
 an explanation of the author’s motives in publishing ano- 
 nymously, with an apology, which, if not satisfying, is at 
 least ingenuous, for those views in which most members of 
 the church of Scotland, including myself, cannot agree with 
 him. Many other important explanations, written with a 
 view to this edition, are kept back by the suppression of it ; 
 but as what is said in reference to my share in the publica- 
 tion, which I first read from the press when it was ready 
 for the public eye, fully approves itself to me by its truth 
 and consistency with what passed betwixt the author and 
 myself, in reference to points in which we differed in the 
 first edition, I beg leave, having the author’s consent, to in- 
 troduce it here, as confirming what I have to state for my- 
 
 self on the same subjects. 
 
 «« In revising these Letters for a new impression, I have 
 «< been very desirous to correct and repair what was wrong, 
 “ to supply what was defective, and to explain what appear- 
 «ed ambiguous; and, without wishing to exercise a greater 
 “¢ influence than the truth of my statements warrant, or in 
 ‘‘ any case to encroach on hours that may perhaps in every 
 “ case be better employed than in the perusal of tracts on 
 “«‘ the subject which gave rise to this publication, I would 
 “commend myself to the candour and clemency of my 
 “< readers, entreating all who honour me with a hearing to 
 “‘ hear with patience and impartiality. ; 
 
 «“ I freely own my pages unworthy of the unwonted share 
 << of notice that has been thrown away upon them. I took 
 «< upon me to answer anonymously to charges and averments 
 ‘‘ which, in their more offensive form, had come many times 
 ‘* anonymously before the public: that mode seemed to me 
 
4 
 
 “ perfectly fair and allowable, considering the state of the cont= 
 “ troversy, and the character of the statements to which mine 
 “« were a reply, as well as the most unpretending and inoffén- 
 “ sive way, in whicli representations could be made, that were 
 “to support themselves simply by their own merit. ‘The ap- 
 ‘¢ plication of Gamaliel’s rule, so boldly set aside im this case, 
 ¢¢ was all the protection I laid claim to; I thought to weaken 
 « the effect of what was invidious by leaving it unsupported 
 « by aname, and to give the critics full and perhaps fair ad 
 “ vantage over me, and compensation for the licence of my 
 « remarks, by emancipating them from all concern about the 
 ‘¢ quarter where their retaliation fell. The grand error that 
 « has'attended my publication, one which a little care would 
 «have averted, arid which, from its consequences, must be 
 « Jong deplored, has been—the not securing impenetrable se- 
 “ crecy for that which it was expedient should not be entirely 
 ‘open, - 
 
 « Justice requires me to say, that the blame which attaches 
 < to this publication, so far as it is just, applies to no one but 
 «myself. My sentiments are my own, and unborrowed. I 
 «¢ have not at any time held much conversation on the subjects 
 “¢ treated. No one instigated me to write, or shared with meat 
 « all in the composition of these Letters; they had not rHrEK 
 « guthors, but one, and for their contents I hold myself te be 
 « alone morallyresponsible. The eighth letter here published 
 «has not passed under Mr Grey’s eye, in manuseript, or it 
 « proof, nor has he been consulted respecting the changes and 
 « retrenchments in the first seven, further than as his observa- 
 *< tions upon them made formerly when they passed through 
 « his hands, concurring: with the opinion of other estimable 
 “ friends, and with my own judgment and feelings, have been 
 «“ g directory tome in thealterations I have made. My ob- 
 « servations upen the General Assembly of the Church, and 
 «on the religious character of the people of Scotland, he 
 « strongly objected to, as neither just nor candid; asserting 
 
5 
 
 also, that they would materially impair the effect of the’ 
 « other parts, by calling up unnecessary prejudice upon irre- 
 “evant subjects. I did not, however, give way to his opi- 
 “ nion, and by adhering to my own views, I am sensible that 
 ¢ my efforts have lost immeasurably as to their immediate ef- 
 “fect. I was convinced there was truth in my views, though 
 “it was partially stated, and left a vast deal unsaid on the 
 ‘other side of the question. A clergyman’s estimate of the 
 < advantages of his own church and religious community, es- 
 “pecially when made upon any thing like a comparative scale, 
 « T receive instinctively with a degree of abatement—he add- 
 “ ed also, that the extravagance of my remarks would render 
 “them harmless, believing, I presume, that the prejudice 
 “‘ they would excite, would defeat what he might deem their 
 * otherwise injurious influence. I trust I have satisfactorily 
 “ accounted for my first introducing these remarks as well as 
 « for allowing the greater part of them to remain, from my 
 «6 conviction that there are useful hints couched in them, 
 “ though somewhat hostilely and unamiably advanced. 
 
 *¢ Tt is not as an actor whose reward comes by the voice of 
 “ public approbation that I write. It is against that current 
 “set in ina wrong direction, that I have had to strive, and. 
 ‘my supports have all along been drawn from a quite differ- 
 “ent source. If I do not at thismoment, by a word, satisfy 
 «the public, beyond all doubt, as to who the humble indivi- 
 «¢dualis, whose name they have made the subject of such 
 ““ ungovernable curiosity, it arises certainly from no mistrust 
 “<I feel of the justness of my sentiments, er repugnance to 
 «‘ meet in my own person, could it be concentrated there, the 
 «¢ whole torrent of persecution that is poured out against all 
 «who agree with me. I am not ashamed to be the person, 
 ‘¢in this instance, abhorred and despised under a fictitious 
 « appellation. I desire to be free from all mystery, and if it 
 « were possible, to free all others from the embarrassments, 
 “to which too much candour and generosity to me has ex- 
 
6 
 
 “‘ posed them. The matter is as little worth pains in with. 
 “‘ holding as emotion in revealing it—and had any disposition 
 ‘* been evinced to make a Christain use of the information— 
 ‘“‘had it been asked with a good motive, and not as it were 
 “‘ with a pistol held at the head of the author, the publiemight 
 ‘ have been acquainted long ago, with all that had been con- 
 ‘* fided to Mr Grey, or that Anglicanus had to disclose on 
 ‘‘ the unimportant subject !” 
 
 It was not the publication’s being anonymous, it was not 
 the general sentiments it contained, it was not the quarter 
 whence it really and properly issued, that formed the prime 
 subject of censure: it was rather the accident of its not issu- 
 ing from the London or Cambridge press,—of its having 
 passed through my hands,—it was the culpable negligence 
 for which I have the utmost reason to blame myself, of my 
 not having either declined to be the channel of its appear- 
 ance before the public, or not having secured for that ar- 
 cumstance an absolute and inviolable secrecy. And let it 
 not be thought that in making this declaration, I mean to 
 charge myself with only a venial and trivial error, or intend 
 thereby to excuse myself from the acknowledgments which 
 an error that has been attended with such grave and serious 
 consequences, and which has so materially altered the whole 
 aspect of the affair, demands of me. I am sensible that there 
 are passages in these Letters relating to individuals, retrench- 
 ed, as I was glad to observe, in the intended edition, which, 
 though they might perhaps have been appropriately given 
 in the form of private reproof to the persons to whom they 
 applied, were unnecessarily and unprofitably severe as ad- 
 dressed through the medium of a public communication. I 
 freely acknowledge, and I know that I express the feelings 
 of the author as well as my.own, when I say that charity 
 and brotherly kindness were violated in some of these pas- 
 sages, and I distinctly express my regret that I was acces- 
 sary to their publication. As I did not fully enter into the 
 
7 
 
 sentiment they conveyed, and could not judge accurately of 
 the correctness with which some of them applied, not hav- 
 ing been present at the different public mectings adverted 
 to, I ought to have declined to be the instrument of convey- 
 ing them toothers. I hada moral conviction that there was 
 a considerable measure of truth in them ; and as they came 
 from an Incognito, adding nothing by weight of personal 
 character to his sentiments, I did not anticipate that they 
 would be so much laid to heart in any quarter as they 
 have been. It seemed to me that proceeding from an 
 unknown author, their strength was all they had to sup- 
 port them; and that, unabetted by the name of the writer, 
 their influence could be no greater than truth entitled 
 them to possess. I lent my hand in a passing way toa 
 valued cause, which had sustained what appeared to me 
 the grossest injury and violation of justice, and was not 
 aware, amid the lofty and boastful pretensions of the oppo- 
 site party, that they were so excessively sensitive and vulnera- 
 ble as they have shewed themselves to be, when called in 
 question upon the soundness and purity of their proceedings. 
 
 The particulars relating to this publication have been 
 dwelt upon to absolute weariness and puerility. Yet I must 
 mention that I approved of the retrenchments made by the 
 Editor of the Mercury in the first Letter, having marked 
 with dissatisfaction the things which he objected to ; that it 
 did not, when sent to him, contain all that appeared afterwards 
 in the pamphlet ; that the three first letters were extended by 
 the author, and passed from him direct to the publisher ; and 
 that I was not aware, any more than I believe was the au- 
 thor, of what would be contained in the subsequent letters 
 when I took charge of the first.* If I had weighed, as I 
 
 * Much has been extravagantly said about writien security given by me to 
 the editor of the newspaper, and something also about concession made by me 
 to prevent publicity. I subjoin here the sentences of my letter to him which 
 
3° 
 
 undoubtedly ought, the meaning that would be’ conjured: 
 
 up, the construction that can in particular cases be:put up- 
 on the veriest trifles, the force and importance which per- 
 verse ingenuity can elaborate from the most insignificant 
 circumstances, I ought, in duty, to have protected the array 
 of harmless little incidents connected with this editorship of 
 mine, from the scrutinizing inspection and insidious misre- 
 presentations of which it has been the subject. Above all, 
 had I duly considered, what it was unpardonable in me for 
 a moment to lose sight of, the character of the resent- 
 ment I was arousing against me, the course it would take, 
 the little account that would at the moment be made of all 
 the dear and sacred interests which were exposed to injury 
 in the strife ; had I considered these consequences as I ought, 
 doubtless no care, no vigilance, no pains by which they 
 could have been obviated, should have been deemed too 
 great by me. 
 
 A charge of disingenuousness, if not of dissimulation, has 
 been advanced against me on the ground of the advertise- 
 ments inserted by my authority in the newspapers. A due: 
 attention to circumstances, and to the precise purport of 
 these advertisements, must, I think, fully and honourably 
 acquit me to every candid mind. I beg it to be-remarked, 
 that before the appearance of the first advertisement on the 
 subject by the publishers of the Edinburgh Christian In- 
 structor, I was perfectly aware that the editor of that publi- 
 cation was in possession of evidence of my having been con- 
 
 treat of that subject, and which comprise all that I ever wrote upon it. “* The 
 passages you marked, to which I also on first reading it objected, have been 
 expunged or altered, so that now it is hoped it is altogether unexceptionable in 
 a business view. Of course, if any damage threatened you in your character 
 as editor, I should be prepared to be responsible. There being no danger of 
 this,” &c.—Nothing of that kind was treated of by the publisher of the pamph- 
 let, who, I presume, found nothing to affect any one’s safety in the publication, 
 and who, at all events, knew himself to be in honourable hands. 
 
 | 
 
9 
 
 nected with the Letters of Anglicanus ; that he had extracted 
 information from the printer of the proofs having been sent 
 to my house ; that he had procured and held in his possession 
 scraps of my hand-writing in the margin of the proofs; and I 
 was not sure whether he had not also got hold of a small por- 
 tion of the original manuscript, I presume two or three sen- 
 tences at the end of the preface, in a hand-writing somewhat 
 similar tomine. I knew then, most distinctly, from the first, 
 the evidence which he was able to produce of my having had 
 a hand in bringing out the publication ; and therefore what I 
 stated to the publicin advertisements, never could be intend- 
 ed to convey a meaning inconsistent with the truth, or to mis- 
 represent facts which, even if I had wished to do so, I well 
 know others had ample means of establishing against me. 
 Let me say on this point, in terms of an advertisement on the 
 other side: It is earnestly requested that this declaration may 
 not be forgotten or disregarded. 
 
 The first declaration of the Christian Instructor, that 
 « Anglicanus was now discovered und ascertained to be the 
 Rev. Henry Grey,” admitted of a fiat denial. Anglicanus 
 was the name adopted and appropriated by the author of 
 the Seven Letters; it designated no other individual, nor 
 that individual in any other capacity than as author of these 
 Letters ; and I being no# that author, could not permit my- 
 self to be designated Anglicanus. The assertion that I was 
 so was not true, nor a part of the truth; it was not the fact, 
 nor consistent with it. The editor of the Instructor soon 
 after this period proclaimed, that I was as incapable of writ- 
 ing the whole of that pamphlet as the London Committee 
 were of producing Milton’s Paradise Lost, or the Edinburgh 
 Corresponding Board Newton’s Principia: and while he 
 thus bears testimony that I cannot be the author of the 
 whole, I declare that I was not the author of a single sen- 
 tence. No doubt the circumstance of the proof-sheets hav- 
 ing come to my house gave an apparent probability to the 
 
10 
 
 conjecture that I was the author, but what is apparently 
 probable is not necessarily true. In fact, the assertion was 
 thoroughly false, and I answered truly in stating that it had. 
 no foundation in truth. 
 
 In reply to this statement appeared a second adyertise- 
 ment, proposing various queries manifestly for the purpose 
 of eliciting information, and preparing the public for the 
 torrent of spurious matter that was about to be poured out 
 upon them. ‘1. Has the note” (declaring that the asser- 
 tion repeatedly and confidently made that Anglicanus is dis- 
 covered and ascertained to be the Rev. Henry Grey has no 
 
 Joundation in truth) “been published with the authority of 
 “ Mr Grey himself? If so, 2. Does he mean to say that the 
 “assertion of Anglicanus being the Reo. Mr Grey has no 
 “ foundation in truth ? Or does he connect this denial with 
 “ the assertion of Anglicanus being discovered and ascertain- 
 “‘ ed to be the Rev. Mr Grey? 3. Does his affirmation imply 
 ‘< that he was not aiding and abetting in the production of the 
 << «Seven Letters-—that he had no share in the composition 
 ‘¢ of them—no hand in correcting and revising the proofs— 
 “no responsibility in the publication ? Or does it merely sig- 
 “‘ nify that he is not, strictly and literally speaking, the author 
 ‘‘ of every page and sentence which the pamphlet contains ? 
 “¢ Let him answer these questions; and in the mean time let 
 «it be observed how carefully it is attempted to strike the 
 “‘ reader’s eye, and impress the public mind, with this charge 
 ‘¢ in capitals, HAS NO FOUNDATION IN TRUTH. J¢ is earnestly 
 << requested that the declaration now adverted to, may not be 
 “ forgotten or disregarded.” 
 
