sably necessary to Christian peace and comfort. Other sentiments are proscribed as legal, or anti-evangelical, expressive of low views of the Saviour, indicative of a state of bondage and servility of spirit, and inconsistent with Christian confidence and liberty. The parties are thus at issue on first principles. They occupy no common ground. The scriptures are in vain appealed to, a large portion of them being virtually abrogated, and a system of interpretation adopted which sets at defiance all rules, and is destructive of all enlightened deductions.

High Calvinism, or Antinomianism, absolutely withers and destroys the consciousness of human responsibility. It confounds moral with natural impotency, forgetting that the former is a crime, the latter only a misfortune; and thus treats the man dead in trespasses and sins, as if he were already in his grave. It prophesies smooth things to the sinner going on in his transgressions, and soothes to slumber and the repose of death the souls of such as are at ease in Zion. It assumes that, because men can neither believe, repent, nor pray acceptably, unless aided by the grace of God, it is useless to call upon them to do so. It maintains that the gospel is only intended for elect sinners, and therefore it ought to be preached to none but such. In defiance, therefore, of the command of God, it refuses to preach the glad tidings of mercy to every sinner. In opposition to scripture, and to every rational consideration, it contends that it is not man's duty to believe the truth of God, justifying the obvious inference that it is not a sin to reject it. In short, its whole tendency is to produce an impression on the sinner's mind that if he is not saved, it is not his fault, but God's; that if he is condemned, it is more for the glory of the divine Sovereignty, than as the punishment of his guilt.

So far from regarding the moral cure of human nature as the great object and design of the gospel, Antinomianism does not take it in at all, but as it exists in Christ, and becomes ours by a figure of speech. It regards the grace and the pardon as everything,-the spiritual design or effect as nothing. Hence its opposition to progressive, and its zeal for imputed sanctification: the former is intelligible and tangible, but the latter a mere figment of the imagination. Hence its delight in expatiating on the eternity

of the divine decrees, which it does not understand, but which serve to amuse and to deceive; and its dislike to all the sober realities of God's present dealings and commands. It exults in the contemplation of a Christ who is a kind of concretion of all the moral attributes of his people; to the overlooking of that Christ who is the Head of all that in heaven and on earth bear his likeness, and while unconscious of possessing it. It boasts in the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints, while it believes in no saint but one, that is Jesus, and neglects to persevere.-Orme's Life of Baxter, vol. ii. p. 311.

ANTIPÆDOBAPTISTS (from avi, "against," and was raidos, “child," and Barr, "baptize"), is a distinguishing denomination given to those who object to the baptism of infants.-See BAP

TISM.

Antipædobaptists hold that believing adults only are proper subjects, because Christ's commission to baptize appears to them to restrict this ordinance to such only as are taught, or made disciples; and that, consequently, infants, who cannot be thus taught, are to be excluded. It does not appear, say they, that the apostles, in executing Christ's commission, ever baptized any but those who were first instructed in the Christian faith, and professed their belief of it. They contend that infants can receive no benefit from it, and are not capable of faith and repentance, which are to be considered as pre-requisites.

As to the mode.

They observe, that the meaning of the word Barre signifies immersion or dipping only; that John baptized in Jordan; that he chose a place where there was much water; that Jesus came up out of the water; that Philip and the eunuch went down both into the water; that the terms washing, purifying, burying in baptism, so often mentioned in scripture, allude to this mode; that immersion only was the practice of the apostles and the first Christians; and that it was only laid aside from the love of novelty, and the coldness of our climate. These positions, they think, are so clear from scripture, and the history of the church, that they stand in need of but little argument to support them. Further, they also insist that all positive institutions depend entirely upon the will and declaration of the institutor, and that, therefore, reasoning by analogy

from previous abrogated rites, is to be rejected, and the express command of Christ respecting baptism ought to be our rule.

ANTIPHONY, alternate singing, as when a congregation, divided into two parts, repeats or sings a psalm or anthem, verse for verse, one after the other. It is opposed to symphony, which is singing jointly, or all together. St. Austin carries the original of this way of singing, in the western church, no higher than the time of St. Ambrose, when it was first introduced into the church of Milan, which example was soon followed by the other western churches. What was the original of it in the eastern church, is not so certainly agreed upon by writers either ancient or modern. It was a method of singing so taking and delightful, that it was often used when only two or three were met together for private devotion; and Socrates particularly remarks of the emperor Theodosius the younger, and his sisters, that they sung alternate hymns together, every morning, in the royal palace.-See PSAL

MODY.

