Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

guinea I get out of such a fund to be expended upon a pure version without notes or comments, instead of an impure version with abundance of both.

But besides the distaste of the Socinian to our canon, version, and headings, and to the Society which circulates them, there is further his well-known apathy as regards the extension of the word of God at all, even if he did not object to our copies. In proof of this I might quote largely from a variety of Unitarian writers, who one and all lament that in proportion to their wealth and intelligence, there is no sect professing to be Christian that exerts itself so little for what it considers religious objects. I need but refer your lordship on this subject to the Monthly Repository, the avowed organ of the Unitarian body. In a paper in that work, in 1829, I find the running title "Unitarians rich, yet inefficient;" the Unitarian Association is pronounced "an almost total failure;" of their chapels, "the tale is brief and mournful; " their public worship is ill attended; they can, with difficulty, support a single periodical publication; their institutions for religious purposes are "few and languishing;" "though for their numbers the richest body of religionists in the kingdom, they contribute the least to religious objects;"" the spirit of Unitarianism in this kingdom is not the missionary spirit, very many are hostile to missionary exertions, and especially the more rich and powerful;" their societies for such objects "have struggled into being, and struggle to exist; they have in many cases been formed by a few in opposition to the will of the many; they have been supported by a few, while the many looked on either in apathy or scorn.' Only two in a hundred of their chapels are flourishing, and most of them are kept up mainly by old Presbyterian endowments; with much more to the same purpose. Is it credible, that a body of persons like this should be very zealous for the Bible Society, or likely to gain much influence in it?

Then again, as another reason why no real "inconvenience or evil has arisen," I might mention the unpopular character of the Unitarian heresy. If Irvingism, Miracles, modern Millenarianism, or some of the exciting doctrines and speculations in which certain of our naval and military friends indulge, had been the characteristics of Unitarianism, there would have sprung up inconvenience and evil enough, from the tendency of such things to take hold of the popular mind. But Socinianism is too gelid to excite enthusiasm; and, speaking practically as well as theoretically, a thousand evils and inconveniences occur from the crotchets of one over-heated brother, for one that finds its way into the orthodox camp from the Nova Zembla quarters of Socinianism. I should as soon think of oversetting the Bible Society by the lever of Kantism, as by means of Socinianism. I wish that Regent Square were as inert as Essex Street, and Mr. Armstrong's ravings as Mr. Belsham's frigorifics.

I cannot dare to adopt the confident style which some of our objectors use, in speaking of the secret purposes of inscrutable Wisdom, so far as to say that God would not permit Socinianism to subvert an institution designed for the diffusion of his holy word; though I confess I feel much repose in his providence in this behalf; but I may mention another safeguard, which, added to all the foregoing, will well account for the important fact which the Naval-and-Military Bible-Society's committee admit; and that safeguard is the comparative paucity of numbers, and feeble influence of the Socinian body, and the overwhelming strength, influence, zeal, efficiency, and piety, of the whole combined Christian world. I would not speak with want of due cour

tesy of any class of persons; but I must say, that it is not very desirable to stop this gigantic machinery, just to brush off a few flies that may chance to inpinge upon it, with much likelihood of crushing themselves amidst its wheels, but none whatever of impeding its mighty evolutions. It is utterly impossible that Socinians can ever gain ground in a Bible Society, where orthodox Christians do their duty.

It would be a gross perversion, but one for which, knowing what party spirit is, I am quite prepared, to represent the above argument as an apology for Socinians and Socinianism. And to address such an argument to your lordship, whose whole life has been devoted to a laborious and conscientious warfare with these unscriptural opinions! No, my lord, let not their false doctrines stalk abroad undetected or unexposed; let the pulpit and the press do their work; let every Christian, in his daily intercourse in life, seek to bring men to the knowledge of Christ, and of him crucified, teaching both the Godhead and the incarnation of the Eternal Word, the sacrifice of Calvary for our transgressions, and the future glories of the reign of Him who is King of kings and Lord of lords. To be indifferent in such a matter, is to be unchristian. But let our weapons be those of truth and righteousness; and while we assail errors, let us beware of that acrimony of spirit and language which would only promote them. I am quite sure that some of the speeches and publications in opposition to the Bible Society have had this direful effect. The Socinians have had it to say, that, instead of being reasoned with out of the Scriptures, they have been vituperated, and not treated with the meekness or common courtesy due from one man to another, even in instructing those that oppose themselves. Besides, they have been made too much of; for one would suppose, listening to some of the late speeches, that they were to be found in triple rows at all our committees, outvoting the friends of orthodoxy by overwhelming majorities. And then again, what could be so likely to add to their importance as, for the mere sake of a party weapon against the Bible Society, to tell them and all mankind, what is without a shadow of truth, that the great majority of what is called the religious world have embraced them as brothers. They quote Mr. Gordon, Mr. Melvill, Mr. Phillips, and a score more names, as attesting that they are now regularly legitimated by the members of the Bible Society among the servants of Christ. In vain we say, that we never legislated about them; gave no opinion as a society respecting them; never even inserted their name on our books. Nay, they reply, Mr. Gordon and his friends are our witnesses that you acknowledge our claims; and various speeches of triumph are made upon the occasion. If our vehement friends had thought more of "the common salvation," than of carrying their favourite object of subverting the Bible Society, they would not have acted thus. Mr. Gordon and his colleagues ought, as Christians, to have avoided giving occasion to such a source of exultation on the part of the great enemy of souls. As fair and honest men, who would not injure truth, or wound the Saviour in the house of his friends, for the sake of playing off the Socinians to annoy the Bible Society, their language ought to have been, "You have set aside the amendment we proposed; namely, to reject Socinians on the ground of their not being Christians; and we might, as a party trick, contend that you have thus decided that they are Christians; and such an assertion, for want of its being understood what is meant by the opposite parties by the word Christian, would prejudice many minds against you: but we will not condescend to such an artifice ; we admit that a rejection of an amendment and recurring to