 The insult that seemed conveyed in this mode of pro- 
 ceeding, determined me to delay that explanation which 
 I fully intended to make, and to content myself with re. 
 peating and confirming the statement these interrogatories 
 were meant to impugn. The following is the advertisement 
 published by my direction ; “‘ The publishers of these Letters 
 
il 
 
 ** (Anglicanus’) beg leave, on the authority of the Rev. Mr 
 «* Grey, to repeat what was formerly stated in an advertise- 
 ** ment, that the assertion repeatedly and confidently made, 
 *¢ of Anglicanus being discovered and ascertained to be the 
 « Rev. Henry Grey, HAs NO FOUNDATION IN TRUTH ; and to 
 “‘ add that this statement is meant to be taken in its literal 
 “¢ and obvious sense—that gentleman not haying contributed 
 “<a single sentence to the letters published under that signa- 
 “ture, nor being in any way responsible for the sentiments 
 “< contained in them.” 
 
 The first part of this advertisement, repeating what had 
 before been stated, I have already shewn to be perfectly 
 correct. The second part, declaring that my disclaimer was 
 to be taken in its literal and obvious sense, is equally unex- 
 ceptionable ; intimating that I did not mean merely to say 
 that J had not been ascertained to be, but that J was not An- 
 glicanus. The only part that requires explanation is the last, 
 comprised in the words: “ nor being in any way respon- 
 sible for the sentiments contained in them.” Now in this ex- 
 pression I referred, and certainly meant nothing else than 
 that others should understand me to refer, solely to the re- 
 sponsibility of authorship. This meaning is, I think, clear- 
 ly pointed out, both by the preceding words and by the ex- 
 pression itself. The advertisement having stated that the 
 assertion that I was not Anglicanus was to be taken in its 
 literal meaning, adds in illustration of this statement—* that 
 gentleman not having contributed a single sentence to the 
 letters published under that signature”—and continues the 
 same subject in the following words: “ nor being in any 
 way responsible for the sentiments contained in them.” The 
 meaning is, that not having contributed a sentence to the 
 work, I did not hold myself responsible for its sentiments : 
 and this expression “ sentiments contained in,” was selected 
 precisely because I wished to be understood as referring to 
 the substance of the work in respect of both thought and 
 
12 
 
 expression. This was the meaning I attached to the words 
 I employed; and it is impossible I should have thought of 
 conveying any other meaning, or of carrying my disclaimer 
 beyond this; knowing, as I did, the evidence already in the 
 hands of others of my connection with the work in the su- 
 perintendence of the press. Legal responsibility did not 
 enter into my view in addressing the public, who seemed no 
 way called on to concern themselves about the interests of 
 the printer and publisher. I acknowledge, however, that 
 the term responsible, the only one I apprehend which ap- 
 pears to cast any moral ambiguity into my proceeding, might 
 be deemed mappropriate in another sense: for while it was 
 adopted by me for the purpose of guarding strictly against 
 the idea of my being a partner in the authorship, and had re- 
 ference solely to that, it was doubtless a more decided ex- 
 pression than in another pomt of view I was entitled to use; 
 since, in regard to the help I had voluntarily given in brmg- 
 ing the Letters before the public, some responsibility m re- 
 ference to the general character of the work, as well as to its 
 particular sentiments, unquestionably attached to me. But to 
 this indirect responsibility I did not advert: interrogated as 
 I was, I kept to few words, and to one view of the subject. 
 It did not fall to me to clear up the doubts of those who be- 
 set me with questions, in the hope that I might direct them 
 to the object of their pursuit. I did not consider the ques- 
 tion of the greater or less share I might have had in the pub- 
 lication, as one on which the public were entitled to take so 
 intense an interest as they have since done. If I had actu- 
 ally written such a work, and published it with my own 
 name, it would, I dare say, have occasioned some surprise ; 
 but I cannot see how a greater clamour could have been ex- 
 cited against it than there has been. Indeed Iam disposed 
 to think, that in that case most persons would have been’ 
 much sooner reconciled both to me and to it, than with the 
 
13 
 
 case as it is,—the circumstances of the publication, more 
 than the contents of the work, having been made the sub- 
 ject of ceaseless enquiry and agitation. 
 
 Here it is material for me to remark, that if the Letters 
 of Anglicanus had appeared to me to bear the character that 
 many ascribe to them, if they had seemed to me injurious 
 to the cause of godliness, and inimical to religion, then, I 
 freely admit, the responsibility I incurred, though only in 
 making myself the substitute of another in laying them be- 
 fore the public, would have been a thing of fearful conse- 
 quence and of great moral turpitude; and that no feelings 
 of friendship, or desire to meet the wishes of the author, could 
 have formed any extenuation of my conduct. But these 
 judges of my conduct never take up the idea, that I view the 
 Letters of Anglicanus in a very different light: I considered 
 them as fitted to serve the cause of truth, and advance the in- 
 terests of religion, by exposing what I could not help viewing 
 as a combination against the character and prosperity of good 
 men, in a most essential and honourable part of their labours. 
 The dissension and warfare that has thus been incidentally 
 stirred up within our sphere, however much to be deplored, 
 is an evil that perhaps could not have been obviated consis- 
 tently with the performance of an important duty, in endea- 
 vouring to correct error that prevailed extensively. Some 
 require me to come before the public in the character of 
 a penitent, renouncing generally the principles and senti- 
 ments expressed by Anglicanus: I trust that if I had the 
 views they entertain of my conduct, I should be the first 
 to endeavour to recover the tranquillity of my own con- 
 science, and their good opinion, by such acknowledgment : 
 but Iam constramed to say, that conscience does not admit 
 of my doing so; that it would be wounded by such renun- 
 ciation of principle ; and I should have more to bear from 
 self reproach. by such proceeding, than I have yet suffered 
 from the voice of public censure. My faults, as far as I am 
 
14 
 
 aware of them, I readily admit, and am anxious to make all 
 the reparation in my power; but I cannot profess te hold 
 different views from those I have, or for the sake of thinking 
 with the majority, criminate myself to a greater extent than 
 my own judgment consents to. There are none that de- 
 plore more deeply than I do, all the unhappy consequen- 
 ces that have attended the various proceedings that have 
 taken place; but they appear to me to be the effect of the 
 exaggerated state of opinion that had prevailed previously, 
 which breaks out in this way on meeting with any decided 
 opposition. 
 
 The extreme publicity and minute investigation that have 
 attended every incident connected with this publication, have 
 given to circumstances an importance that m ordinary cases 
 they could never have attained. I regret extremely, that 
 any thing published with my concurrence should have ap- 
 peared to depreciate what I highly value, or to cast reflec- 
 tions in quarters where I especially owe esteem and rever- 
 ence ; namely, on my brethren, ministers, like myself, of the 
 church of Scotland, and on our church, to which our loyal 
 and dutiful attachment is due. Itis almost self-evident, that 
 I could not intend or wish to inflict any real injury in these 
 quarters, and that every degree of censure passed on the 
 constitutional character of our church, and on the clergy 
 generally trained up under her influence, and devoted to 
 the cause of Christianity in alliance with her interests, 
 pointed immediately at myself, and inflicted, as it were, its 
 first wound upon me. I ought, I believe, to have been 
 more sensitive on this point, and to have guarded more 
 strictly against all imputation of purposing what I never 
 could intend, of offending where I could have no wish but 
 to avoid giving offence. And so far as my proceeding has 
 been the cause of dissatisfaction or offence, awakening sus- 
 picion of my fidelity and attachment to the church, or of 
 my esteem and affection for my brethren as connected with 
 
15 
 
 that church, I hereby express my sincere sorrow for it, and 
 heartily renounce every sentiment inconsistent with the at- 
 tachment I have all along felt both for the institutions of 
 our church, and the character of the Christian people un- 
 ited in her fellowship. 
 
 Wishing not to detract any thing from the force of this 
 acknowledgment, and never having agreed with Anglicanus 
 in his rapid and, as it appeared to me, bold and undigested 
 strictures on these subjects, I attempt no explanation or de- 
 fence of his views. His remarks upon our church courts, 
 seemed to be an argument against good institutions drawn 
 from the abuses to which they are liable; but I thought 
 that no injury could possibly arise from them to a church 
 to which its members are for the most part so thoroughly 
 and reasonably attached, while perhaps some useful sug- 
 gestions might be found in them, as there often are even in 
 severe criticisms. I explicitly stated to the author that these 
 sentiments were not mine; but that I felt exonerated in lay- 
 ing them before the public, in the conviction that they could 
 do no harm, and might be useful in exciting to watchfulness 
 and cireumspection, in putting us upon our guard, lest haply 
 such things might come to be said with truth about us. 
 I have often heard it remarked, that there is a coldness in 
 the religious character of the people of Scotland : but it has 
 appeared to me not peculiar to theirreligious character, which 
 is consistently national, and has in it a worth and beauty ap- 
 propriate and estimable in its kind. Our missionary under- 
 takings have not greatly flourished; and I certainly mean not 
 to reflect on others, but to stir them up along with myself 
 when I say, that stronger faith and more fervent and devo- 
 ted love are what are principally wanting for our success. 
 It is not unkind, or to be taken as a reproach when such 
 observations are made, especially when they are addressed 
 frankly to those whom they concern. I love the people of 
 St Mary’s parish ; I feel an affection of which I can hardly 
 
16 
 
 venture to say ‘I know ‘the extent, - towards: the’ pe pers ns of 
 those who unite with me weekly there in the worship of our 
 God: but I should not think it well expressed 1 by a ac dres- 
 sing them in the language of flatter ry. T would not E say : 
 “ We are a choice congregation ; there is among us ‘much 
 eminent piety ; let others come and learn of us.” On the 
 contrary, I can only desire that such things might be said 
 with truth, and that He who walks among the golden can- 
 dlesticks should so decide on our character. af feel, with re- 
 spect to others, that thenearer the relation in vithidh they 
 stand tome, the more I desire their perfection, and wish n | my 
 own sanctification the more in regard to those who might 
 best profit by it. But there is fdiudl wanting on all hands, 
 Praise undeserved may be pernicious; and even where it is 
 best bestowed, it can generally be most easily dispensed 
 with. Why are those supposed not to love their country 
 who are sensible of her faults, or not to desire her perfec- 
 tion who point out her blemishes? Are not the reproofs of 
 a friend better than the kisses of an enemy’? ~ 
 
 -The'editor of the Christian Instructor takes the credit of 
 having been my patron. I can hardly allow that title’to be 
 assumed by any one. I most assuredly never at' any time 
 asked a favour for myself as ‘connected ‘with’ the church ; 
 or employed’ another to solicit for me: I never so much as 
 wished for an appointment but as associated’ with and in sub- 
 ordination fo thé’ interests of' the Rédeemer’s: kingdom. | a 
 felt an ‘antipathy at all kinds of secular agency put in opera- 
 tion on my’ account, and may say that’évery change T have 
 made in’ the church “has been ‘pressed upon’ ie® by ‘others, 
 except my removal to'St “Mary’s, which FP BRaridieeaNed 
 I left St Cuthbert’s chapel; and which the clergyman'alltided 
 to may remember he presentéd ‘as a motive to‘overcome ny 
 reluctance to'transport myself from that ‘ehapel, to which I 
 was attached; to a miore limited spliére : a movement which E 
 yielded to, only in compliance with what appeared a call of 
 
17 
 duty. His assumption has led me to recall what passed be- 
 twixt him and myself on that occasion, and I remember his 
 using arguments with me to induce me to agree to the change 
 on the presumption that an offer would be made me. I had no 
 reason to suppose him actuated by other than friendly dispo- 
 sitions toward me; but I no more supposed that friendship 
 for me was the motive that actuated him, than that enmity 
 against another whom he might wish to keep out of the 
 Edinburgh Presbytery, was his prevailing motive. I sup- 
 posed him directed by more upright views; views which 
 exclude the idea of personal favour on the one hand, or ob- 
 ligation on the other. It appeared to me that I was grati- 
 fying him by complying with what he wished as much as 
 he me by exerting himself, as I believe he did, to procure 
 the change which I never sought. I did not turn a stone 
 myself to procure that appointment: I did not go near one 
 of the magistrates or city clergymen, not even Dr Thom- 
 son, on the subject, before or after my appointment. And 
 finding out afterwards, from my friend Mr S. More, that 
 this was esteemed a want of decorum, I made the apology 
 which at the moment occurred to me, that I believed I was 
 as much indebted to Dr Thomson’s exertions as to any of 
 the magistrates: that is, meaning not to be ungrateful for 
 kindness where I had no reason to doubt that kindness was 
 intended, I yet considered that it was quite as much Dr 
 Thomson’s object that was gained as my own; since, as far 
 as personal feelings were concerned, I felt no particular plea- 
 sure in the appointment, nor immediate cause of thankfulness 
 on my ownaccount. Mr More, whose name the editor of the 
 Instructor introduced without his permission to attest a con- 
 versation that took place in the street several years ago, recol- 
 lects the purport of that conversation as differing from what 
 is stated in the Christian Instructor. With respect to my re- 
 moval to St Mary’s, I never heard of Dr Thomson’s having 
 : a 
 
18 
 
 any hand in that, till he himself particularized i it asia service 
 rendered me, It would, however, have been highly i inconsis- 
 tent in him to have stood in the way of an arrangement which 
 he himself had suggested as a motive, and knew to be the con- 
 sideration which chiefly reconciled me, to a temporary OC- 
 cupation of the church I previously held, 
 
 But supposing Dr Thomson’s activity had been really 
 the procuring cause of my appointment to the New North 
 Church, which I cannot possibly believe, is it to be suppo- 
 sed that I accepted the appointment on any terms that im- 
 plied an infringement of my independence ? If the day a after 
 my admission into the Presbytery, he had proposed any 
 measure I thought decidedly wrong, was I bound to support 
 it, or at liberty, out of regard to him, to swerve from the 
 line of conduct that duty prescribed 2—Was I then to be 
 precluded following my own judgment in respect of the Bible 
 Society ? Was I exempt from obligation to support what I 
 held right, or to oppose what I held wrong ?—But how can 
 Dr Thomson excuse himself for the compromise he must 
 have made of his principles in exerting himself for the pro- 
 motion of one whose character, he gives us to understand, 
 had even then begun to disclose itself to his penetration as 
 base and hollow ? He should remember that in rating me 
 so low as he now does, he is casting a reflection on his 
 former sagacity. If he is as much mistaken in the exercise 
 of his patronage in other instances, the church, by his show- 
 ing, must be a sufferer from his exertions. If, however, Dr 
 Thomson ever did me a kindness, known to. me ar otherwise, 
 my thanks are his as cordially as they should be another's, 
 I have all inclination to allow him his due, as to his talents 
 and usefulness in any sphere he occupies. It is solely as a 
 controversialist and an opponent of the Bible Society, I call 
 his conduct in question. Wherein Anglicanus, has appeared 
 
 to invade his character on other points, as touching his prie 
 vate habits or public mmistry, I do not go along with him. 
 