ANTIPOPES, those who at different periods have produced a schism in the Roman church by opposing the pope, under the pretence that they were themselves popes. This is the catholic explanation, because it is evident the Roman church cannot admit that there ever existed two popes; but the fact is, that in many cases both competitors for the papal chair (sometimes there have been even three) were equally antipopes, -that is to say, their claims were equally good. Each was frequently supported by whole nations, and the schism was nothing but the struggle of political interests, which induced particular governments to support a pope against the pope supported by other governments. These quarrels always greatly lessened the belief in the pope's sanctity and infallibility, shook the whole fabric of the church, and contributed much to pave the way for the great reformation. Amadeus VIII., duke of Savoy, was the last Antipope. He was elected by the council of Basle in 1439, in opposition to Eugene IV. and Nicholas V., but he renounced his title in favour of the latter in 1449.

ANTIQUITIES, a term implying all

testimonies or authentic accounts that have come down to us of ancient nations. As the study of antiquity may be useful

both to the inquiring Christian as well as to those who are employed in, or are candidates for the gospel ministry, we shall here subjoin a list of those which are esteemed the most valuable.-Fabricii Bibliographia Antiquaria; Spencer de Legibus Heb. Ritualibus; Godwyn's Moses and Aaron; Bingham's Antiquities of the Christian Church; Jenning's Jewish Antiquities; Potter's and Harwood's Greek, and Kennet's and Adams's Roman Antiquities; Preface to the Prussian Testament, published by L'Enfant and Beausobre; Prideaux and Shuckford's Connexions; Jones's Asiatic Researches; Maurice's Indian Antiquities; S. Burder's Oriental Customs and Oriental Literature; Horne's Introduction, vol. iii.; and Jahn's Biblical Antiquities.

ANTISABBATARIANS, a modern religious sect, who deny the necessity of observing the Sabbath day. Their chief arguments are, -1. That the Jewish Sabbath was only of ceremonial, not of moral obligation; and, consequently, is abolished by the coming of Christ. 2. That no other Sabbath was appointed to be observed by Christ or his apostles. 3. That there is not a word of Sabbathbreaking in all the New Testament. 4. That no command was given to Adam or Noah to keep any Sabbath. And, 5. That, therefore, although Christians are commanded "not to forsake the assembling of themselves together," they ought not to hold one day more holy than another.- See article SABBATH.

ANTITACTÆ, a branch of Gnostics, who held that God was good and just, but that a creature had created evil; and, consequently, that it is our duty to oppose this author of evil, in order to avenge God of his adversary.

ANTITHESIS.-See HEBREW POE

TRY.

ANTITRINITARIANS, those who deny the Trinity, and teach that there are not three persons in the Godhead.-See TRINITY.

ANTITYPE, a Greek word, properly signifying a type or figure corresponding to some other type.

The word antitype occurs twice in the New Testament, viz. in the Epistle to the Hebrews, chap. ix. v. 24; and in the 1 Epistle of Peter, chap. iii. v. 21, where its genuine import has been much controverted. The former says, that Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are α, the

figures or antitypes of the true-now to appear in the presence of God. Now, TUOS signifies the pattern by which another thing is made; and as Moses was obliged to make the tabernacle, and all things in it, according to the pattern shown him in the Mount, the tabernacle so formed was the antitype of what was shown to Moses; anything, therefore, formed according to a model or pattern, is an antitype. In the latter passage, the apostle, speaking of Noah's flood, and the deliverance only of eight persons in the ark from it, says, xai nuas avtituπου νυν σώζει βαπτισμα: Baptism being an antitype to that, now saves us; not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience towards God, &c. The meaning is, that righteousness, or the answer of a good conscience towards God, now saves us, by means of the resurrection of Christ, as formerly righteousness saved these eight persons by means of the ark during the flood. The word antitype, therefore, here signifies a general similitude of circumstances; and the particle w, whereunto, refers not to the immediate antecedent daros, water, but to all that precedes.

ANTOSIANDRIANS, a sect of rigid Lutherans, who opposed the doctrine of Osiander relating to justification. These are otherwise denominated Osiandromastiges. The Antosiandrians deny that man is made just, with that justice wherewith God himself is just; that is, they assert that he is not made essentially, but only imputatively just; or that he is not really made just, but only pronounced so.

ANTWERP POLYGLOTT. See BIBLE, POLYGLOTT, No. 3.

APATHY, among the ancient philosophers, implied an utter privation of passion, and an insensibility of pain. The word is compounded of «, priv. and Tabos, affection. The Stoics affected an entire apathy; they considered it as the highest wisdom to enjoy a perfect calmness or tranquillity of mind, incapable of being ruffled by either pleasure or pain. In the first ages of the church, the Christians adopted the term apathy to express a contempt of all earthly concerns; a state of mortification such as the gospel prescribes. Clemens Alexandrinus, in particular, brought it exceedingly in vogue, thinking hereby to draw such philosophers to Christianity as aspired after such a sublime pitch of virtue.

