That resolution, our readers are aware, was the result of the appointment of a Special Committee to consider the whole matter relative to the Apocrypha. That Committee consisted of the following persons. Lord Teignmouth; the Bishop of Litchfield and Coventry; Lord Calthorpe, Lord Bexley; Sir R. H. Inglis, Bart., M. P.; William Wilberforce; the Rev.Messrs.Cunningham, Dealtry, Orme, Pratt, Simeon, and Thorpe; and Messrs. Allan, Butterworth, Macaulay, Phillips, Steven, True man; and the Secretaries. In all, twenty-one persons.

The resolution of the General Committee, in consequence of their recommendation, is as follows: That the funds of the Society be applied to the printing and circulation of the canonical books of Scripture, to the exclusion of those books and parts of books which are usually termed Apocryphal; and that all copies printed, either entirely or in part, at the expense of the Society, and whether such copies consist of the whole, or of any one or more of such books, be invariably issued bound; no other books whatever being bound with them: and further, that all money-grants to societies or individuals be made only in conformity with the principle of this regulation."

The only part of this resolution which seems to require explanation, though to us it is very in telligible, is the last, respecting money-grants. The meaning intended to be conveyed by it, we NEW SERIES, No. 16.

In the name of candour, and common sense, and Christianity, we beg to ask, what the country would require more than this? It is a plain, straight forward resolution, adopted under circumstances which may be said to give it all the force of a public law, and which, we cannot entertain a doubt, would have satisfied every honourable and conscientious member of the Society, but for the conduct of some individuals who have resolved that the Committee are unworthy of confidence.

Well aware of the effect likely to result from this resolution, the whole strength, ingenuity, and disengenuousness of the Edinburgh statement are brought to bear upon it. It asserts, that " of the twentyone members composing the Special Committee, there are at least sixteen who were known at the time to be favourable to Apocryphal distribution, in any form that circumstances might suggest." It is therefore concluded, by the authors of that statement, "that [these persons thought] such a resolution could be concocted as would gain over the great bulk of those who were discontented, and yet leave an opening for continuing to do that which created the discontent, and which cannot be done avowedly, without exciting universal opposition." They accordingly represent this to have been the design of the framers, and that the resolution, "though veiled in a more dextrous phrase

2 D

ology than those which preceded it, is, in its real import and tendency, as far as any one of them. from that great and pure purpose" which had all along been contended for.

To this monstrous tissue of misrepresentation, which it astonishes us, beyond what we can express, should have been put forth by the persons whose names it bears, and which we can account for only from the influence of the spirit who glories in division and mischief, we beg leave to oppose a plain statement of facts.

The Special Committee was, as nearly as possible, divided between those who had supported the circulation of the Apocrypha, when supposed to be necessary to the circulation of the Scriptures, and those who were known to be hostile to this measure. There was also a small number of persons who had never avowed their sentiments on the one side or the other, few of whom attended its meetings. So far from its being the fact, that there were only five to sixteen against the Apocrypha, the majority which carried every resolution in the Special Committee were anti-apocryphal men. The final resolution of that body was drawn up by them, and was decidedly antiapocryphal in its nature and design; and by the anti-apocryphal party in the General Committee was the last measure carried. So completely was this view of the matter taken by all parties in the Committee, that one gentleman, who had gone farther than any other on the apocryphal side, after reading a long paper containing his views and reasons, left the Committee, and has since, we believe, absented himself from its meetings. And as conclusive evidence of the anti-apocryphal nature of the whole proceedings, and that the Committee are not more influenced by Cambridge than by Edinburgh, Mr. Simeon, and several other of his friends, presented

a formal protest against the last resolution, on the ground of its excluding the Apocrypha, which remains among the documents of the Society; and notwithstanding which, the Committee determine to persevere according to that rèsolution. Of these facts we have reason to believe the authors of the Edinburgh statement were not ignorant. Can it then be believed that the persons who have fought the battle of the inspired writings against the Apocrypha, would frame a resolution to cover its circulation? This would be even greater folly or wickedness than the Committee has yet been charged with.

Here we think we might leave the matter. If in the face of such facts, or even without knowing them, the public can believe that such men as Lords Teignmouth and Bexley, the Secretaries of the Society, and the other noblemen, ministers, and gentlemen composing the Select and General Committees, would frame a resolution, and veil it in dextrous phraseology, for the purpose of deceiving the Christian public of this country, and of allowing them selves to abuse the trust confided to them, we are assured that no statements or reasonings of ours deserve credit or respect. But if they cannot and will not believe this, what must they think of their accusers?

