Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

very partial, would work this radical transformation. But every one who knows any thing of our religious societies, knows that it is neither the Socinian nor the Roman Catholic who is the fly in the pot of ointment: seldom are they even seen hovering over it; and if the net caught them all, the ointment would not improve in its savour while ten thousand other noxious insects might buz around it. It was, I must say, not candid to lead ignorant persons to believe that a society would become what the Naval and Military Society's Report, and a score other documents and speeches, describe, by so partial a purification. And yet, had the leaders told the plain truth, that there would be as little real spirituality as before, with the aggravation that, by means of the test, there was a pretence to it, persons would naturally have asked what they gained by leaving the old society, or joining the new one; and whether, under the circumstances of the case it was expedient to make any change in the original constitution? Is it correct, is it scriptural, is it "expedient," to hold out the mass of persons who happen to give a guinea to one of the new societies, as being all "Christians held together by one common bond of union, and acting in faith on the Eternal Son of God?" The Bible Society is, what it professes to be, a union for the sole object of promoting the circulation of the lively oracles of God; and if its members, as, I trust, a large majority of them will be found, are faithful disciples of Christ, there is a yet more sacred and intimate union; but, if others intrude, there is no outrage upon Christian truth or simplicity. But once introduce a test, and the whole scene is changed; and what was before only a private offence now makes all parties partakers of the intruder's evil deeds.

I would seriously ask, How would the secretary of the new societies act, if a person came to him and said, "I am one of the sect called Antinomians: here is my guinea; I wish to become a member of your pure, scriptural society." He could not refuse his claim, since he is neither a Socinian nor a Papist; and yet how can he receive him to hallowed fellowship? Will he say that he does not so receive him? Then how greatly have the speakers and writers who have advocated these new institutions deceived the people by the name of spirituality, when, after all, they are in practice not more spiritual than their predecessors. The fault is in the pretension.

There is another argument in proof of the inexpediency of rejecting one or other sect from Bible Societies, which I will advert to in the language of the Christian Observer. It is one which, I am sure, will strike your lordship's mind so forcibly, as a biblical student, that, important as it is, I need not dwell on it. "The vigilance of all sects and parties has been the chief means, under the superintending providence of God, of preserving the Bible pure. Its enemies as well as its friends have thus served its cause. The Jew cannot object to the integrity of the prophecies of the Old Testament, though they condemn himself, for his own fathers were their conservators. So in the Bible Society's version, it cannot be said that they were unfair in consequence of the exclusion of any one sect. If the plans now proposed had been early carried into operation, or were even yet carried into operation, it might justly be said, a century hence, that there had been a plot to get up unfair translations. The popish priests will easily persuade their people that the jealous exclusion of Roman Catholics from Bible Societies is with a view to corrupt the text, and make it speak Protestantism where they think it favourable to Popery. No such suspicion can rest upon the British and Foreign Bible Society's proceedings."

I would ask again, Infinitely important and fundamental as is the

[MARCH doctrine of the Holy Trinity, is it wise, is it "expedient," to make it the designation of our religion? The disciples were called "Christians at Antioch, though in their Christianity was of course included Trinitarianism. Why then put a part for the whole, the doctrine of the Holy Trinity for the Bible, which contains not only that, but many other doctrines, and innumerable other matters, all depending upon it? -why, in short, be a Trinitarian Society, instead of a Bible Society? I believe the Athanasian Creed, but I do not call myself a member of the Athanasian religion. To say nothing of the assumption of the epithet by the new Bible Society as unfair and invidious-since it implies that other Bible Societies are not Trinitarian, though it is well known that the vast majority of their members, as well as the Book they distribute, are so-both the name and test are improper and inexpedient, on account of their fixing on one doctrine and pretermitting others; which is of the very essence of Popery.

But how much is the proof of this inexpediency strengthened, when it is added, that this test, partial and insufficient as it is, cannot be, and is not intended to be, acted upon in practice. To rend to pieces such an instrument of benefit to the world as the Bible Society, were a fearful act without stern necessity: but to do it for the sake of a nominal test, which is not meant to be enforced, is an act of recklessness for which I can discern no palliation.

The Bible, as a common bond, has held together hundreds of thousands of persons—in the main, truly Christian persons-for more than a quarter of a century, in this society. But once yield this vital point, and begin to substitute the comment for the text, and there will be nothing but confusion and every evil work. The new Bible Society, as might be expected, has already fallen into violent animosities, and been rent by intestine schisms. The change which it proposes I have shewn, on many grounds, to be inexpedient; and, were there no other, this would be enough, that it tends to disunite those who ought to be closely allied in holy unity, striving together for the faith of the Gospel. Instead of this, wherever it comes, it comes to make warfare among brethren: it begins with devastating all that God has been pleased to effect by means of Bible Societies: the weak are perplexed; schisms ensue; and we have the painful spectacle of an opposition Bible Society, endeavouring by every artifice to blacken the character and proceedings of the most holy and eminent servants of Christ, in order to shew the necessity for a new and purer society. It may be that many of the misguided agents in this work believe what they say, having been told these things by their leaders; but then what shall we say of those who have misled them into these flagrant breaches of the Ninth Commandment ?-But I will not open up this painful topic. I will only say, that I can but mourn over so afflicting a spectacle. Alas! such anger in celestial minds! and for what? The more I see and hear of new systems and new societies, the more strongly I feel convinced that the old system and the old society are as expedient as, I am persuaded, they are lawful.