the previous question, is not of necessity an assertion of a doctrine; and we are anxious to prevent any misinterpretation which could lead the Socinian to triumph, as if you had this day stamped him with new honours. We cannot think you meant to do so; and we should be sorry, for the sake of our common Christianity, to assist him to so unfair an inference: we are anxious for an amendment of your society; but we will not for a party weapon injure the common cause." Such language would have been noble and truly Christian; but it is, I fear, too much to expect it from any thorough-going partizan.

[ocr errors]

And yet our friends themselves well knew what advantage they were giving to the Socinian, by persisting in their misconstruction of the Society's rejection of Mr. Gordon's amendment; for one of the chief of the Sackville-street writers remarks, that "the errors of the Socinians have been so often refuted that if but let alone they will soon die a natural death, and vanish before the beams of Divine truth, as the mist of morning before the rising sun." Why then did not this writer and his friends "let them alone?" Why stir up all this strife about them? Why raise them to undeserved importance? Why use towards them such asperity of language as can only lead to a recoil in their favour? And why, above all, try to persuade them that the great body of the Christian world, all who do not concur with the little party in Sackville Street, in opposing the Bible Society, are embracing them with avidity as brethren? Why also intercept those beams of Divine truth," which the Bible Society is pouring upon the world for their illumination? Alas! what will not party spirit do to carry a favourite object? The first fruits of the Sackville-street labours have been to encourage Socinians to promulgate their errors with unwonted zeal : they are at this moment widely circulating tracts, particularly the plausible publications of Dr. Channing; and, instead of "dying a natural death," are called to new life and action by the prurient public curiosity that has been awakened respecting them. If they were expelled from the Bible Society, they would have enlarged funds, as well as an ample excuse, for sending out these obnoxious publications. And what could Mr. Gordon and his friends justly reply, if when they found their neighbourhood inundated with Socinian tracts and the "Improved" Testament, the distributor should say, "I would have given your own copies of the Bible instead, but you would not allow me; you reject me from being a member of an orthodox Bible-Society, and vituperate me for becoming a member of a heterodox one."

I have shewn, my lord, that the Socinians have done no injury to the Bible Society; but I might also have shewn that they have received great spiritual good from it. I could specify individual cases; but I prefer adverting to the broad well-known fact, that at the period when the Bible Society was formed, the class of doctrines which are often agglutinated together under the general name of Socinianism, though more oftentimes they are Arian or Sabellian, or perhaps Pelagian, had become fearfully prevalent among the descendants of the old Non-conformists; that in particular, Presbyterianism south of the Tweed, and often north of it, was but another name for these cognate heresies. And what has been the great means under God of causing a revival, both of nominal orthodoxy, and of spiritual piety, in these fallen churches? Has it not been, without question, the Bible Society? not perhaps always directly, but by means of that extension of scriptural knowledge of which it was the germ. Wherever you trace a remarkable revival of religion in the last quarter of a century, it will be almost invariably found to be connected more or less with the labours of a Bible Society. Many sinners

have thus been turned to righteousness, and many heterodox persons to truth: but can the objectors find one instance of a contrary character; one Socinian made such, or confirmed such, by means of a Bible Society? Many Socinian pulpits have become Scriptural; but has any Scriptural pulpit become Socinian, in consequence of the Bible Society? I know of no orthodox pastor admitting a Socinian into his pulpit; but I recollect a curious case on the other side, though before the formation of this institution. The late Mr. Timothy Priestley, who was a supralapsarian Calvinist, being once on a visit to his Socinian brother, Dr. Priestley, the latter said he might preach for him, "provided he introduced no controversy;" which Mr. Timothy readily promising, took for his text "Without controversy great is the mystery of godliness; God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory." From this passage, first assuring the auditory that he would introduce nothing controversial, nothing but what the word of God set forth so plainly as not to be mistaken, he expatiated upon the sublime truths disclosed in his text, and placed completely in the shade his brother's morning pseudo-philosophical dissertation. I fear there was a breach of the spirit, though not the letter, of the compact : but I mention the anecdote to shew how little Socinianism can stand against the plain literal interpretation of that book which alone the Socinian can aid in promulgating in the Bible Society.