19 
 
 It was only in reference to the points under discussion, of 
 which his reasonings seemed to me to have a direct bearing, 
 that they had my concurrence. 
 
 I feel it painful to be called on to make myselfan ob- 
 ject of attention; but having been represented as a per- 
 son of low origin, who came in unfavourable circumstan- 
 ces to Scotland, and who have attained, by my removal 
 hither, advantages beyond the expectations I had naturally 
 a right to hold, I must say that nothing can be more un- 
 justly stated. The afflicting circumstances of my early life, 
 to which I once before made an allusion, were not of a kind 
 at all disparaging to me, or calculated to interfere with my 
 success in any profession my inclinations might have led me 
 to pursue. I remember the kind importunity of my guar- 
 dian and friends in combating my predilection for the church 
 of Scotland ; setting before me the discomforts of poverty, 
 and of being left behind my companions and equals in the 
 race of fortune. It would not become me to make a merit 
 of a preference founded on deliberate choice, and on what 
 appeared to me sound principle, and which I have never 
 thought I had cause to regret. I have found kind friends, 
 I have passed peaceful years, I have experienced seasons of 
 refreshing and exhilarating enjoyment in the land where 
 Providence has cast my lot, during a period not now brief, 
 but extending toa large portion of my life. It would be 
 unnatural in me to feel no ties of attachment to a coun- 
 try that has been long my home, the sphere of active duty, 
 of domestic enjoyment, of the communication to me of 
 unfailing expressions of the divine favour and benignity, 
 never to be requited by any terms of acknowledgment. 
 But if the kindness of Providence is made a reproach to me, 
 as if I had stood in other men’s way, or my benefit had 
 been procured by their disadvantage, I must for once, when 
 others turn against me, be allowed to take my own part. I 
 thank God I can say with a good conscience, “ I ha¥e co- 
 
20 
 
 * veted no man’s gold or. silver or apparel,”.,L Jove the 
 church to which I am attached more for her work. than her 
 
 wages ; I have constantly endeavoured to requite,. by faith- 
 fol s service, the kindness and favour that have been, bestowed 
 tipon me: but while I haye generally, considered. my con- 
 ‘nection with the church of Scotland with, thankfulness, not 
 knowing that equal privileges of a spiritual kind might have 
 been combined with my lot elsewhere, I cannot admit'that 
 the advantages I have derived, excel, in an unwonted degree, 
 the return made for them, or that my ecclesiastical asso- 
 ciation has elevated me above my natural place in the scale 
 of society, or conferred omme secular advantages above what 
 might easily have been accessible te me in any other sphere 
 of life. Jc set Ye 
 And for one Fu gltcaan who, . nies iis peculiar. cir- 
 cumstances, finds.an asylum and is found an. intruder in 
 Scotland, how many Scotchmen crowd the walks of profes- 
 sional as well as commercial life in England? How many 
 sons even of Presbyterian families make their way to ashare 
 in the more attractive church preferments of the South, 
 from motives, it may be, as good, but not easily shewn to 
 be more disinterested than those that determined my early 
 choice ? My choice, I trust, is to be always at my Heavenly 
 Father’s disposal; and whenever it is clearly indicated to 
 me, as has, been sometimes intimated of late, that my useful- 
 ness is, suspended, my object in the ministry lost, and my 
 work here brought to its close,—TI shall, I trust, be willing to 
 depart, to leave thesphere that can be more profitably,oceu- 
 pied by another, and to enquire where the Lord appoints 
 my future place, and what, other work he has for me to/do. 
 Having experienced much indulgence hitherto in. this, place 
 in my attempts at usefulness i in the ministry, I ought, to be 
 moye sensibly alive to the indications of a. change of, senti- 
 ment, _ I trust_L. shall. not. weary: those who have|received-me 
 as their pastor by. persisting, in.my. attempts-to ‘serve them, 
 
 i eee 
 
$1 
 
 wher the me spe betwixt t us ‘seems to be no > longer 
 
 One ‘nujear%s more it'is €sséntial for me to advert to be- 
 sive closing this ‘part of these remarks. An equitable judg- 
 ment cannot be formed ‘of Anglicanus’ pamphlet, nor of my 
 condact in respect of it, without a due reference to the state 
 of the Bible Society controversy, as it existed in Edinburgh 
 at the*tittie when the first of the letters appear ed. It has been 
 said that Anglicanus was the aggressor in this dispute ; and. 
 on this assumption that author has been reprobated as the 
 eatise’of‘all*those violent animosities and outrages on Chris- 
 tian character and feeling that have recen th y agitated the pub- 
 lie mind, and wounded the hearts of the friends of religion. 
 Such a representation, I must be allowed to say, discovers 
 an entire ignorance or total disregard of the state of facts. 
 It is well known that for a year and a half before the appear- 
 ance of the first letter, the presiding and influential part 
 of the Edinburgh Bible Committee had set themselves against 
 the British and Foreign Bible Society, and had carried on 
 the controversy with'the manifest, and we may say avowed, 
 object of detaching every Bible Society within the sphere of 
 their influence from that institution. The statements that had 
 been ‘published, the reception given to the conciliatory pro- 
 posals of the deputation of the Parent Society, the whole 
 mode’ of procedure, afforded full proof of fixed hostility ; 
 which indeed, instead of being denied, was exhibited as the 
 best evidence’ of fidelity tothe cause. But if there were 
 any question ‘as to'the party that was the aggressor in this 
 dispute, any one looking into the successive numbers of ‘the 
 Edinburgh Christian Instructor for the eighteen months pre- 
 ceding the’ time referred to, will find it impossible to retain 
 a doubt=upon the ‘subject. The attacks, incessant and of 
 long continuance, made ‘upon ‘the London Committee, had 
 been*extended to allwho acknowledged them as friends, or 
 ventured in any Way to express a conscientious sentiment in. 
 
22 
 
 their favour. We in this place who thought with them; ‘suf: 
 fered long in silence in the persons of our friends ; and when, 
 summoned by an imperative sense ‘of duty, we united in a 
 decided expression of our sentiments, we were immediately 
 assailed as disturbers of the peace of the community. No 
 one who gives the least consideration to circumstances to 
 which the Edinburgh press has borne such recent testimony, 
 can forget how the President, Treasurer, Secretaries, and 
 Members generally of the Board in Correspondence with 
 the London Society, have been held up to msolent ridicule 
 and contempt in the newspapers, on the platform at public 
 meetings, and in printed speeches put into extensive circu- 
 lation, and in the hands of every one. It was perhaps an 
 accumulation of these causes that gave rise to the publica- 
 tion that has been so bitterly inveighed against. A feeling 
 of generous indignation seems to have impelled the writer. 
 I forbear saying what my conviction suggests to me in his 
 defence, but none who advert to the train of circumstances 
 that preceded his publication can doubt that he was a de- 
 fender rather than an assailant; that in appearing to wield 
 an offensive weapon, he was occupied purely and solely in 
 repelling injuries—in the support and protection of a cause 
 that had been borne down by a torrent of piesa om 
 oppressive violence. 
 
 If the question had been likely to terminate étaisy not 
 remote period in terms of a quiet conscientious separation, 
 even though on what I regarded as mistaken grounds on 
 the part of the Edinburgh public, I should have been ‘ex- 
 tremely averse to have stirred up discontented doubts, orto 
 have retarded a return to-a peaceable prosecution of a good 
 work, by recriminating on past proceedings. But there was 
 no such prospect held ‘out-to the public: the question: con. 
 tinued still to -be ‘agitated in the mest| controversial form, 
 even in the ‘absence of all opposition: And all thisappeared 
 to me to be not ‘limited ints? influence‘to: the: simple point 
 
23 
 
 im hand, as affecting the interests of a°great public institu- 
 tion, but to extend: widely its effects through the communi- 
 ty, poisoning the minds of men with unchristian feelings, 
 imspirmg them with aversion to those whom better infor- 
 mation would have taught them to love, and dissolving 
 the ties of esteem and affection by which. those in every 
 sphere, who are in reality Christian brethren, ought tostand 
 united with the whole household of faith. One effect of 
 Anglieanus’ Letters: has been to shew, either that great m- 
 jury had been done to the minds of religious people by 
 means of this controversy, or that the circle of religious pro- 
 fession includes multitudes who have no proper standmg in 
 it: for on what other supposition can we account for the to- 
 tal bankruptey which the contradiction of a favourite opi~ 
 nion has occasioned, among some noisy professors, of all the 
 good’ fruits and healing influences of the Spirit of truth? 
 Some’ statements brought forward on subjects that had. been 
 previously exhausted by discussion, a few strictures on the 
 proceedings of certain influential individuals who had long 
 possessed the public ear, and determined all things to their 
 own satisfaction, is the sum of the provocation that has.beew 
 given. The offence meantime that has risen out of it has 
 magnified to something gigantic and inexpiable; the revenge 
 it has kindled is unappeasable and exterminating; verify- 
 mg, I must own, beyond my expectations, the state of things 
 anfolded by the discerning sagacity of a writer, whose lot 
 It is to be esteemed an enemy for representations in which» 
 recent events have made it but too apparent that he had 
 spoken only unpleasant truth. 
 
 In the whole progress of these remarks, it has been my- 
 endeavour to avoid’ all offensive and: aggravating’ expres- 
 sions; and with this view I have purposely abstained: from 
 all-allusion to: subjects im which the public are less, and FE 
 more: peculiarly interested. I have excluded from. my 
 mind the reproachful and eensorious: refleetions that have 
 
24 
 
 been thrown out, in certain quarters,’ against *my»publieila-; 
 bours ‘and whole personal ‘character: .I have no ‘reply to 
 make to these: the public must) judge for themselves. I 
 trust I have not been a vain-pretender; or wholly wnacknow- 
 ledged in my humble labours in the work of the ministry, 
 which it rests with God alone to make effectual. © I know I 
 can do nothing of myself: but in this respect I am on a le- 
 vel with men of much higher talents, and more extended 
 attainments. In these remarks I have studied to confine 
 myself to such explanations as seemed indispensably neces- 
 sary for correcting the very false and injurious views that 
 have prevailed, to a certain extent, with respect to my mo- 
 tives and conduct in recent proceedings. Whileitis:impos- 
 sible for me to compromise the sentiments I conscientiously 
 hold, even in deference to the opinion of the ‘many, espe- 
 cially on a point in which justice and equity require’ me to 
 give them expression, I would guard against the pride of 
 despising that opinion, or denying it the respect it may 
 justly claim. I have no wish certainly to fan that flame of 
 discord, the ravages of which I have so much reason to. de- 
 plore. While prepared, as I trust, to offer myself a willing, 
 victim in the cause of truth and of a good conscience, and 
 to submit to any persecution to which it may expose me, I 
 have no ambition to be so distinguished, and would abstain 
 from every thing that might provoke either private or pub- 
 lic hostility.. To disarm inveterate prejudice, and appease 
 determined resentment, is a triumph I have no hope of at- 
 taming: but I am persuaded there are many who have 
 guarded their minds against the influence of these principles 
 —persons of judgment and. candour, with whom I may hope 
 to obtain an equitable hearing, though differing from mein 
 the views they have adopted'on the question of ‘the Bible 
 Society. I-hope the explanations” offered may» lave the 
 effect of removing misappreliensions, allaying prejudice, and 
 doing away the sinister“and aggravated interpretations:im- 
 
25 
 
 posed. by adversaries. upon, things in themselves harmless and 
 well-meant,, Whether I succeed or not.with others,.I have 
 the satisfaction deriyed from a consciousness that in_ this 
 whole affair, that. has exposed me to so much censure, I have 
 acted altogether on- mh grounds, and. with perfect up- 
 rightness of intention. 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 Containing a Reply to Mr Haldane’s professed “ Exposure of the 
 _ Rev. Henry Grey's Personal Misrepresentations, Doctrinal 
 
 “Heresies, and unporlant Misstatements, respecting the Bible 
 - “ Society.” 
 
