various secretaries, our Owens, Skeinkopffs, Hugheses, and Brandrams have never had any secretarial brotherhood with an Aspland or a Belsham; and the same of the committee. This is the one principle: the other principle, which supposes that there is in a society for distributing Bibles that communion which requires a test lest it should be evil, sets about devising one; and the first law of exclusion which is fixed upon relates to Socinians: then it is enlarged to include Papists; but there it stops; and in this stoppage is the evil; for all the texts which the objectors allege as excluding those two heresies, if they applied at all. to the case, would exclude many more. Our protest ought to be not merely against Papists and Socinians, but against all doctrinal error and moral pravity. True, we are to come out from those who deny Christ, but we ought to come out also from the world. Now, the friends of the Bible Society take a consistent line: they say, we cannot endorse one and not the other; if the rule really applies to the point in hand, we must give up Bible Societies altogether, except each of us in our own communion, and among only a few individuals in that: we are to contend earnestly for "the faith," not for a part of it; for the whole Bible, and not for some doctrines only, however important. We maintain that the passages alleged do not apply to the case; and we therefore make no tests to keep our society clear of their denunciations: our friends maintain that they do apply; but when they set themselves to form a test to avoid their anathema, they offer one only partial and inefficient; so that if, instead of defendants, we chose to become assailants, we have only to take the lists of any society formed on the new model, and to blow it to pieces with its own fulminations. If our friends apply Scripture truly, we say that all such societies, even if they had ninety-nine tests, and omitted the hundredth, would be unlawful; and unlawful too, if, with ten thousand actual tests on paper, there were one loop-hole to creep out at in practice; or if, with perfect purity of doctrine, there were not a test as to every possible sin and evil temper of life. But such a course, to prove a society unlawful, would render Scripture inapplicable to the purposes of life, by straining it to absurdity, The difference between a Bible Society on the non-test and the test plan is, that the former is consistent, and the latter inconsistent; while, if one is unlawful, both are so.

But the Bible Society, it is said, ought to protest against Socinians and Papists. But why against them only? And ought not the new Bible Society to protest against many other pravities? The Bible Society does oppose Socinians and Papists, in the only way in which it opposes any thing; and that is by the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God. The new plan, which says, but untruly, that the Bible Society compromises with these two heresies, is to protest against them; but when protesting against some, it compromises, on its own shewing, with others; whereas the Bible Society really compromises with none: it will not take some of the enemies of Christ to its bosom, and include others,-it rejects such a selection altogether; and therefore, instead of a compromising society, it shews itself rather as a challenging society. It holds out THE BOOK; here is our doctrine; who will refute it? Here is the faith-here is Protestantism-here is Tritarianism. If I were a Roman Catholic or a Socinian, I should say, that instead of being a compromising, or even a peaceful society, it was the most uncompromising and quarrelsome institution in the whole world; that it would not take my guinea, except to make it libel myself; that it forces me who am a conscientious Roman-Catholic, to go and proclaim to all mankind, in scores and hundreds of tongues, that

the church to which I belong is "the mother of abominations;" or me, a root-and-branch Socinian, that "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God;" and that "the Word was made flesh; with a hundred other declarations equally contrary to my sentiments. Yes, I admit that in so serious a matter as the things that concern salvation, a society of compromise would be unlawful; it would utterly offend against all the passages quoted by our objectors: but is a society of challenge unlawful also? Is it unlawful to say to the Socinian, You may be permitted to assist in teaching mankind that great is the mystery of godliness-God manifest in the flesh; that Christ is over all, God blessed for ever; that in Him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily; that He is the brightness of the Father's glory, and the express image of His person, upholding all things by the word of His power; and that being in the form of God, he thought it no robbery to be equal with God, notwithstanding that for us men and our salvation, as a sacrifice and offering, he was made in our likeness, and became obedient unto death, and is now highly exalted, so that to him shall every knee bow, and every tongue confess that he is Lord. Is it unlawful, I ask, to permit the Socinian to teach these blessed truths of our holy religion? for this is all the liberty the Society, as a society, gives him. It admits not his version or his comment. He helps us to bestow The Book, and that only; and this moreover in versions which he thinks unfair and mistranslated, because they undeniably contradict his own sentiments. How far it is lawful for him, upon his own principle, to join such a society, it is not for me to decide; I leave him to his own conscience; but if he be willing thus to batter down his own heresies, I see no unlawfulness in allowing him to do so. Nay further, as respects the Socinian and many other heresies, the Society distributes innumerable copies of the Bible in the English tongue, with the translators' headings and marginal references, which are a running annotation on the text. I confess, that this is a partial violation of the strict principle of there being neither note nor comment: but it was admitted, under all the peculiar circumstances of the case, by all parties, by mutual compact; and, being well-defined and incapable of extension, no evil has arisen from this slight infringement of the abstract rule. But, be this as it may, these notes and headings which the Society, in its corporate capacity has so widely circulated, vindicate for it the character of a strictly Trinitarian society. The only portion of human exposition which it publishes, is this orthodox comment; a comment so orthodox, that no Socinian, without tampering with his own conscience, can give to it his sanction. I need not refer your lordship to any particular passages for examples, as the whole volume abounds in them. Thus, over the very first chapter of St. John, we read "The Divinity, huma nity, and office of Jesus Christ," and so of scores of other passages. Our friends ask for a Trinitarian test; well then, we have one. they tell us, that it is not sufficient that the book itself is Trinitarian, unless those who unite to circulate it are so also; and that the society ought to be open only to those, using the words of Mr. Gordon's motion, who believe in "a triune God." Well then, I repeat we have exactly such a society as our friends wish; for they do not desire that an individual pledge should be given by every member, but only that the regulations of the Society itself should be such, that a Socinian knowing them, cannot join it without dissimulation. Here then is precisely what they demand; the whole matter is prepared to their hands: we not only give the book, but we give a pledge that we construe it in

