sit and eat in one place with excellent minds. The bráhmans shall sell the veds, and in process of time their knowledge shall be lost. No one will support the religion of his family, but will forsake all distinctions of caste. Even in marriage caste shall not be regarded, for all shall become one class. In this manner will end the Kalí-juga after having remained 10,000 years." Thus according to this word of Hindu prophecy, their religion is to fall before the close of this vile age, and before the Europeans leave the country. Balasore, June 12th.

E. NOYES.

II. On the absence of all constitutional power in the Protestant Churches to legislate on the Canon of the Sacred Scriptures*.

DEAR SIRS,

To the Editors of the Calcutta Christian Observer.

You know that, according to all historical accounts, the Canon of the Old Testament was finally arranged and closed in the time of Ezra, Nehemiah, Haggai, Zachariah and Malachi. The Jewish Church unanimously maintains that after the death of these inspired men, the uninterrupted succession of prophets ceased; and her testimony against herself is as conclusive as that of Epimanides against the Cretians. We read in chap. ix. 27, of the first book of Maccabees, which is a most valuable historical monument written with great accuracy and fidelity, that" There was great tribulation in Israel, such as had not been since no prophet more appeared among them;" c. iv. 46: "And they (the Jews) put the stones (of the altar which had been defiled by the heathen) in a convenient place upon the mountain of the temple, until a prophet should arise, who could give directions about them." And c. xiv. 41: "The Jews and the priests determined that Simon should be chief and high priest for ever, until an accredited prophet (pротητην пσтov) should arise." A time which felt itself so destitute of prophecy and divine direction, as to be unable to determine concerning such comparatively trifling matters, could, of course, decree nothing in respect to the canonicalness of a book. That this was really the case Josephus informs us in the clearest terms in his work against Apion, Book I.8.

"For we have not an innumerable multitude of books among us, disagreeing from and contradicting one another (as the Greeks have), but only twenty-two books, which contain the records of all the past times; which are justly believed to be divine; and of them, five belong to Moses, which contain his laws and the traditions of the origin of mankind till his death. This interval of time was little short of three

*NOTE. The subject embraced by this paper is one of the deepest interest at the present crisis. We are glad our correspondent has left the field of mere criticism to discuss the great principle on which the question hangs, and by which it can alone be decided. May the good Spirit of God guide his Church into all truth in this matter. We are not, however, to be understood as sanctioning all the sentiments contained in this article.-ED.

thousand years; but as to the time from the death of Moses till the reign of Artaxerxes, king of Persia, who reigned after Xerxes, the prophets, who were after Moses wrote down what was done in their times in thirteen books. The remaining four books contain hymns to God, and precepts for the conduct of human life. It is true, our history hath been written since Artaxerxes very particularly, but has not been esteemed of like authority with the former by our fore-fathers, because there hath not been an exact succession of prophets since that time; and how firmly we have given credit to those books of our own nation, is evident by what we do; for during so many ages as have already passed, no one has been so bold as either to add any thing to them, to take any thing from them, or to make any change in them; but it becomes natural to all Jews, immediately and from their very birth, to esteem those books to contain divine doctrines, and to persist in them, and, if occasion be, willing to die for them."

Josephus does not at all deny in this important passage, that some pious men also in later times enjoyed the influence of the divine Spirit in composing their writings; on the contrary he says in his " Wars of the Jews." Chapter ii. 8, of Hyrcanus." He it was who alone had three of the most desirable things in the world, the government of his nation and the high priesthood and the gift of prophecy: for the deity conversed with him," but the reason why the historical and other writings of later times were not "esteemed of the like authority with the former by their forefathers" was "because there has not been an exact succession of prophets since that time," of which the successors could always give testimony to the divine inspiration of their predecessors, so that the Jewish Church could never be in uncertainty whether a book was to be deemed inspired and canonical or not.

As our Lord Jesus Christ, who had not "the spirit by measure," but was more than any prophet," and his inspired Apostles, never pointed out any book in the Canon of the Old Testament as uncanonical and uninspired, it is clear that we must not do so; and I wonder that some profound and truly venerable scholars in England should express doubts about the Song of Solomon. If the husband be Jehovah, the plural spouse the Jewish Church, who came "out of the wilderness like pillars of smoke," who enjoyed his nearness when faithful, and endured his absence when unfaithful; the watchmen who smote her, the false prophets, the threescore queens, and fourscore concubines and virgins without number, the heathen nations, and proper allowance be made for the exuberance of poetic decoration, the whole is worthy of the Divine Spirit and edifying.

