Mr. Horne, I should have added to the strength of my cause; for we all know that a translation may very easily be made to assume the character of a commentary-that is to say, in disputed passages the peculiar opinions of the translator may have an undue influence.*

But to return to "Luther." He evidently thinks I might have saved myself some needless trouble, when I was referring to the ancient English versions, had I transcribed half a page of Horne's Introduction. I will tell him why I did not do this. I could not have done so without animadverting, as I am now obliged to do, upon the following passage. Mr. Horne alludes to the convocation held at Oxford (as, he says, agreeing with Linwood and Collier, in 1408, though Archbishop Usher places it in 1407, and Archbishop Parker in 1406,) by Archbishop Arundel, and then states that it was decreed by a constitution "that no one should thereafter translate any text of Scripture into English, by way of a book, or little book, or tract, and that no book of this kind should be read that was composed lately, in the time of John Wickliffe, or since his death."-Vol. ii., p. 234, edit. 1823. In my former letter, I gave the constitution itself, as I found it translated by John Johnson, in the Ecclesiastical Laws; I will now give it as I find it in Anthony Johnson's Historical Account of the several English Translations of the Bible ::

"It is a dangerous thing, as St. Jerome assures us, to translate the Scriptures, it being very difficult in a version to keep close to the sense of the inspired writers; for, by the confession of the same father, he had mistaken the meaning of several texts. We, therefore, constitute and ordain, that from henceforward no unauthorized person shall translate any part of Holy Scripture into English, or any other language, under any form of book or treatise; neither shall any such book, treatise, or version, made either in Wickliffe's time or since, or which hereafter shall be made, be read, either in whole or in part, publicly or privately, under the penalty of greater excommunication, till the translation shall be approved either by the bishop of the diocese or a provincial council, as occasion may require."

Now I ask whether Mr. Horne has stated the case impartially?

* It was, indeed, on this very account; it was because Coverdale's and other subsequent translations were not free from this defect that our present authorized version was undertaken, which was not published until, acting on the principles of Archbishop Arundel, the translators had submitted it to a provincial synod; and on this account, also, the papist objects even to our authorized version. He says, your translation is a partial one, and made for party purposes; and, therefore, we reject it, just as you do the improved version, so called, of the Socinians. We answer him by denying the charge, and by challenging him to compare our translation with the original. But when we talk of a Protestant Bible, and the great advantage our cause has derived from the publication of a Protestant Bible, we concede the very point in debate, we plead guilty to the accusation; and the Romanist says, "If it be a

fair translation, what matters it whether it be a Protestant version or not? What do you mean by talking of a Protestant version? If you mean anything, you mean that your translators, wherever it has been possible, have rendered a passage so as to make it favour your side of the question that is to say, you appeal to Scripture as the sole judge in the controversy between us, and then endeavour to corrupt the judge. It is on these grounds that we refuse your version, and represent you to our people as corrupters of the truth." Of course, this argument of the papist may be refuted by any well-educated person; but why should we give them ground for the argument at all? why afford them an opportunity, by our indiscretion, for that declamation, which, with too many persons, is considered in the light of argument? VOL. IX-Jan. 1836.

G

The observation of Anthony Johnson is, I think, far more candid than the inference of Horne :

"The reading of Wickliffe's translation was prohibited, as appears by this canon, not simply as a version in the vulgar tongue, but as disapproved of the Church, because the translator was not thought to have rendered the original faithfully, and according to the full import and meaning of the text, or, at least, because it was not a work of authority, it being not thought convenient to allow any private person the liberty of translating the Scriptures. Archbishop Arundel, one would think, could not be of opinion that it was simply unlawful to render or read the Holy Scriptures in the vulgar tongue; because he had justly applauded Queen Anne for reading them, (as was before observed,) and in those very constitutions which prohibit the reading of Wickliffe's books, or any other version by persons unauthorized, it is declared that this prohibition should only continue in force till such translation should be approved by a provincial council or the bishop of the diocese; which supposes, in the judgment of that prelate, there might be reason why such translation should be approved when faithfully done, and by persons duly authorized to that end."

I do not for a moment imagine that your correspondent will acquiesce in these remarks. No; he assumes the very point he ought to prove; and taking it for granted that the Church of England in 1408 was precisely what the Church of Rome has been ever since the Council of Trent, he insinuates, without shewing any reason for his suspicions, that Archbishop Arundel was, (by a slight anachronism,) if not a jesuit, one who acted on jesuitical principles; that both he and his suffragans ("diocesans" he terms them) were hypocrites; and states, as a new historical fact, but without giving us his authority, that "Queen Anne's was a mere case of permission." Surely he forgets that of charity it is said, ου λογίζεται τὸ κακὸν,—it imputes no evil to any one by putting the worst constructions upon actions which have a doubtful appearance. But, at all events, I am not bound to receive his suspicions or assertions as facts; I am not bound to identify the Church of England and the Church of Rome even in 1408; and therefore I may, for the present, be permitted to conclude, that the quotation made above establishes my position, that, whatever may have been the conduct of individual clergymen, the Church of England, down to the year 1408, had not authoritatively asserted the Romish heresy, that the Scriptures ought to be withheld from the people, or that there ought to be no translation of them.

