I should say (and we have some knowledge of the subject in Earl Street) that to Portugal least of all is the description applicable. British influence has there produced no such effect as the writer supposes.

V. What again is the meaning of " Popery expressing herself as willing to assist in circulating the Word of God?" Every ordinary reader will take it for granted that Popery is throwing in her aid to this work, in connexion with the Bible Society. I know of no such assistance. A few isolated Roman Catholic Priests, may have been willing to join in the work, here and there, but the hatred of the body, as represented by its ecclesiastical heads, is as unmitigated as ever, I fear, not only to the Bible Society, but to the Bible itself. If Ireland be named as one of the places, the writer of the article cannot be ignorant that with the Douay version the Bible Society has never had any concern; though the Committee were once strongly urged by a gentleman, now a Vice-president of the Protestant Association, to print an Edition of the Douay Testament. Whether that Gentleman remains of the same opinion, as to the desirableness of circulating that Version in Ireland, it is not in my power to say.

* In Portugal the Bible Society gets no assistance from the Roman Catholics, -and there is scarcely any circulation of the Scriptures at all going on in that Country; but nevertheless, before the Rev. A. S. Thelwall had issued his Criticisms on the Portuguese Bible, the Bible Society was engaged in prosecuting a revision, (as far as the change of obsolete for modern terms and the correction of the orthography were concerned), of the Portuguese Protestant version of the New Testament by Almeida, which is now happily completed.

notorious, that in some places she professes to be friendly to the Bible. Such certainly is the case in England, Ireland, parts of France, Lower Canada, parts of Germany, and all places where it is impossible any longer to resist successfully the circulation of the Scriptures. In such places her next effort, we stated, was to get a version suitable to her purposes. We only mentioned Portugal by way of contrast to South America, and we still think that contrast somewhat remarkable.

V. The meaning of our words is very plain, we think. In the last Report of the Bible Society it appears that the Popish Bishop of Montreal for instance, sanctions its proceedings. And this is not surprising as we believe that the Bible Society circulates among the French Canadians of his diocese De Sacy's version of the Bible!

The proposition alluded to certainly never came from any one as such Vice-president. It was long before our Association was formed, and we are surprized to hear that Mr. Brandram has not heard that that gentleman often afterwards expressed a change of opinion. But in fact the Douay Testament perverted as it is, nevertheless, when without notes, is, in many parts, far more faithful than some of the Popish versions of which we complain, and which the Bible Society circulates in France, Spain, Italy, and Portugal. This fact is undeniable.

66

VI. "These [popish] translations," the writer says, p. 306, near the bottom, are chosen for circulation, although there are existing in those languages faithful Protestant versions, from the operation of the unfortunate spirit of the age 'expediency.'

The fact of there being such versions is freely admitted, but (without being frightened by the use of such ill-omened expressions as "the spirit of the age" and "expediency,") I believe the reasons stated in the conclusion of the Bible Society's Report of 1839, for nevertheless using Roman Catholic versions, are good and sound, and quite consistent with principles drawn from the Scripture.

VII. The Society's assailant seems to consider that he has a triumphant argument in his favor, drawn from the history of the Apocryphal controversy.

"It is feared," p. 306, at the bottom, "forsooth, that more faithful versions would not be received, just as the same Society dreaded (and acted on the apprehension) that Romanists would not receive the Bible without the Apocrypha."

What will he say when he is informed that these fears have proved well founded? The absence of the Apocrypha is every day found, in various countries, a considerable hindrance to the circulation of the Scriptures among both Protestants and Roman Catholics. The Committee do what they can to spread the Scriptures without the Apocrypha, and rejoice in the measure of success attained. They have never in their public documents indeed dwelt upon the hindrances that have arisen, the point having been settled, that the Apocrypha is not to be circulated. Persons may have hence too hastily concluded that the apprehension had been unfounded, but this does not alter the real state of the case, that the withdrawal of the Apocrypha, has been the prevention of many, very many thousands of copies of the Scriptures being circulated.

VIII. Of the following paragraph, I think I am fairly entitled to complain, p. 307, at the top:

"Accordingly in their Report for the year 1839, after endeavouring

VI. With what "principles drawn from the Scripture" the circulation of Popish versions of the Vulgate is "consistent," when it is "freely admitted" that there are in existence faithful versions of the original, we cannot imagine.

VII. It was not without an arduous struggle that the Bible Society gave up the Apocrypha. We hope that without a similar painful controversy, these versions will be abandoned, and that no attempt, under any pretence whatever, will be made to restore the Apocryphal system. In faithfulness, a Bible Society should circulate nothing but the pure and unadulterated Word of God.

VIII. Why should Mr. Brandram complain of this passage? His

to excuse some of the errors of these Translations, they distinctly refuse to withdraw or even to revise them."

Enough is surely said, in the conclusion of the Report, in censure of the versions in question, and not a desire is manifested to excuse their defects.

IX. I read in the next sentence what perfectly astounds me, p. 307, near the top:

"Now we beg our readers to notice, that against versions such as these Popery makes no strenuous opposition, where she needs must have some sort of version of the Bible in circulation.”

I am compelled to be every day familiar with the strenuous opposition of the Romish Priesthood, in Spain, France, Italy, Belgium, to the circulation of these very versions. I may give, as one example, the following extract of a letter received from Thoulouse very recently:

"The enmity of the Church of Rome, now so general and so barefaced, renders our circulation much less extensive. * * * * * * We have in hand the letter of the Archbishop of Bwho 'So says: far from having given any approbation to the translation of the Bible of De Sacy, I have opposed in my Diocese the circulation of this version, which is stated in the title page to be made after the Vulgate, but which nevertheless differs from it notoriously, on points of the greatest importance, without being borne out on these same points by the ancient Greek and Eastern Versions.