The pamphlet by Mr. Haldane, and the Edinburgh statement, require some farther notice than we have yet taken of them. In regard to the former, we agree with the reverend Presbytery of Glasgow in thinking that there are several things which deserve the attention of the Bible Society's Committee; but we also agree with that body in wholly disapproving of the spirit in which it is written. It is keen in argument, and bold in denunciation; but sadly deficient in that candour and delicacy, which ought to characterise a writer who prefers such

claims on public attention as the author.

We have no quarrel with Mr. Haldane respecting the claims of the Apocrypha, and we cheerfully hand over Mr. Simeon's defence of it to his satisfactory reply. We agree with Mr. Haldane in thinking that much may be done for circulating the Scriptures on the Continent, independently both of the Catholic and the Protestant Societies. We also coincide with him in opinion, that some of these societies and individuals, who have professed to be friendly to the great object of the Bible Society, have not greatly promoted that object. Enough has been disclosed to show that the Society is called to watch with great vigilance the conduct of their auxiliary friends abroad.

When Mr. Haldane speaks on his own personal knowledge, we listen to him with respect; but when he requires us to believe, on the authority of anonymous travellers and reports, "that from one end of the Continent to another, Christians have very little weight in the several committees, which, in general, are wholly under the direction of Freethinkers ;" that " many Arians and Socinians are the sole governors of several societies abroad;" and calls upon the Society to contradict reports of another kind, if without foundation, for which he does not himself profess to vouch: we protest against such a species of accusation and insinuation as dishonourable and unjust. We will not believe, on such authority, that all the Bible Societies on the Continent are of this description, or that the British Society is engaged in so unholy an alliance. We cannot regard that Society as so pure and christian an institution as Mr. Haldane seems to contend for; but, on the other hand, we must cease to place confidence in men whose integrity is as undoubted as

Mr. Haldane's, and whose opportunities of knowing the continental Societies have been greater than his, before we can admit his sweeping charges.

The nature of Mr. Haldane's review of the Society's administration on the Continent, forces on us the conviction, that the controversy, as conducted by him, assumes the character of the Continental Society versus the Bible Society. The agents of the two Societies, we can believe, do not always cordially harmonize; and in Mr. Haldane's pamphlet they are brought into public conflict. We are cordial friends of the Continental Society, but we deprecate this mode of advancing its interests. We do not blame that Society, which cannot be inculpated by the conduct of one of its friends; nor do we regret Mr. Haldane's zeal for the interests of religion on the Continent, or his labours in building up the infant cause of the important Society which has produced most beneficial effects. But we do not sympathize with him in his zeal to pull down, and to destroy, whatever may not be in perfect harmony with his views and wishes. From the scope and tendency of his pamphlet, from various intimations contained in it, and from the appearance of his name in support of the Edinburgh statement, we are convinced that the downfall of the British and Foreign Bible Society would afford him satisfaction, rather than cause regret and sorrow. The same thing appears to have struck Dr. Steinkopff, whose pamphlet has just reached us, and to which we refer our readers for an answer to some of Mr. Haldane's charges.

From the attack of one, we now advert to the grand attack of the many. The second statement of the Edinburgh Committee, we hesitate not to designate the most unchristian production issued by a body of men laying claim to the

character of candour, honour, or Christianity, which it has ever been our misfortune to examine. We regard not the array of names; the public will judge between the impeachers and the impeached. The parade of reasoning, the boldness of accusation, the fearlessness of consequences, may go down with some for proofs of a guilty confederacy on the part of the accused; and will, no doubt, afford triumph to many, who are ever ready to exclaim, Ah! so would we have it. But in this case, we believe Satan has outwitted himself. The virus of the assailants is already proving the death of their cause. Since those who have obtained the lead in the councils of the Edinburgh Society are determined on war and separation, we do not regret that they have published this manifesto. If the friends of the Bible cause doubt our account of it, let them read for themselves, and we shall not fear whether they will take part with the accusers or the accused.

As this document sets out with declaring, that considering "the species of abuse" which has taken place in the British and Foreign Bible Society, the authors of the statement " are left doubtful whether they have not more reason to lament the evil it has committed, than to rejoice at the good it has accomplished;" we are prepared for any thing that might follow. Let those who agree in this opinion form a new Society, and inscribe this sentence as the motto of their first report.

quish the practice of circulating the Apocrypha, and to return to any thing that resembles uniformity to the spirit, and principles, and laws of the Institution:" and, finally, that the last resolution of the Committee "affords no adequate security against the circulation of the Apocrypha, and conveys impressions to their minds respecting the sentiments and views of the Committee, inconsistent with due confidence in the propriety of their future procedure.'