LETTER V.

HITHERTO, my lord, I have stood on the broad ways of the Society; I have had no necessary commerce with any class of heretics, and it certainly has been no part of my office to defend them. I have argued that the open principle is lawful and expedient, and it is not just or

candid to construe this, as our friends do, with an apology for any particular order of persons. They name Socinians and Roman Catholics; we reply, that we know nothing of them in our Society; we have no rule that mentions their admission, any more than the admission of backbiters, swindlers, or any other class of " baptized infidels." But why do you not exclude them? We ask, in reply, Why do you not exclude "covetous men, who are idolaters?" for what have idolaters to do in your new "Bible Society upon scriptural principles?" But they do not come among us, say our friends, as covetous men, but as generous men, to give money. And the Socinians, we may reply, do not come among us, if they come at all, as heterodox men, but simply to give orthodox Bibles. The balance seems then pretty even.

Still, however, my lord, if the non-exclusion principle has been found in practice a real and serious evil; if, as respects any one class of heretics or wrong-doers, it has worked so ill as to excite just alarm; why then, though I do not in theory approve of the anomalous principle of legislating for the exclusion of one and admitting nine hundred and ninety-nine; fixing a partial test, which virtually endorses many who ought to be as much excluded as those who are professedly blackballed; though I see further, that evils innumerable will follow if we once begin to put away this class or that class, when the only object is to circulate that book which is common to all; though, moreover, I should be sorry to call all persons Christians, in the spiritual sense of that word, except those who are unchristian in one particular way, and to adopt the Popish principle of saying what is essential and what unessential in the all-perfect and necessary oracles of God; yet, if the broad system has in practice worked so ill in any particular class of cases as to require such a solecism, I must, however unwillingly, admit the necessity of an alteration. It is a species of legislation not to be admired; but it sometimes in extreme cases becomes necessary. The question is, Is it necessary in this instance?

Let us take the case of the Socinians, respecting whom so much has of late been asserted; and meaning by that term throughout these letters, not merely those who are properly so denominated, but all who call themselves "Unitarians," including Arians, and the whole of those varieties whom the proffered amendment was intended to exclude. It is quite incorrect to call all these persons Socinians; but our friends having with little discrimination so denominated them, we must so far follow their nomenclature. This explanation is due to those who are proposed to be excluded; for I should be sorry to adopt, even towards those whose errors or delusions I most deplore, the indiscriminate and exaggerated language which some of the opposers of the Bible Society are pleased to use towards them. "The wrath of man worketh not the righteousness of God."

I come, then, to the simple question of fact, What influence has the unrestricted principle of the Bible Society had as regards-I ought to say any one class of persons of heterodox sentiment or evil life, for that is the real question; but I must take the specific objection as I find it as regards then, I say, the persons called Socinians?

To hear the current charges against the Bible Society, one would imagine that it is over-run with this particular class of heretics; that its committee abounds in them; that its versions of the Scripture are under their influence; that they have fostered the Apocrypha, excluded prayer, and so lorded it over all the numerous bodies of orthodox Christians, that it was impossible any longer to conduct the affairs of the institution in an honest or religious spirit.

[blocks in formation]

But what will be thought of the tone and temper of these popular representations, when it is stated that they are not borne out by the slightest basis of fact? The British and Foreign Bible Society has never to this moment had a Socinian on the list of its committee: in eight-and-twenty years, amidst all the numerous changes in that numerous board, notwithstanding deaths, removals, and the filling up of vacancies from year to year, never wilfully, or by mistake, or misprision, has a Socinian been elected; much less has this body of persons, or any member of this body of persons, obtained any influence at Earl Street, or had any power of tampering with the sacred text. Twentyseven general meetings, in the conscientious discharge of their electoral rights, have appointed twenty-seven annual committees, and yet have never once thought that the broad basis of the Society required them to choose a representative of the Socinian interest. No person, either orthodox or heterodox, ever suggested such a measure, till the new objectors to the Bible Society, with a view to throw the apple of discord among us, have begun to lament the shameful injustice done to the poor Socinians; which alleged injustice, however, the Society, I doubt not, will continue to perpetrate, not by a partial, invidious, and useless test, but by electing such persons as they believe in the sight of God are most proper to transact the Society's business. There is nothing said in the rules of electing Baptists, Quakers, Methodists, Independents, or members of any other body of Christians (with the exception of the fifteen churchmen), and yet persons of these various classes have been elected, because they were thought fit for the office. If any class, whether from its paucity of numbers, its tenuity of subscriptions, or its theological system, does not appear to the great body of members to furnish proper committee men, those who are better are selected, and no injustice is done to any party.