66 6

It is curious to find how openly the Clergy now forbid the circulation of all versions, and how strenuous are their efforts to stop it, which shows how much damage their church has received.''

From this letter it appears that the circulation is much diminished on account of the strenuous opposition, and that the parties are actually endeavouring to deprive De Sacy's version of that sanction, which some of their predecessors have given it. But perhaps it will be said that these places are not included in the number of those where Popery needs must have some sort of version of the Bible in circulation, and so the writer will not be chargeable with misstatement. I repeat it, Sir, that in those places where the Bible Society is distributing these versions, the hatred of Rome is as unmitigated as ever. The specimen I have given above is only one out of multitudes of the same kind.

own quotation from the Bible Society's Report, in his second paragraph, fully justifies our assertion, that the Bible Society does in fact palliate these errors.

IX. We, in our turn, are surprized at Mr. Brandram's astonishment. Where Popery "needs must have some sort of Bible" she certainly does not strenuously oppose these versions; as for instance in Lower Canada, Malta, and Madeira; and surely in France it is not correct that she has strenuously opposed them, seeing that between the years

X. The writer of the article proceeds, p. 307, following the last quotation:

"And it is evident, that with such a translation in his hands, the Popish priest, even in a reference to the Law and to the Testimony, would be too powerful for any Protestant missionary, however zealous, however mighty in the Scriptures-that is in the pure Scriptures in the original and in faithful translations."

Now, Sir, I do entreat you and the writer of the article to read, if it only be the address of the Rev. T. S. Grimshawe at the Anniversary of the Bible Society in 1839. Mr. G. is one of your members, and you will see how untenable is the position taken in this paragraph. Facts are every day contradicting the reasoning in this paragraph-and if Popish priests shall ever learn to wield their own versions, in the way suggested, it will be the Protestant Association that has taught them so to do. I have mentioned only the address of the Rev. Mr. Grimshawe, but, Sir, let your readers go and enquire on the Continent, whether in Brussels, Paris, Geneva, Lyons, Thoulouse or elsewhere, of men who are as zealously fighting the battles of Protestantism as themselves, and they will find, to use the words of an excellent Minister at Lyons, "that it is quite manifest (as the event which furnishes the occasion of the present letter is one of many instances to prove) that the New Testament, in the form of the Vulgate translation, has not lost its divine character of the Sacred Scriptures, which are able to make wise unto salvation by faith which is in Christ Jesus. Neither Jerome nor his translators have deprived the sword of the Spirit of its edge."

XI. Page 307, near the middle:

"It may be very easy to draw the minds of Christians from these to

1820 and 1840 there have been issued from the Paris depot of the British and Foreign Bible Society alone, no less than 1,396,701 copies of the Scriptures, of which in the last year, 106,050 were copies of De Sacy's version. Our assertion is also remarkably confirmed so far as France is concerned, by the speech of the Rev. F. Martin of Bordeaux, at the Meeting of the Bible Society in 1839.

X. We deliberately re-assert what we stated, and we appeal to the Appendix stitched up herewith, together with our former article, in confirmation of it. We rejoice however to hear that some copies of these versions have been blessed, though that is no conclusive proof of their faithfulness, or of the right of Christians to circulate them if unfaithful. But Mr. Brandram cannot think the blessing would be less were more faithful versions used. Can he reasonably expect a blessing when less pure versions are used, and more pure ones are deliberately and systematically neglected?

The Vulgate these versions are made from is not the Vulgate as left by Jerome, but as it has been adulterated since.

XI. Our full meaning is not given in this short extract of a sentence,

other points, to doubtful points of criticism, to labored defences of the Popish way of rendering particular verses; but for simple minds this unscrupulous mode of reasoning will not suffice."

On this paragraph it may be remarked, that when criticisms have been put forth of an unfavourable nature, and these have been subjected to examination, and the fallacies contained in them have been exposed, so compendious a method of getting rid of the question will not be submitted to. All that I can desire is, that persons, who have received unfavourable impressions of the character of these versions, would read the examination of the Criticisms of the Rev. A. S. Thelwall, made by a writer under the signature of T. H., and I have no doubt as to the issue,not that they would become approvers or admirers of the versions, but that they would see that their errors had been greatly overcharged.

XII. Page 307, a few lines after the last quotation:

"They know too that the versions which they are asked to circulate in Roman Catholic countries abroad, are not versions which the Papists at all need fear."

Enough has already been said to shew that the Papists do fear, and greatly fear too, their own versions, and of the need for such fears they are the best judges.

XIII. It appears from the admission of the writer that, "though under the fearful bondage of Popery, many (persons) were and are true disciples of the Lord," and that these are to be "called out." Many spots may be visited at the present time both in Belgium and France, where such parties have been "called out" from the Church of Rome,—and what, I ask, has called them out but the reading in the first instance of these very versions?

so we must refer our readers to the whole sentence itself, which is intended to show that without any critical research, plain Bible Christians must condemn these Popish versions, inasmuch as they are different to the English version, which, upon the evidence of wise and pious men, may be taken by them as a standard translation.

We read T. H.'s pamphlet with great pain, and that was in fact the occasion of the remarks quoted.

XII. We also re-assert this: if the fact were otherwise, would Papists ever have made these versions?

XIII. We repeat as in Note X., to which we request attention, that no blessing can be expected on the circulation of unfaithful versions while more faithful ones are in existence and are neglected. That is the point on which the whole question turns. If Mr. Brandram could prove that no versions but these Popish ones would be received, he would then, (but not till then) let in the question of expediency, which we should be quite ready to discuss with him; but his arguments and statements now go to show that even these Popish versions are not