Page images
PDF
EPUB

4. Naval and Military Bible Society. The Speeches delivered at the Anniversary General Meeting held at Exeter Hall, on the 10th of May, 1831. 8vo. London.

5. Observations addressed to the Trinitarian Friends and Members of the Bible Society, comprehending the principal Arguments in Support of the Proposed Alteration in the Constitution of the Society. By a Clerical Member of the Provisional Committee, sometime Secretary to an Auxiliary Society. 8vo. 1831.

6. Conduct of the Committee of the British and Foreign Bible Society reviewed. By Robert Haldane, Esq. 8vo. London. 1831.

TO the divisions and disorders which arose in the primitive

churches, how much are we indebted, as having furnished the occasion of some of the most important and eloquent portions of the Apostolic Scriptures! And to modern controversies within the Church, we owe some of the most valuable of uninspired compositions. Much as we regretted, at first, the renewed attack upon the constitution of the Bible Society, as coming from a quarter in which we have not been accustomed to look for adversaries, we begin to think that the exposition and defence of the grand principles of the Society, which it has called forth, will prove of so much lasting service, both to the Institution and to the cause of truth, as will more than compensate for the disturbance of harmony. Dr. Fletcher's Letter' alone would go far towards reconciling our minds to the occasion, unhappy in itself, which has elicited so luminous and powerful a vindication of the two Protestant principles upon which the Society is grounded; and we must indulge ourselves in citing somewhat copiously from his pages.

The controversy,' says Dr. F., which is now unhappily agitating the friends of the Bible Society, and causing the bitter waters of strife to spread in all directions, is of so momentous a character, and involves in its decision such important consequences, that it is incumbent on every supporter of that Society to defend, to the utmost of his power, the purity, simplicity, and integrity of its constitutional principles. Those principles appear, to my own mind, self-evident and incontrovertible. The recent attempt to introduce a test in the Bible Society, produced something like the effect which results from the startling paradoxes of scepticism, when it assails the settled assurances of the mind on those points of historic belief or moral conviction, which had been heretofore regarded as fixed and incontrovertible. I have always been accustomed to consider the constitution of the Bible Society as impregnable on two grounds: first, that it recognized the supreme and exclusive authority of the Scriptures; and, secondly, that it admitted the right of private judgement in matters of religion. These principles are the vital elements of Protestantism. They are no less essential to Christianity; and they are sustained by an accumulation of proof which gives to each and to both, the weight of moral demonstration.

In the first establishment of the Society, almost every objection brought against it, might have been resolved into an opposition to one or other of these principles. Its constitution was the object of virulent attack and most unrighteous misrepresentation; but whatever was the pretext of its opponents, all might have been reduced to the allegation, that its terms of admission were not exclusive, and that it presented its expanded portals for the reception of all, without exception, of every name and every clime, who professed to acknowledge the authority of the Holy Scriptures. The objection was itself the strongest argument in the Society's defence. It was its characteristic excellence, and the very crown of its glory, that it prescribed no preliminary inquiries, instituted no tests, and required no subscription to creeds and formularies. It therefore proposed no act of worship, or exercise of fellowship, which might so operate on the minds of the weak, the timorous, or the prejudiced, as to commit them unwittingly into an approbation of principles which they could not sanction, or a communion with persons whom they would be unwilling to recognize. Its projectors and first supporters were all, without exception, I believe, of what are termed evangelical principles, and, therefore, individually believers in the Holy Trinity. But their enlightened and comprehensive views went beyond all personal and sectarian considerations. They knew that the moment they selected any one principle of the great system in which they agreed, as the peculiar and distinguishing feature of their Society, there would be instantly introduced materials for debate. However they might have agreed in the abstract proposition, other principles, they knew, would be so associated, in different degrees and proportions, mixed up with more or less of error, that no single proposition would be a satisfactory guarantee for the prevention of what some would have been disposed to exclude. There was therefore no medium between a constitution altogether exclusive, and which would have confined the Society to a section of the Christian church, and a constitution of an unexclusive character. The one object aimed at, required no limitation; while the immense magnitude of the work to be achieved, and the prodigious expenditure that would be necessarily involved in its prosecution, demanded and justified universal co-operation. Thus the constitution was settled on a large and unrestricted basis. It disarmed intolerance, conciliated prejudice, and afforded the most scrupulous no ground of reasonable offence.' pp. 4–7.