Do

an orthodox manner; and we have even violated the strict rule of nocomment in such a way, that no Socinian can feel comfortable in joining us, any more than he could if we adopted Mr. Gordon's resolution. I do not myself think a test necessary for the simple object of circulating the word of God; but if it be, here is one already in existence. The member of the Bible Society, unless he protests against this heading, virtually says that the first chapter of St. John's Gospel inculcates "the Divinity, humanity, and office of Jesus Christ." What would our friends have more? Is not this lawful? I do not mean indeed, that any member pledges himself to all the headings and marginal notes of the authorised English translation, merely because he is content upon the whole that the copies should go forth as usually printed; there is no such compromise: many excellent persons in the society may not like all these annotations, but at the same time I see not how any person who adopted the doctrines of Socinianism could honestly tolerate them. I again admit that this is a breach of the treaty of strict neutrality, but I do not regret it; but whether it be wise or unwise, it is at least a proof that the institution is not Anti-Trinitarian, even if the circulation of the simple text itself, faithfully translated, were not pledge sufficient.

I think, my lord, I have observed in almost all the controversies against the Bible Society, a cast of argument which seemed to indicate that the objector did not attribute due value to the written word of God. The Roman-Catholic opponents spoke out plainly on the subject; they did not consider the promiscuous circulation of the sacred text among the people as likely to be of much religious utility; nay, often it would only, they said, be perverted, and do more harm than good; it required a test as to the readers; they must be discreet and well-informed persons: and even then there was much doubt and danger, without suitable guards, such as the traditions of the church and oral authoritative instruction. In like manner, though not to like excess, some of the former opposers of the society in our own church, spoke on the subject. One was afraid to trust the Bible without a clergyman to explain it; and another without tracts to dilute it; one, now Right Reverend prelate, dropped the ominous word "correction," modified afterwards into "safeguard," in shewing the necessity of adding the Prayer-book to the Bible; and another, now Right Reverend prelate, wished for a reform bill with a schedule A applied to many of its books and chapters, and a mutilating schedule B to many more. Now it is somewhat remarkable, that though the recent opposition to the Bible Society has arisen in quite another school of divinity, it has been accompanied by the same practice of undervaluing the importance of the circulation of the written word. We are told that the Bible Society is idolatrous; that it lauds the book, instead of the Author; that it hopes to convert the world by the beggarly elements of a material revelation; that it is a mere printing office, a manufacture of paper and parchment; and much more to the same effect. Now, my lord, nothing can be more true than that the written word, of itself, and unaccompanied by the energy of the infinite Author, would be of no value; that his grace is needed to enlighten the understanding to comprehend it, and to open the heart to receive it. But still it is his word, and he employs it as a means of salvation; not to the setting aside of prayer, or the disparagement of the preached word, or the holy sacraments, but in conjunction with other means, and where these are wanting as a substitute for them. We laud the Author, in lauding the book; and we are not afraid to trust it in all hands and in every clime, even were

