mends associations of discordant principles, combinations of men professedly at variance and in hostility with each other; but Christian charity enjoins that which renders all these elaborate societies useless; it teaches and obliges Christians to be like-minded; to have one faith, one baptism, one speech, and one hope of their calling. ****** It is expected that every member of your heterogeneous society will draw his portion of books for the promotion of his particular opinion; for it is easily seen that a Bible given away by a Papist will be productive of Popery. The Socinian will make his Bible speak and spread Socinianism, while the Calvinist, the Baptist, the Quaker, will teach the opinions peculiar to their sects. Supply these men with Bibles, (I speak as a true churchman,) and you supply them with arms against yourself!" Having quoted a Country Clergyman, I must remind your lordship, in what manner a Right Reverend prelate thought upon the same subject. Your lordship, I well remember, in the Charge before alluded to, remarked, "Nothing but inattention to the great principle upon which the Bible Society is conducted, or ignorance of the society's proceedings, or of the members who compose it, could induce any one to suppose that a believer in Christ's atonement can lose any of his veneration for that evangelical doctrine, because Socinians and Quakers unite with him in distributing the pure text of the Gospel, from which it is derived. We may justly challenge our objectors, (let them be Papists or Protestants,) to the comparison whether they or the defenders of the Bible Society, are most zealous in maintaining the doctrine of Christ's atonement; and whether connexion with the Bible Society has, in any one instance, exhibited the slightest proof of diminished respect for the Christian sacraments." Your lordship was, on the whole of the matter, at issue with your Right Reverend brother, Bishop Tomline, who said that the church members of the Bible Society "give the right hand of fellowship to those who cause divisions:" but the great majority of the Christian part of the public came, with your lordship, to exactly the opposite conclusion, that the only giving of the right hand of fellowship being the mutual circulation of that book, which, according to the Country Clergyman's citation, points out one faith, one baptism, and one hope of our calling; there was no countenance given to "division" by such an act, but quite the contrary. But I allude to this by-gone history, only to shew how the same phases and lunations have returned periodically in their season; for this is precisely the language we now hear among men who reprobate Bishop Tomline's Arminianism as much as he would have reprobated their hyper-Calvinism. The recent formation of a new school of divines, by the union of a Daubeny and a Hawker, with a cement of Irvingism, is one of the most remarkable anomalies of these strange times. Who would have thought that your lordship and your Right Reverend brethren should have lived to hide your diminished heads as churchmen, by the side of the Morning Watch and the late Mr. Vaughan of Leicester; and that Bishop Mant should need to be taught the doctrine of regeneration in baptism by Mr. Irving. Yet so it is; and at this moment some of the sturdiest and most active opponents of the Bible Society are the disciples of the highest school of ultra-predestinarianism, together with the abettors, lay and clerical, of those strange notions of which we have of late heard so much respecting miracles, prophecy, and the personal coming of Christ, to usher in a Millennium. I mention this only to shew how apt extremes are to meet; for whereas formerly the opponents of the Bible Society, were those who accounted themselves very cool and well-judging men, its chief opponents now are those who never were considered either remarkably cool or well-judging; and whose arguments about "amalgamation," and so forth, are only the old vanquished troops in a new suit of buckram. It is hardly fair that we should be obliged to go through the process of demolishing them a second time; but as they choose to insist upon it, I suppose it must be done. I am aware that some of our friends will say, that this is not a correct representation; that it is not the old kind of objections, but a class much more serious, that is now agitated. But this mistake arises from not duly considering what the old vanquished objections were. In popular language Mr. Norris, Bishop Marsh, and others, have been considered as wishing to impede the circulation of the Scriptures; and it was not unfair to say that their plans, if followed up, would lead to that issue; but they certainly did not, in so many words, profess any such wish, but quite the contrary. There might be here and there an individual, particularly, I am sorry to say, the present Bishop of Chichester, who wrote some things highly exceptionable as to the Scriptures themselves; but the better class of opponents of the Bible-Society fixed their chief opposition upon the ground of an alleged unhallowed "amalgamation" among the circulators; the very term then invented, and harped and piped upon, though now brought out as quite new. The same abortive arguments, and the same misapplied texts, were urged then as now; so that a reprint of what your lordship, or almost any other advocate of the Society, then wrote on the question, would apply nearly as well at the present moment as it did twenty years ago. And never, I must say, have I seen texts so torn from their moorings as those which have been adduced by our friends on this occasion. They are all of that general class which speaks of the duty of separating ourselves from sinners; but if these are to be so construed as to mean that Socinians ought not to be members of a Bible Society, they equally shew that no person whose creed is not in our judgment wholly scriptural, and his life consistent with it, ought to be so. It is not a question merely between the one or two and the nine-hundred and ninety-eight or nine; but between two thirds, perhaps, of the nine-hundred-and-ninety-eight themselves; and, carried to its fair bearing, would subvert Sackville-street as much as Earlstreet. But the real plain truth is, that the passages adduced do not bear at all upon the question. For example, the words of St. John are quoted where he says that " If there come any