But the history of the Canon of the New Testament is quite different from that of the Old Testament. It was not finally arranged and closed by any inspired Apostle. To our short-sightedness it appears that it would have been exceedingly desirable if the last Apostle, John, the disciple of love, would have closed and authenticated the Canon of the N. T. before his departure. But Providence thought otherwise. And why? None can say. The wonderful works of God were not done in a corner and were in fiery tongues proclaimed to the world by a host of witnesses. The mythological age had given way to the historical. How natural that the history of the Saviour, and the writings of his Apostles should stand on their own authority, in the same rank and on the same footing with other historical writings. Perhaps it was intended that the Christian Church should not settle down in a cold lifeless orthodoxy, but eat her bread by the sweat of her brow. How has the intellect of her members been quickened by the profound and extensive investigation of the writings of the N. T.! The genuineness of the four Gospels has

been repeatedly proved, and by none more triumphantly than by Dr. Olshausen. After reading, or I should rather say, studying such works as Neander's Apostolic Age, Paley's Hora Paulinæ, &c. &c., we feel satisfied that it was unnecessary to authenticate the Acts and the Apostolic Epistles by the authority of any inspired man. All the books of the New Testament have been proved to be canonical except a few of those on which the church has always disagreed as II Peter, Jude, and the Revelation. The latter is undoubtedly canonical, and will be acknowledged as such, if the true interpretation to which Bossuet and Hug have given us the key, becomes more prevalent, according to whom the grand outlines of this sublime book are three cities: Sodom where the Lord was crucified, representing Judaism, the persecutrix of the infant Christian Church-it has fallen; Babylon built on seven hills, idolatrous Rome, a beast with many crowns and the name of blasphemy on her head; and supported by another beast, the idolatrous priesthood, that had two horns like a lamb, and spake as a dragon-it has fallen ; Gog and Magog, all the barbarian nations which are now brought into subjec tion to Christ; and at last the new Jerusalem descends from heaven, the millennial glory of the Christian Church begins, and "Behold the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God;" but the two former books must still be numbered among the antilegomena as contradicted, because the most eminent orthodox and pious Biblical critics are not yet agreed on them, and why should we give up the old division of Homologoumena and Antilegomena? Dr. Olshausen has lately written several masterly Latin Essays on the Antilegomena some of which have been translated for and published in the American Biblical Repository.

It is a well known fact that at an early period, the Christian Church was confounded with the Jewish hierarchy, theoretically by Cyprian in his book, "On the Unity of the Church," and practically by proud and arrogant ecclesiastics. But these men even surpassed the Jewish priests in their assumptions. We have seen that the Jewish Church unanimously maintained, that the last prophets had no successors, and that since their departure none could decide on the canonicalness of any book; but these men maintained that the Apostles had successors, yea, that they themselves were their successors, and were invested with power and authority to decide on any book as they thought proper. When all was ripe the councils began to legislate on the word of God. But the decision of these councils have never been acknowledged by the Protestant Churches. Luther, who knew that no inspired Apostle had finally arranged and closed the Canon of the New Testament exercises his private judgment in studying and translating it, and returned to the ancient and proper division into Homologoumena and Antilegomena. As Biblical criticism was then in its infancy, and the helps at his command were so few and so imperfect, it is no wonder that his bold spirit sometimes misled him. When coming to the Epistle of the Hebrews he says, "Hitherto we have had the chief and most important books of the New Testament. Those which follow were in former times considered in a different light. And that the Epistle to the Hebrews was not written by Paul or any other Apostle is clear from Chapter ii. 2, where the author says, 'How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him,' which shows that he speaks of the Apostles as a disciple upon whom the doctrine of the Apostles came, perhaps a considerable time afterwards." "He then ventures the opinion that Apollos was the author" in which many pious scholars of the present day agree with him.

And this truly great man agreeing with Paul that "though we or an angel from heaven preach any other Gospel unto you than that we have preached unto you, let him be accursed," and supposing that James did not agree with Paul he says, "This James does nothing but driving to the law and to good works, and so confounds and commingles all things that in my opinion he was some unknown, but sincere and good man, who having picked up some sayings and phrases of the A postles has thrown them so disorderly upon paper, .... James' Epistles is a very strawy Epistle, for no Evangelical spirit breathes in it." And on Revelation he says, "I have more than one objection to this book, for I can neither deem it Apostolical nor Prophetical. In the first place, the Apostles do not converse in visions, but prophecy in clear and plain language, as Peter, Paul, and Christ in the Gospel, do; and it behoves the Apostolic office to speak plainly and without figure or vision of Christ and his work. Secondly, he appears to me overdoing the thing when he straitly threatens, that if any man shall take away from the words of his own book, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, which the other sacred books do not, though they are of much greater importance. Again all those shall be blessed who keep what is written in the book, though nobody knows what it is, not to speak of observing it; and we, having much better books which are to be observed, should be as well off if we had it not at all; in short, every one may. think of it as his mind directs him, (or as he pleases.) My mind can not be broken in to the book, and that is sufficient reason for me not to think highly of it."