To the last paragraph in your correspondent's letter it is impossible for me to attempt a reply. I must content myself with reminding him that the three dialectic flaws are petitio principii, argumentum in circulo, and argumentum contra rem in premisso rem ipsam includente. Whether he be chargeable with one or all of these, I will leave it for his readers to decide, not having myself that talent for banter and ridicule in which "Luther" indulges.

But before I conclude, I must be permitted to ask him whether, in his calmer and more serious moments, he thinks it was becoming in him to insinuate that I was an apologist for the Romish Church? In opposing the papists, I may not choose my weapons from his armoury; and, in attacking popery, I may be willing, at the same time, to defend Catholicism; but what right has he (because, perhaps, and I judge from his letter, he does not understand the difference of

the terms) to imply that I am an advocate of Romanism? Before "Luther" comes forward again in the character of a polemic, let me advise him to study carefully Hey's Canons of Controversy.

"It is (says that candid writer) frequently seen that men use arrogant and declamatory expressions, setting aside all doubt that the truth is on their side. But why may not their adversaries do the same? And if they do, one arrogant and declamatory expression is as good as another; and they are, altogether, so many hindrances to the settlement of the truth."

Suppose that I were to act on "Luther's" principle, I might point out some passages in his letter not apparently written in a charitable or Christian spirit, and on that ground I might speak of him as a patron of infidelity; or, pointing out other passages which seem to betray the special-pleader, I might remind him of what Henry Wharton said of Bale, Bishop of Ossory-"Veritas Balæo parum curæ erat dummodo Romanæ ecclesiæ inimicorum numerum augere posset." But I shall not say any such thing. I have no doubt that your correspondent, though betrayed by a little warmth of temper into some incautious expressions, is a good and well-meaning Christian; and that, in spite of the errors into which, as you have ably shewn, he may occasionally be led, as an advocate of piety he will never intentionally compromise the truth. I will conclude, therefore, by requesting him to obtain from you my address, and if he will do me the honour of paying me a visit, I will exhibit to him certain letters, which will fully prove to him that I have incurred the censures concerning which he is sceptical, and that there are some outrageously pious persons who imitate your correspondent's celebrated namesake, if in nothing else, at least in the unmeasured violence of his language.

W. F. H.

POYNDER'S POPERY IN ALLIANCE WITH HEATHENISM.

SIR,-I cannot but regret that so zealous a defender of the Protestant cause as Mr. Poynder has shewn himself to be, should have marred his usefulness by (I think) an unfair and injudicious selection of his

weapons.

To establish the " Alliance," "Conformity," and "Identity" of a large portion of the church of Christ with heathenism, is a task so full of pain, and grief, and shame, that nothing but imperious necessity should compel the reluctant attempt. Admitting (as I freely do) that the course pursued by the bishops and clergy of the Roman schism in these islands both warrants and obliges us to set before our own people all that can in truth be alleged against the Roman system, yet, even under this pressure, Christian charity would rather lead us to seek, and to rejoice to find, any circumstances which might serve to exempt our brethren who are called by the name of Christ from the fearful charges above named, than to go out of our way causelessly to affix them. I cannot deny that, in some instances (especially as concerns image-worship), it must be difficult, if not altogether impossible, for the Romanists to acquit themselves of the charge. But in by far the

greater number of the cases cited by Mr. Poynder, the refutation appears to me so easy and obvious, that it must not only occur to every impartial reader of his book who is acquainted with the Scriptures, but must afford the Roman advocates a very plausible pretext for dismissing the whole of the charge. I would entreat him to consider what other effect he can look for from bringing obviously unsustainable accusations, but, on the one hand, to make ill-informed protestants doubt of the defensibleness of their position; and on the other, to make the Romanists reject every examination of the differences between us? Now, to shew the reason for these remarks, I would ask any impartial Christian whether, when the practices of the church of Rome which differ from those of the church of England may be derived either from the Holy Scriptures or from heathenism, it is consistent with the golden rule of doing as we would be done by, to identify them with heathenism rather than the Scriptures? Yet this is the course which Mr. Poynder has pursued in the work before us. I do confess that I think a man might as well go about to prove an alliance between the church of England and heathenism, because we have a stated priesthood, temples, set times of devotion, music and postures in our devotions in common with the heathens, as to attempt to establish such a charge against the church of Rome on many of the grounds which Mr. Poynder has brought forward in defence of it.