unto you and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed; for he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds." But it so happens that those who come to us in this Society do bring this doctrine and no other, that is, so far as regards their connexion with the Society, for they come with this very text in their hands, and the book that contains it, and they come for no purpose but to disseminate this blessed doctrine; and this whether they themselves believe it or not. Whatever may be their secret motive or opinion, this is the only character in which they appear in this Society. How, then, are we partakers of their evil deeds? They do not come into the Society to perpetrate any such deeds, but for a professedly good deed and nothing else, and of this only are we partakers. We do not wish them God speed, any more than we wish God speed to a swearer or drunkard because we chance to meet him at church. We might, indeed, walk out of the Society to avoid his presence; and so we might walk out of church or from the sacrament, rather than seem to unite with him as a fellow-worshipper; but in both cases we may be equally unpolluted by the juxta-position. St. John's argument is, that we are not to encourage what is sinful or heretical; but we do not encourage the Socinian by letting him help us to give away Bibles to stultify himself. We do not patronize his delusions. If this sort of meeting for a given object is encouragement to a man's sentiments, why then the Anti-pado-baptist by his presence encourages CHRIST. OBSERV. No. 363. Y us against his own sentiments to baptize our children; and the Quaker encourages your lordship to wear lawn sleeves. And, indeed, though our friends gravely urge this argument, they, in their own case, shew that they do feel its application to be very stringent; since out of the thousand sects there are only two that they are not willing to encourage, which could hardly be the case if they thought the encouragement really so serious as their argument would assert. If the Socinian presuming upon this boasted encouragement were to begin to broach heresies, he would soon find that the encouragement was not very flattering. I would willingly leave the reply to any Churchman or Dissenter present; and not least to one of our plain-spoken Friends, who would very quietly inform him that he came to that room to circulate the Bible, not to misinterpret it. Again, say our friendly advisers, Are we not told to withdraw ourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition received from the Apostle? Now, though I see no fair ap plication of this passage to the present question, as the Bible Society is not a church, nor is it a matter of withholding ecclesiastical communion, yet I freely avow that the spirit of such passages would prevent my aiding the election to an official station in a religious society of any person whose sentiments or conduct I considered such as to render him unfit for it: but this has nothing to do with the question of Socinians in particular; it applies to conduct as well as to doctrine, to disorderly walking as well as to heretically believing; and merely fixing a test against one or two particular sects, is a poor subterfuge if it be meant as a compliance with this widely-ranging prohibition. Drunkenness is disorderly walking; so is backbiting; so is dissimulation; so is theft; yet our friends do not propose a test against these things, as they ought to do so if their own application of the passage be apposite. I believe the Bible-Society has always acted in the spirit of this passage. I never heard indeed, that any instance of such known disorderly walking has ever occurred in their committee as made it requisite to expel the offending party, though I doubt not this would have been done with faithfulness if found necessary: indeed, while I write I recollect a remarkable case, not at home, but abroad, which shews how faithfully the Society was prepared to act upon this very principle. It was a case so painful that some of the friends of the Society might be unwilling to allude to it; not because it brings any just reproach upon them, but because it is distressing to hear evil of one of whom better things were hoped. I allude, and why should I not allude? to Dr. Leander Van Ess. If ever there were circumstances that could justly call forth confidence from a society towards an agent, it was here. I will not trouble your lordship with the testimonials at large to this person's character and proceedings, from ear-witnesses and eye-witnesses, from his own letters, from the scrutineers of his actions, and the auditors of his accounts. I have before me, among others, the attestations of a considerable number of clergymen and others whose well-known piety and discernment of character would be allowed to be unimpeachable and of the highest value in the strictest court of justice. This person had been a long, and apparently faithful and zealous agent for the Society, and there were very many circumstances which would naturally render its members unwilling to believe ill of him, or to cast him off: indeed, to do so after all that had occurred, was to furnish a vexatious party weapon to those who they knew would not be slow to use it to the disadvantage of the Society. Yet, when at length they had reason to believe that he "walked disorderly," what did they do? why, they withdrew themselves from him as commanded; and thus shewed that it is not a dead-letter test that is required, but a ready heart to do that which is right. I honoured the committee for their conduct in this matter; and felt a double confidence in them, since I found that they were willing to cut off a right hand, or pluck out a right eye, rather than allow of just cause of offence and reproach to the Gospel. I see not why the circumstance should not be mentioned, and I have mentioned it accordingly. Even if a Judas had intruded himself into the Society, the eleven could not have withdrawn themselves from him till they discovered his character. Again, our friends say, What think you of the abhorrence which St. Peter felt for those who "privily bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them?" Why we join with him in his abhorrence, and concur in his fearful declaration, that "they bring upon themselves swift destruction." But what has this to do with the question of introducing tests into the