Images de page
PDF
ePub
[ocr errors]

always on the alert, they must have innumerable modes of producing impression which would still remain unimpaired. What then would be gained by the absence of the Bible? Magnify the obscurities and difficulties of that sacred volume as we will, still it must have some tendency to enlighten the vulgar, some profitableness for the instruction of the ignorant and the reproof of the sinful, some power of making the foolish wise unto salvation. The poor man, whose eyes were on the Bible, while his ears were assailed by heretical deceptions, could not but sometimes feel the contrast between the text and the commentary. The misrepresenting teacher would not fare the better for being confronted with that which he misrepresented. What then, we repeat, would be gained by the absence of the Bible? Gained? What rather would not be lost? For, evidently, the question no longer is, whether the lower classes shall run the risk of losing their way in the dark or being deluded in broad day, but whether or not they shall be subjected to the double ruin of darkness and delusion at once.

It may materially strengthen this view of the subject, to reflect that no system we can adopt will take the Scriptures from the hands of these alleged false teachers, however we may succeed in withholding them from the persons who are to be taught. The heretic will still possess them; and, by dealing them out to his hearers in such portions as may suit his designs,by exhibiting in a detached state passages justly intelligible only in their connexion,-by tearing text from context, doctrine from practice, and feeling from doctrine,will indeed be able to distort and dislocate the rule of life into an engine of destruction. This is not matter of surmise, but of experience. Before the Reformation, the most grievous errors corrupted the reli

gion and morality of the Christian world. How did those errors originate, and how were they established? They were produced, and they were confirmed, mainly by this, that certain privileged persons had the Bible in their hands, while the bulk of the people had it not. The laity knew the Scriptures only from such partial views of them as the hierarchy were pleased to afford. The essence of the mischief, therefore, consisted, not in complete suppression, but in garbled disclosure. And how, on the other hand, was this unhappy system subverted? Not by contending against it with its own weapons, or arraying against it its own arts; not by rival garblings or a counter-monopoly ; but by entire, and unreserved, and uncompromising publication; by giving truth a full and a fair field; by calling on all men to search the Scriptures; and by rendering the Scriptures intelligible to all, that they might be searched.

It was therefore justly said by Chillingworth, that THE BIBLE ONLY is the religion of Protestants; and this emphatic declaration bas very naturally been appealed to by the advocates of the Bible Society. The Bishop of Carlisle, however, now assures his clergy, that the declaration of Chillingworth could never have been so appealed to, had it been properly understood; and, to prove this, he exhibits it with the context at large, and adds a commentary of his own. Το avoid any imputation of unfairness, we will readily transcribe both text and commentary :—

[blocks in formation]

Bibles without note or comment, according to the present view of things. He had not an idea of it. He was contending against the practice of the Romish Church, in extolling the traditions which had been received, as of equal authority with the written word, and in thus adopting both a written and unwritten word of God, and in short making the doctrines of the Council of Trent, and not the Bible, the rule of faith. In this respect his argument was invincible, and sufficient too; as it obviated all the particulars of the case about which the dispute was held. But his great name, with regard to the use of the Bible without note or comment, ought not to have any farther application, than to this his expressly intended respect and refer

ence.

"Judge ye yourselves:

"It is in the Sixth Book of Chillingworth's prudent and immortal work on the religion of Protestants, where he is particularly contending that Protestants are not heretics, that this notable saying of his is to be found. It remains now,' saith he to his opponent, that I should show, that many reasons of moment may be alleged for the justifica

[ocr errors]

tion of Protestants, which are dissembled by you, and not put into the balance. Know then, sir, that when I say, the religion of Protestants is in prudence to be preferred before yours; as on the one side, I do not understand by your religion, the doctrine of Bellarmine or Baronius, or any other private man amongst you, nor the doctrine of the Sorbonne, or of the Jesuits, or of the Dominicans, or of any other particular company among you, but that wherein you all agree, or profess to agree, the doctrine of the Council of Trent: so accordingly, on the other side, by the religion of Protestants, I do not understand the doctrine of Luther, or Calvin, or Melancthon, nor the Confession of Augusta, or Geneva, nor the Catechism of Heidelberg, nor the Articles of the Church of England, no, nor the Harmony of the Protestant Confessions; but that wherein all agree, and which they all subscribe with a greater harmony, as a perfect rule of their faith and actions; that is, THE BIBLE. THE BIBLE, I say, THE BIBLE ONLY is the religion of Protestants. Whatsoever else they believe besides it, and the plain irrefragable, indubitable consequences of it, well may they hold it as a matter of opinion; but as matter of faith and religion, neither can they with coherence to their own grounds, believe it themselves, nor require the belief of CHRIST. OBSERV. No. 181,

it of others, without most high and most schismatical presumption.' presumption.' Chap. 6. Part i. Sect. 56.

