degree, sounded in their ears." It is an immense chasm which these slight words," at least," "in some degree," are here employed to bridge over;-no less than the interval between the great Protestant principle of the importance of an integral Scripture, and the pretended sufficiency of that partial and uncertain sounding of truth, in which has originated almost all the corrupt Christianity since the days of the Gnostics.

Since, however, the chief ground of objection against the Bible Society, after all, is, that the circulation of the unexpounded Bible can produce no effect on the state of sects, we will endeavour to deliver our sentiments on this subject in a more expanded form than we have yet had the opportunity of doing. It will, of course, be understood, that we mean to express only our own views and opinions, without presuming to answer for those of the Society at large. What we have to offer, may be couched in three very plain propositions:

1. In disseminating the word of God, it is the object of the Society to oppose false doctrine and heresy, as well as vice and immorality, by whatever name covered, or in whatever denomination of Christians to be found.

Bishop Goodenough thinks that the only persuasion of Christians to whom the Bible, without note or comment, can be opposed with effect, is that of the Roman Catholics. From this opinion we beg leave totally to dissent; having the firmest conviction that the Sacred Volume plainly and broadly testifies against all such fallacy of doctrine as amounts to heterodoxy, and all such error of conduct as amounts to irreligion; and that these strongholds of corruption, in whatever sect they may be found, it is mighty to pull down. In the distribution of that volume, therefore, our opposition is not directed against any specific church or

creed, as such, but against all false churches and false creeds; against all impiety and atheism, speculative or practical; against Deism as a system of fatal defectiveness; against Antinomianism as a system of horrible perversion; against evil, both in its essence and in its effects; against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

Surely, the anxiety of argument betrayed the right reverend prelate into an oversight, when he laid down so broad a proposition as that we have just disputed. With whatever obscurity the sacred Scriptures may be thought to express themselves respecting those minor points on which orthodox Christians differ, it can never be contended that they doubtfully, or only by circuitous inference, condemn those more important perversions of faith which are generally proscribed by the consent of the reformed creeds. Points of discipline, or forms of worship, are perhaps matters of elaborate deduction; but the great articles of faith and practice-those cardinal truths which the Socinian, the Pelagian, or the Antinomian, have vainly attempted, by means of their notes and comments, to explain away he that runs may read. No expository learning is wanted to elicit the meaning of that simple statement, The Word was God, and the Word was made flesh. No voluminous commentary need be resorted to, for the elucidation of that plain negation, Not of works, lest any man should boast. No mighty mass of annotations is requisite to illustrate the force of that direct question, If any man say that he hath faith, and have not works, can faith save him?

Will it be urged as any argument against the clearness of Scripture on these great points, that there are those whom its declarations respecting them, however simple

or direct, have failed to convince ? The fathers of the church have never considered the prevalence of skepticism, or false doctrine, as a proof of the difficulty or doubtfulness of Revelation. Those things which are perspicuous in themselves, are hard to heretics; for how should wisdom find entrance into an ill-disposed mind?" Such are the sterling words of St. Cyril: they are therefore entitled to the greatest attention; nor, in the estimate of those who revere the authority of talent and piety, will they lose any of their weight from the circumstance of having been adopted by Bishop Jewell.

2. In supporting, therefore, the Bible Society, we admit it to be our object to oppose all capital or considerable perversions of Christian truth and morals. This is the first of our three positions. The second is, that it is not our object to oppose those minor errors which may consist with holding the essential articles of Revelation.

In the observance of this distinction, we humbly conceive ourselves to be acting in strict consonance with the principle which the Bishop of Carlisle himself cites from Chillingworth, and cites with the fullest approbation. It is our object to make known the

essence

of Christianity; and nothing seems to deserve that name but that which the Bible teaches, either by explicit statement, or by "plain, irrefragable, indubitable" infe

rence. Nor is it of any moment in this place to determine what are, and what are not, the vital or cardinal parts of Revelation; so long as it is admitted that whatever is not revealed with sufficient clearness to strike the perception of a sincere and unperverted inquirer, is for that very reason not vital or cardinal, and, consequently, that the diffusion of the Bible will of itself secure to such inquirers the knowledge of truths really essential, and of these only.

3. But, thirdly, though the circulation of the Bible, without note or comment, may not ensure the knowledge of minor truths, (and what is it that will ensure such knowledge?)-and though the determination of non-essential questions is not our object,—yet this by no means precludes us from hoping that a more general acquaintance with the sacred books may ultimately produce the effect of clearing up many points, now disputed among equally sincere and, in essential matters, equally orthodox professors of Christianity.