'ALIAS AETOMENON, hupax legomenon, any word or phrase that occurs but once in the Bible or any other book.

APELLEANS, so called from Apelles, in the second century. They affirmed that Christ, when he came down from heaven, received a body not from the substance of his mother, but from the four elements, which at his death he rendered back to the world, and so ascended into heaven without a body.

APHTHARTODOCITES, a denomination in the sixth century, so called from the Greek apagros, incorruptible, and doxsa, to judge, because they held that the body of Jesus Christ was incorruptible, and not subject to death. They were a branch of the Eutychians.

APOCARITÆ, a denomination, in the third century, which sprang from the Manicheans. They held that the soul of man was of the substance of God.

APOCRISIARII, a description of papal agents who rose into notice during the pontificate of Gregory, and who acted as envoys or legates at the court and see of Constantinople.

APOCRYPHA signifies concealed, obscure, without authority. In reference to the Bible, it is employed to designate such books as claim a place in the sacred volume, but which are not canonical; it is said to have been first used by Melito, Bishop of Sardis.

An inquiry into this subject cannot be uninteresting to the friends of the Bible, for it behoves them to ascertain, on the best evidence, what books belong to the sacred volume, and also on what grounds other books are rejected from the canon. This subject assumes a higher importance from the fact, that Christians are much divided on this point, for some receive, as of canonical authority, books which others reject as spurious, or consider merely as human compositions. On such a point every Christian should form his opinion upon the best information which he can obtain.

In controversy with the Romanists this subject meets us at the very threshold. It is vain to dispute about particular doctrines of scripture, until it is determined what books are to be received as scripture.

It has also been recently found that this was a point of great importance in the circulation of the Bible. This book ought not to be distributed, maimed of some of its parts; nor should we circulate mere human compositions for the

Word of God. The committee of the British and Foreign Bible Society were recently called upon to decide this question in a case of great practical importance. The whole subject was referred to a select and learned sub-committee, who, after mature deliberation, brought in a report, which was adopted, and led to the following wise resolution in the general committee: viz. "That the funds of the society be applied to the printing and circulation of the canonical books of scripture, to the exclusion of those books, and parts of books, which are termed apocryphal; and that all copies printed, either entirely or in part, at the expense of the society, and whether such copies consist of the whole, or of any one or more of such books, be invariably issued bound, no other book whatever being bound with them; and further, that all money grants to societies or individuals be made only in conformity to the principle of this regulation.

"In the sacred volume, as it is to be hereafter distributed by the society, there is to be nothing but divine truth, nothing but what is acknowledged by all Christians to be such. Of course, all may unite in the work of distribution, even should they regard the volume as containing but part of the inspired writings; just as they might, in the circulation of the Pentateuch, or the Book of Psalms, or the Prophets, or the New Testament. Such harmonious operation would not, however, be possible, if the books of the Apocrypha were mingled or joined with the rest; and, besides, those who have the strongest objection to the Apocrypha are, ordinarily, those who are most forward in active and liberal efforts to send the Word of God to all people."

This judicious decision of the committee of the British and Foreign Bible Society depends for its correctness on the supposition that the books of the Apocrypha are not canonical; for, whatever may be said about circulating a part of the Bible, it was undoubtedly the original object of this society to print and circulate the whole of the sacred volume. Hence appears the practical importance of the inquiry which we have here instituted, to ascertain whether these books have any claim whatever to a place in the sacred canon.

At a very early period of the Christian church, great pains were taken to distinguish between such books as were inspired and canonical, and such as were

written by uninspired men. It has never been doubted among Christians that the canonical books only were of divine authority, and furnished an infallible rule of faith and practice; but it has not been agreed what books ought to be considered canonical and what apocryphal. In regard to those which have already been enumerated as belonging to the Old Testament, there is a pretty general consent of Jews and Christians, of Romanists, and Protestants; but in regard to some other books there is a wide difference of opinion.

The Council of Trent, in their fourth session, gave a catalogue of the books of the Old Testament, among which are included, Tobias, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, and Two books of the Maccabees. Besides, they included, under the name of Esther and Daniel, certain additional chapters which are not found in the Hebrew copies. The book of Esther is made to consist of sixteen chapters; and prefixed to the book of Daniel is the History of Susannah; the Song of the Three Children is inserted in the third chapter; and the History of Bel and the Dragon is added at the end of this book. Other books, which are found in the Greek or Latin Bibles, they rejected, as apocryphal,—as the third and fourth books of Esdras, the third book of Maccabees, the Hundred and Fifty-first Psalm, the Appendix to Job, and the Preface to the Lamentations.

