St. Paul in 1 Cor. xiv. In that chapter of the English translation, the awful words, unknown tongues, occur no fewer than five times; and if Latin was indeed considered by the Apostle as one of the unknown tongues, and his address regarded prayers recited under circumstances similar to those which characterize the liturgical addresses of the Catholic Church, certainly the Protestant might appeal with confidence to the chapter of the English Bible just referred to. But unfortunately for Protestantism, St. Paul neither speaks of Latin, nor of any liturgical observances, nor does he once make use of the words unknown tongues: he refers to the gift of the Holy Spirit, which God was pleased to communicate to the faithful at the beginning of the Church, in further testification of the truth of Christianity, the gift of speaking a language not humanly learned, but divinely received; and makes regulations in reference to this gift. But mark this observation: though the word yλwcca, tongue, is throughout the entire chapter unencumbered by any adjective, it is at one time rendered simply by the word, tongue, and at other times, by the words, unknown tongues: see verses 4, 13, 14, 19, 27. Of the folly of this addition in some instances, the reader will be fully convinced who attends to the reading of the 27th verse in the authorized version: St. Paul ordains that some one should interpret the unknown tongue: a difficult task, assuredly, for any interpreter !

Nor is the translation of the words, ὥστε ὅς ἂν ἐσθίῃ τὸν ἄρτὸν τοῦτον, ἢ πίνῃ τὸ ποτήριον τοῦ κυρίου ἀναξίως, &c. (1 Cor. xi, 27), less culpable than the preceding instances of ignorance or deceit. The disjunctive, or, is rendered by the conjunctive and; and thus a material alteration

is introduced into the text, an alteration of which the Protestant party has taken no little advantage.1 This translation was made to buttress up the Anglican doctrine of communion under two kinds. The reader shall now see what was done by the same truthful expounders of the Greek text, in favour of the doctrine, not of the real presence, but of the real absence of the body of Jesus Christ in the holy mystery: and though the variation may at first sight appear truly small, it will be soon seen not to be unimportant. In the xxvi, 26, of St. Matthew, the xiv, 22, of St. Mark, and the xxii, 19, of St. Luke, of the Protestant version, occurs the small pronoun it, a word of obvious importance in its relation with other words. From the English text it would plainly appear, that our Divine Saviour gave his Apostles nothing but bread at the Last Supper; the it obviously connotating the bread which our Saviour had previously taken into his hands. The translation is as follows: "And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to his disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body."

1 Such is the reading in the received, printed, and critical editions of the Greek Testament: the disjunctive, not the conjunctive κát, being uniformly approved of; and that such was the reading in the edition used by the translators in James' reign, is unquestionable. It is foolish then to state, in justification of the mistranslation, that in some MSS. and printed readings of this passage, káι occurs, and not ; for we are not examining the value of this or that reading, but the value of the English translation. Does signify or, or does it not? Is this the ordinary, received meaning of the word; and have the Anglican translators elsewhere translated it as a disjunctive participle? If the answer be in the affirmative, then it is clear that should be here translated by or, and it is equally clear, that it would have been thus translated, had not the prepossession of heresy guided Bancroft and his friends in their task of translation.

Now will not the honest reader be surprised to find, that this it is wholly redundant. The particulars of the Last Supper are given by three of the Evangelists, and further St. Paul "received of the Lord," 1 that which he delivered to the Corinthians relative to the sacred institution of the holy mystery. Now none of these sacred writers ever once insert this it: nay, more, they studiously avoid its insertion; leaving the decision of the nature of the gift to Christ's Almighty words which immediately follow the record of the blessing, breaking and giving. Had the Apostles wished to say that Christ blessed it, broke it, gave it, how easily and appropriately might they not have inserted that pronoun; by carefully avoiding its insertion, they gave their readers to understand that the omission was intended; that there was an object in omitting the word; and what that object was is clearly developed in the following words of our Lord: "this is my body!" By following the Apostolical example, the translators would have avoided an act of unwarrantable misrepresentation ; they would have given, not a representation of their insular error, but an exposition of the divine teaching; and this only does the biblical student desiderate.

1 1 Cor. xi, 24.

K

194

Chapter the Eighth.

On the meaning of the word, Holy Scriptures; and on the inspiration, authenticity, and canonicity of the Bible.

CONTENTS.

Importance of this examination, and the difficulty it involves.-Meaning of the word Bible.—Origin, age, country, and character of the sacred writings. Inspiration required.-What it is.-Protestant theories developed. No fixed ideas on this head, though inspiration is essential to the Bible. By extrinsic proofs only can inspiration be proved-admitted by Taylor, Hooker, &c.-Foolish proofs of inspiration adduced by Anglicans from Christ's words.-Authenticity.-The canonical writings. The sixth Article on this head, false.-Some works admitted by Protestants, were formerly doubted of as much as those writings which they reject.-Continuous evidence on this head.-Principles advocated by Cyril and others for discovering the canonicity of any writing. Whether Protestants reject or receive tradition, their position is untenable.-Belief of the Church at the end of the fourth century relative to the sacred books.-Lists of the Scriptures drawn up at Carthage, at Rome, and elsewhere.-Detailed and specific examination of each of the divine writings rejected by Protestants.-Their canonicity clearly established.-Falseness of the sixth Article in whatever way it be tested.-Protestants know absolutely nothing of the origin and mode of settling the canon of the Old Testament.-Varying accounts on this head, in respect to Esdras, the Synagogue, and the works forming the Bible, at various periods.-Even after Esdras, books added to the Canon.-Testimony of Josephus, and the principle involved in it.Observations on the statement of the sixth Article in connection with St. Jerome. The statement unfair, and disproved by St. Jerome himself.-Catholic principle advocated by this Saint.

We will now proceed to investigate the character and number of the books themselves which form the canon of the

Sacred Scriptures. This is obviously a most important subject, far more important than that on which we have been previously engaged; for it regards the book itself, the letter of inspiration. If in the settlement of the books, Protestantism has erred; if it has rejected works which emanate from God; if it has undermined the ecclesiastical fabric which it was endeavouring to upraise, by removing the foundation stone on which all depended, then indeed it will be admitted that the state of Anglicanism is truly deplorable. The sequel will shew what is the position of Anglicanism under all these points of view: it will be seen, that though "it is to the Church, authoritatively declaring what scripture is to be accepted, and what rejected, that men are indebted for the possessing of the written word, still, some exercising their assumed right of private judgment, have been disposed to pick and choose in regard to whole books and chapters of the Bible." It will further be shewn, that Protestantism is wholly and entirely unable to vindicate the canon of Scripture which it receives: for the principle admitted in the sixth Article is suicidal to Protestantism, whilst the assertion "that those books only are to be admitted to be canonical of which there was never any doubt in the Church," is false in itself, and destructive of that very canon of Scripture which Anglicanism holds out to its followers as certainly divine.

1

To elucidate this matter, to render the biblical question plain and intelligible, I will treat the whole subject in detail. From these details alone, will the careful reader be able thoroughly to understand the meaning of the much abused words the Bible, the Inspired Writings, the Canonical Scriptures, the Apochrypha.

1 See Digby's Compitum., vol. vi, 117.