To indulge in sanguine expectations of the establishment of a perfect catholic consent throughout Christendom, would be rash and unreasonable; unless indeed such expectations can be made to stand Θη a fair interpretation of that word of prophecy, which is itself a miracle, and to the fulfilment of which a miracle, if necessary, will never be wanting. But right reason does not pronounce it to be impossible that many controversies, which now divide the world, should one day be disposed of; and if on other subjects, why not with respect to points of theology?"Time, (says Cicero,) which effaces the fictions of opinion, enforces and confirms the conclusions of truth.” In realizing this pleasing prospect, if it is ever to be realized, doubtless we may look for much to be accomplished by the arguments of learned, and candid, and pious expositors of Scripture: in other words, comments and notes may here be expected to prove very effective. But we may rely on it as the surest of all axioms, that the basis of a catholic consent, at whatever time, and in whatever degree it shall take place, must be laid in a deep and universal knowledge of the Divine Volume itself, and can be laid in nothing else; and that there cannot be a more radical mistake than to suppose, that we shall reconcile opinions by fearing to allow them free scope,

or promote the adoption of a common scheme of exposition by showing ourselves jealous of the text which is to be expounded.

:

These then are our three propositions:-It is an object with us to circulate essential and fundamental truths: it is not an absolute object with us to circulate truths not essential but we do not exclude the hope that this also may be an ultimate effect of our labours. In so speaking, we give only our own views; but it is certainly our belief that, on these grounds, we should be met by a great majority of the members of the Bible Society.

And this course of remark naturally conducts us to the only topic on which we have yet to trouble the reader. Why should the Bishop of Carlisle be apprehensive that the Bible Society will injure the interests of our national establishment? In his view, as in ours, the Church of England, both in essentials, and in less important respects, is built on the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets. Is it possible, then, that the abundant dissemination of the apostolic and prophetic writings should impair the influence of that establishment? Or will a close inspection of the massy foundation, teach men to distrust the solidity of the lofty superstructure?

In the eyes of an impartial observer, the system of the Bible Society would probably appear peculiarly agreeable to the genius of the Church of England. That church has attached no comments inseparably to the sacred text; for the mischievous consequences of such a policy had been made sufficiently flagrant by history. Neither is it her principle to supply copies of the Bible for the individual use of the numerous population comprised within the sphere of her influence; for (among other objections) the provisions of funds for such an object would have been impracticable. But, neither supplying

such copies nor annexing such comments, she yet loudly and authoritatively enjoins on all her followers the private and domestic perusal of the holy Scriptures. Of course, all are bound to procure copies who can; and, if they cannot, into what imagination could it enter, that they violate any duty, moral or ecclesiastical, by obtaining assistance for so excellent a purpose from the benevolence of their brethren?

It has, however, been contended that the Dissenters who have joined the Bible Society, must naturally indulge the expectation that the proceedings of that institution will operate, however silently and gradually, the supercession of the Church of England; and that this is good reason why a Churchman should tremble. Even admitting, however, for the sake of argument, that such an expectation is entertained by the persons in question, on what grounds should a conscientious Churchman adopt the same opinion? The Society is severely confined to the use of a single weapon-the holy Scriptures:from such a weapon, what has a scriptural church to dread? The hopes and anticipations of the separatist may perhaps be very consistent;-possibly he believes that the Bible will be against the church, because he believes that the church is against the Bible. But why should we, who dissent from his belief on the one point, concur with it at the same moment on the other? Why should we commit the monstrous contradiction of pronouncing his hopes to be wellfounded, though we know the only foundation on which they rest to be sand? Or, in other words, while we flatly deny his premises, why should we obstinately embrace his conclusion?

Some distinguished advocates of the Bible Society have suggested a consideration on this subject which well merits the attention of the candid. If the coalition of Church

men and Dissenters in the Bible Society imports any concession on either side, it is on that of the Dissenters; since it is only the authorized version of the Scriptures which the Society circulates in this country. The slightest reflection will show the correctness of this remark. Our national translation, being the work of Churchmen, is naturally tinctured with an ecclesiastical phraseology, which, with whatever propriety adopted, cannot be supposed altogether pleasing to a Nonconformist. Many of the Dissenters, perhaps, would be disposed to banish the word bishop, which so frequently occurs, and to substitute some term less forcibly conveying hierarchical associations. The Baptists contend that the Greek words rendered baptize, baptism, and baptist, should rather have been translated immerse, immersion, and immerser. These terms, they allege, would have been more critically exact; and it is plain that the familiar use of them in the English New Testament would have afforded a prima facie argument against baptism by sprinkling, which the adoption of the technical terms employed in their stead has the effect of excluding. It is no question with us, what may be the validity of such objections to the national Bible; but the members of the church will act only candidly in remembering that such objections are in fact waived by the separatists who subscribe to the Bible Society.