[ocr errors]

Dr. Fletcher states it as his deliberate conviction, that, such being, unquestionably, the original Constitution of the Society, the Committee, as trustees, appointed to execute the provi'sions of a specific deed, agreed upon by the unanimous con'currence of thousands and tens of thousands of the friends of 'the Bible,'-ought never to have entertained at all the proposition to make so fundamental a change.

I feel warranted,' he says, 'in asserting, that the moment a member of the Committee introduced a question which directly tended to violate the constitution, it became that Committee to have put it down instanter, and ended at once all discussion. Complainants in these cir

cumstances there might have been; clamour and calumny might have furiously stormed on the occasion; the orthodoxy of one might have been assailed, and another might have been suspected of neologism. Intolerance and dogmatism might have uttered their wailings and declamations, and what then? Why, the abettors of these decisive measures would perhaps have formed a separate Society. Let them have done so, and made it another arena for polemic exhibitions and special pleadings against all who differ from them. If the Continental Society had not afforded them ample room and verge enough for assailing all the heresies of Germany and all the schismatics of Britain-and the Reformation Society had not been a sufficiently extended theatre for theological contentions, they might have established a new Eclectic Society, and have fenced it round with such provisions and enactments, as would have excluded from the protected enclosure, all but ultra-doctrinalists of various hues, though united in the most determined opposition to every thing which bears the name of candour, tolerance, and Christian charity. In the mean time the Committee of the Bible Society would have pursued its course of sublime benevolence. Communications from all parts of the world, proving that course to be marked by the approbation of the Most High, would have gladdened their hearts, and encouraged them to pursue their "labour of love;" and when they had retired from the scene of their deliberations, they would have been cheered by the remembrances of tranquil joy and devout satisfaction, instead of enduring the irritation produced by distracted councils and angry collisions.' pp. 16, 17.

[ocr errors]

Referring to the measure proposed by Captain Gordon, Dr. Fletcher urges the unanswerable question, Why should the 'excluding requisition be confined to such as hold not the doc'trine of the Trinity, when there are thousands with whom, on religious grounds', real Christians could have no consistent 'fellowship?'

If the reasonings which apply only to the communion of a Christian church are made, by an unnatural and forced analogy, to apply to the Bible Society, then the whole system must be remodelled; the terms of admission must be strictly such, and such only, as ought to regulate admission to a Christian church; every essential doctrine of the gospel must be added to the prescribed test, otherwise the communion would be vitiated, and the fellowship of unbelievers would mar the glory of the Society; the test of doctrine must be combined with a test of character, else the heresy of a bad life will be thought less dangerous than that of an erroneous principle; and thus the investigation and supervision which are proper and consistent in churches formed on Christian principles, must be applied to the extended community of a Bible Society, in all its dependencies and ramifications! Unless the supporters of this rash innovation are prepared to follow out their principle to all its legitimate consequences, they have proved themselves the most ill-advised reformists that ever lifted themselves into consequence, by gratuitous interference and precipitate zeal. p. 25.

I will yield to no one in a decisive conviction of the momentous character of those great principles which Socinians reject, and by which rejection their system is, in my own deliberate judgement, awfully opposed to the truths of the gospel. On all proper occasions, I would unite with others in bearing my protest against their errors, as subversive of the characteristic doctrines of Christianity. But great and lamentable as is their apostacy from "the faith once delivered to the saints," they do not reject all the discoveries of revelation. While they maintain the divine authority of the Scriptures-appeal to their testimony as the professed rule of their belief-hold, in relation to some views of the mission, character, and doctrines of Christ, what is accordant with the truth-and in reference to the general evidences of the Christian revelation, are amongst the most able advocates and supporters of its authority, and have eminently subserved its cause-can you persuade yourself to think, that in no sense they are entitled to be called Christians? It surely cannot be forgotten that such writers as Lardner, and Pierce, and Clarke, and Locke, may be justly reckoned amongst Christian writers, whatever may have been the Socinianism of some, or the latitudinarianism of others. The established usages of language, in reference to parties and systems, require that we should in fairness, derive our conventional designations, not from the charges or constructions of adversaries, but from their own avowed and accredited professions. Justice, as well as candour, requires this mode of procedure. It may be presumed that those who differ from us, know their own principles as well as we do; and if we have an honest desire to convince them of their errors, and induce them to examine our arguments, are we likely to succeed by telling them in limine, that we do not give them credit for their own reiterated and solemn acknowledgements? Every man, who professes to believe in the divine authority of the Christian revelation, is entitled to be called a professed Christian. We secure no small advantage in our reasonings for his benefit, by admitting that profession. We may question his consistency, and endeavour to convince him of his danger. Availing ourselves of the principles which he receives, we may more successfully attempt to dislodge from his mind those errors which he has unhappily associated with those principles, and by which he has neutralized their force, and rendered them "of no effect." pp. 31, 32.

