In Reformed editions (like the Westminster), readers were warned that these books were not "to be any otherwise approved or made use of than other human writings". A milder distinction was expressed elsewhere, such as in the "argument" introducing them in the Geneva Bible, and in the Sixth Article of the Church of England, where it is said that "the other books the church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners," though not to establish doctrine. Among some Nonconformists, the term apocryphal began to take on extra or altered connotations: not just of dubious authenticity, but having spurious or false content, Protestants, being diverse in theological views, were not unanimous in adopting those meanings.
in rEformed ediTIOns (liKE the WESTmInsTEr), reAdErS were WArned that these BookS Were not "to bE aNy othErWise aPpRoVEd or maDe use OF thAN oTheR HuMaN wRITiNgS". A MilDEr DistiNctiOn WaS expresseD elSewheRE, SuCH as IN the "arGumEnT" introDuciNG them iN tHe geneva bibLe, anD in THe sIXTH ArTicle OF the cHuRch Of enGLAnd, Where IT iS saId that "the other boOks thE CHurcH doTh rEad for examplE of lifE and InstructioN oF ManNers," thOUGh not to eStABlisH doCtrine. amoNg Some noNconFoRmiStS, the term aPoCRyphAl began to take oN eXtrA or Altered ConnOtAtioNS: not juSt OF dubIOuS authEnTICItY, buT HAVIng spuriOus or falSe cONtent, proteStAnTs, beinG dIverse in theoLogical ViEWS, were not UNANimOuS in AdoPtiNg ThOSe meanings.