the prophets employ a plain and familiar style, adapted to the intelli. gence of the common people. They are therefore held cheap by those who desire neither to read nor to hear any thing that is not recommended by polish and eloquence,men, whose minds are incapable of being impressed, except by that which charms their ears with its harmony. Whatever appears low or mean, such persons reject as trifling, puerile, and vulgar. In a word, they regard nothing as true, but that which is agreeable; nothing as worthy of belief. but that which excites pleasurable sensations; and make embellishment, not truth, their standard of value*." In the second place, it is true that the poor have neither leisure nor learning to understand the more abstruse or mysterious parts of Scripture; but then this want of leisure and learning disinclines, as well as disqualifies them, for the study. Their hours of reading are the hours of lassitude or of sickness. It is not in such seasons that men go laboriously wrong. The scholar and the sophist may read for the purposes of contention; but the humble read that they may be instructed, and the weary and heavy-laden that they may find rest. Their objects are repose, comfort, tranquillity; not vain exercitations of reasoning, or oppositions of science falsely so called. To an uneducated man, the simplest portions of Scripture will naturally prove the “Nam hæc in primis causa est, cur apud sapientes et doctos et principes hujus sæculi Scriptura Sancta fide careat; quod Prophetæ communi ac simplici sermone, ut ad populum, sunt locuti. Contemnuntur itaque ab iis, qui nihil audire vel legere nisi expolitum ac disertum volunt; nec quicquam inhærere animis eorum potest, nisi quod aures blandiori sono permulcet. Illa verò, quæ sordida videntur, anilia, inepta, vulgaria existimantur. Adeò nihil verum putant, nisi quod auditù suave est; nihil credibile, nisi quod potest incntere voluptatem; nemo rem veritate ponderat, sed ornatù." Instit. Lib. V. § 1. most engaging. Give him in his leisure moments a Bible, and observe the result. The plainer narratives of the Old Testament, such as the histories of Noah, of Job, or of Daniel-the Psalms, so remarkable for the truth and nature of their style-perhaps, the obviously evangelical passages of Isaiah,these will be found to occupy, his chief attention. But, even above these, "Perhaps the Christian volume is his theme, How Guiltless Blood for guilty man was shed; How He who bore in heaven the Second Name Had not on earth whereon to lay his head*." The Cotter of Burns, indeed, does not altogether confine himself easy reading; but the Cotter of Burns, it must be remembered, is a person of education. to Now if, in the perusal of these touching compositions, some feeling arises beyond a vague curiosity or a merely transient interest,-if a desire is excited to know more familiarly the mighty and impressive subjects spoken of,-if a sentiment of reverence grows up for the excellence of Revelation and the majesty of its Author,-if a perception, however indistinct or mysterious, is attained, of the powers of the world to come,-if an approach, however faint, is made to that Christian humility on which, as on some low valley, the dews of heaven love to descend,-why must it be supposed a probable consequence, that the mind, which is at one moment thus engaged and impressed, will, in the next, plunge into all the difficulties of sceptical or polemical speculation? Why must it, even on the ordinary principles of human nature, be imagined, that the humble student in question will desert that plain reading which has come home to his heart, for matters of doubtful or delusive dis putation? Why must it be thought Cotter's Saturday-Night that he will not rather recede with instinctive reverence from the dark places of a Revelation which he has learned to respect? Why must it be believed that the impressions his untotured mind has received, may not operate as a preservative against snares which might prove perilous to hardier understandings? Above all, why must it be concluded that the aid of a super-human influence will be wanting, to cherish his faint piety, to give definition to his vague ideas, and to fortify him against the seductions of the tempter? There is surely no absurdity in trusting that such a person may experience the merciful guidance of that Spirit, who is described as ever present to human infirmity,as knocking at the heart for admittance-as waiting to be gracious —as anxious (if the figure may be used) for occasions of infusing holy desires, suggesting good counsels, and prompting just works: for under such human images as these have the Scriptures been pleased to represent the magnitude, though not the nature, of perfect and passionless goodness. If this is enthusiasm, it is the enthusiasm of Saint Chrysostom and the Homilies of the Church of England. "God receiveth the learned and unlearned, and casteth away none, but is indifferent unto all. And the Scripture is full, as well of low valleys, plain ways, and easy for every man to use and to walk in, as also of high hills and mountains, which few men can climb unto. And whosoever giveth his mind to holy Scriptures with diligent study and burning desire, it cannot be, saith Saint John Chrysostom, that he should be left without help. For either God Almighty will send him some godly doctor to teach him-as he did to instruct the Eunuch, a nobleman of Ethiopia, and treasurer to Queen Candace; who having a great affection to read the Scripture, although he understood it not, yet for the desire that he had unto God's word, God sent his Apostle Philip to declare unto him the true sense of the Scripture that he read-or else, if we lack a learned man to instruct and teach us, yet God himself from above will give light unto our minds, and teach us those things which are necessary for us, and wherein we be ignorant. And, in another place, Chrysostom saith that man's human and worldly wisdom, or science, is not needful to the understanding of Scripture; bat the revelation of the Holy Ghost, who inspireth the true meaning unto them that with humility and diligence do search therefor*" Not the least observable circumstance in this extract, is the purpose for which it introduces the Ethiopian nobleman; a purpose so essentially different, not to say diametrically opposite, from that to which the same history is turned in a passage already cited from the Charge before us. In the one case, the history is quoted to prove that the unaccompanied Scriptures cannot safely be studied by illiterate persons; for they will never be clear to them without a commentator. In the other, it is brought to prove that they may safely be studied by such persons; for a commentator, or what is better than a commentator, will never be wanting. Opinions are free on all subjects; but, for ourselves, we are much too old-fashioned to hesitate, on this occasion, whether we should side with the Charge or with the Homily,-with the