there no preacher to explain and apply it; for faith may come by reading as well as by hearing, that reading being the word of God. The warmest friends of Bible Societies have ever been among the warmest friends of Christian missions; and while they contend that "holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation," they have not been careless of the importance of an oral ministry; and as to setting aside the need of Divine influence, or the grace of the Holy Spirit, such a thought never darkened their imagination. Yet this is a charge most extravagantly alleged against them; and in urging it, language has been employed of a character unscriptural and unprotestant; in fact, rank Popery; language which makes the value, authenticity, and doctrines of the Bible to depend upon the distributor or expounder. When I see the Bible in the hands of any man, I consider that it is the revealed word of God, which its Divine Author has promised to honour; that it carries its own evidence in its pages; and that through whatever hands it may have come to him, it is able, if he search it with humility and prayer, to make him wise unto salvation through faith that is in Christ. No, says the Papist; for unless it comes through a proper channel, and with the stamp of authority, the sanction of the pontifical church upon it, it is but an apocryphal book. And in nearly the same terms speak the recent opposers of the Bible Society. The Member for Dundalk, for example, says, that "the book as presented by the British and Foreign Bible Society reaches the hand of the receiver in an apocryphal and unauthenticated form ;" and thus the most fearful effect, he adds, is produced " upon the character of the Bible itself." The Rev. W. Phillips in like manner says, that such a society causes the Bible" to appear a mass of contradictions in the eyes of those to whom it is sent;" with much more to the same purpose, and all grounded upon the Popish notion that God allows his word in the hands of the most sincere inquirer to take the camelion colour of all the soils that the mere paper and print happen to flow over; a doctrine strongly opposed by our church in the matter of the sacraments in the Twenty-sixth Article, and at utter variance with the whole tenor of the promises of God made to those who seek his instruction. His word declares that "the meek shall he guide in judgment, the meek shall he teach his way;" that " if any man will do the will of God he shall know of the doctrine;" "all Scripture is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, and for correction in righteousness.' No, say the objectors; not unless it come through a legitimate channel; not if it reach the recipient in the shape of a Bible from Earl Street. You are right, says the Papist; it must have the papal stamp on its covers, or it will appear only a mass of contradictions." The scriptural faith of these servants of God who believe that he will do as he has said, that his word shall not return to him void, but accomplish the purpose whereunto he sent it, and who, in this humble and hopeful expectation, think it their duty to circulate it, in dependence upon the promised influence of his Holy Spirit, is profanely ridiculed by the Rev. H. Melvill, as an expectation of "manufacturing a millennium by an outlay of paper and sheepskins," and telling the nations," Behold the book, rather than behold your God." I might quote much more; but this may suffice. The objection is as old as the controversy between Protestantism and Popery and it was many years ago brought forward by opponents of the Bible Society of a very different school to the present objectors; and well did your lordship set it at rest. Allow me to copy a passage in illustration, from your lordship's Charge above alluded to. You remark, -"Popish writers, who concur with the opponents of the Bible

66

Society, say, that the Gentiles were converted by preaching, not by sending Bibles to them. But in this they are greatly mistaken, as far as the spirit of the objection goes. The first Christian church which was settled at Rome was instructed by the Epistles of St. Paul, without note or comment, before the Apostles had preached amongst them; and long before their days, a great revival of religion among the Jews, after their return from Babylon, was effected by the Bible, by the reading of the book of the law to them. During their long stay at Babylon, the Hebrew language was greatly corrupted in its vernacular use. The language of the law was become a strange language to them: it was therefore rendered, where necessary, into language that they understood. But it was still the book of the law, the Scripture, that was read to them in a language which was understood by the people. It was by the diligent reading of the Scriptures that the Bereans were converted to Christianity. In the Scriptures they sought for evidences of Christ, and with them they compared the preaching of the Apostles; to see whether these things were so,' whether the prophecies to which the Apostles appealed, were as they reported them. They made the Scriptures their rule of faith; and in this followed the direction of our Saviour: 'Search the Scriptures, for they are they which testify of me." Thus, then, we have another proof that there is nothing new under the sun; and that our friends have only picked up the blunted weapons of the Norrises, Marshes, Sprys, Gandolphys, and " Country Clergymen" of former days. But, come the argument from what quarter it may, I repeat, that it is unscriptural and anti-protestant; and, far from convincing me that the Bible Society is unlawful, it only convinces me that many zealous Protestants have never understood the real merits of one of the most vital questions between the Papal and the Reformed churches. Had they done so, they would not have applied themselves so diligently to spy out every speck in Bible Societies, or laboured so hard to prove them unlawful. I feel convinced, that in many quarters, and particularly in the school of hyper-Calvinism, much of the battle of the Reformation needs to be fought over again. In various conversations which I have had with opponents of the Bible Society, I have found my friends when a little pushed in argument, sidle off with, " And, after all, what if you could give every person in the world a Bible, and teach him to read it?" A man that talks thus, is latently unsound in the faith, and needs to go down to a lower form in the school of Christ to learn the exact place which the written word occupies among the instruments of salvation; not in order that he may idolize it, or say, " Behold the book, rather than behold your God," but that he may do justice to it, and not put asunder what God has joined together. That venerable man, Mr. Rowland Hill, spoke like a Christian and a Protestant, and, I may add, with strong masculine sense, when he said at the last anniversary of the Bible Society, "I wish that all the Roman Catholics and all the Socinians in the world belonged to Bible Societies; for the Socinians would find there the truth, to convince them of their errors. I do not ask who gives me the Bible, but what sort of Bible does he give me? And if those gentlemen-though I fear we cannot call them Christians -if they give that Christian book, we thank them for it; and as for the little cabals that occur now and then, they are not worth a moment's thought: I believe the committee are seldom interrupted by them. They are but few in number, poor gentlemen; and the more Bibles are distributed, the fewer they will be; for from that book we learn that Christ is the Brightness of the Father's glory, and the exCHRIST. OBSERV. No. 363.

Ꮓ