Why do I quote Luther, the illustrious Reformer? To prove Hebrews, James and Revelation to be spurious? No. I most fully believe in the authenticity and inspiration of these books, though I must be allowed to think that Paul is not the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews notwithstanding Moses Stuart's celebrated commentary. The Gospels of Luke and Mark and the Acts are canonical, though not written by any of the Apostles. I have quoted Luther to show with what utter disregard of all councils, with what independence of mind the glorious reformation began. In the same spirit it was carried on by the Reformers themselves; but alas! their mantle fell on men who were unworthy of it. Just as the Apostles had no successors, or at least very unworthy ones, so the Reformers had no worthy successors.

I fear the large Religious Societies are at present too much eneroaching upon individual action, and the inviolability of private judgment, the fundamental principle of Protestantism, and are doing much to produce that state of things in the Churches in which Protestantism will not be able to cope with Roman Catholicism, which has the advantage over us in the majority of members, in more daring assumption, and bolder denunciation, and in claims to uniformity and infallibility, in virulence and abuse; to which we have nothing to oppose but the inviolability of private judgment, independence of mind, free investigation: against these it can not stand, before these it has invariably fallen and ever will and must fall.

But the public must not withdraw their support from the large Religious Societies, because some have power to do wrong. We might as well abolish the House of Commons, the British Parliament, because it has the power and the resources to do mischief on a grand scale. Why does that body not oftener abuse its power? Because Britain watches over it with a zealous and constant care. Thus they must watch over the large Religious Societies which can do and have done immense good. Without them slavery would not have been abolished; without them millions would not be able to hear and read the word of VOL. I. 3 c

God. Thus they must particularly watch over the British and Foreign Bible Society which is the Congress of the Protestant Churches, to whose hands the document of their federal Union and Constitution is entrusted. Each State, each denomination, may legislate for itself as it pleases; but the powers of Congress should be well defined, and as much as possible be merely executive. All their attempts at legislating on the word of God should be promptly met at the very outset, however well intentioned such attempts may be.

I maintain that neither the British and Foreign Bible Society, nor the Calcutta Auxiliary Bible Society, nor any man or body of men whatsoever, have any power or right to legislate on the Sacred Scriptures, to say what books are canonical and what not; what readings must be adopted and what rejected; what passages spurious and what passages genuine; except they can give the most satisfactory proofs of enjoying divine inspiration. I further maintain it as a principle, that when a body of Missionaries who enjoy the confidence of their Society and the Churches, and whose orthodoxy is unimpeached and unimpeachable, are agreed among themselves, and have determined how the Sacred Scriptures shall be translated for their own mission for which they are responsible to God, as the Baptist Missionaries at Calcutta, and the London Society's Missionaries at Banaras have done, the Bible Society has no right whatsoever to encroach upon the private judgment or conscience of such a body of Missionaries; but is bound in duty, and by it's own fundamental Protestant principle and constitution to sanction and publish such a ver. sion for that particular Mission*. If no version in the present state of the Churches can be made for the Universal Church, the Bible Society must entirely give up all idea of making, sanctioning and publishing universal versionst. I would rather see the British and Foreign Bible Society fall into a thousand pieces than see Protestantism, see free investigation, private judgment, independence of mind, conscience, and every thing truly good and noble, fall.

Bandras, 18th May, 1840.

III.-Theological Library.

a.

A. FATHERS.

FIRST CENTURY.

6. Ignatius.

Yours,

J. A. S.

Ignatius is commonly reckoned a writer of the second century, as most if not all of his extant writings were composed near the period of his death, and therefore probably in the beginning of the second century. But as the greater part of his life was spent in the first age, we have included him in the list of fathers of that century. Nothing is certainly known

If the argument of J. A. S. goes to prove that neither the British and Foreign Bible Society, &c.-surely it proves much more-that no one or two men, however excellent, can without enjoying divine inspiration legislate or determine for the whole church. The choice in this case is between the Missionaries of the London Society at Banáras and the Bible Society; viz. whether one or two men shall determine the text for the many or the many for themselves. With the Missionaries of any particular body publishing special versions, the Society has no wish nor has it any power to interfere.-ED.

We cannot see the difficulty and sincerely hope the B. S. will not give up the attempt in despair. We believe it will not.-ED.