 Inwundertaking the present publication, one motive with me 
 was the necessity imposed upon me of offering some. re- 
 marks upon a pamphlet of Robert Haldane, Esq. recently 
 published, in which charges the most grievous, of heresy, 
 falsehood, profaneness, and impiety, are advanced, and all 
 manner of eyil spoken against me,—I trust falsely. These 
 accusations, it is manifest, strike at the root of my whole 
 character as a Christian and a minister of the gospel: and 
 though I am persuaded that, in reference to all who know. 
 me, they bear their own refutation in their very enormity, 
 yet, as they come from so grave a quarter, and are advanced 
 with much solemnity and dogmatism, to suffer them to pass 
 unrepelled might seem to betray, not only a contempt, for 
 those who may be influenced by such, misrepresentations, 
 but an indifference to the cause of truth, and.a very defec- 
 tive sense of the evil of the crimes imputed, to me. In the 
 protest I published in the Edinburgh newspapers, I have 
 
 = 
 
 remarked that. these charges are altogether irrelevant, and 
 
26 
 
 inapplicable as to myself, and that they are also, asit ap- 
 pears tome, founded on glaring, if not wilful, misstatements 
 of the sentiments and expressions ef Anglicanus. 
 The title-page of the pamphlet presents an offensive spe- 
 cimen of the style and manner of the party whose eause it 
 pleads ; bearing a striking resemblance ‘to other title-pages 
 and advertisements that have lately issued from the same 
 school of disputants. I am presented in it, by name and 
 surname, charged with personal misrepresentations, doctri- 
 nal heresies, and important misstatements—all, as the struc- 
 ture and pointing of. the. sentence intimate, respecting: the 
 Bible Society. But whether the personal misrepresentations 
 and doctrinal heresies respect the Bible Society or not, what 
 I complain of is, the injurious personality that exhibits’ me 
 to every eye chancing to glance on this pamphlet, in the 
 odious character of a traducer anda heretic. FT had pub- 
 licly declared that the work of Anglicanus was not mine, 
 more or less; and had disavowed any thing like an entire 
 adoption of the sentiments expressed in it. What injustice, 
 I had almost said, effrontery, in one who perfectly knew 
 this, to hold me up to the public eye, im the character of 
 the author, loaded with such reproach! If Mr Haldane 
 means to assert that my disclaimer is not to-be believed, E 
 can only pity the perverseness with which he imposes upen 
 himself: if this be not his meaning, does not’ this’ officious 
 obtrusion of my name upon the eye, even of those who do 
 not open his leaves, mtimate, that the object In view was 
 personal attack rather than fair argument—the excitement, 
 if possible, of scorn and indignation against an mdividual 
 who-had incurred: his'resentment, rather than refutation of 
 misrepresentation or heresy ?—The personality of the title- 
 page: pervades’ his whole performance. He- seems’ to have 
 no pleasure in refuting heresy if I be not convicted of it, or 
 in establishing truth if I'be not proved an offender: My 
 name; introduced in almost every: paragraph, is'still loaded 
 
‘Q7 
 
 with abuse ; and often the writer, fired with the animating 
 subject, rises to the loftier flights of eloquence, and sum- 
 moning me into his presence, apostrophises me in interroga- 
 tion, exhortation, reproof, and invective; which, if they 
 -were meant for my improvement, would have been more 
 -likely to effect this end, had they been so presented as to 
 veil in. some degree the writer’s object, which seems to have 
 been rather to inflame the passions of others against me, 
 than to carry conviction to my own conscience. It surprised 
 me to find so much personal asperity in an aged Christian, 
 in whom we might have looked for the fruits of the Spirit in 
 their more matured and mellowed forms. What pity that 
 the infirmities of our nature still cling to us, to defeat and 
 neutralise, in many cases, even the influence of graee, till 
 they be finally put off with the garments of mortality’! 
 
 It is not my intention to engage in a minute defence of 
 Anglicanus against the many writers who have made his 
 pamphlet the subject of their animadversions. His explan- 
 ations on many poimts written for the imtended edition of 
 his Letters, are set aside by its suppression, and I cannot 
 _ undertake to supply them. His statements referring to 
 facts connected with the Bible Society, in all cases in 
 ‘which I have instituted enquiry, have approved them- 
 selves to me as substantially correct; and his views of the 
 characters of some distinguished foreigners, agents and 
 friends of that Society, have been confirmed to me by 
 ‘the opinion, formed from personal intercourse and ac- 
 quaintance, of friends of my own, on whose judgment and 
 Christian discernment I have the greatest reliance. In re- 
 ference to. the Montauban case, Anglicanus, im his second 
 edition, says: ‘“ My allusion to: Mr Haldane’s conection 
 with the Montauban petition was incorrect. Tt was his 
 « influence and the stipulation he had made at first im giv- 
 “ing his. subscription, and not his immediate advice, which, 
 «“ Ihave no doubt, prompted that measure.” The follow. 
 
‘28 
 
 ing is a note attached to the first Letter, which I understand 
 had passed the press some time before Mr Haldane’s pamph- 
 let appeared. “Mr Haldane is understood'to have been wery 
 « beneficial to some individuals at Montauban in their spiri- 
 ¢ tual concerns, and to have possessed in consequence a para- 
 “ mount influence over their sentiments. ‘It was in conse- 
 “6 quence of his application to the Bible Society in London, 
 “and a liberal donation from himself, that the Montauban 
 “‘ edition was executed, and also, as he informs us, by his 
 ‘“‘ express stipulation, that the Apocrypha was kept out. 
 *¢ We have, in his Review, extracts from the letters of two-cor- 
 cs respondents, expressive of their disapprobation of ¢ print- 
 “ing the Apocrypha,’ and ‘ agreement with him in think- 
 “ ing that the Paris Society should not have occupied them- 
 <¢ selves in it” | Now though Mr Haldane was not at Mont- 
 “¢ auban at the time when his friends had the project of the 
 “ Paris Society under their consideration, may we not pre- 
 « sume (and most creditably for Mr Haldane) that his well 
 ‘known former opinion and advice swayed them in their 
 ‘“‘ remonstrance with the Paris Society? These friends of 
 «< Mr Haldane, however, were the minority : they did not 
 “ carry their point even in the Montauban Committee: the 
 “‘ Bible was of the size adapted chiefly for pulpit use, and the 
 “¢ Paris Society having purchased what was left of the edi- 
 “ tion, hearkened to the demands of purchasers in their im- 
 “ mediate vicinity, rather than to the opinion of advisers at 
 “a distance... Have we a right to decide on avy ames or 
 “expediency of their proceeding ? Or if that were decided, 
 “can we draw any conclusion from it unfavourable to- the 
 « London ‘Committée, which ‘had no hand whatever in the 
 “ transaction ?”"This‘appears to be’ an insulated case of re- 
 monstrance. against the Apocrypha by foreigners, totally in- 
 conclusive—indeed conclusive against what it has been’ often 
 adduced to prove, namely, their preference of the Scriptures 
 without the Apocrypha. .. It*’should ‘be’ remiemberéd also, 
 
29 
 
 that the edition referred to presented the Apocrypha, a8 it 
 isi in our r pulpit, Bibles, distinct, from the Old and New Tes- 
 taments, | having, I presume, as is customary. in, the.Paris 
 Society’ s exliciang a formal notice of its uninspired character 
 prefixed. But declining minute questions, I propose to.con- 
 fine myself almost pam to imputations cast upon, myself, 
 and those more especially that represent. me as giving my 
 sanction to erroneous and pernicious views of Christian doc- 
 trine and duty. 
 
 _ With the view of convicting me of inconsistency in my 
 religious sentiments, or rather in my estimate of Mr. Hal- 
 dane’s system of opinions; he introduces, not I think. very 
 handsomely, a letter of mine, written carelessly and confi- 
 dentially many years ago, in which I acknowledge the bene- 
 fit I had received from his commentary on the Epistle to 
 the Romans. That letter, I must observe, was written when 
 I had read but little of that work; and though I have no 
 wish to withdraw my commendation of it as a system of 
 divinity reared somewhat arbitrarily on that invaluable epis- 
 tle, I cannot in justice allow it to pass with indiscriminate 
 praise; since, amid much useful matter, I found, on further 
 perusal, that its illustrations were often common-place. and 
 tedious, and that, in a critical view, especially in the more 
 difficult passages, it was far from being either aceurate or sa- 
 tisfactory. But passing this, what inconsistency can be fixed 
 upon me, on the ground of my having characterized this 
 commentary as a useful book, because Anglicanus has im- 
 puted to Mr Haldane overstrained views and religious pru- 
 dery in his conduct toward the Bible Society? It is with a 
 direct reference to that institution that these expressions are 
 used by Anglicanus; and Mr Haldane’s having published 
 a_useful commentary on a portion of divine. writ, is no proof 
 that the criticism. conveyed. in. them. .is-not strictly and. em- 
 phatically just. He may, be a, useful seporaniatanea “ a 
 very harsh and, uncandid censor, dqyogaé siti measiaiy 
 
30 
 
 With a similar want of delicacy he attempts to convict me 
 of inconsistency, by quoting speeches’ made on two occasions, 
 as I remember at his particular request, at meetings of the 
 Edinburgh Continental Society : for which'l:e knows I also 
 preached at his solicitation on several occasions. The use 
 now made of the humble services I then rendered him and 
 the cause he had espoused, suggests the melancholy reflec- 
 tion, that there are men in reference to whom thé heartless 
 maxim approves itself a wise one—to live with friends as if 
 they were soon to become foes.—The expressions of mine 
 particularly referred to by him are these, used in reference 
 to the sphere of the Continental Society’s operations: That 
 “these unhappy countries were deeply culpable for their 
 « abuse of their Christian privileges, and were characterized 
 «“ by heartless apathy and infidel contempt of the truths of 
 “revelation; that religion was chained and dishonoured 
 « and destroyed ; that the light of divine truth,” (this is with 
 Mr Haldane the emphatic expression) “ sPENT TO ITS LAST 
 ‘* GLIMMERING RAY, QUIVERED FEEBLY IN THE SOCKET, and 
 “ inevitably expired for cver if not again irradiated by the 
 “ reviving breath of the Spirit of Mercy.” Now all this T 
 freely acknowledge ; I held it true at the time when I said 
 it, and I should have no hesitation to repeat it all as appli- 
 cable even at the present moment, notwithstanding the im- 
 provement which I conceive has taken place since the time 
 when I so expressed myself. But is there any thing in this 
 general statement inconsistent with the persnaston that, amid 
 prevailing apathy and infidelity, there exist in'these coun’ 
 tries many honourable exceptions, sincere in heart though 
 imperfect in knowledge, faithful among the faithless? Does 
 not the intimation that the light still emitted a glimmering 
 ray, when made in reference to a vast continent, imply some 
 remains of light sufficient to exclude entire darkness, some 
 witnesses to the truth and power of genuine Christianity” 
 whose testimony was not unheard ? Instead of exchiding, 
 
31 
 
 it conveys the idea of ‘‘ a remnant according to the election 
 * of grace,” that still shed its light though feebly around, 
 inyiting our interposition to fan and extend the flame. 
 
 I think 1 remarked in the same speech, that, im the or- 
 der of Providence, it was scarcely possible but that religion 
 must have a conspicuous revival in a country that had drunk 
 in the blood of so many martyrs, and that too within a pe- 
 riod very little distant from our own times. A mind lke 
 Mr Haldane’s considers France as producing only persecu- 
 tors: it is more congenial to my feelings to consider it as 
 producing a multitude of martyrs and.confessors to the 
 truth: the existence of the one intimates also the existence 
 of the other, We know that not a century and a half ago, 
 at the time of the revocation of the edict of Nantes, a hun- 
 dred thousand Protestants were expelled France for their 
 stedfast adherence to the dictates of conscience, besides a 
 ‘nearly equal number that perished under the exterminating 
 violence and cruelty of their enemies, I have no doubt that 
 there are many of the descendants of these faithful confes- 
 sors in that kingdom still, as well as in our own country, 
 who are tenacious of the Protestant name; and though 
 there are few of these whom we could cali enlightened 
 Christians, it cannot be supposed but that there are many 
 who retain a genuine attachment, if they do not bear an en- 
 lightened testimony, to the doctrines of the gospel. We 
 know also, that the Jansenists, all along persecuted by the 
 Jesuits, have been a numerous body, though much depres- 
 sed, and not conspicuous in the secular avocations and pub- 
 lic scenes of life: so that, even before the late revivals, we 
 may hope, without much presumption, that if the inspect- 
 ing Spirit had given out his sentence he might have decla- 
 red that there were many more than seven thousand who 
 had not defiled themselyes with the prevalent ithe of 
 antichristian error or impious infidelity. 
 
 Mr Haldane is indignant that Anglicanus represents him 
 
32 
 
 as believing i in the existence of orthodox. Protestant miilis« 
 ters in France to the amount. of. Sour: now I know not 
 where Anglicanus got this precise number; but I remem- 
 ber once in a committee meeting of the Continental Society 
 having heard the Secretary interrupted by Mr Haldane at 
 the use of the word many applied to the serious Protestant 
 ministers of France. It was proposed by some accommo- 
 dating individual to exchange it for several; and I think 
 the matter was compromised at last by the adoption of a 
 ‘term. affirmative, though in a characteristically negative 
 form—not a few. .I question whether he would admit that 
 they amount to more than four, or at least to more than 
 units, after deducting the choice individuals whom he ay 
 claim to as his children. 
 
 But I must not dwell on petty incivilities oad trifling im- 
 putations when charged with a series of capital offences. 
 ‘And though I will not give countenance to that fiction of 
 Mr Haldane’s which deprives me of my personal identity 
 and transforms me into another, by admitting that the de- 
 fence of Anglicanus is necessary to my personal vindication 
 from the crimes imputed to me, yet it may be expedient 
 for me to point out, in a few instances of chief importance, 
 the unfairness with which he has treated both my sentiments 
 and the expressions and reasonings of my friend: I say, in 
 a, few instances ; because it appears to.me that throughout 
 his whole work there is a total want of fairness and candour 
 in the views he takes of the pamphlet in question, the whole 
 contents of which present themselves to his eye in am-exag- 
 gerated and distorted form. If Anglicanus’ facts, though 
 substantially.correct, vary in.any point from Mr Haldane’s; 
 he is guilty of gross falsehood; if his. arguments: lead. to 
 conclusions differing however slightly from. Mr Haldane’s, 
 he is. wilfully perverse; if his doetrine varies..by»a hair. 
 breadth from Mr Haldane’s, he is a heretic if gayy.hevis 
 sure to be profane; if severe, he is malignant and wicked. 
 
 et A ig Se Ee 
 
 is 
 
33 
 
 I confine thyself to'certain points, in teference to which, as 
 a minister of the gospel, I: am anxious not to be misunder- 
 stoods =)" 
 
 “And” here T feel it imperative to begin with a subject 
 which Mr Haldane represents me as referring to with a 
 profane sneer, but which my conscience bears me witness I 
 have never at any time approached but with genuine and 
 
 _ deep veneration—the sanctification of the day of holy rest. 
 