I have stated, my lord, and truly, that no Socinian has ever been placed on the committee of the parent Bible-Society; so that it is impossible that any practical evils can have arisen from their not having been excluded by rule. In the country, however, Socinians have occasionally had a voice in the management of local institutions, in consequence, I must say, of the Church of England and the various bodies of orthodox Dissenters not having done their duty; for, had these been duly active, their numbers and local influence would have been such that a Socinian could not have gained a place at the board; for throughout these remarks I have maintained the principle that though a subscription confers membership and eligibility to office, it is no unfairness in the great majority of the members to select for office those persons whom they consider the most proper to manage their affairs. However, I will suppose the worst-that a Socinian gains access to a local committee; still he cannot injure the Bibles, which are printed exclusively by the universities and king's printer, and he has nothing to do with the business of translating into foreign languages, which rests with the committee in London; so that-though I should not approve of the choice -I see no great practical evil; and I am certainly very glad he employs his guinea to so good a purpose. But in point of real fact, I find it stated in a paper by Mr. Dudley, who is better acquainted with the minute localities of Bible Societies than any other person in the kingdom, that out of probably ten thousand office-bearers in all Great Britain, there are but three who are supposed to be Socinians; and among the committees and members there is not one in a thousand. If even one be unlawful, we must make a rule to exclude him; but under the present head I am speaking only of the practical working, and I see nothing in this trivial fraction that affects the actual detail of operation. The cleansing of the Society in this respect has been going on for years, without any prescribed rule, from the fair workings of the system, and this without either test or controversy. Some years since a few Socinians joined Bible Societies, for they could not for shame do otherwise, but they never seemed much at home in them, and some have since left

them; and where new committee-men are wanted to fill a vacancy, it is not likely that persons of orthodox sentiments will purposely select co-adjutors with whom they cannot act in mutual harmony.

Mr. Dudley states that he has attended more than five thousand public meetings of Bible societies throughout the country, and found no inconvenience from the non-exclusion of any particular class of persons. So large an induction is valuable; but it is nothing more than any man's experience, who has frequented these festivals of Christian benevolence, will readily confirm. The meetings are composed, almost to a man, of Churchmen and orthodox Dissenters; the speakers in the gladness of their hearts expatiate upon topics certainly not always quite neutral as respects conflicting opinions among the true and faithful members of the visible church; but provided this be done in a spirit of love and peace, the good man meaning no controversy, and only pouring forth the overflowings of his heart, no person thinks of stopping him; and in general there is matter quite sufficient in what God is doing in the world to occupy every ear and every tongue without any semblance of strife or rivalry. The only instance in which I ever remember seeing a " Unitarian" minister rise at a public meeting of this nature (though I am not quite sure at this distance of time whether it was a Bible, Missionary, or Education meeting) was some twenty years ago, when a clergyman had made what he would now own to have been a very hot-headed and ill-judged attack upon the Unitarian body; and that clergyman is now himself a Unitarian minister! so little reason is there to suppose that those who are the most forward to make Bible, Education, and Missionary-Society meetings an arena for furious attacks upon Socinians, are always themselves the most solid divines, or best established in the faith.

No, my lord, I must say, and I say it with pain, that the evils to be deprecated in our Bible Societies come from far other quarters. Against avowed Socinians we can guard; but who can guard against Socinianism in disguise? Orthodox coldness and non-descript scepticism are a far worse practical evil than the fraction of one thousandth of avowed heresy. I remember my dear friend Mr. Owen telling me that he once stood before an assembly, to plead the cause of the Bible-Society, more with the appearance of a poacher conducting his excuse before a bench of brow-beating country magistrates, than a minister of Christ pleading the cause of his Divine Master: but it was not an assembly contaminated by one Socinian-that is, avowedly; but I fear there may have been in it not a few Trinitarian Pelagians, Trinitarian formalists, and Trinitarian opposers of all that is valuable and vital in religion. My lord, our friends talk of Socinians in the Bible Society; but would Dr. Carpenter or Mr. Belsham or Mr. Aspland have been permitted to utter on our platforms one half of what has been written to the disparagement of the word of God. by clergymen and prelates of the Church of England? Was it for want of a Trinitarian test that the present Bishop of Chichester maintained that, out of three score and six sacred books, there are not more than seven in the Old Testament and eleven in the New fit or necessary for general perusal; and that even these favoured portions are not free from the danger of " producing material error?" Would Mr. Gordon's test have prevented his lordship's stating that the great body of persons to whom God in his wisdom has given his word, can no more understand a large portion of it than "the tragedies of Eschylus?" and that a volume judiciously selected from Cappe's [Socinian] Life of Christ " would be far better than the indiscriminate circulation of God's own word? Would all the Bible-Society tests in the world have prevented

[ocr errors]
« AnteriorContinuar »