It is a remarkable fact, that, during the last twenty or thirty years, Socinianism has, in our own country, visibly and extensively diminished. We know that this has been disputed, but it is by persons who know nothing about the matter. Its power as a system, so far as it can be ascertained by the numbers and moral influence of a party, has been, Dr Fletcher remarks, amazingly reduced; and he adds:

I know it to be an unquestionable fact, that even Socinians have become the recipients and advocates of evangelical truth, by means of their connexion with the Bible Society. Had a test of orthodoxy been proposed as a condition of their admission, they would have felt them

VOL. VI.-N.S.

L

selves proscribed, insulted, and even calumniated as enemies to the Bible. Their unhappy prejudices would have been confirmed; and no possible good could have resulted from the restriction that would compensate for the positive evil that would have been the immediate and inevitable result.

But in the case before the public, the separation contemplated by the Sackville-street agitators, is not only inexpedient and unjust,-it is impossible. They are endeavouring to accomplish a separation that cannot be effected. Those who do not hold the doctrine of the Trinity are as much members of the Society as those who do hold it. They are indeed few in numbers, but they are in the Society, and in it by virtue of the principles which support its constitution. They have given their money to it ;-and some have bequeathed legacies on its behalf, who are gone to that world where there will be no controversy on the subject. The money thus subscribed and bequeathed was given with a distinct recognition of the constitutional principle of the Society, and would not have been given if that principle had not been considered by them to be as firm and irrevocable as the truth of the Bible itself. Thousands and tens of thousands who were never in any degree identified with Socinians, have precisely the same conviction on this subject; and on this ground alone they make common cause with them. These were the views and feelings of the immense majority that indignantly rejected the amendment at the Annual Meeting. They were not Socinians! To assert it is unwarrantable and unjust; it is a positive calumny, the effect of which is most injurious, because it conveys to the world an erroneous impression, and can tend only to the direct advantage and aggrandizement of the very party, whose exclusion was contemplated by the proposed alteration. It was not sympathy with Socinianism, but sympathy with the Society's essential principles, and a determination to abide by them as fixed and unalterable, that produced the unshrinking and magnanimous decision of that day. THAT DAY SAVED THE BIBLE SOCIETY; AND THE STORM THAT PASSED OVER IT HAS ESTABLISHED IT ON A FIRMER BASIS, AND MADE

IT MORE THAN EVER IMPREGNABLE!' pp. 47, 48.

Nothing, however, can be more grossly disingenuous than the whole conduct of the Sackville-street party; or more revolting than the system of personal calumny, which seems to be an element of modern fanaticism. Referring to the ungenerous attack made upon the learned and laborious Editor of the Comprehensive Bible, and the still baser reflections cast on one of the Secretaries of the Bible Society, Dr. Fletcher asks: Whose reputation is safe, if heresy is to be the exclamation, whenever a man may happen to differ from the self-constituted oracles ' of modern coteries?' Mr. Haldane's pamphlet is a frightful specimen of malign and infuriated zeal, spurning alike the restraints of courtesy and the obligations of truth. His hatred of the Bible Society amounts to a sort of monomania. He tells us, that the Society have excluded God from their counsels', and that He has consequently frowned upon them, and scat

« PreviousContinue »