"And now, what is the intent of the whole of this celebrated passage? To rebut Roman Catholic arguments, and the upholding of the Council of Trent as a rule of faith: to oppose the Bible to tradition; the revelations of God to the decrees of men. But there was not an idea of the unexplained Bible's terminating any difference, which might have arisen between Bellarmine and the doctors of the Sorbonne, and the Jesuits or the Dominicans amongst themselves : nor any difference which may subsist between the various companies of Protestants one with another. The whole design is to place the Bible in contradistinction to the Romish authorities, to the doctrines of the Council of Trent." pp. 12-14.

It must be conceded to the right reverend author, that Chillingworth was not, directly or specifically, recommending the system, cited. The expediency of an asin support of which he has been

sociated distribution of the sacred text was not the question immediately in his view, when he wrote the celebrated passage under consideration. But neither was that the question immediately in the view of Lactantius, when he wrote a passage which the Bishop has elsewhere referred to, as pointedly applicable to the subject. This example, then, proves, that an eminent departed writer may very fairly be appealed to as an authority in a question of which "he had not an idea;" though certainly it does not prove that the appeal will necessarily be successful.

With what effect the learned prelate objects to the appeal now in question, will best be perceived by conceding the truth of all that he says respecting Chillingworth's sentiments. Chillingworth, it seems, did not mean to set up the unexpounded Bible as decisive of the questions in dispute among Protestants. Chillingworth, therefore, is not to be quoted as an authority G

for the circulation of the unexpounded Bible with such a view. And, consequently, Chillingworth is not to be quoted as an authority for the Bible Society. Such is this argument ;-founded most manifestly on the assumption that the great object of the Bible Society is the decision of the points disputed among Protestants. To which we answer, that, if any other than orthodox Protestants be meant-such as the old Anabaptists, or the modern Unitarians-then Chillingworth would undoubtedly have held the unexpounded Bible to be as conclusive against such persons against the Catholics; ; and consequently, the author's premises fail. But, if orthodox Protestants only be meant, then the decision of the disputes among such persons is not, nor ever was, nor ever was said to be, the leading object of the Bible Society; nor even one of its leading objects; nor even (properly speaking) an object with it at all; and consequently, the author is fighting against pure shadows.

as

This

It is not the resolution of Protestant controversies, but the reconciliation of Protestant hearts, which has formed (even collaterally) an object with the Bible Society. Our aim is not to join true Chris* tians on the grounds where they differ, but to bind them on the grounds where they agree. distinction was long since pointed out by Mr. Vansittart, in his admirable Letter on this subject, and is perfectly familiar to every thinking member of the Bible Society. Possibly, the determination of many controversial points will ultimately be the effect of the Society's labours in circulating the Scriptures. But the contemplation of such an effect has never entered as one among the moving causes of the undertaking; and the undertaking may be completely successful, though such an effect should never follow.

It is plain, therefore, that the objection of the learned author, op this occasion, can be sustained

only by misapprehending either Chillingworth or the Bible Society, or both. It follows that some more tenable ground of argument must be sought for, if the patronage of that eminent name is still to be denied to the Society; and, in the mean while, and till such argument is adduced, we shall continue to believe, and to maintain, that an institution which circulates the Bible, and the Bible only, can neither appeal to an authority more justificatory, nor adopt a more appropriate, than the sentiment that the Bible, and the Bible only, is the religion of Protestants.

The topics, however, which this reference to Chillingworth has introduced, are such as we do not wish to dismiss with so slight a notice; and, fortunately for us, the course of the observations we shall have to offer on the passage next to be extracted from this Charge, will again bring them under consideration. Meantime, as we have already considered the general complaint of the difficulties attending the perusal of Scripture, we are not sorry to meet with the passage in question, which seems intended as some specification of the grounds of that complaint.

"At home, if we would oppose the Bible without note or comment, to any de church, we could oppose it to one description of persons dissenting from our scription of persons alone, even to that same description to which the great Chillingworth opposed it-the Roman Catholics. But in this diocess, who can say that that is at all necessary? Who, of all those who dissent from our Establishment, conduct themselves with such quietness as do those of the Romish Church? We hear by report, that some few of that persuasion are amongst us; but we know it not from any practical troublesomeness on their part, nor even from the slightest alarm that they are given to interfere with the consciences of our people. Truth obliges me to say thus much.

"But if we would introduce the Bible to the Protestant divisions, which to our sorrow do so acrimoniously prevail in these our days, of what profit are all

these labours in distributing the Bible purposely unexplained? We do not introduce the name of God; for, surely, that is known to all. We do not intro:

duce the law of God; for that is almost

in every hand, at least has been sounded, in some degree, in every ear. In introducing the Bible to the divisions which prevail amongst Protestants in general, our chief wish is to teach them, in what

sense the words of Scripture are most truly and most faithfully interpreted. But this is a point which has excited the apprehensions of multitudes throughout the kingdom. Their fear is, that Scripture will not be better understood, by the distribution of Bibles without note or comment: but, on the contrary, that encouragement may be given to the wayward mind to wrest it to wrong ideas, perplexing doubts, and hurtful purposes." pp. 15, 16.