 I participate profoundly in the universal feeling of the 
 ehurch, that the observance of the Sabbath is both a duty 
 of sacred obligation and a privilege of inestimable worth. 
 This imstitution I have ever regarded as most signally de- 
 monsttative of the divine condescension, and most eminently 
 conducive to the good of man. While it brings refreshment 
 to his body amid the toils of his fallen condition, it sum- 
 nions him to communion with the Father of his spirit ; and, 
 as associated under the Christian dispensation with the resur- 
 rection of his Lord, it brings him the most precious assurances 
 of infinite love, and invites him to exercise himself in spi- 
 ritual duties, and to abound m hope of the glory of God. 
 The reverend and grateful observance of the Christian Sab- 
 bath; I consider as an essential and most efficient means of 
 chérishing and promoting the spirit and power of true reli- 
 gion ;*the neglect of it as opening a door to all moral evil. 
 And with pleasure T acknowledge the claims of Scotland to 
 an honourable superiority to the Continental countries, and 
 even to the Southern division of our own island, in respect of 
 the'decent observance of the Lord's day. But it becomes us to 
 consider whether the praises'so liberally bestowed on us in 
 this respect by intelligent strangers, and so readily ‘accepted 
 by ourselves, may not endanger our-humility, and contribute 
 to produce in’ us unconsciously an over-complacency in our 
 ow#i-attainments.— The terms * dull and decent,” if applied 
 gextitallywo the Subbutis of Seodand; like most p enetran A 
 
 fede bas teacgilem 2 ad are .3 
 
34 
 
 ing censures on large bodies of men, are liable to just objec- 
 tion; and the author, I may observe, had virtually acknow- 
 ledged this by expunging them in his intended second edition, 
 now suppressed: but is there no room, I ask, for their appli- 
 cation ? And in a country where the obligation of Sabbath 
 sanctity is more generally recognised, is not formality and 
 dullness in the observance, precisely the evil against which it 
 becomes necessary to guard? Are there not many who seem 
 - to consider the duties of the Sabbath as “ summed up in gra- 
 vity, restraint, and silence,” and, if these be preserved, are 
 satisfied with themselves and their performances, though 
 they attain to no serious exercise of mind, enlargement of 
 heart, or earnestness of soul in pursuit of spiritual bles: 
 sings ? And can this cold and formal system of restraint, so 
 widely different from the spirit of adoption and the generous 
 impulses of filial love, be considered as an honourable tri- 
 bute to the Sabbath, or a profitable occupation of its hours? 
 —But whether Anglicanus’ censure be applicable to any con- 
 siderable extent or not, is there not a manifest injustice in 
 interpreting a criticism on the manner in which the Sabbath 
 is kept by many, into an implied contempt of the authority 
 of the day ; a stricture passed on those who sum up its duties 
 in gravity, restraint, and silence, into a profane sneer against 
 that divine institution ? Does Mr Haldane then pretend, that 
 its duties are summed up in these qualities, or that it is pro- 
 fane to suggest that it should be distinguished by better 
 services, of a more spiritual and generous character ? Does 
 he not know that, in proportion as we perceive the spiritual 
 extent of its demands upon us, we shall be likely to detect 
 the deficiency of our duties; and that the more we love and 
 honour it, we shall regret the more that it should ever be 
 presented ina revolting attitude of stern and formal authority, 
 rather than with the paternal aspect of benignity and love ? 
 In reference to this holy appointment, there are two evils we 
 
 have to dread ; the one is the growing neglect of Sabbath - 
 
 7 
 & 
 
35 
 
 decency; the other the dull and’ spiritless observance of its 
 external duties: If the former evil calls for correction in 
 the careless and profane, the latter requires to be guarded 
 against by the better disposed. It is not by a cold proprie- 
 ty or rigid formality of observance, but by an affectionate 
 ardour and zealous application to the cultivation of the spirit 
 and power of true religion, through means of this holy insti- 
 tution, that we do it honour, and secure for ourselves and 
 others the blessings it is given to impart. It is no good proof 
 of a real reverence for the Lord’s day, to take offence at 
 having the faults to which our circumstances expose us 
 pointed out, or higher attainment suggested to our spiritual 
 ambition. 
 
 The heresies charged on Anglicanus appear to me to have 
 been discovered by a sagacity improved by long practice in 
 that line of research, and extracted from passages where a 
 candid reader would suspect, and an upright critic would 
 find, no such thing. 
 
 We shall first consider the heresies imputed to him: in 
 reference to the canon. These are founded on a passage 
 occurring at p. 8. I give the whole paragraph. 
 
 ‘¢ The gentleman who moved the adoption of the report interested and even 
 ‘“¢ impressed me. exceedingly, by the earnest and seemingly sonl-extorted con- 
 ‘ viction he expressed, of the utter insignificance of all declaration of our prin- 
 ‘* ciples, so long as we continue to hold association with men, who, from any 
 ‘¢ cause whatever, in wilfulness or in ignorance, misinformed or uninformed, 
 ‘¢ admit of or submit to the use of a canon more extended than the true. Does 
 ‘© he indeed hold it unlawful to make any communication of truth to professing 
 ‘¢ Christians till they have abjured all error, or to confer on any point of reli- 
 ‘* gious opinion, say with Catholics, previous to their consenting to adopt the 
 “¢ Protestant faith ? Must the question of the canon, which is a point of eru- 
 ** dition, not of divine revelation, take precedence of every other point of dis- 
 ‘* cussion, and must the New Testament, comprising what is necessary for sal- 
 “ vation, and which is all that the Catholic will for the most part accept of us, 
 ‘* be withheld, till we have settled in every case what books are properly ins 
 *« cluded in the Old2 Are we required to forbid the use of the term Bible, ap- 
 *¢ plied to a book which comprises all that we believe to have been preserved 
 ** to us from the pen of inspiration, on account of the combination with its 
 ** books of others, to-which, on mature examination, we conclude that. origin 
 
36 
 
 ‘“not to belong ? Ts error on this point, from whatever catise it proceeds, to be 
 “* visited with a’refusal of the principal means of its discovery, viz. the posses- 
 ** sion of the genuine Scriptures, and are we to deny ourselves the means, when 
 ‘actually offered’ to us, of displaying to Cathelics what the authentic Scrip- 
 ** tures really contain ?”—Anglicanus, pp. 8, 9. 
 
 This paragraph, according to Mr Haldane, is fall of most 
 malignant and insidious heresies, and the first proof he ad- 
 duces is contained in the following words: 
 
 ‘* Must the question of the canon, which is a point of erudition, not of di- 
 ‘* vine revelation, take precedence of every other point of discussion ?” 
 
 - Now what, I ask, is the meaning of these words? It 
 is plainly this: If I meet with a Catholic, am I to enter 
 into no conversation with him on religious subjects, into 
 no co-operation with him in any work of charity or pie- 
 ty, into no participation with him in giving to others the 
 pure word of God, or any part of it acknowledged as of di- 
 vine authority by both, without a previous discussion of the 
 question of the canon? Is that question to preeede all com- 
 munication of divine truth to him, all conference on any 
 point of religious opinion? This is the obvious meaning of 
 the words themselves, and the meaning the context neces- 
 sarily fixes upon them. Yet on these words Mr Haldane 
 grounds the deepest censure, as if they overturned the whole 
 fabric of the reformed church. He absolutely maintains, 
 that ** the question of the canon must, on a religious subject, 
 ‘stake the precedence of every other point of discussion :” 
 from which principle it follows, that I can have no discussion 
 on a religious subject with a member of the Lutheran, Ca- 
 tholic, or Greek churches, although the whole Scriptures, 
 both of the Old Testament and of the New, acknowledged 
 by all to be inspired, lie before us as a common standard of 
 truth to which all can appeal, until the question of the ca- 
 non have been adjusted by a decision of the parties. The 
 principles ‘is so extravagant as to be absolutely absurd. Ac- 
 cording” to this principle, the Christian traveller in America, 
 in visiting ‘the Mohawk tribe, is not.to give the Indian the 
 
37 
 
 gospel of St John, the only portion of the divine word transla- 
 ted into his language, nor to employ him in conveying it to 
 others, till he has ‘made him as knowing as himself’ on the 
 subject of the canon. The missionary cannot reason from 
 the inspired words of St Paul with Mahometans or Hin- 
 doos, till he have established, to their conviction, the cor- 
 rectness of the Protestant canon. Anglicanus refers simply 
 and expressly to all communication of divine truth and con- 
 Jerence on religious opinions: Mr Haldane bars all such 
 communication and conference, by asserting that the ques- 
 tion of the canon must take precedence.—But to confine 
 ourselves to the case of Catholics and Protestants : who does 
 not see that discussions the most important may be carried 
 on to any extent, and to the most satisfactory conclusions, 
 provided the parties be honest in their appeal, and sincere 
 in their submission to the books, properly so called, of the 
 Old and New Testaments? If it be said the Catholic has 
 still the means of escaping from the truth, by an appeal to 
 some inconsistent passage in the Apocrypha, I answer, that 
 such appeal, in reference to any of those essential truths 
 that form the soul and substance of the volume of inspira- 
 tion, will prove him insincere in his profession of subjection 
 to the Word of God : and if he made such appeal, he might 
 easily be overpowered by the multiplied evidence the ge- 
 nuine Scriptures supply of all their essential doctrines. 
 Mr Haldane adds: 
 
 *¢ Tf it be clearer than noon-day that on every religious subject the question of 
 “ the canon must take the precedence of every other point of discussion, how su- 
 ** perlatively absurd is Mr Grey’s question in relation to a Bible Society! An 
 ‘* agreement on the subject of the canon is the bond of their union ; if this be 
 ** not settled, what is the object of their association ?” Haldane, p. 27. 
 
 I answer, that the bond of their union is not an agreement 
 on the subject of the canon, but an agreement as to the books 
 they are to circulate, and the mode of circulation. The object 
 of their association may be clearly defined without discussing 
 the question of the canon. Mr Haldane always forgets, that 
 
38 
 
 the principle on which Anglicanus reasons is, that, according 
 to the rules that now absolutely regulate the proceedings of 
 the British and Foreign Bible Society,the books comprehend. 
 ed in the Protestant canon alone can be distributed, or aided 
 in distribution by it ; that, in so far as its operations are con- 
 cerned, the question of the canon has been settled, and the 
 object of its association with Foreign Societies definitively 
 marked out. What he contends for simply is, that, pro- 
 vided foreigners will unite with the Bible Society in the cir- 
 culation exclusively of the pure Scriptures, the discussion of 
 the canon is not necessary as a preliminary to association, 
 all those books to which that question would relate being 
 already excluded from the object to which their efforts are 
 confined.—Enough, I trust, has been said to vindicate from 
 the charge of heresy the very innocent enquiry, ‘* Must the 
 << question of the canon take precedence of every other point 
 
 “ of discussion ?” 
 
 _ But the remark incidentally included in this enquiry, 
 namely, that the question of the canon is “ a point of eru- 
 «< dition, not of divine revelation,” furnishes a subject for 
 Mr Haldane’s unsparing censure. This remark, introduced 
 briefly, in the form of a parenthesis, may on this account 
 claim exemption from over-rigid interpretation. The au- 
 thor meant not for a moment to deny, that the Scriptures as- 
 sert their own divine inspiration ; that our Lord bears testi- 
 mony to the divine authority of the Old Testament in the 
 manner in which he refers to it, under the terms of Moses, 
 the Psalms, and the Prophets ; and that he virtually and ab- 
 solutely gives the sanction of his high authority to the com- 
 munications of the Apostles, whether in their discourses or 
 in their writings. Anglicanus’ meaning may be learnt from 
 another passage in his letters, and is manifestly this: That 
 the number of the inspired books is not recorded, nor their 
 extent exactly marked out, in the page of inspiration itself; 
 that these things are ascertained to us, as they most satis- 
 
39 
 
 factorily are, by the watchful care, first of the Jewish, and 
 afterwards of the Christian church, by the daily use of the 
 inspired writings in the services of the sanctuary under both 
 the Old and the New dispensations, by the frequent refer- 
 ence to them in the writings of those who lived in, or imme- 
 diately after, the apostolic age, by the lists handed down by 
 the early fathers, by the universal well-known consent of the 
 church from an early period of the Christian dispensation. 
 In a general view, the authenticity and authority of Moses, 
 the Psalms, and the Prophets, are a matter of revelation as 
 being recognised in the New Testament: but it is not from 
 revelation, but from other evidence, abundantly satisfac- 
 tory, that we learn precisely what is included under these 
 terms. In like manner, it is not from revelation, but from 
 history and tradition, we ascertain the New Testament ca- 
 non. This is the plain and simple meaning of Anglicanus, 
 and it coincides remarkably with Mr Haldane’s own views 
 when he suffers himself to speak directly and intelligibly. 
 «Tt is,” says he, “ on testimony that our knowledge of the 
 “¢ canon, as a matter of revelation, rests ;” ‘* Erudition is em- 
 «‘ ployed in conveying to us the testimony.” ‘ The canon 
 “ could not be settled to us by revelation in any other way, 
 “ except by a private revelation to each individual,” (p. 29.) 
 Now this view of the matter corresponds, I think, exactly with 
 the views of Anglicanus. Let Mr Haldane lay aside “ the 
 rigours of his religious prudery,” and he and Anglicanus 
 may shake hands.* 
 
 “It is just to let an author explain his own views, and on this principle I 
 introduce a note written by Anglicanus for the second edition of his work, which, 
 I am informed, was in print before the appearance of Mr Haldane’s pamph- 
 let. ‘* Let me,” says he, ‘* not be thought to start a doubt about the authen- 
 s* ticity and certainty of our information respecting the sacred Canon, when I say 
 “¢ that it rests upon historical testimony. That the Jews were tenaciously watch- 
 ‘¢ ful and jealous over their sacred books, extending their scrupulosity to an enu- 
 ** meration of even the words and letters contained in them, is a fact learned 
 
40 
 
 In the concluding part of the unfortunate sentence we 
 have been discussing, Mr Haldane detects another od “ 
 kindred malignity : 
 
 “ Must the New Testament, comprising all that is necessary for salvation, 
 
 ‘* and which is all that the Catholic will for the most part accept of us, be 
 
 ‘¢ withheld till we have settled in every case, wpe books are properly included 
 *¢ in the Old ?” 
 
