been actuated, is, to promote the more extensive circulation of the Inspired Scriptures. But, we are not to do evil that good may come.' No Christian man will maintain the contrary. But what is meant by doing evil? If doing that which is criminal be intended, (which is the meaning of the Apostle,) it is completely begging the question, to apply the words to the practice under consideration. Let it be proved to be criminal, and the controversy is at an end, and we shall be, we trust, among the foremost to write our recantation. But there is a sense in which smaller evils must be tolerated for the sake of the greater good. It is an evil to break the Sabbath; but works of necessity and mercy are held to be a good so much greater as to sanction a departure from its strict observance. It was an evil, to give way to the prejudices of the Jews so far as St. Paul did, by circumcising Timothy; but the greater good prevailed over it in the mind of the Apostle: to the Jews he became a Jew, that he might gain the Jews. But we can add nothing to the force and conclusiveness of the Rev. Mr. Simeon's reasoning on this point, who participates in the strange inconsistency ascribed by Mr. Gorham to the Eclectic Reviewer; namely, that of having decided objections to the Apocrypha, in any shape, while he vindicates the toleration of the foreign versions which include it among the Holy Scriptures. We say again, that the circulation of the Apocrypha incorporated, in any shape, with the Holy Scriptures, is a great evil, one at which we would on no account connive, but for the sake of the greater good of circulating the Bible among those who will not otherwise receive it. Of course, though a great evil, we do not and cannot allow it to be a crime. We believe, on the contrary, that this compliance with the prejudices of the continental churches, is fully borne out by Scriptural principles; that it is not doing evil, but doing good, to give away the Bible even with the Apocrypha, and that, as both the design and the issue, good will come.

In combating the notion that we have a right to require from foreign churches an agreement with ourselves on the subject of the Canon, we remarked, that the import of the term canonical is a disputed point; that it has been too hastily assumed to be synonymous with inspired; that the inspiration of all the books of the hagiographa is by no means so clear as to warrant our demanding an unqualified assent on this point from all Christian men.' This statement, we regret to say, has been met by Mr. Gorham, not with argument, but with rudeness and gross misrepresentation. He terms it an indecorous ' attack on the canon of Holy Scripture, and an attempt to undermine the integrity of the sacred volume.' But before we

proceed to substantiate our original remark, we would wish it to be borne in mind, that our opinion on this subject, whether right or wrong, does not in the least affect the general argnment. The whole of our reasoning takes it for granted, that our Canon of Scripture is genuine and complete; and, in the most explicit manner, we have expressed our repugnance to the incorporation of the Apocryphal with the Canonical books. Mr. Gorham wishes to divert the minds of his readers from the main argument; and, for this purpose, he fastens on the proposition above referred to, and affects a pious horror at a statement which he cannot controvert. The Eclectic Reviewer does not stand at his bar; but we should regret that any opinion of ours should be made the subject of debate, instead of the simple question, What have we a right to require of foreign churches as the terms of our co-operation in the circulation of the Holy Scriptures? The Parent Committee have acted as they have done, without entertaining a doubt as to the inspiration of the whole Protestant canon. Their conduct and their future practice, not ours, are the matter of debate; and the propriety of their conduct cannot be prejudiced by any heterodox notion which we may maintain.

Hoping that this may be distinctly understood, we proceed now to explain ourselves further on the point referred to.

Our leading position was, that the question of the Canon comes within the range of human opinion.' This, Mr. Gorham affects to deny; and yet, the absurdity of the contrary opinion is self-evident. In order, however, to give colour to his denial, he is guilty of a most disingenuous artifice.

It is a great mistake,' he says, to imagine that the inspiration of Scripture is a matter which falls more within the range "of human opinion and private judgement," than does the interpretation of Scripture. It cannot be more binding upon the conscience to admit the Divine authority of a doctrine, than to allow the Divine origin of the Book containing that doctrine.'

Here Mr. Gorham attempts to shift the question from the genuineness of the Canon to the inspiration of Scripture itself; and he does this for the unworthy purpose of insinuating that the Eclectic Reviewer has thrown doubts on the Divine origin of the Bible. Is it possible that this can be any other than a wilful misrepresentation? The inspiration of the Holy Scriptures, the Reviewer holds as firmly as Mr. Gorham does; and this he knows. The only question is, whether the character of inspiration applies to all the books of the Old Testament, the only books respecting which a doubt can be entertained, being of an historical or ethical kind, and not a single

doctrine being affected by either their reception or rejection as inspired. The inspiration of Scripture is an article of faith, not a matter of human opinion. But the Divine authority of any particular book of Scripture, or, in other words, its claim to be received as inspired, cannot be a matter of faith, because there is no inspired catalogue of the canonical books; it can, therefore, be determined only by the external or internal evidence which attaches to it; and this evidence, it is within the province of human opinion to estimate.

Mr. Gorham is a Cambridge man, and as he cites Dr, Marsh, he has probably read his valuable Divinity Lectures; if so, he cannot be ignorant of the acknowledged distinction between the genuineness or authenticity and the inspiration of the books of Scripture. The authenticity and genuineness of every book of the Old Testament, is proved, as the Bishop has shewn, by a comparison of the catalogue of the Hebrew Scriptures which Jerome has given in his Prologus Galeatus, with the account given by Josephus in his treatise against Apion, taken in connexion with the testimony of our Lord to the authority of the Hebrew Scriptures. But this decisive proof of their authority in the sense explained, (that is, as including both their authenticity and their truth,) does not, in our view at least, establish the fact, that every such book was given by Inspiration. This subject, the Bishop has specially reserved for a future portion of his Lectures.