Bible Society? I have yet to learn that the Socinians have brought in either "privily" or openly any damnable heresies into the walls of Earl Street. They may have brought in a few stray guineas to be commuted into orthodox Bibles; but as for themselves, the body of the members exercising their just right of choosing their elective officers under the fixed laws of the institution, have never admitted them into the committee; though even had this taken place, unless they had been potential enough to overturn the constitution of the Society, they could have introduced nothing but a book which condemns heresies of all kinds, and their own most particularly. So far from receiving any such countenance as was likely to add lubricity to their tenets, I must say that I wonder they have not long before this taken offence, and left the Society altogether. No particular sect, be it remembered, has any claim to have any one of its body elected as a member of the committee, except it be what Mr. Jeremy Bentham courteously styles the sect of the Thirty-nine Articles; which the Society most liberally allows to have a moiety of the domestic lay members. As for the rest, the Society at their annual meeting are to choose the fittest persons to conduct their business; and it will be time enough when they begin preferring Socinians, which they never yet have done or are likely to do, to shew that such a choice would not be proper. But again, We are not to be unequally yoked with unbelievers. Very true; but there is no yoking in the present matter, if by yoking be meant either intermarrying, or even religious communion. The Apostle, when he used those words, was speaking of joining heathens in their wickedness and idolatry; and if the objector means that we are not to frequent Socinian conventicles, the text is very appropriate; but I never heard that the Bible Society drew its members into this peril. "Monet eos apostolus," says Beza, "ne mensæ demoniorum fiant participes, aut cum infidelibus in aliquo opere illicito commercium habent." If our friends can prove that circulating the word of God is an "illicit" action, the passage applies to the Bible Society; but not otherwise. Besides, the exception proves the rule; so that if the action be lawful, the connexion is lawful ton. Another passage is strongly urged; namely, where the Apostle says, "I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner, with such a one, no not to eat." This text has been much dwelt upon by several of our good friends; but in truth what has it to do with the Bible Society, or with Socinians? It is rather a prohibition from connexion with immoral and profane than with heretical persons. One of the most zealous of the Sackvillestreet founders, when he quoted it in his speech at the meeting of the Naval and Military Bible Society, added very pertinently, "How much more then with Socinians." This à fortiori seems to have given great satisfaction; but it is wholly swerving from the letter and spirit of the passage. The first persons not to be kept company with are the moral profligates there mentioned; heretics come in only by inference : but, say our friends, we do not hold the text good as to having a test against drunkards, but we do against Socinians! And this is called a just application of Scripture. I am glad that these interpreters have not yet proposed adding notes and comments. The whole of the passages adduced to shew the unlawfulness of a Bible Society not guarded by tests, are of the same description. They are prohibitions most plain and pointed as regards church communion or sinful compliances, but are utterly inapplicable to the present question. We are not to join with idolaters to commit idolatry, with heretics to propagate heresy, or with any wieked man unnecessarily, for the pleasure of his friendship and company. But in all this there is a plain common-sense and scriptural limit. Your lordship, in the discharge of an important, and it may often be religious, duty as a legislator may be obliged to sit within a few yards of a nobleman who broaches infidelity. Our Lord himself consorted with publicans and sinners; he even joined with blaspheming Jews in the temple service, which was a strictly religious act. But did He, by this, wish any of these offenders God speed? There were those, I know, who said He did, and were much displeased at Him; but He did not yield to their scruples. Your lordship will perceive by the above allusions to Scripture, that it is the practice in this controversy to ring the changes on commonplaces; to quote texts perfectly clear and strikingly convincing in the matters to which they relate, but which have no bearing upon the real question in hand. Do not evil communications, it is triumphantly asked, corrupt good manners? But the very point in discussion is, whether two men's putting money into one box to purchase Bibles be an evil communication. So again, we are not to do evil that good may Most true; but what have we done in this matter that is evil? Would that the worst sin I could charge myself with was having accepted a Socinian's guinea, to give the word of God to the ignorant at home, or even sat by his side in committce, (though in the British and Foreign Bible Society this has never happened, and I certainly do not wish it,) to form a plan for sending it to the destitute abroad. come. But again and again, my lord, I ought to bring back the question to its simplicity; for it has, in truth, no more connexion with the evil communication of Socinianism, than with any other evil communication. Is it fair, is it honest, to quote against us such texts as the above, in relation only to one body of persons, and to leave all other offenders in doctrine and life unscathed? Evil as Socinianism is, is it the only evil? The difference of the two contending principles is this; and it is a difference most important: The Bible Society's book says, we are to come out from all wickedness; we are to have no evil communications but we do not consider that we have any such communications as regards the business of our society, which is only a common fund for the circulation of the word of God; and we therefore think no test necessary as to what is evil communication, and what is not. Practically, however, we exhibit all due regard to the matter in the election of the managers of the Society; and accordingly, though we have had : |