But, my lord, not only in the British and Foreign Bible Society has no practical evil arisen from the unrestrictedness of its rules, but no such evil has arisen even in the Naval-and-Military Bible-Society, which has existed for more than half a century, and which, up to the date of last May, was constructed upon precisely the same plan. This, my lord, is not my statement, but the statement of the very gentlemen who urged the alteration, and who have engrafted it upon the Navaland-Military Bible-Society. The last Report of that Society, in recommending the change, expressly admits that "your committee cannot affirm that any inconvenience or evil consequences have as yet occurred "-what, not in fifty-one years?-and that the Society has not been deprived of "the light of God's countenance shining upon and vivifying all its proceedings." The speakers who proposed the alteration all admitted the same fact: Mr. Melvill, for example, "thanked God that the Society was yet flourishing, and its strength elastic;' "the wrath of the Lord had not visibly broken forth;" "there had been no falling of an avalanche, no trembling of an earthquake;" in two words, and those their own words, no evil," or even "inconvenience." This important fact was not denied by Mr. Irving, Mr. Armstrong (for it is in vain to conceal in what school the objections against the Bible Society's principle have been most rife), or any other gentleman who has spoken either then or since in favour of the proposed alteration. The objections to the old constitution were wholly grounded, like those of Bishop Marsh on a former occasion, on "abstract reasoning;" there was no crying evil which required to be remedied : "the committee," said Mr. Melvill, "have not been driven; but they have been led, I believe, by prayer; they have been led by patient and

[ocr errors]

175 diligent investigation;" their "sole reason is "their firm and deliberate conviction." Now, if their " conviction" be as just and scriptural as it is "firm and deliberate," there is an end to the question; for the fact that no "inconvenience or evil" has arisen is not a reason for adhering to what is wrong; principle is not to give way to expediency; but when our friends tell us, that besides our principle beingas they allege, but we deny-unscriptural, it has led to all sorts of practical evil-which we deny also, it is but fair to remind them of their own incidental admissions elsewhere, when they had a point to carry, and did not reflect that what they said in one speech nullified what they said in another. It is strange to tell us, that the blessing of God has manifestly rested upon one society constructed upon the very plan which they say has brought down an avalanche of wrath upon another. The matter must be argued as a question of principle; for, as to practical evil, none worth throwing into the scale has arisen. If the principle be unlawful, it must be amended; but it is most unfair and uncandid to frighten people with a conjuration of practical horrors which have existed only in the imaginations of the objectors.

And why, my lord, is it that "no inconvenience or evil consequence" has occurred from "the indiscriminate admission of members" (I quote the Naval-and-Military Society's Report) "not holding the essential Divinity of the Eternal Son of God?" Not, surely, because their heresy is one of slight moment; nor because those who were zealous among them would not be glad of seeing an improved" version displace the orthodox authorized translation. The real safeguard is to be found elsewhere, and an ample safeguard it has proved. Let me endeavour to shew in what that safeguard lies.

[ocr errors]

First, then, there is an obvious distaste in the parties themselves to the book which we circulate. It cannot be that a Socinian can approve of the canon itself in all its parts; we know, indeed, that he systematically rejects in his own circulation some most undoubted and essential portions of it. How, then, can he cordially hold to a society which vindicates this canon, and by its innumerable copies and multiplicate versions has been a means, under the providence of God, of fixing it upon such a basis of publicity and universal reception, that a mutilated canon can never, with a shadow of plausibility, be henceforth substituted for it, even in the remotest land of heathenism? Let the Unitarian discover, if he can, a corner of the world in which he could now introduce his expurgated canon without prompt detection. I am not sure that this might not have been done before the formation of the Bible Society; and that a Socinian codex might not have been palmed upon some newly converted country, and become the received text to future generations. But could it be so now?

Again; the Socinian approves as little of our version as of our canon; indeed, how can he approve of a version which construes orthodoxlythat is, justly-all those passages which he is wont to mistranslate or mystify, to suit his heterodox opinions? Added to which, there is― what I have admitted is a breach of neutrality, if perfect neutrality were desirable-in our headings and marginal notes, a stumblingblock to the Socinian which must utterly preclude his willing circulation of the Bible Society's copies. He cannot possibly embrace with much cordiality an institution which thus condemns him out of his own lips, and with his own money. The Unitarian body (so called, for I yield not their claim to this exclusive title) actually set up a Bible Society of their own in the year 1810, to distribute their own version. I cannot blame them for this, upon their own principles; but I rejoice at every

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »