these labours, in distributing the Bible purposely unexplained? We do not introduce the name of God; for, surely,

that is known to all. We do not intro

dace the law of God; for that is almost in every hand, at least has been sounded, in some degree, in every ear. In introducing the Bible to the divisions which prevail amongst Protestants in general, our chief wish is to teach them, in what sense the words of Scripture are most truly and most faithfully interpreted. But this is a point which has excited the apprehensions of multitudes throughout the kingdom. Their fear is, that Scripture will not be better understood, by the distribution of Bibles without note or comment: but, on the contrary, that encouragement may be given to the wayward mind to wrest it to wrong ideas, perplexing doubts, and hurtful purposes." pp. 15, 16.

It has already been observed, that this passage seems intended to be specific, but it is not very distinct. Writers do not always clear up their meaning by descending into particulars on the contrary, the obscurity sometimes increases with their descent, and makes us long for the day-light of a few broad generalities. In the paragraphs just quoted, there are several things hard to explain. What sort of an objection it is to the home-proceedings of the Bible Society at large, that there are a few quiet Roman Catholics in the diocese of Carlisle ;-why the quietness of Roman Catholics, even supposing them quiet throughout the world, should be any stronger argument against disseminating the Scriptures now, than it would have been before the Reformation, when all were Catholics and all were quiet;-what is meant by "introducing the Bible to the Protestant divisions" now prevailing-which, by the way, soon turns out to be no introduction at all ;-in what sense, or on what evidence, the law of God is asserted to be almost in every hand, at a time when such numbers of families are known to be destitute of copies of the Bible, and when it is in proof that, till the Bible Society arose, the desti

tution was even immense; -what conceivable identity, affinity, or approximation there is between the God is almost in every hand," and two propositions, that "the law of that " it has been sounded, in some degree, in every ear;"-such are some of the questions which the Bishop's remarks suggest, and to which they surely do not afford a ready answer. The least that can be said is, that the passage, in its liable" to be wrested," according present state, appears considerably to its own phrase, perplexing doubts, and hurtful purposes.'

"to wrong ideas,

If we may freely express our opinion, the passage radically involves that misconception as to the conciliatory purposes of the Bible Society which has already been noticed. It assumes, that the great object of the Society is to reconcile the jarring sentiments of polemics on points of doubtful disputation. This, however, would not have sufficed; for the Society, though acting from an absurd motive, might in fact be answering some very good end. Therefore it was necessary further to assume, that the object before mentioned could be the only object of such a society, even at the best. Both assumptions being made accordingly, the argument became complete, and ran thus:-The proper object of circulating the Bible is to make Protestants agree; the unexplained Bible never will make them agree; therefore, the unexplained Bible ought not to be cir culated.

In the very act, however, of developing these propositions, it appears to us that the fallacy which they imply partially betrayed itself to the good sense and piety of the author. To hold that the chief end of disseminating the Scriptures is to make Protestants agree, is necessarily to suppose that men are, in essential points, Protestants already; but this again implies, that the Scriptures are either already in

their possession, or so completely in their knowledge, as to make the possession safe; and, if so, the whole argument becomes as absurd as it is useless. In attempting to untwist the horns of this dilemma, which made it equally difficult to maintain that the bulk of the people had the Scriptures and that they had them not, it would seem that those hesitating positions were resorted to:-1st, The law of God is almost in every hand and 2dly, At least, it has been sounded, in some degree, in every ear-statements, however, which, even if they were as correct and as effective as the right reverend author supposes, would only prove that the Bible Society, in doing what has in fact been done already, is acting a part equally harmless and unnecessary.

But these statements suggest a remark which appears to us of far greater importance. The opponents of the Bible Society are apt very strongly to assert their reverence for the sacred Book itself; and we have no right to question, or even to suspect, their sincerity. Let us not, therefore, be understood to speak with any mental reservation, when we say, that it is possible for men to feel and intend excellently, who are yet betrayed by prejudice into a line of acting and of reasoning widely inconsistent with their feelings and intentions. We may be deceived; but it is our opinion that all the writers in question have fallen into this error, however undesignedly or unconsciously. Probe their reasoning; and, somewhere or other, it will clearly be found to imply postulates encroaching on the paramount authority of Revelation. Even in the respectable pages of Dr. Wordsworth, it seems to us that this flaw is never effectually covered from view by the "well-seeming and serious minuteness and pomp*" of his Hookerian periods; and, to escape

• Dr. Wordsworth's Reply, p.68.

the same difficulty, Bishop Marsh vainly writhes in all the torture of dialectics. But, in the hands of plainer and less practised controversialists, the defect perhaps discovers itself more quickly. The Country Clergyman, for example, at once finds that the Bible is equally ready to speak Calvinism or Socinianism according to the creed of those by whom it is distributed; and an author to whom we listen with far greater deference, the Bishop of Carlisle, represents the "sounding of the Divine Law, in some degree, in men's ears" as nearly an equivalent for a ready access to the records of that law in all their fulness and purity.

In a passage we have before cited, the Bishop affirms, with a simplicity and a dignity well befitting the episcopal character, that nothing could more readily coincide with the regular purposes and inclinations and endeavours of the long life with which God, in his great mercy, had favoured him, than to spread the word of God in every quarter; so that all, from the least to the greatest, might know God and Jesus Christ whom he hath sent. The words are solemn, and even affecting; and far from us be the presumptuous uncharitableness of doubting the perfect truth of a declaration which, so. made and on such an occasion, must be considered as a humble but deliberate appeal to the Searcher of hearts. But the venerable authority of age and station ought not to screen from censure those errors which it only renders doubly dangerous: nor are such errors likely to be the less injurious, because they are committed inadvertently. We must be allowed, therefore, with respectful but with honest freedom, to protest against the unfounded and hazardous statement, that it makes but a slight shade of difference whether men have in their hands the Divine Law in its undivided entireness, or merely hear it, "at least, in some.

degree, sounded in their ears." It is an immense chasm which these slight words, "at least," "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 immo. rality, 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 Voluine 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 strong holds 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 scepticism, 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 bolding the essential articles of Revelation.

In the observance of this distinction, we humbly conceive our selves 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 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" infer

ence.

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 insure the knowledge of minor truths, (and what is it that will insure 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 on 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,