In the spirit of this sentiment, the authors proceed to arraign the Committee of the Bible Society of high crimes and misdemeanours; particularly that it "has been in the habit of circulating the Apocrypha along with the Bible for a long period, to a great extent, in the most offensive forms, with more than ordinary zeal, and with studied concealment:" that it "has shown the utmost unwillingness to relin

In order to make good these charges, a mode of discussion is resorted to, which, we venture to assert, would, if applied to any society of men under heaven, and held good as evidence against it, explode it to atoms. We know something of human Institutions, under the influence of Christian principles and wholesome regulations, but we know none of them which could stand the process of trial adopted, in this instance, against the British and Foreign Bible Society. To establish the charges against it, and to justify the conclusion, the grossest exaggerations have been resorted to, in regard to the circulation of the Apocrypha. The most uncandid and ungenerous construction has been put upon every act and resolution of the Committee, for a long series of years, which could, by any possibility, be brought to countenance the allegations. It is made accountable, not only for its own acts, but for "the language and doctrines of the Eclectic Review, of certain of its own members, of the Rev. Mr. Simeon, and the Rev. Mr. Venn ;" and, we dare say, it will now charged with having hired the Congregational Magazine. The proofs of its guilt often consist of misrepresentations or garbled accounts of what has passed within the walls of the Committee-room, or has been said or written by individual members out of it, on their own responsibility. A species

be

of malignant gratification is discovered, in finding any thing that could be likely to injure the character of the Society. The pitiful dexterity of a special pleader is displayed in almost every page; an unholy ingenuity is exercised in quarrelling with the language of the Committee, and the most extravagant suppositions are made of the arts and tricks by which the last resolution may be evaded by the unprincipled agents or Societies on the Continent, with which the British Society is represented to be in alliance, and at whose criminal conduct it is supposed to wink.

The Committee are courteously charged with "most infatuated blindness, or reticence the most dextrous and successful ever recollected, or witnessed, or heard of;" with passing unanimous votes, "the effect of fear rather than of conviction;" with being "wedded to what appears" to the Edinburgh Committee "demonstrably and incalculably wrong;" with taking great pains to meet the wishes of all except the Gentlemen of Edinburgh, and that "the only wishes on the subject which have been disregarded, are the wishes of those who have pleaded for an exclusive distribution of the pure and unadulterated word of God;" with employing disingenuous means, by which they kept their constituents in ignorance of their unlawful practice;" with " contumacy amidst all their shiftings of procedure;" with "readiness to violate the regulation made by themselves on the subject of the Apocrypha." It is alleged, that "never did treason shroud her plans in deeper secresy, than that with which the London Committee have covered their proceedings about the Apocrypha." Their resolution of 21st Nov. "is only veiled in a more dextrous phraseology than the former," which cannot therefore be "viewed in any other light, than that of an

66

evasive and ambiguous treatment of the whole subject." In fine, it is asserted that "every thing connected with their management, and their communications relative to this point, awaken unavoidable distrust, as well as painful regret.”

These are but a few specimens of the charges and language which pervade this extraordinary document. The authors of it complain of having been the objects of railing accusation. Let them inform us who have been the accusers and railers. Should any thing so characteristic, as is this statement, of the influence of the accuser of the Brethren, ever be proved against the proceedings of the British and Foreign Bible Society, we should hold ourselves bound to renounce it for ever. One passage from the Epistle of James, has been often quoted in this, as in other controversies, "The wisdom that is from above, is first pure, then peaceable." We beg to submit another passage, from the same authority, to the consideration of all concerned; "But if ye have bitter envying and strife in your hearts, glory not; and lie not against the truth. This wisdom descendeth not from above, but is earthly, sensual, devilish."

As this second statement contains a vast number of questions addressed to the Committee of the British and Foreign Bible Society, we beg leave, in our turn, to propose a few to the Edinburgh Committee, to which they will perhaps furnish answers in their third statement. By what law of the Bible Society was the Edinburgh Society justified in annexing to the smaller editions of the Bible issued by them, the Scottish Metrical Psalms, and the Paraphrases ordained to be sung in churches in Scotland? At what period of their history, and under what circumstances, was this practice abandoned? In what report is the record of their repentance for the