:

It has already been observed, that this passage seems intended to be specific, but it is not very distinct Writers do not always clear up their meaning, by descending into particulars on the contrary, the obscurity sometimes increases with their descent, and makes us long for the daylight of a few broad generalities. In the paragraphs just quoted, there are several things hard to explain. What sort of an objection it is to the home-proceedings of the Bible Society at large, that there are a few quiet Roman Catholics in the diocess of Carlisle ;-why the quietness of Roman Catholics, even supposing them quiet throughout the world, should be any stronger argument against disseminating the Scriptures now, than it would have been before the Reformation, when all were Catholics and all were quiet;—what is meant by "introducing the Bible to the Protestant divisions" now prevailing-which, by the way, soon turns out to be no introduction at all ;-in what sense, or on what evidence, the law of God is asserted to be almost in every hand, at a time when such numbers of families are known to be destitute of copies of the Bible, and when it is in proof that, till the Bible Society arose, the desti

tution was even immense ;-what conceivable identity, affinity, of approximation there is between the two propositions, that "the law of God is almost in every hand," and that" it has been sounded, in some degree, in every ear;"-such are some of the questions which the Bishop's remarks suggest, and to which they surely do not afford a ready answer. The least that can be said is, that the passage, in its present state, appears considerably liable" to be wrested," according to its own phrase, "to wrong ideas, perplexing doubts, and hurtful pur poses."

[ocr errors]

If we may freely express our opinion, the passage radically involves that misconception, as to the conciliatory purposes of the Bible Society, which has already been noticed. It assumes, that the great object of the Society is to reconcile the jarring sentiments of polemics on points of doubtful disputation. This, however, would not have sufficed; for the Society, though acting from an absurd motive, might in fact be answering some very good end. Therefore, it was necessary further to assume, that the object before mentioned could be the only object of such a society, even at the best. Both assumptions being made accordingly, the argument became complete, and ran thus :-The proper object of circulating the Bible is to make Protestants agree; the unexplained Bible never will make them agree; therefore, the unexplained Bible ought not to be circulated.

[ocr errors][merged small]

their possession, or so completely in their knowledge, as to make the possession safe; and, if so, the whole argument becomes as absurd as it is useless. In attempting to untwist the horns of this dilemma, which made it equally difficult to maintain that the bulk of the people had the Scriptures and that they had them not, it would seem that those hesitating positions were resorted to:-1st. The law of God is almost in every hand and, 2dly. At least, it has been sounded, in some degree, in every ear-statements, however, which, even if they were as correct and as effective as the right reverend author supposes, would only prove that the Bible Society, in doing what has in fact been done already, is acting a part equally harmless and unnecessary.

But these statements suggest a remark which appears to us of far greater importance. The opponents of the Bible Society are apt very strongly to assert their reverence for the sacred Book itself; and we have no right to question, or even to suspect, their sincerity. Let us not, therefore, be understood to speak with any mental reservation, when we say, that it is possible for men to feel and intend excellently, who are yet betrayed by prejudice into a line of acting and of reasoning widely inconsistent with their feelings and intentions. We

Te may be deceived; but it is our opinion that all the writers in question have fallen into this error, however undesignedly or unconsciously. Probe their reasoning; and, somewhere or other, it will clearly be found to imply postulates encroaching on the paramount authority of Revelation. Even in the respectable pages of Dr. Words worth, it seems to us that this flaw is never effectually covered from view by the well-seeming and serious minuteness and pomp' "* of his Hookerian periods; and, to escape

[ocr errors]

* Dr. Wordsworth's Reply, p. 68.

the same difficulty, Bishop Marsh vainly writhes in all the torture of dialectics. But, in the hands of plainer and less practised controversialists, the defect perhaps discovers itself more quickly. The Country Clergyman, for example, at once finds that the Bible is equally ready to speak Calvinism or Socinianism, according to the creed of those by whom it is dis tributed; and an author to whom we listen with far greater deference, the Bishop of Carlisle, represents the "sounding of the Divine Law, in some degree, in men's ears," as nearly an equivalent for a ready access to the records of that law in all their fulness and purity.

In a passage we have before cited, the Bishop affirms, with a simplicity and a dignity well befitting the episcopal character, that nothing could more readily coincide with the regular purposes, and inclinations, and endeavours of the long life with which God, in his great mercy had favoured him, than to spread the word of God in every quarter, so that all, from the least to the greatest, might know God, and Jesus Christ whom he hath sent. The words are solemn, and even affecting; and far from us be the presumptuous uncharitableness of doubting the perfect truth of a declaration which, so made, and on such an occasion, must be considered as an humble but deliberate appeal to the Searcher of hearts. But the venerable authority of age and station ought not to screen from censure those errors which it only renders doubly dangerous: nor are such errors. likely to be the less injurious, because they are committed inadvertently. We must be allowed, therefore, with respectful but with honest freedom, to protest against the unfounded and hazardous statement, that it makes but a slight shade of difference whether men have in their hands the Divine Law in its undivided entireness, or merely hear it, "at least, in some

« PrécédentContinuer »