THE

ECLECTIC REVIEW,

FOR SEPTEMBER, 1825.

Art. I. 1. Statement by the Committee of the Edinburgh Bible Society, relative to the Circulation of the Apocrypha by the British and Foreign Bible Society. 8vo. Edinburgh. 1825.

2. A Letter to the Right Hon. Lord Teignmouth, President of the British and Foreign Bible Society, in Vindication of the Proceedings of that Society against the Statement of the Edinburgh Bible Society relative to the Circulation of the Apocrypha. By the Rev. C. Simeon, M.A. Fellow of King's College, Cambridge. 8vo. pp. 16. London. 1825.

3. A Statement submitted to the Members of the British and Foreign Bible Society, on the Impropriety of circulating the Apocryphal Books indiscriminately intermingled with the Inspired Writings. By George Cornelius Gorham, B.D. Fellow of Queen's College, Cambridge. 8vo. pp. 40. London. 1825.

4. Remarks on the Propriety of applying the Funds of the British and Foreign Bible Society to the Circulation of such foreign Ver sions as contain the Apocrypha, in Places where no other Versions will be generally received. With Preface, containing Observations on the Statement of the Rev. G. C. Gorham, B. D. By H. Venn, M.A. Fellow of Queen's College, Cambridge. 4to.

THE

HE Author of an eloquent work now on our table, in pointing out the influence of the Bible Society in promoting the advancement of mankind in knowledge and religion, re-. marks, that that Institution becomes a rallying point for all Christians, as it affords a basis of union broad enough to admit every varying shade of opinion, and lifts up a conspicuous ⚫ standard to all those who are engaged in earnest in the great work of furthering the Redeemer's kingdom.'

While it has done Religion one service,' continues Mr. Douglas, • by uniting all its friends in one great cause, it has done it a second service, by uniting all its enemies, however hostile to each other, against it; thus ranging each side front to front, and preparing them for one decisive and final struggle. It leaves every one without exVOL. XXIV. N. S.

T

cuse who does not co-operate with it; it combines all classes and all creeds; the poor may contribute their mite, and the rich may pour in their abundance; and those who build precious things, and those who heap up stubble upon the foundation of the Scriptures, have here one point of agreement in the foundation for which they both earnestly contend. It has done more good than all the theological discussions for the last hundred years; and though it has confuted no heresy, it has done still better, for it has made many be neglected and forgotten. It oversteps the boundaries of kingdoms, and the separation of national jealousies, and presents a field wide enough for men of all nations and languages to enter, without conflicting or jarring with each other. Its field is truly the world; it embraces, directly or indirectly, all the interests of humanity; and it is ever profusely distributing the benefits of time, while its ultimate results are lost in the glories of eternity.'

This view of the constitution and operation of the Bible Society is so much in unison with our own sentiments, that, we must confess, we feel extremely unwilling to give it up as a beautiful chimera. We cannot welcome the conclusion to which the Edinburgh Committee invite us to accede, that no basis of union can be laid broad enough to render the Society a rallying-point for all Christians,-that the terms of such combination are unlawful and unholy, and that either the Society must renounce every foreign alliance, or be itself renounced as unworthy of any longer support. And if this be a conclusion we are slow to admit, scarcely less painful is it to resign the pleasing idea which forms another feature in the picture, that of seeing all the friends of religion united in one great cause, and all its enemies, and its enemies only, united against it. Till very lately, the Bible Society had been equally fortunate in its advocates and its opponents. If the Society was to be opposed, it could scarcely have chosen its enemies better. But, after twenty years of unbroken unanimity, it now finds itself required to act on the defensive against its friends. Those that smite us, the Committee may say, are the righteous, but it is in kindness, and their reproof, like an excellent oil, shall not bruise our head. In fact, painful as is any thing like intestine division among the friends of such an institution and such a cause, the present controversy respecting the Apocrypha does honour to both parties. In the one party, it manifests a jealousy for the exclusive authority of the word of God, worthy of Protestants; in the other, a zeal to disseminate that word, not less worthy of all true Christians. Every candid man must honour the pure and upright motives by which they are both respectively actuated. For, though we think that the Edinburgh Committee have, in conduct to which we shall presently refer, acted with the appearance of hostility, we verily believe that

those who have taken the lead on either side in this discussion, have had equally at heart the cause of truth and the best interests of the Society.

Should this unpleasant discussion,' remarks Mr. Gorham, lead any persons who are unfriendly to the Bible Society, to triumph in the anticipation of its disunion, let them not too hastily conclude that such a dreadful evil awaits it. Its Members do not regard each other with less kindly feelings than they ever did. There may be a temporary disagreement about the means of doing the most extensive good; but, in this very desire, we discover the principles of a more perfect re-union. May the Great Head of the Church speedily heal all its divisions, and give the Word "free course" that He may be glorified !'