 What is the meaning of the inl ¢ till we have settled ?” 
 for these contain the fatal poison. Is it not manifest from the 
 
 Ne 
 
 *¢ from common, not from sacred history. ‘The quotations and references made 
 ** in the New Testament to books in the Old, attest to us the inspired character 
 ‘* of these books, but do not give us information of their contents further than 
 ‘¢ they are quoted ; nor is every book that holds an established place in the Old 
 “ Testament thus authenticated by references in the New. We learn in the 
 ** New Testament, that ‘ all Scripture is given by inspiration of God,’ but 
 “ need to learn from other sources what the term ‘ all Scripture’ comprehends. 
 «¢ When our Saviour makes mention of all that is written in Moses, the Pro- 
 “¢ phets, and the Psalms, concerning him, we conclude these books to he of di- 
 S¢ vine origin, but do not thereby ascertain their extent and limits; nor are we 
 *¢ suarded against deception from spurious matter that might have been inter- 
 *¢ polated or conjoined with the sacred text. 
 
 ¢¢ We know that the Psalms are inspired from more recent Scripture; but 
 St we require other testimony than Scripture furnishes, to make us certain that 
 “¢ their number is precisely 150,—neither more nor fewer, and that no two 
 *¢ have been joined together nor one divided, for the purpose of os one 
 *¢ additional, or excluding one from the number. 
 
 «¢ Then, again, is not the canonical authority of the books of the New Tes- 
 ¢ tament, a matter of erudition settled by historical evidence ? I speak not now 
 s* of that internal or experimental evidence by which the Spirit establishes the 
 ‘¢ authority of the word in the mind of the believer, often prior to, and inde- 
 “¢ pendent of all examination of external evidence, and with a convietion perfect 
 ‘* in its kind, but neither superseding the need nor supplying the want of infor- 
 «¢ mation, respecting the number, extent, and limits of the sacred books, which 
 ¢ must still be sought for from other sources. Paul bears witness to Peter, and 
 ¢ Peter to Paul ; but how do we know that the writings which bear the names 
 “ of both are genuine but by evidence external to both ? We know that our Lord 
 «© Jesus Christ changed water into wine at Cana of Galilee, because we find it 
 narrated in the Gospel of St John, whom we know to have been an inspired 
 « Apostle ; but though the genuineness and authenticity of the Apostle’s work 
 8¢ may be clearly approved to the mind of the humble believer, so that he can 
 “ rest with implicit confidence on its every declaration, other evidence, both of 
 $6 its authorship and divine authority, may be needful to meet the inquiries of 
 
41 
 
 context, that it is no other than this: till Protestant and Ca- 
 tholic have. come to an agreement respecting the books com- 
 prehended in the Old Testament ? But Mr Haldane, catch- 
 ing at the sound in defiance of the sense, and keeping up his 
 fiction of my identity with Anglicanus, charges me with 
 holding that the canon of the Old Testament is not yet set- 
 tled, and that consequently we are left in uncertainty, and 
 must for ever remain in doubt, whether it be a revelation of 
 God or a forgery of man. His many exclamations and tri- 
 ple notes of admiration in discovering in me this dangerous 
 heresy, may well be transferred from that which exists not 
 save in his own imagination, to the distorting power of pre- 
 judice in leading him to adopt so groundless an inference, 
 and to cling to it so pertinaciously as even to return to it 
 with triumph in a subsequent part of his pamphlet. 
 
 The next sentence of Anglicanus incurs Mr Haldane’s 
 reprobation. 
 
 ¢ Are we required to forbid the use of the term Bible, applied to a book 
 ‘¢ which comprises all that we believe to have been preserved to us from the pen 
 
 s* the unlearned, and to establish the matter against gainsayers. In fact, if we 
 s¢ are not ourselves inspired in receiving the Holy Scriptures, we receive them 
 “ upon the testimony of others—the vulgar from the learned—the learned of 
 ** one age from the learned of another ; and those who would have it otherwise, 
 ‘© demand evidence which the Spirit of Truth has not deemed necessary—they 
 << want better bread than can be made of wheat. 
 
 “ The question of the extent of the Canon is thus obviously one of erudition. 
 sé The truth on this subject is not made known to any man by divine revelation ; 
 ‘6 but transmitted, on the credit of antiquity, with perfect security, from one ge- 
 *¢ neration toanother. Most men must take upon trust all they have the means 
 “* of knowing about it; the efficacy of other truth does not depend upon perfect 
 “ science in this matter, though it is assuredly a matter of high importance. 
 ‘¢ It is much to be desired that all Christian communities should be at one 
 “¢ upon it—that they should stir each other up to inquiry, and provoke to 
 ** mutual conference ; but I cannot see that our possessing right information on 
 ** such a point should lead us to separate the ignorant and misinformed from 
 ‘6 our company, to shut them up as under judicial infatuation, to refuse them 
 ‘¢ further means of grace, and even to deny the efficacy of our own Scriptures 
 4* put into their hands, so long as theirs are held in esteem by them,” 
 
42 
 
 “<¢ of inspiration, on account of the combination with its books of others, to 
 ‘* which, on mature examination, we conclude that origin not to belong? Is 
 ‘¢ error on this point, from whatever cause it proceeds, to be visited with a re- 
 ‘¢ fusal of the principal means of its discovery, viz. the possession of the genu- 
 ** ine Scriptures, and are we to deny ourselves the means, when actually offered 
 “to us, of displaying to Catholics what the authentic Scriptures really con- 
 ‘6 tain 2” ; P 
 This passage is manifestly the language of a Protestant 
 who regards the books which the Catholics have added to the 
 dictates of divine inspiration as of a very different origin, 
 and is anxious to correct their error by communicating to 
 them the genuine and authentic Scriptures, and displaying 
 to them what these Scriptures really contain. But then he 
 asks, whether we are required to forbid the use of the term 
 Bible as applied to the Catholic Scriptures: upon which Mr 
 Haldane exclaims; ‘‘ How daring and insidious is this en- 
 “‘ quiry ! how lax, undefined, and how unseriptural must be 
 ‘the ideas of the man who can put such a question!” To 
 these hypercritical exclamationsI would simply reply, that the 
 meaning of words, at least in common parlance, is just that 
 which society chooses to put upon them—determined not 
 by an enquiry into their etymology or original application, 
 but by the ideas others attach to them; and he who will 
 not use words.in their common acceptation, must deny him- 
 self the use of them, or run the risk of being misunderstood. 
 In entering a bookseller’s shop in Paris or Vienna for the 
 purpose of purchasing the Catholic or Lutheran Scriptures, 
 by what term but Bible would you designate the book you 
 wanted ? No doubt, at this time of day; Mr Haldane and 
 other adepts in the Apocryphal controversy would guard 
 their consistency by circumlocution, at least if any friend of 
 the British and Foreign were suspected to be within hear- 
 ing: I question whether they would have done so three 
 years ago. But let me not be thought to favour any form 
 of expression that might lead to misconception as to the 
 volume of inspiration. The term Bile, as applied to a book 
 
43 
 
 combining uninspired with inspired writings, is doubtless in- 
 correct, and if another word can be suggested to supply its 
 place I will vote for its adoption. The invention of such 
 new term isthe more necessary, as Mr Haldane’s prohibi- 
 tion of the name Bible necessarily extends to the book that 
 lies in almost every pulpit in Great Britain, comprehending 
 the Old and New Testaments with the Apocrypha between 
 them. ‘Till this new term be invented, I must watch my 
 words. In desiring the beadle who attends me on a Sabbath 
 morning to take to the pulpit the copy of the Scriptures 
 with which our magistrates have furnished me, I must take 
 care to say, ‘“‘ Hugh, take the Bible and Apocrypha to the 
 pulpit.” Texts taken from this book are not taken from the 
 Bible ; nor must I appeal to the volume before me as the 
 word of God: those who call this ‘“‘ monstrous coalition” by 
 that name lie against the truth, ascribing the name of heal- 
 ing medicine to a potion containing deadly poison. I say 
 again, I move that a new term be invented, or rather that 
 the monstrous coalition be finally dissolved; but till this be 
 done, I disclaim the dogmatism that would charge with in- 
 sidious heresy every man who adopts the common, though 
 incorrect, application of the term. 
 
 But this is no solitary specimen of the disposition to make 
 a man an offender for a word. After noticing the conjunc- 
 tion that has so long existed of common with the sacred 
 books, Anglicanus proceeds thus : 
 
 ‘¢ It is not possible for them now, to the conviction of common sense, to 
 ‘¢ establish the damnatory sentence of adding to the word of God, against those 
 ‘¢ who, without exploring antiquity, advancing an opinion, or imposing any thing 
 “© on men’s consciences, have received, used, given and left the sacred volume 
 as they found it.”—Anglicanus, p. 76. 
 
 Could the reader conceive it possible, that on the word 
 sacred, in the last line here quoted, presented in Mr Hal- 
 dane’s work in italics, but with no such distinction in 
 the original, and manifestly taken in a general sense ac- 
 
4A 
 
 cording to common usage, is founded the charge of break- 
 ing down the barrier between the common and sacred 
 books, of holding the whole as sacred, of advancing the 
 Apocrypha to the honours of inspiration, of vindicating the 
 practice of circulating it, and maintaining as a general posi- 
 tion that it may be left as it is found! This word sacred, inci- 
 dental and undesigned as appears its introduction, is so big 
 with meaning in Mr Haldane’s excited imagination, that it 
 leads him to suspect me to be a Roman Catholic; nay, it 
 «lets out the truth,” and discovers all the enormity of error 
 and of heresy into which the advocates of the Bible Society 
 have been precipitated by their attachment to that pernicious ~ 
 institution. 
 
 “¢ Mr Grey,” continues my accuser, ‘‘ a preacher of the gospel, has pro- 
 *¢ claimed to every Christian who has not explored antiquity, and consequently 
 « to the great body of Christians, that though they should add to the word of 
 *¢ God, it is not possible now to establish against them the damnatory sen- 
 “ tence.” — Haldane, p. 39. 
 
 And where, I ask, did Mr Haldane find any such proclam- 
 ation on my part, or on thatof Anglicanus? Let the reader 
 cast his eye on the passage quoted, and he will perceive that 
 the author speaks not of one who personally or intentionally 
 adds to the word of God, not perhaps of one who is aware that 
 the volume he regards as sacred comprehends any human ad- 
 ditions: he speaks of unlearned men who have not explored 
 antiquity, who advance no opinion onthe subject of the canon, 
 who impose nothing on the consciences of others, but who re- 
 ceive the Scriptures with unsuspecting confidence, who use 
 these Scriptures for themselves, communicate them to others, 
 and finally leave them to their children and the church, in 
 the same form, erroneous it may be but not by them known 
 to be so, in which they found them. These, if I mistake 
 not, are the men referred to by the author; and I appeal 
 to every candid reader, whether it be possible, to the convic- 
 tion of common sense, to establish against such the damna- 
 tory sentence of adding to the word of God? For these 
 
45 
 
 have not added to the word ; and if they receive it in 
 faith, and use it in sincerity, and give it away in charity, 
 no sentence of condemnation will pass upon them, although 
 not enriched with the wisdom requisite for purifying the 
 sacred volume, by separating the base alloy of human impo- 
 sition from the pure gold of divine inspiration. The honour 
 of detecting insidious error, and removing long established 
 abuses, is assigned to few; but the simple and sincere, who 
 receive the seed of the word into an honest and good heart, 
 and give and leave {the Scriptures as those on whose judg- 
 ment they relied had before left them, shall not be rejected 
 of Him in whom they have believed, who judges a man ac- 
 cording to what he hath, and not according to what he hath 
 not. 
 
 Many hard sayings of this dogmatical writer, a respect 
 for the time and patience of those who may read these pages 
 induces me to pass over. The charge brought against me 
 of libelling the apostles as traitors to their trust, for not 
 more carefully guarding the first disciples against those apo- 
 ceryphal writings that were extant in their days, I dismiss 
 without comment, as referring to that which és not, the im- 
 puted crime having no existence save in the distorted eye 
 of him who imputes it. But the sentence in Anglicanus im- 
 mediately following that on which this grievous charge is 
 founded, I do not hesitate to adduce, although Mr Hal- 
 dane triumphs over it as the very acme of absurdity and 
 profaneness. It runs in these words: 
 
 ¢ We admire at that confidence of theirs,” (the apostles’,) * in the spirit and 
 ‘© power of what they spake, that seemed to triumph over the insignificance of 
 ‘¢ words; and that even yet, when it is in exercise, so often subordinates them, 
 “ as if in detiance of selection, to their sacred purpose.”-—Anglicanus, p. 76. 
 
 This sentence, which doubtless requires explanation to a 
 critic so little disposed to find a meaning in it as ours, will, I 
 think, appear to an ingenuous reader to convey the following 
 sentiments: First, that the apostles, confident in the spirit 
 
46 
 
 and power of the truth spoken by them, anticipated from it 
 
 great and mighty effects, far beyond any thing that could 
 
 be expected to arise from the natural force or energy of the 
 
 words they employed; for they came not with wisdom of 
 words nor excellency of speech. Indeed, words being at 
 
 best but an imperfect medium of communication, still fall 
 
 short of the glory and greatness of infinite and eternal things; 
 
 and that character of imperfection that still adheres to the 
 
 instruments employed by the Spirit of God—human agency 
 
 and human language—commends the more to the believer 
 
 that divine power which hath chosen the foolish things of 
 the world to confound the wise. Further, the sentence un- 
 
 der review suggests, that, even in the present day, a spirit 
 
 of faith similar to that of the apostles, when it is in ewercisey 
 
 —in the person, for example, of a humble missionary, or iti- 
 
 nerant preacher, unskilled in the selection of terms,—often _ 
 subordinates the words he uses, though inaptly chosen, to 
 
 the sacred purpose intended by him. Now, let the reader 
 
 mark the extreme unfairness of Mr Haldane, both in hold- 
 
 ing up the author as accusing the apostles of using words 
 
 without meaning, and in applying to the apostles the latter 
 
 part of the sentence, which expressly refers to present 
 
 times. 
 