Such are,-1. The use of incense in the public worship, a thing expressly enjoined, under the old dispensation, by the Almighty himself, (Exod. xxx.) and nowhere prohibited under the new. 2. The lights burned in the temples. To this the selfsame remarks apply. (Exod. xxv.) 3. The votive offerings, expressly sanctioned under the old dispensation (Levit. xxvii.), and nowhere prohibited under the new. 4. Tutelar saints, founded on Dan. x. 20, 21, and not improbably deduced from Matt. xviii. 10. 5. Canonization of saints; see Prov. x. 7, and the whole of Heb. xi. 6. The refuge of the sanctuary: in uncondemned usage among the Jews, (1 Kings ii. 28,) and countenanced, as to the principle, by Divine appointment; I allude to the cities of refuge, (Num. xxxv.) 7. The priesthood (essential to the existence of a church); under express appointment and sanction under all the dispensations, Patriarchal, (Gen. xiv. 18,) Levitical, (Num. iii. 10,) and Christian, (Mal. i. 11; Heb. xiii. 10.) 8. Religious processions; in uncondemned usage, to say the least, under the old dispensation, (Psal. lxviii. 25,) and nowhere prohibited under the new.

It would not be difficult to extend the list to several other instances adduced by Mr. Poynder, in proof of the alliance between popery and heathenism. But these will, perhaps, suffice to shew with what very little consideration, and therefore great, though I am sure unintentional, unfairness his work has been drawn up. Concerning these and all the other instances which he has adduced, which are not contrary to Divine appointment, unless we would deny to others that Christian liberty which we claim for ourselves, we must allow to the church of Rome, as an integral portion of the church of Christ, the liberty of adopting or rejecting any of these usages, according as the rulers of the church shall judge to tend most to edification; provided always that

they do not violate Christian liberty, and divide the body of Christ, by requiring an approbation of these indifferent things as a term of communion. I must repeat, it appears to me that the putting forward these immaterial and unimportant points of difference, can only have the effect of distracting the attention from, and enabling the Romanists to keep out of sight, the real point in dispute between us and them; which, after all, will be found to be this,-namely, the right of the rulers of any portion of the church of Christ, or even of the whole church, to require an assent to new articles of faith, and new terms of communion, which cannot be proved to have been required semper, ubique,

et ab omnibus.

I do not wish to notice every inaccuracy in Mr. Poynder's publication, but there are some statements of his (pp. 80, 81,) concerning the Christian sacrifice, so contrary (I conceive) to Christian truth, that I must request permission to point them out. He says, "In the early age of the Christian church, sacrifice was, of course, unknown, since the advent of the expected Saviour had abrogated a rite which, having reference to himself alone, was necessarily at an end when he appeared who was the sum and substance of that, as of all other types of the Jewish dispensation." Let me request Mr. Poynder to re-consider this passage, and, having done so, to say,-1st, as regards the reason of the thing, to which the words "of course" and "necessarily" apply, why a typical sacrifice should of course be less necessary to keep up the memory of what has happened, than to keep alive an expectation of what will happen? 2ndly. As to the fact which he states,→ namely, that "in the early ages of the Christian church sacrifice was unknown,"—will he have the goodness to say, whether he states this as the result of his own examination of the records of the church or as his mere conjecture. If as the result of his own examination of the records of the church, will he have the kindness to specify those to which he refers? I can only say that, if he is right, I have been most unfortunate either in the copies which I have used or in the inferences which I have drawn from them. For the result of my own inquiries, such as they are, has led me to this conviction-that if there is one point of Christian truth more than another to which the fathers, the councils, the liturgies, in all ages, bear uniform testimony, it is to this, that the eucharist, or Lord's Supper, is a sacrifice, not merely, as Mr. Poynder admits, in that large and extensive sense of the word in which the Bible terms every religious performance-our prayers, our praises, and even ourselves-sacrifices to God, but in a strict sense which is not applicable to any of these,-namely, that there is a material offering placed upon the altar by priests ordained for that purpose. I conceive that in two senses the eucharist is rightly named a sacrifice: 1, strict and true, as regards the bread and wine; 2, commemorative, as regards the body and blood of our Redeemer, which are typified by those elements; and that the error of too many of the Roman writers consists in this, that they hold it to be strict and true as regards both. Mr. Poynder farther observes, "The New Testament knows nothing of sacrificing priests, any more than the Old does of an unbloody sacrifice." I confess I was surprised to read the first statement, for I had