If, indeed, our Lord could be proved to have referred to the whole of the Hebrew Scriptures as inspired,-if his testimony implied thus much respecting every book in the Jewish canon, there could be no room for any question on the subject. The most express testimony borne by our Lord to the Books of the Old Testament, is contained in the text cited by Bishop Marsh in his "Comparative View:""These are the words "which I spake unto you while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the LAW OF "MOSES, and in THE PROPHETS, and in THE PSALMS, con"cerning me." We transcribe the learned Prelate's remarks.

Now it is well known, that the Jews divide the books of the Hebrew Bible into three classes. The first class contains 'the five books which compose THE LAW OF MOSES. The ⚫ second class contains the books of THE PROPHETS, including not only the books which we call by that name, but various historical books, proceeding from writers to whom the Jews gave likewise the title of prophet; such as the books of Joshua, the Judges, Samuel, &c. The third class contains the books which in Hebrew are called Chetubim, in Greek, Hagiographa, among which books, THE PSALMS Occupy

the first place in the Hebrew Bible, and hence have given name to the whole class. When our Saviour, therefore, spake of the Old Testament, as composed of three parts, the Law OF MOSES, the PROPHETS, and the PSALMS, he gave an exact description of the Hebrew Bible. It is true, that our Saviour did not enumerate the books of each class; but it may be easily shewn, that the three classes comprehended the present books of the Hebrew Bible, and no more. For the first class was devoted exclusively to the writings of Moses, and the second class admitted only the writings of those whom the Jews denominated THE PROPHETS. Neither the first nor the second class, therefore, ever could have contained the productions of later writers, whom the Jews could not possibly regard in the same light as their ancient prophets. Nor 'could even the third class have contained any of those books which we call Apocrypha. For most of them were Greek in their very origin, and consequently were incapable of admission into the Hebrew Canon. And with respect to the few among them, which may have been written in that kind of Hebrew which was spoken in lutter times, by the Jews of Palestine, it would have been quite inconsistent with the veneration of the Jews for their ancient Hebrew Scriptures, to have admitted whole books written in Chaldee, though they I did not exclude the works either of Ezra or of Daniel, on account of some parts of them being Chaldee*.'

This reasoning appears to us conclusive and final as to the point at issue between the Churches of England and Rome; for it is quite clear, that the Apocryphal books could not be included among the books referred to by our Lord. But whether by the Psalms, we are to understand all the books of the hagiographa, is, in our opinion, not so easily decided. It is true,' remarks the Bishop,

that there are some Hebrew manuscripts in which Job occupies the first place of the Chetubim. But the majority place the Psalms first. We may fairly presume, therefore, that the Psalms occupied the first place among the Chetu im in the time of our Saviour. Indeed, the very circumstance of his designating the third class by the name of the Psalms, implies it.'

That is, if, under the name of the Psalms, our Lord meant to designate a class of writings, it implies that the Psalms was the name given to the class; and the most probable explana

*Marsh's Comp. View of the Churches of England and Rome, pp. 101, 2.

tion would then be, that this arose from its standing first. But the difficulty lies in determining, whether the title of the Psalms was ever thus applied to designate a class of writings, the greater part of which are historical. In the absence of all direct evidence, we must be permitted to have doubts of this. We must, therefore, understand our Lord as referring specifically to the Book of Psalms, as elsewhere he appeals to the Royal Psalmist by name, the Prophet David. In another place, the evangelist Luke seems tacitly to include the Book of Psalms among the prophetical Scriptures, where it is said, that Paul" persuaded" the Jews" concerning Jesus both out "of the law of Moses, and out of the prophets from morning "to evening." It is quite clear, that David ranked among the Prophets, notwithstanding that the Book of Psalms, for obvious reasons, as being of a mixed character, and not entirely the composition of David, was distinguished in the Jewish canon from the Book of the Prophets. The Book of Psalms indeed consisted of five books, as the Book of the Law consisted of five books, and the Book of the Prophets of many books; for classing, however, the writings of Solomon, Ezra, and the Authors of the Chronicles together as one book called the Book of Psalms, we have, so far as we are aware, no authority. To these, therefore, we conclude that our Lord did not refer as testifying concerning himself. And for the same reason that we conclude that he did not refer to books which are not of a prophetical character, when he spake of the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms, we must believe that the prophecies of Daniel were included in this reference. Mr. Gorham is pleased to say, that here are no fewer than ten books ' of the Bible placed by an anonymous writer in the same class of composition with Tobit and Judith' This is in every respect a dishonest statement. The anonymous writer' did not place a single book of the Bible in the same class as Tobit and Judith. In a note, Mr. G. adds, by way of qualifying his mis statement: He' (the Reviewer) does not, indeed, specify ten; but his remarks apply to all the books of the " hagiographa," except the Psalms.' And the Author of the Vindication accuses the Reviewer of throwing out of Scripture that 'most important book, the prophecies of Danielt. The Re

6

*Acts, xxviii. 33.

.6

We do not quarrel with this Vindicator, whom we presume to be a layman, for discovering an imperfect knowledge of the subject; but when he terms the triple distinction of the Jews, quite fanciful,' and asserts that the historical books ought to be included under the