Our readers are, we presume, aware, that the question relates to the practice of the British and Foreign Bible Society in making grants of money to foreign societies which circulate the Apocrypha intermixed with the canonical Scriptures. This practice, it is contended by the Edinburgh Committee, is a direct violation of the original contract of the Society with its members; is at variance with the injunctions of the word of Gud itself; and not only tends to maintain and vindicate the 'superstitions of some of the continental churches, but to bring the word of God into contempt.' 'By tacitly sanctioning the 'false pretensions of an Apocryphal book,' it recognises a principle which that word so solemnly condemns, "Let us do 'evil that good may come." Mr. Gorham's objections are urged under the following heads. 1. Such a practice is in⚫ consistent with the laws of the Society.' 2. The practice is inconsistent with the fundamental principle of the Society.' 3. This practice violates integrity of conscience, and is inconsistent with the principles of Protestantism. The importance of the question may be judged of from the following enumeration of the foreign churches with which our intercourse will be more or less affected by refusing to co-operate with Societies which circulate the Apocrypha.

1. Those parts of the (Roman) Catholic and Greek Churches where the Apocrypha is regarded with the same reverence as the word of God, according to the decree of the council of Trent.

2. Other parts of the (Roman) Catholic and Greek Churches, of the one especially in Germany, of the other in Russia, where the decisions of Trent have never been received with implicit deference, in which, as in the case of Lutherans, the Apocrypha is allowed only a secondary degree of inspiration and authority.

3. The Reformed or Calvinistic Churches abroad, which regard it in the same light as the Church of England.

"The population and extent of the countries thus affected by our determination of the question before us, whether we regard them as

allies, or as themselves objects of benevolent exertion, deserve to be attentively considered. They comprise the whole Continent of Europe and the rising states of Greece.

In Asia-Armenia and Syria, including Palestine. In Africathe ancient and interesting churches of Abyssinia and Egypt.

And nearly the whole Continent of South America, which at this critical moment presents the most promising fields of labour, and an opportunity which, if now neglected, may not return again for ages.

Consequences, however, will never weigh down the scale against principles in any righteous balance; and to do wrong lest evil should ensue, how disastrous soever the consequence, is as unjustifiable as to do evil that good may come. We have adverted to this view of the subject as illustrating its importance, rather than as supplying any reply to the objections advanced. The question seems to us to resolve itself into this simple case of conscience: Whether it be lawful or expedient to concur in circulating any other canon of Scripture than that which Protestants believe to be genuine.

Here it will naturally occur to the reader, that the practice of binding up the apocryphal books with the canonical Scriptures, has long had the sanction of the Church of England and other Protestant churches. It is no question, Bishop Cosin says, in his Scholastic History of the Canon, (p. 8.) whether those apocryphal books may be joined together in one common ⚫ volume with the Bible, and comprehended under the general 'name of Holy Scripture, as that name is largely and improperly taken.' And Mr. Gorham seems to have no objection to their being annexed to the inspired writings. In noticing the argumentum ad hominem, (for it is nothing more,) that 'the Apocrypha is countenanced by the Church of England, some portions being read in her services in the place of Holy Scripture,' he says:

< Were our Institution simply a Church of England Society, this statement might, perhaps, have a little weight as regards annexing it to the Bible printed solely for the use of her members; but, even on that hypothesis, what bearing has this argument upon the subject of intermingling these books with the Canonical? p. 38.

And again, in the Preface:

In this controversy, there is clearly an important distinction between the Apocrypha as intermingled with the Inspired Text, and as annexed to it in a separate form. Many of the arguments of our opponents receive a specious colour from a confusion of these very distinct considerations; and some of the ultra views of persons on the side here advocated, seem to have been adopted by losing sight of

this important distinction. The Author implores both parties to inquire, Whether they may not approximate, by giving to this distinction its due weight.

That, if printed at all with the sacred writings, this is the least objectionable form in which they can appear, will be readily admitted; but, that the distinction is so material as to render the one practice justifiable, and the other grossly improper and unlawful, appears to us extremely far from manifest. In the papers that passed between the Savoy Commissioners appointed for the revision of the Book of Common Prayer, the Presbyterians say: We asked not that no apocryphal chapter may be read in the church, but that none may be read as lessons; for so the chapters of Holy Scripture 'there read are called in the Book; and to read them in the same place under the same title, without any sufficient note ' of distinction or notice given to the people, that they are not 'canonical Scripture, they being also bound with our Bibles, is 'such a temptation to the vulgar to take them for God's word, 6 as doth much prevail, and is like to do so still. And when Papists second it with their confident affirmations, that the Apocryphal Books are canonical, (well refelled by one of you, the Right Rev. Bishop of Durham,*,) we should not needlessly help on their success. If you cite the Apocrypha as you do other human writings, or read them as homilies, (when and where there is reason to read such,) we speak not against it. To say that the people are secured by the Church's calling them Apocrypha, is of no force, till experience be proved to be disregardable, and till you have proved that the minister is to tell the people, at the reading of such chapter, that it is but apocryphal, and that the people all understand • Greek so well as to know what Apocrypha signifieth.'

Possibly, these may appear to Mr. Gorham to be ultra views' on the subject. We must confess that there appears to us much more force in the objections we have cited, than can be obviated by the distinction on which he lays so much stress. Putting aside the indefensible practice of reading portions of the Apocrypha in the public service in place of Holy Scripture, we hold the practice of binding up the Apocrypha with the Bible (though extensively prevalent even among Protestant Dissenters) to be in the highest degree inexpedient. And though doubtless we should prefer their being annexed to the Bible (which by the way they are not, but interposed between

* Bishop Cosin.