The German Societies labour under great difficulty respecting the
Apocryphal Books; and the greater part of them are not at present
disposed to give them up. They ground their determination in general
upon the following reasons. 1st. In all cases in Germany the Societies
are sanctioned by the government of the respective countries, on the
implied condition of distributing the Scriptures as approved by the
ecclesiastical authority, i.e. with the Apocryphal Books. In some cases
that condition is even expressed. The Societies could not therefore
alter the mode of distributing the Scriptures, without the permission of
the government, which permission they apprehend would not be granted if
it were asked. 2d. There are in Germany a vast variety of moral school
books, the lessons of which are taken partly from the Apocrypha, and
which they imagine would be useless if the Apocrypha were taken from
common use. 3dly. The original principle on which the Foreign Societies
formed their alliance with the British and Foreign Bible Society was
_conciliatory_. The Anti-apocryphal resolution they hold to be
_reforming_; and they think that no Bible Society has a right to
establish a reforming principle as a law to other Bible Societies. 4th.
The question being, as they conceive, whether each Bible Society shall be
permitted to bind the Apocrypha together with the canonical books, at
their own expence; they think they may claim for the Apocrypha bound up
with the Bible, the same liberty which is exercised in England in the
case of prayer books bound up with the word of God. A person, they
apprehend, in this country may bind up with the Bible he receives from
the Bible Society whatever tract he pleases, without forfeiting his right
as a member of that Society.—Some persons desire to retain the Apocryphal
books as valuable historical documents; others fear the ill consequences
which might result from appearing to the ill-informed to take away a part
of Scripture.—Of all these reasons it may be said that they are founded,
rather on views of expediency, than conscience; and are not therefore to
be put in comparison with the great principle involved in this question,
and which has directed the decision of the London Committee, viz. whether
that which is _not_ the word of God ought to be put on a level with that
which _is_. I cannot but think that if our Christian brethren in Germany
were led to this view of the question; that if the writers on the
subject, in this country, were to direct a little of the zeal for their
instruction upon this point; the more pious part of our neighbours would
be induced, at no distant period, to adopt the resolution which we have
established. In the meantime, there are very many persons and districts,
as the correspondence of the Society may testify, who, even now, are
willing to receive and distribute the Bible without the apocryphal
writings. The example of these societies will, I doubt not, work
powerfully upon others.
From all that I was able to learn in Germany, it appeared to me that, to
every class of protestants, the resolution of your Committee respecting
the Apocrypha will be attended with immense advantage. Great benefit may
result, from this resolution, to the general theological teaching of that
country. A large proportion of the errors of the German divines, appear
to me to have originated in breaking down the boundaries of inspiration.
The first work published by Semler, who may be considered as the
originator of the new school of Theology, in Germany, is entitled
“Apparatus ad liberalem Novi Testamenti Interpretationem.” The object of
this work is to give extent to the powers of human reason; and, in
defiance of the common notions of the authority of inspiration, to
accommodate Scripture to the philosophic views of the author.—Subsequent
writers have contended for the partial inspiration of the Scripture;
others for the unreasonableness of inspiration altogether, &c. till the
dignity and authority of the divine sanction, is wholly withdrawn from
the word of God, and critics have felt themselves at liberty to discuss
both the books of the Bible, and their contents with no other restraint
than they would feel in the examination of the most ordinary publication.
Now the anti-apocryphal resolution of the Committee will I conceive go
far to suggest for each man’s consideration, this important
question—“What is, and what is not the Bible?” and, thus, a primary and
most important question will be discussed, one which must stand at the
basis of all sound theology; and this, if rightly determined, will assist
to bring back the German divines from the wild notions they have so
generally adopted; and the benefit resulting from this resolution will
probably be a larger distribution of the Bible itself. In those cases
amongst the protestants where the societies may refuse to act as agents
for the distribution of our canonical books, which cases will, I
apprehend, eventually be very few; those societies may be prompted to
greater exertion to secure their independent existence; and in the case
of most Bible Societies, it will be found that they are capable of doing
much more for themselves, and others, than they have done, whilst they
continued to receive assistance from this country.
