of the law. The second, the books which they call the prophets. The third, others which they call Chetoubim or simply writings; that is to say, the Psalms, Proverbs, Job, Daniel, Esdras, Nehemiah, the Chronicles, and those which they call the five little books, namely the Songs of Solomon, Ruth, the Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, and Esther. They believed that these books were not inspired as the other, and therefore they made them a separate part of Scripture, distinct from the two former. This division is very ancient, having been in use in the time of our Lord, Luke XVIV. 44., and Josephus owns it in his first book against Appian. The Jews inserted in their Canon all the fragments they had remaining of their ancient books; they left none out, because they had no others. It was their whole library, the rest having been lost either in, or before, or after the captivity, for the story mentions not the time of that fatal loss."

Le Clerc here accounts at once for the disagreement amongst Christians as to what books should be called the word of God, and what should not. They had no rule, says he, for selecting the one from the other, or for distinguishing inspired books from those which were not inspired; which is exactly what I before asserted, that the Deity, if he wrote any of these books, left them altogether without any marks or signs whereby to distinguish them from the forgeries of men. And this being the case, my Lord, how can you presume to say that the books which compose the present Canon are the genuine productions of the Deity? If they had no marks or signs whereby to distinguish the genuine from the spurious, how do you know but that they inserted into the Canon books that were spurious? And does Le Clerc not tell us that they might easily have done this? And does he not say also that after the captivity, and the burning of their ancient library, the Jews inserted into their Canon all the fragments they had remaining of their ancient books; that they left none out, because they had no others? And yet we are to receive these fragments as the genuine sen

timents of the Deity, necessary and essential to our eternal salvation hereafter, and if we dare to dispute them we must be dungeoned! Men are generally irrational in proportion to their want of information, and lest this should be the case with your lordship, I would advise you to read this work of Le Clerc's, and learn a little more modesty with regard to the book called the Bible.

I have proved in this Letter that the first Christians were entirely ignorant as to which books should be called the word of God, and which should not, and therefore for any Christian now to presume to know this, is the very hight of impertinence. Leaving your lordship to reflect upon these matters,

I remain, &c.

C. J. HASLAM.

Hulme, June 7th, 1841.

I beg to state that as soon as this work is completed which will be in about three weeks, it is my intention of commencing a small Periodical, the particulars of which I shall give hereafter.

LETTERS TO THE

CLERGY OF ALL DENOMINATIONS. The whole of these Letters are now re-printed, and may be had of the usual Booksellers. For the convenience of parties situated in towns where the Letters cannot be obtained from the Booksellers, I beg to state that I will forward by post either a complete set, or odd numbers, to any party who may send me an order to that effect. C. J. H.

PRINTED BY C. J. HASLAM, HULME.

LETTER XXII.

TO THE BISHOP OF EXETER:

CONTAINING

MATERIALS FOR DECIDING THE QUESTION,

WHETHER OR NOT

THE BIBLE IS THE WORD OF GOD?

PRINTED AND PUBLISHED BY THE AUTHOR, 65, STOTT-STREET, HULME, MANCHESTER.

MY LORD,

Price one Penny.

I am now entering upon my twenty-second Letter, and, from what I hear, you have not yet either answered a single one of these Letters, or given up your office as Bishop. Such conduct, if it be not an evidence of dishonesty, is an evidence that you are not a good man. Either you believe the religion you preach to be true, or you do not. If the former, as a good man, after the numerous and solid and sound objections that I have advanced against it, you are bound to show the fallacy of those objections, and as a priest it is your imperative duty to do it; and if the latter, that is to say, if you believe the religion you preach not to be true, then are you a dishonest man, and a deceiver of the people.

Christ was an inconsistent being, and therefore he could not be the Son of God. This is the point that I pledged myself to establish at the commencement of this Letter, and having now established it, I call upon you, or any priest in this country, to show the fallacy of the reasoning I have employed. I demand, my Lord, that you either answer this Letter, or give up your present office in the Church. As an honest man you are bound to do either the one or the other; for if my arguments cannot be refuted, or my position invalidated, your religion is false, and to continue to preach it to the people, without answering the arguments I have adduced against it, is an evidence of a meanness of spirit and a dishonesty of principle that ought to degrade a man even in the estimation of himself. With every hope, my Lord, that you will answer this Letter, and not sink yourself lower in the estimation of the people of this country than you really are,

Hulme, June 16th, 1841.

I remain, &c.

C. J. HASLAM.

I beg to state that it is my intention, as soon as this work is completed, of commencing a small Periodical, the particulars of which I shall give hereafter.

The whole of LETTERS TO THE CLERGY are now in print, and may be had of the usual Booksellers.

PRINTED BY C. J. HASLAM, HULME.

sistency or absurdity, and Jesus Christ not being the Son of God, it follows that your religion is false. And with respect to the second argument, namely, that the assumption upon which your religion is founded is false, namely, that man can believe as he pleases, it must be evident also to the discerning mind of your lordship, that if I prove that this position is a false position, that is to say, if I prove that man cannot believe as he pleases, then it follows that man cannot be held responsible for his belief, and consequently your religion falls to the ground as nonsense, for it awards to man everlasting happiness if he believe in a particular manner, which is an assumption that man can believe as he pleases.

Having thus shown the tendency of these two arguments, I shall now proceed to their demonstration.

With respect to the inconsistency of Jesus Christ, it is observable in almost every chapter of St. Matthew's Gospel, and more or less in the Gospels of Mark, Luke and John. In his sermon on the mount, recited by Matthew, Christ says:

"But I say unto you, that whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire. Matthew, ch. v. v 22.

Here Christ says, that if a man call his brother a fool, he shall be in danger of hell fire. Now to show how exactly Christ's conduct harmonized with this doctrine, and the example he set his fellow-men of acting in obedience to the doctrines he preached, I need only quote the two following verses:—

"Ye fools and blind for whether is greater, the gold, or the temple that sanctifieth the gold?

"Ye fools and blind for whether is greater, the gift, or the alter that sanctifieth the gift? Mat. xxiii. 17, 19.