To the Editor of the "Nonas-Cuina Dairy News."
Sin,—With regard to the questions put by Mr. Moule in his letter of the 2nd instant in your issue of the 7th, may I submit tha he will find any and all views mentioned in my letters in such modern works by theologians of accepted orthodoxy and erudition as Robertson Smith, u.p., Joint Editor of Encyclopaedia Britannica, author of "Religion of the Semites." (q.v.) Also in the Encyclopaedia Biblica, edited by the Rev. T. K. Cheyne, D.LiTr., D.v., and J. Sutherland Black, M.4., LL.D. The article on the Canon in the latter work will supply him, (and Rabbi Hirsch to to whom he appeals), with the list of Councils, and details of gin of Jewish Canon. The igher Criticism" is accepted universally, and there is not a "distinctively Christian tenet, such as literal historicity of Bible. Fall, Resurrection of Body, In-maculate Conception, ete, which' has not been practically surrendered, publicly, by some prominent member of the Anglican Church. "Mental Reservation" is universally accepted that it is safe to quote "Quot hommes, tot senentiae."' The sermons of Canon Barnes and Bishop Hensley represent the modern Theologians' views. The older theories about absolute histricity and literal correctness of Bible have been given up ages ago, and are merely a survival of Me. Gladstona's fatuous—diatribes about "The Impregnable Rock of Holy Scripture."
I do not propose to write further on this subject.
I am, -ete$
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.