Both these classes of books all denominations of Protestants consider apocryphal; but as the English church, in her Liturgy, directs that certain lessons shall be read from the former for the instruction of the people, but not for confirmation of doctrine, they are retained in the larger copies of the English Bible, but are not mingled with the canonical books, as in the Vulgate, but placed at the end of the Old Testament, under the title of Apocrypha. It is certainly to be regretted that these books are permitted to be included in the same volume which contains the lively oracles, the Word of God,-the Holy Scriptures; all of which are given by inspiration: but more to be regretted still, that they should be read in the church, promiscuously with the lessons taken from the canonical books; especially as no notice is given to the people that what is read from these books is apocryphal; and as in the Prayer-book of the Episcopal church the tables which refer to the lessons to be

read have this title prefixed,-"Tables of lessons of Holy Scripture to be read at Morning and Evening Prayer throughout the year." Now, however good and instructive these apocryphal lessons may be, it never can be justified that they should thus be put on a level with the Word of God.

But it is our object, at present, to show that none of these books, canonized by the Council of Trent, and inserted in our larger English Bibles, are canonical. 1. The first argument by which it may be proved that these books do not belong to the canon of the Old Testament, is, that they are not found in the Hebrew Bible. They are not written in the Hebrew language, but in the Greek, which was not known to the Jews until long after inspiration had ceased, and the canon of the Old Testament was closed. It is rendered probable, indeed, that some of them were written originally in the Chaldaic; Jerome testifies this to be the fact in regard to 1st Maccabees, and Ecclesiasticus; and he says, that he translated the book of Tobit out of Chaldee into Latin; but this book is now found in the Greek, and there is good reason for believing that it was written originally in this language. It is certain, however, that none of these books were composed in the pure Hebrew of the Old Testament.

Hottinger, indeed, informs us, that he had seen the whole of the Apocrypha in pure Hebrew, among the Jews; but he entertains no doubt that it was translated into that language in modern times,just as the whole New Testament has recently been translated into pure Hebrew.

It is the common opinion of the Jews and of the Christian Fathers, that Malachi was the last of the Old Testament prophets. Books written by certain authors afterwards, have no claim to be reckoned canonical; and there is good reason for believing that those books were written long after the time of Ezra and Malachi; and some of them, perhaps, later than the commencement of the Christian era.

2. These books, though probably written by Jews, have never been received into the canon by that people. In this, the ancient and modern Jews are of the same mind. Josephus declares, "That no more than twenty-two books were received as inspired by his nation." Philo, who refers often to the Old Tes

tament in his writings, never makes the least mention of them; nor are they recognized in the Talmud as canonical. Not only so, but the Jewish Rabbies expressly reject them.

The Jews, in the time of Jerome, entertained no other opinion of these books than those who came after them; for, in his Preface to Daniel he informs us, "That he had heard one of the Jewish doctors deriding the history of Susanna, who said, it was invented by some Greek, he knew not whom.'"`

The same is the opinion of the Jews respecting the other books which we call apocryphal, as is manifest from all the copies of the Hebrew Bible extant; for, undoubtedly, if they believed that any of these books were canonical they would give them a place in their sacred volume. But will any ask, what is the opinion of the Jews to us? I answer, much on this point. The oracles of God were committed to them; and they preserved them with a religious care until the advent of the Messiah. Christ never censures them for adding to the sacred scriptures, nor detracting from them. Since their nation has been in dispersion, copies of the Old Testament, in Hebrew, have been scattered all over the world, so that it was impossible to produce a universal alteration in the canon. But it is needless to argue this point, for it is agreed by all that these books never were received by the Jewish nation.

3. The third argument against the canonical authority of these books, is derived from the total silence respecting them in the New Testament. They are never quoted by Christ and his apostles. This fact, however, is disputed by the Romanists, and they even attempt to establish their right to a place in the canon, from the citations which they pretend have been made from these books by the apostles. They refer to Rom. xi. and Heb. xi., where they allege that Paul has cited passages from the Book of Wisdom: "For who hath known the mind of the Lord, or who hath been his counsellor?"- For before his translation he had this testimony that he pleased God." But both these passages are taken directly from the canonical books of the Old Testament. The first is nearly in the words of Isaiah; and the last from the book of Genesis; their other examples are as wide of the mark as these, and need not be set down.

4. The fourth argument is, that these