t

These remarks apply with peculiar force to one division of persons calling themselves Christians, who have, in a few instances, joined the Society, and whose junction with it, partial as it has been, has occa sioned much discussion and animadversion. It is not necessary to inform our readers that, from all the distinctive tenets of the Socinians, the creed of the Christian Observer is completely "alien and abhorrent." The motives and the consciences of men must be left to

the judgment of a Higher Tribunal, but their avowed principles are matters of human cognizance. Concerning these we have formed a very decisive opinion in the case of the persons in question; and the result is, that no sect, religious or anti-religious, exists, with whom we hold so little communion of doctrine, or sympathy of sentiment;

"Nulla nobis cum illis societas, sed potius summa distractio;”—yet with this exception, that we feel no scruple in supporting warmly an institution to which a few of them contribute; for the truth is, that, in this truly "novel union and combination," the compromise of consistency is not on our part, but on theirs. The orthodox Christian no more surrenders his faith to Priestley or to Belsham, by uniting his subscriptions for such a purpose with those of a Socinian, than, by uniting them with the donations of Jews and Mohammedans, (both of which classes have occasionally contributed to the Bible Society,) he professes to embrace the legends of the Talmud or the Koran. On the contrary, nothing can be clearer than that it is the Jew, the Socinian, and the Mohammedan, who make the concession in such a case, by assisting in the dissemination of a system of religious doctrine which all of them pronounce to be false and idolatrous.

op

The Bishop of Carlisle is pleased to declare, that the unexplained Bible cannot successfully be “ posed" to any division of English Dissenters, except the Roman Catholics. The Socinians, therefore, are not to be excepted. But, perhaps, the Socinians may themselves be the best judges on this subject; and, when it is remembered of the acknowledged leaders of that sect, that, not content with placing the sacred text under a heavy guard of notes, comments, and glosses of all descriptions, they deem it expedient to expunge one half of it, and to misconstrue the other, some idea may be formed what sort of an

opponent" the Socinians have found in the unexplained Bible.

The Country Clergyman," in his address to Lord Teignmouth, is pleased to observe, that "the Socinian will make his Bible speak and spread Socinianism." Most truly he will-so far, at least, as the New Testament is concerned; the "Improved Version" of which affords a tolerable proof, both of the willingness of the Socinian for the purpose described, and also what sort of making the holy Scriptures will take, before they become proficients in talking Socinianism.*

Besides the injurious effects anticipated from the union and combination of Churchmen and Dissenters, there are certain other grounds on which the Bishop of Carlisle founds his conclusion of danger to the church from the Bible Society. At the meetings, public or private, of the Society, many unwarrantable things are often said, reflecting upon our church or its ministers."

The complaint is not new; but

The Socinian version of the New Testament has drawn many able advocates of the faith into the field. We have formerly noticed among these, the deeply learned and powerful publication of the Bishop of St. David's; than whom no prelate has deserved better of the church, or of the Bible Society. It has lately been our happiness to read the enlarged remarks of Dr. Magee, the Dean of Cork, on the same subject, as contained in the new edition of his work on the Scripture Doctrines of Atonement and Sacrifice. This masterly writer does indeed assail the enemy έγχει σε μεγάλῳ καὶ χειρί παχείη. His hand is as crushing as that of Horsley. We cannot help recommending to the learned and orthodox reader this specimen of victorious ratiocination. At the same time, a doubt may, perhaps, be entertained, whether the author might not advantageously have tempered his truly Bentleian vigour of disquisition and argument with somewhat more for

bearance of manner. It is, however,

but fair to refer the reader to the author's own defence on this point. See Vol. II. part. i. p. 412.

CHRIST, OBSERV. No. 181.

it is now, for the first time, adopted by a person who has any tolerable right to urge it. To former accusers we should only apply the words of the fabulist :

"Sua quisque exempla debet æquo animo pati."

The Bible Society has been deliberately stigmatized as a conspiracy against the Church of England. The charge necessarily imputed the grossest wickedness and hypocrisy to one part of the subscribers, the most despicable folly and rashness to the rest. Between these alternatives, if the parties accused were, in any instance, betrayed into expressions of impatience or resentment, yet surely it did not exactly lie in the mouth of their accusers to rebuke them. It would be a little hard to fall on men with the heaviest criminations, and then blame them for crying out. The truth, however, is, that the assailants have had nothing to complain of, beyond the ordinary sharpness of polemical encounter, which, however deserving of repression, widely differs from a moral accusation. The forbearance, in particular, of the Dissenting,members of the Society, under the rude attacks in question, has been beyond praise. The Bishop of Carlisle is pleased to assert, that, at the public meetings of the Society, unwarrantable reflections are often cast on the church and its ministers. In giving such accounts of scenes where, we regret to say, he has never been present, a little more caution might have been requisite. Of some of the ministers of the church-namely, of those ministers who have falsely accused the Society and all its members in a body-strong complaints may sometimes have been made; and we only wish they had been made unwarrantably. But, when it is asserted that reflections are habitually cast at those meetings on the church, or on its members as such, we positively deny the truth of the charge. We positively deny that such reflections H