 ‘* According to Mr Grey, the apostles triumphed over the insignificance of 
 “© words in defiance of selection: the apostles had such confidence in the spirit 
 “ and power of what they spake, that they considered the words of no import- 
 
 *¢ ance!!! Divinely secured in infallibility in defiance of selection!!! The 
 ‘< apostles are infallibly right in their application of words even in defiance of 
 “ the selection of their words!!!” pp. 43, 44. 
 
 Thus does this critic, I know not whether through care- 
 lessness or obtuseness, confound things that widely differ ; 
 the first age of the gospel with present times; the apostles 
 with the fallible men of our own day; and thus he multi- 
 plies his notes of admiration at a monstrous conception, not 
 of the author, but of his own invention. The expression, 
 “even yet, when it is in exercise,” plainly points to what 
 
47 
 
 passes among ourselves, and reminds us of the many in- 
 stances in which a divine power accompanies the word in the 
 mouth ofan “ honest blunderer,” (to use an expression of the 
 Whitefield school,) while perhaps withheld from the dis- 
 courses of the wise and eloquent. 
 
 A reference by Anglicanus to the well-known and ac. 
 knowledged fact of the many thousand various readings 
 found in the sacred text, brings upon me the heaviest ana- 
 themas,—as walking in the beaten track of Socinians and 
 Infidels, reasoning im favour of the adulteration of the 
 Holy Scriptures in a train of argument of unparalleled 
 enormity, and, like the other advocates of the British and 
 Foreign, seeking to sink the Bible with myself. Such 
 reproaches are as unreasonable as they are acrimonious, 
 Mr Haldane does not deny the fact of the various read- 
 ings found in the manuscript copies of the sacred text: 
 and is he so distrustful of the evidence and authority 
 of the Scriptures, as to be afraid of adverting to it for 
 the purpose manifestly intended by Anglicanus, namely, 
 of reminding certain dogmatists of the imperfection ne- 
 cessarily attendant on the operations of all who are not, 
 like the apostles, secured in infallibility ? Must a reference 
 to a fact, already familiar to the ear of all who are conver- 
 sant with these subjects, introduced as the medium of con- 
 veying a salutary admonition, be visited with the charge of 
 abetting Socinianism and infidelity? It is true, the vari- 
 ous readings are for the most part of very trifling import : 
 it is true, and I rejoice to repeat the observation though at 
 the risk of tautology, that they altogether do not invalidate 
 a single doctrine or duty inculcated in Scripture: but they 
 may serve to illustrate the derided sentiment of Anglicanus, 
 that the spirit and power of the truth suffice, m a thousand 
 cases, to triumph over the insignificance of words, since 
 150,000 variations have no influence whatever in impeding 
 the victories of truth: and more especially they teach us, 
 
48 
 
 that man is hot perfectly secured from mistake even in-his 
 most sacred sphere of operation ; that his involuntary errors 
 exclude not the blessing of heaven; in short, that if imperfecs 
 tions still attend even our faithful efforts, whether in the im- 
 portant office of translating the Scriptures, or in the channels 
 employed in distributing them, we are not to throw up our 
 work in despair, but to strive to improve it, relying on the 
 blessing of Him who judgeth us in mercy, and despines not 
 our services, 
 
 If, after the uninterrupted series of misrepresentations and 
 false accusations occurring in his preceding pages, of which 
 I have given only a specimen, any new example in the 
 same line could excite my wonder, I should certainly feel 
 astonished at that obstinacy of injustice that still continues 
 to pour upon me, and the friends of the Bible Society gene- 
 rally, the reproach of loving the Apocrypha, and wishing to 
 effect a return to the practice of circulating it. ‘From the 
 first mooting of the question, and in the whole progress of 
 it, I have maintained the opposite principle. In the letter 
 I lately published, I said : 
 
 ‘¢ I could not at this moment support the Bible Society except on the fullest 
 “< conviction that it engages in no work but that of disseminating the pure word 
 ** of inspiration, and holds out to the nations of Europe an attestation that we 
 * reject and condemn all that makes an unfounded claim to that character.” 
 
 “ Yet Mr Haldane has the confidence to say : 
 
 “« Mr Grey’s object is to prove, that those who do not distinguish betwixt the 
 “« words of true and of lying prophets contained in the Apocrypha and the 
 ‘* Bible are in no danger.—This remarkable train of argument in favour of the 
 «adulteration of the Holy Scriptures is, I will venture to affirm, without a 
 ‘« parallel ; and as Mr Grey has gone farther to establish his point than ; any of 
 * his predecessors, it is to be presumed that none that come after him ‘shell ever 
 “* outstrip him. —The whole spirit and tendency of Mr Grey’s reasoning, in the 
 “* extraordinary passage we have been considering, goes to throw discredit on the 
 *© books of Scripture. It excuses the practice of adding the Apocrypha to the 
 ** Bible only as it involves the canon in uncertainty and darkness.” pp. 44, 45, 
 47. 
 In reply to these ster of foxrose ipeolinahanminteale 
 Catholics but with infidels, effusions purely of intolerance and 
 
49 
 
 bigotry, grounded on perverse misconstruction, F must cor 
 tent myself with the reply of the prophet to a somewhat 
 similar accusation: “ It is false; I fall not away to the 
 < Chaldeans.” And further, with respect to Anglicanus, I 
 assert, there is not one word in the seven letters that can be 
 construed into either a love of the Apocrypha, or a desire to 
 return to the circulation of it. The whole defence of the 
 Bible Society, as maintained in the letters, proceeds on the 
 principle of the entire and final renunciation of all such cir- 
 culation. The author, it is true, repels the injustice that 
 overlooks the circumstances, the difficulties, the considera- 
 tions that gave rise to the practice, and places in the light 
 of candour, and [I think of truth, the principles and motives 
 of those who adopted and acquiesced in it: but he does not 
 for a moment defend the practice; but, in place of this, in- 
 vites our confidence to the British and Foreign on the ground, 
 that it now exhibits to the nations the authentic Scriptures 
 alone, and furnishes the means of distinguishing them from 
 the spurious impositions of man.* 
 
 But not content with imputing to the friends of the Bri- 
 
 * << In apologising for the Bible Society, however, I would by no means be 
 ‘* understood to patronise the Society’s error, in consenting on the plea of any 
 “* necessity that could be urged, to intermingle spurious matter with the sure 
 ‘* word of inspiration. Let this erroneous proceeding undergo the sentence that 
 “ is now universally passed upon it; for though no one can doubt that the in- 
 “ dividual who possesses a Bible in which the Apocrypha is intermingled is 
 © much more happily situated than the man who has no Bible at all, and 
 “ though we should all rejoice to see Catholics alive to the duty of using and 
 ‘* imparting the Sacred Book even in this form, yet for Protestants enlightened 
 “ by the express directory of the unerring word, such compromise can never 
 < have ‘the expediency that belongs to right conduct. Our example ought un- 
 
 “© doubtedly to be for the correction and instruction of those who are misin- 
 “< formed on this important subject—the mean which, in combination . with 
 “ others, God may ultimately bless, for rolling away the stone that at present 
 ce Be oot a ey of oe Bible Society in Cathole eee ae Note by Angli- 
 
 MAMAS i CBt FEISS US ST 
 
50 
 
 tish and Foreign a love of the Apocrypha, he further im- 
 putes to us a desire to lower the authority of the Scriptures : 
 
 “In estimating the guilt of the circulation of the Apocrypha,” he says, “ it 
 ‘* is of great importance to observe the pernicious effect which the defence of that 
 *S measure has had on the minds of its friends in urging them to lower the autho- 
 ‘* rity of the Scriptures, to degrade some parts of them altogether from the rank 
 ‘* of revelation, to confound the boundary between the word of God and the 
 ‘* word of man, and even to bring the whole inspired volumte into suspicion.” ‘ 
 This accusation, applied to myself individually, is pur- 
 sued through a whole page of stamping bombast : 
 ‘¢ What Christian is there who must not have read with feelings of horror, - 
 ‘¢ disgust, and unmingled disapprobation, so insidious an attempt to bring the 
 “ word of God into discredit, and to teach Christians to lower their estimate 
 ‘¢ of the Bible! Is Mr Grey aftaid that the charge of imperfection in the sa- 
 ‘¢ cred volume, from the negligence of transcribers and the ignorance of transla- 
 “¢ tors, has not done enough of mischief, nor sufficiently reached the ears of the 
 ‘¢ people, that he must ostentatiously display what he conceives to be the defects of 
 ‘* the Bible ? Was it to increase the reverence of the people for the Bible, that 
 ‘* he has paraded the one hundred and fifty thousand various readings ? Could 
 6 the malevolence of a Hume or a Gibbon. aim a more insidious thrust at the: 
 *¢ word of God ?” Haldane, p. 48. ‘ 
 
 Now as for parading the various readings, I must charge 
 Mr Haldane with five times the guilt of Anglicanus, see- 
 ing he has presented the astounding number at least five 
 times in his pages, as if for the purpose of fixing it inde- 
 libly in the memory of his readers, of whom I should 
 think no one will have it in his power now to forget it; 
 while Anglicanus refers to it once only, with great simpli- 
 city, and for a valuable end. Yet I will not act on the 
 principle of retaliation, nor follow his example im impu- 
 ting to-him a purpose of displaying what -he eonceives'to 
 be the defects of the Bible, and aiming an insidious thrust at 
 the word of God. Such charges, when lightly and falsely 
 preferred, are ‘dishonouring to the accuser, not tothe ac- 
 cused. It afflicts me to see an experienced Christian allow- 
 ing himself to be drawn into language so unbecoming, un- 
 reasonable, and even outrageous. His violence secures my 
 calmness ; and in reference to such accusation, I feel it my 
 
51 
 
 wisest course, in imitation of a divine example—to “ answer 
 “ not a word.” 
 
 A brief expression of Anglicanus, in proof of the security 
 we have for the faithful adherence of the British and Fo- 
 reign to their regulations,—*“ Are not men as zealous about 
 ** the purity of the word of inspiration in England as in 
 “© Scotland ?”—furnishes Mr Haldane with an opening which 
 he zealously embraces of taxing nearly all “ the best in- 
 ** formed ministers and Christians, the learned, pious ortho- 
 * dox divines” (it is thus he himself characterises them) 
 “of all parties” in England, with holding very erroneous 
 views on the important subject of inspiration, and of de- 
 nouncing severalof them by name as chargeable with profound 
 ignorance and gross error. ‘These are men no less esteemed 
 wherever the term Christianity is understood, than Owen, 
 Hughes, Simeon, Cunningham, Pye Smith, &c. There is 
 not one of them now in life, who is not fully and devoutly per- 
 suaded that “ all Scripture is given by inspiration of God,” 
 that “ the prophets and apostles spake as they were moved 
 “by the Holy Ghost,” yea, that it was “ not they that 
 «« spake and wrote, but rather the Spirit of the Father that 
 “< spake by them.” The manner indeed in which the Spirit 
 prompted and governed them, the individuals now referred 
 to may feel themselves less competent to decide than Mr 
 Haldane conceives himself to be. How often, in reading his 
 pages, are we reminded of that vain boast: «« Come, see my 
 *< zeal for the Lord of Hosts!” of that arrogant assumption, 
 « We are the men, and wisdom must die with us.” 
 
 Though tired of the task of exposing perpetual mistepre- 
 sentation, there is one passage more cf Mr Haldane’s pamph- 
 let to which I must advert, in which he pours on me a thun- 
 der-storm. of reproach, accusing-me of “ most important 
 error,” of ‘ unprincipled inconsistency,” of sentiments “ in 
 complete opposition to the whole tenor of divine revelation,” 
 
 and “ directly contrary to the Confession of Faith ;” of prin. 
 
52 
 
 ciples which, “ in the office of the ministry, must ¢ dry up 
 my right arm and darken my. right eye, and. cause my 
 tongue to falter.” » Such charges advanced’on the ground 
 of'a passage, which I, as dissenting ‘from the Edinburgh 
 Bible Committee, gave in and afterwards published, it falls 
 to meomore igreeenar se to i to.” ccc passage is the 
 Fol wig" os Wares BA eich Ca < Py 
 
 ee Supposing there were found ‘Mahouietanist so oat to our opinions as ‘to 
 
 “ accept ‘our Scriptures, and ‘to unite with usin’ the establishment of a Bible 
 “* Society; at; Mecca, or, Damascus, agreeing: to respect the» “integrity (of our 
 
 LDS, 
 
 ** Scriptures, but without pledging themselves never to. circulate BT PUR, 
 ' « Koran, “should we decline such association,” and admionish them to. be 
 < yohime ‘they had’ been’ used to venerate from: infancy intd the aaah e 
 
 ‘< Eniphrates, ifever they hoped to benefit ‘by the ‘perusal of the word of God 2» 
 6 Would this ; ibe the way. to disarm opposition, -: -and conciliate. confidence ? 
 