With respect to the Catholic population any considerable distribution of
the _Old_ Testament will undoubtedly be prevented by the Anti-apocryphal
resolution. But this need not hinder the circulation of the _New_
Testament. This indeed may be distributed in larger abundance than
before. Leander Van Ess told me that he had then before him applications
for 30,000 copies of the Catholic New Testament, whilst he had only two
or 300 in his depository; and that he waited only for the direction of
your Society to encrease his circulation to a very great amount.—I have
no hesitation then in offering my cordial approbation to those who have
supported the Anti-apocryphal Resolution of the Bible Society.
Independently of every other consideration, this resolution will I think,
speedily, as well as remotely, be attended with important benefit as
respects the advancement of real Christian knowledge.
II. It may be desirable to say a few words as to the _Committees and
officers of the German_ Bible Societies. It has been a subject of grief
to me, on my return to this country, to find these individuals
reproached, in very general terms, as ‘infidels,’ ‘Neologians,’
‘designing men,’ ‘who have taken the offices they hold for their crafts’
sake,’ &c.
It is true I apprehend that many Neologians are connected with the Bible
Societies in Germany,—some by virtue of the offices they hold, and others
voluntarily. In Heidelburg for instance the fundamental rules of the
Society placed all the professors of divinity attached to the university,
ex-officio, upon the Committee of the Bible Society. One of these
individuals is the professor Paulus. But from all the inquiries I was
able to make, I could never learn that any individual in Germany,
publicly holding neological opinions, was an _active agent_ of the Bible
Society. And how could any thing like an active agency be expected of
such individuals. After the Bible Society had been formed in Germany, it
soon spread very rapidly. Many Neologians, from various motives no
doubt, enlisted themselves in its ranks. But what was the real history
of this movement? The religious body were the originators of these
societies, but they were soon compelled to seek the protection of others
in authority, because the existence of societies in many countries must
depend upon their sanction; and they were glad, even in other cases, to
make those who heeded not the word of God themselves, the distributors of
it to the rest of the world. But if, at this time, there are inactive
agents of the German Bible Societies; if there are even secretaries who
feel very little of the value of the Bible,—are there no counterparts to
these in our own country? We take the best we can get,—lament their
deficiencies,—and devoutly wish them better; but still we prefer the
deposit for Bibles being placed in such hands, rather than having no
deposit at all.
I am able, however, by a convincing document, to shew what is the real
estimate taken of the Bible Society by the Neological party in Germany.
There is published at Darmstadt what is called the Church Newspaper,
which is devoted to the consideration of subjects connected with
religion. The editor of this paper, as you will judge by the following
extract, is a Neologian, and let us hear the language in which he speaks
of the Bible Societies.
Extract from the Church Newspaper of Germany, Kirchen Allgemeine Zeitung,
published at Darmstadt, Sept. 28th 1826.
_Heading of the Number_.
“Verily were Christ now to appear again he would say, ‘Woe unto you,
Scribes and Pharisees, Hypocrites,’ for ye anxiously cling to the
letter of the Scriptures, which ye misunderstand; and the spirit, of
which ye cannot comprehend; ye insist on the doctrine of a dead
faith, but neglect the weightier matters of the law, judgment and
mercy; and ye appear outwardly pious whilst within ye are full of
hypocrisy and wickedness. Depart from me, he would exclaim, ye
workers of iniquity, projectors of heresy, slanderers, and breakers
of the peace, I never knew you.”
“ON BIBLE SOCIETIES.”
After stating some general advantages which might result from the
distribution of the Scriptures amongst the Heathen, such as “calling into
action the slumbering energies of man,” “ameliorating his nature,” and
laying the “foundation of his moral improvement;” the editor goes on to
mention the ordinary arguments which are made use of against Bible
Institutions in Germany, and which arise chiefly from the part which
foreigners have taken in their establishment.
He then states some particular reasons which should lead his readers more
carefully to consider the mode of conducting Bible Societies, and to
greater caution in lending them their support and patronage, particularly
at the present period.