 = Would they not more readily imbibe the impression of our being fair men, | 
 se whose Strength lay in the goodness of our ‘catise, by our thus acco jocing Wh em :— 
 
 ‘6. Phat is your book;/andithis is’ ours} each’ professes | a anise and’ au- 
 
 - fhouity which both cannot possess ;, bestow, on -each ,a faithful.and strenuous ~ 
 * examination, as the welfare of your souls is involved in the result I aug 
 
 “thing that concerns their internal merit or external evidence pass ee ored ; 
 
 ‘und if, after! that, the Koran retain still dn your eyes the. majesty of of truth,” 
 “¢ andthe Bible confirm itself to| your conviction, as a cunningly devised, pts 
 
 “¢ we shall hold you acquitted in continuing invincible Mussulmans.’— = ~And 
 
 * are we to enlighten Catholics by telling them, ‘ You shall abandon your 
 
 ‘own Seriptures‘and adopt ours ; “nay, you shall’ not so muchas have ours til 
 ‘¢ you Have merited our good opinion by giving up your own ?? The real antidote ' 
 
 “< against error is truth; a knowledge of the word of God i is necessary to ena- 
 
 ** ble meh to discern what falsely art to ry -sharabter’ "Statements: of 
 
 Dissentients. 3 
 
 This passage has had the esl etbRiGae or the honour. of 
 attracting the particular notice of thé critics of the Edinburgh 
 Bible Committee; having been first ground down it that 
 metattorphosing thachine, the Tastructor 3" next” rehearsed, 
 with much piquant remark, ‘in ‘proof of my ‘heretical “anid 
 Mahometan ‘tendencies, i inthe: Assembly room at’ the ‘last 
 meeting of the Edinburgh Bible’ Society ; and “last” of ‘all 
 siiBjestedt to a new" process of distortion in the pages of Mr 
 Haldane. ‘The critique of the Instructor on the above pas- 
 sage Is: } 
 
5S 
 
 ~*.So.every man is to be saved by his own creed, whatever it may be! this-is 
 “ the avowed tenet of the dissentient brethren. What sort of cause must that be 
 “in the defence of which such an argument is deliberately introduced as neces- 
 “sary, and loudly applauded as successful? Admit its justness—and Bibles 
 ** and missions—Bible Societies and Missionary Societies, may be discarded as 
 ‘¢ vain and useless things. A Mahometan or a Heathen is as safe as a Chris- 
 “ tian.” Instructor for May 1826.—** But,” says Mr Haldane, ‘ the senti- 
 ‘© ment expressed by Mr Grey goes much farther. It not only supposes the 
 *<.safe state of a Mdhometan without the knowledge of the gospel, but also his 
 “* safety in spite of the rejection of the gospel.”—Haldane, p. 56. 
 
 It appears to me that my critics have been exceedingly 
 defective either in conception, not grasping the whole of 
 the supposed case; or in judgment, not marking its terms 
 and limits. The supposition is that Mahometans were found 
 who agreed to respect the integrity of our Scriptures, that 
 is to preserve them in perfect purity, and to sell or distri- 
 bute them in Mecca or Damascus; but that these Maho- 
 metans, being as yet ignorant of the Scriptures, and imper- 
 fectly convinced of their divine authority, were not prepared 
 to renounce their Koran, or to pledge themselves never to 
 circulate it. This is the supposed case—in a high degree 
 improbable I allow, but not absurd, or passing the appre- 
 hension of the understanding. The plan suggested to be 
 pursued for gaining them over to the Christian faith, was 
 that, I believe, which Henry Martyn pursued, and which, 
 in fact, must be pursued by any missionary proposing to be 
 useful to thinking Mahometans. What so natural for him 
 as to say: ‘ That is your book and this is ours; each pro- 
 “* fesses a divine origin and authority which both cannot 
 “< possess ; bestow on each a faithful, and strenuous exami- 
 ¢ nation, as the welfare of your souls is involved in the re- 
 “ sult; let nothing that concerns their internal merit or-ex- 
 “< ternal evidence pass unexplored,” What other language 
 could be used? What other plan.could possibly be adopted 
 by any one who wished them to exchange Mahometanism 
 for Christianity, on the only ground on which the transfer- 
 ence of their profession was desirable, namely, on solid and 
 
54 
 
 genuine conviction? Does not the suggested. proposal ex- 
 actly correspond with the touchstone, of doctrine. proposed 
 by infinite wisdom; “ The prophet that. hath a dream, let 
 «him tell a dream; and -he that hath my word, Jet him 
 ‘‘ speak my word faithfully ; whatis the chaff to the wheat, 
 “ saith the Lord? Is not my word like as.a fire, saith the 
 «Lord, and like a bammer that breaketh the rock in 
 ‘* pieces?” And does not the anticipated result correspond 
 with the Apostle’s declaration: ‘if all prophesy,” that is, 
 preach the gospel, *‘ and there come in one that. believeth 
 ‘< not or one unlearned, he is convinced of all, he is judged 
 *¢ of all; and thus are the secrets of his heart made mani- 
 “‘ fest: and so, falling down on. his face, he will worship 
 “ God, and report that God is in you ofatruth?”. © 
 
 But the expression with which the sentence closes is the 
 stumbling block of offence : ' 
 
 ‘¢ If after that, the Koran retain still in your eyes the majesty of truth, and 
 
 £* the Bible confirm itself to your conviction as a cunningly devised fable, we 
 “¢ shall hold you acquitted in continuing invincible Biusselmans.”” 
 
 From this it is inferred, that I would hold an infidel 
 ‘‘ ACQUITTED,” in a certain supposed casé, “ IN REJECT- 
 ING THE GOSPEL,” even after examination, as Mr Hal- 
 dane announces in capital letters at the beginning of his 
 second chapter. And a long array of argument and quo- 
 tation is adduced to shew, that men cannot be saved by fol- 
 lowing the light of nature,—all which might have been 
 spared, if my critics would have remarked, what, I think, is 
 abundantly obvious, that the conclusion supposed is pre- 
 sented as one that cannot possibly be arrived at. I need 
 scarcely remark that the word “ 7f” often refers to that 
 which is presented as what will never be; as in Jer. xxxi. 
 35, 36. “ Thus saith the Lord, which giveth the sun for a 
 « light by day, and the ordinances of the moon and stars 
 “‘ for a light by night—if those ordinances depart from be- 
 ‘ fore me, then the seed of Israel also stall cease from being 
 
55 
 
 «a vation before me for ever.” The character I suppose in 
 the Mahometan enquirer, and the conduct I ascribe to him, 
 are such as have the promise and assurance of divine teach- 
 ing. He who bestows on the Scriptures a strenuous and 
 faithful examination, who leaves nothing unexplored that 
 concerns their internal merit, or external evidence, is already 
 under the teaching of God, and cannot fail to be further 
 taught of him. To such an one the Koran cannof retain 
 the majesty of truth, nor the Bible confirm itself a eun- 
 ningly devised fable. The principle I proceed on is pre- 
 cisely that of our Lord: “ If any man will do”—be willing 
 to do—* his will, he shall know of the doctrine whether it 
 «be of God, or’whether I speak of myself.” And then, 
 after examination, and not before it, will the Koran be 
 thrown into the flames, or into the Euphrates,—as those 
 mentioned in the book of Acts, “‘who used curious arts, 
 brought their books together and burned them before all 
 men,” in consequence of the previous “ mighty prevalence 
 of the word of God.” 
 
 I trust I have effectually exposed and repelled the most 
 important of Mr Haldane’s charges, and all that I need con- 
 cern myself about. He is pleased to represent me as ap- 
 plying many harsh terms to the Committee of the Edinburgh 
 Bible Society. A little attention would have shewn him, 
 that these terms are not applied by Anglicanus to the Com- 
 mittee generally ; and nothing can be more unjust than to 
 impute to me such application of them. For the Members 
 of the Committee generally, I entertain a very sincere re- 
 spect and affection, whether they will believe it or not ; as- 
 sured that the points in which we agree are infinitely more 
 important than those in which we differ—The concluding 
 part of his pamphlet, full of harsh censure of many valu- 
 able and excellent men, both of this kingdom and of foreign 
 parts, I do not feel myself called on to examine. 
 
 The perusal of his pages has brought to my mind a con- 
 
BG 
 
 firmed conviction of the extreme unfairnessiof ‘this censor; 
 and certainly greatly lessens the confidence-L:-have been ac-. 
 customed.to place whether-in his judgment; or in his»can= . 
 dour. His charges, against. whomsoever directed: must: 
 henceforth. receive-with great reserve.-, Advanced myself to. 
 the foremost rank of heretics, represented as in some(views 
 unparalleled in. impiety and profaneness—while I »trem- » 
 ble at such imputations, I must beg leave to question, mote. 
 scrupulously than I have hitherto done, .Mr Haldane’s aps: . 
 plication of the terms to individuals whose principles: and. 
 character are not demonstrated by their own, works, or by. 
 less suspicious testimony than his._, Hallowe: yslbiy asad 
 I will not imitate this writer, by retonting upon him any 
 such personal addresses as he has indulged im toward) me” 
 in which, at once accuser and. judge, and inboth characters | 
 unjust, he loads me with reproach and condemnation.. —My: 
 desire rather is, to return good for evil. 1 feel it far more 
 agreeable to express esteem, in so far.as)it is possible to ex~ 
 ercise it, than disapprobation and censure... It-has been 
 matter of regret to me, to have been compelled to'treat with 
 apparent disrespect, a man who has written much thatyis| 
 useful, and done many things that are good}, whosewalu- 
 able qualities are unhappily united with-no:smalkportion of. 
 numan infirmity, and darkened with frequent demonstrations 
 of a spirit of bitterness and strife, unfavourable,. I should 
 suppose, to the happiness of the individual, and most cer- 
 tainly imimical te the peace of the church. daca onbghid 
 
 : as DSI Iie 
 ** The notes inserted in this publication from the seco1 
 
 edition of Anglicanus’ Letters I received from the author ; 
 and am authorised to state that the edition is strictly sup- 
 pressed, and that no copy of the work can haye.gone.abroad, 
 or be in the possession of any individual, but by, fraudulent. 
 and surreptitious means. . While the January and February 
 
57 
 
 Numbers of ‘the Christian Instructor have been re-published 
 in second editions, ‘with extended circulation by ‘means of 
 new* publishers, the Seven Letters of Anglicanus, improved 
 bythe retrenchment of passages which had occasioned dis- 
 satisfaction, and enriched with much discriminating remark, 
 are’withdrawn’ by their author,—whose conduct in this de- 
 cision is understood to have met the wishes of the Christian 
 public, suffering, as it was thought, an injurious excitement 
 from the continued agitation of discussions to which their ap- 
 pearance had given rise. ‘The work is therefore, upon ho- 
 nourable and ingenuous motives on the part of the author, 
 bona fide, cancelled and set aside. But if it should happen 
 that the original letters be made again the subject of fresh 
 comment and animadversion, or if unpublished materials 
 from the additional letter be brought forward to the public 
 in the shape of extracts, or in any way in a garbled and dis- 
 torted form, it is manifest that the publication of the whole 
 work, or of part of it, may become'a necessary means of de- 
 fence, demanded for the vindication of the author’s senti- 
 ments, and for the illustration and establishment of truth. 
 It seems reasonable, then, to suggest, that those friends of 
 religion, who deem the suppression of Anglicanus’ Letters 
 a measure advantageous for the peace of the church around 
 us, should also interest themselves in procuring a suspension 
 of hostilities on the other side; for it cannot fairly be ex- 
 pected that Anglicanus should remain bound up in silence, 
 while he is subjected to monthly renewals of attack from a 
 periodical that possesses unrestrained the means of incessant 
 and unlimited aggression. Ifthe Christian Instructor re- 
 turns again to the subject of Anglicanus’ Letters, or renews 
 his attacks on the individuals outraged in his January and 
 February reviews, it must be understood that he revives the 
 dissension, is the disturber of the peace, and makes himself 
 responsible for all the consequences unpleasant to himself 
 and others, ‘or injurious to religion, that may accrue from 
 
58 
 
 the continued agitation of the controversy.—For myself, a 
 new series of unjust and injurious imputations seems to be 
 threatened me on the ground of this very edition, suppressed 
 as it is, and that in consequence of my recommendation in 
 conjunction with that of other friends. I cannot, I am well 
 aware, remove my trials sooner than the time my Heavenly 
 
 Father appoints; nor would I wish to do so if I could. I- 
 
 pray that they may be commissioned to fulfil all the pur- 
 poses of his grace, and cannot on this occasion withhold my 
 acknowledgments from those who have kindly sympathized 
 with me and borne me up, with hands stretched out on my 
 behalf to a throne of mercy. This their labour of love will 
 not lose its reward, and has already, I trust, in many in- 
 stances been requited by a gracious communication of the 
 support and succour they have solicited for me. 
 
 Evinsureu, 1st May 1828. 
 
 Deane ec EEEEEEEERESEEEEnEEE 
 EDINBURGH: 
 Printed by William Aitken, 
 
 ‘ 
 ——————— 
 
ot Date 2 Rinoweenr ating hehe 
 
 g ABA of fanoieramres of yan yor? ond yer 
 Tailed ghvinasniioen paerg stil to-nsa0ty 
 spa abeaeimarpaonadeerter IS 
 @ abnailetiee yen ote: aed koe oneditine | 
 ised? aii acter "to octontlt nog Yortod 
 wi gears 2 ethnedis ane bie arewon att oael Jag 
 nae ee. eae 
 
 Agel golf a1 t teaRIGR 
 
 r + ; j 
 
 ee ineennaaiel 
 i  ROAVEMICS . 
 + galas, endl td ovent® ae ‘ 
 
 &, 
 
+ alan se haan tna? tenia * 
 a 3. * ory - 
 
 ‘ER a Ro : . rs 
 
 - , (2 pei 2 RS PoE Ore 
 Pa ite (ae 
 
 ‘ 
 Cai ny a ite 
 wes id  ¢ 
 pew 
 
 ’ Skee dip A , 
 oe ey ? 
 4 
 Suh £4 
 at 
 Png eS 
 § “e * 
 
 4 
 a ‘ 
 *€ M - 
 oa ‘ 
 i 
 : 
 ‘ Pi 
 4 
 - Of se 
 4 
 o ‘ ar io 
 ; 2 ' 
 aa is 
 ig ) ke! = 
 ; V9 
 * re 
 . . 1 
 ra . . 
 : 
 + 
 ” ala ide 
 . . 7 Y 
 
Date Due 
 
~ 
 Ls 4 
 
 ' 
 | 
 | 
 } 
 } 
 | 
 \ 
 | 
 1 
 i 
 1 
 t 
 ' 
 } 
 
 | 
 } 
 i) 
 
 9987z0d