Bishop of Carlisle, or with the united authority of Cranmer, Ridley, and Latimer. In answer to these positions, a line of argument may perhaps be adopted, which would by no means be new with the opponents of the Bible Society. All these good effects, it may be said, might indeed flow from the circulation of the Scriptures, even without note or comment, provided they were * Book of Homilies, p. 6. Oxford Edi« tion, 1802. left to themselves. But, then, they wish,-surrendering to him the will not be left to themselves. False premises of his argument in full,— teachers are abroad;-men, whose it will still appear that we have not rank in life necessarily subjects the made the remotest approach to his lower orders to their society and conclusions. influence; men, ever eager to spread heresy or enthusiasm; men who, with that view, would anxiously avail themselves of any religious impression that might be produced on an uninformed mind by the perusal of the Scriptures, to insinuate pestilent opinions; who would misinterpret the sacred text, pervert the unguarded reader, and thus render the records of truth an instrument of dangerous error. Even total ignorance may be a less evil than a knowledge so capable of abuse. Or, at least, it may be better that the poor should run a somewhat greater risk of being without the Bible altogether, than that they should run the risks in separable from a possession of the uninterpreted Bible, while surrounded by such interpreters. "It must needs be (said the Highest of Authorities) that offences come." That is, we humbly presume, not that they are the subjects of direct pre-ordination, or result from a fatal fitness in the constitution of things; but that they may be calculated upon, as the natural fruits of a corrupt world,-that they are founded in that moral necessity which is only the sad selfconsistence of human nature. In the same manner, we may calculate upon the existence of false doc. trine, heresy, and schism; they are, and they always have been, but too prevalent. In assigning, however, the actual amount of these evils at any given time, very different estimates may be formed; nor can we pretend to partake in that liveliness of alarm, as to their present prevalence, which is felt by some persons, and on which the objection we are considering proceeds. But that is a question which it may not be necessary to settle. For, granting the objector all he can False teachers, the argument says, are abroad; and therefore we must be cautious how we distribute the unexpounded Bible. Now, if the result of withholding the Bible were to withhold the false teacher also,-if, by restricting the circulation of the records of truth, we restrained at the same time the propagation of falsehood and error, if the sending (as our present author and others have recommended) all our Bibles to foreign parts, had the effect of banishing all our heretics and enthusiasts to foreign parts also, there might then be some meaning in this argument. For it might then be plausibly maintained that we should do better to expose our poorer brethren to the chance of perishing for lack of knowledge, than to the certainty of being seduced into an abuse of knowledge;-or, in other words, we should rather expose them to the chance of losing themselves in the dark, than to the certainty of being misled in broad day. But the misfortune is, that the argument proceeds on a supposition precisely contrary to all this. By the very supposition of the argument, the lower classes are surrounded by deceiving guides whom we cannot remove from them. By the very supposition of the argument, therefore, though the Bible is taken away, the false teacher is left behind. That is, we maywithdraw the words of truth, but we leave behind the words of falsehood. These wily deluders,these seducers with their thousand arts,-these apostles of mischief,-cannot be expected to lose their persuasive powers, because the poor lose their Bibles. Familiar as the argument represents them to be with the common people, and always having access to them, and always on the alert, they must have innumerable modes of producing impression which would still remain unimpaired. What then would be gained by the absence of the Bible? Magnify the obscurities and difficulties of that sacred volume as we will,-still it must have some tendency to enlighten the vulgar, some profitableness for the instruction of the ignorant and the reproof of the sinful, some power of making the foolish wise unto salvation. The poor man, whose eyes were on the Bible, while his ears were assailed by heretical deceptions, could not but sometimes feel the contrast between the text and the commentary. The misrepresenting teacher would not fare the better for being confronted with that which he misrepresented. What then, we repeat, would be gained by the absence of the Bible? Gained? What rather would not be lost? For, evidently, the question no longer is, whether the lower classes shall run the risk of losing their way in the dark or being deluded in broad day, but whether or not they shall be subjected to the double ruin of darkness and delu sion at once. It may materially strengthen this view of the subject, to reflect that no system we can adopt will take the Scriptures from the hands of these alleged false teachers, however we may succeed in withholding them from the persons who are to be taught. The heretic will still possess them; and, by dealing them out to his hearers in such portions as may suit his designs, by exhibiting in a detached state passages justly intelligible only in their connection,-by tearing text from context, doctrine from practice, and feeling from doctrine,will indeed be able to distort and dislocate the rule of life into an engine of destruction. This is not matter of surmise, but of experience. Before the Reformation, the most grievous errors corrupted the reli gion and morality of the Christian world. How did those errors orfginate, and how were they established? They were produced, and they were confirmed, mainly by this, that certain privileged persons had the Bible in their hands, while the bulk of the people had it not. The laity knew the Scriptures only from such partial views of them as the hierarchy were pleas ed to afford. The essence of the mischief, therefore, consisted, not in complete suppression, but in garbled disclosure. And how, on the other hand, was this unhappy system subverted? Not by contending against it with its own weapons, or arraying against it its own arts; not by rival garblings or a counter-monopoly; but by entire and unreserved and uncompro mising publication; by giving truth a full and a fair field; by calling on all men to search the Scriptures; and by rendering the Scripturesintelligible to all, that they might be searched. It was therefore justly said by Chillingworth, that THE BIBLE ONLY is the religion of Protestants; and this emphatic declaration has very naturally been appealed to by the advocates of the Bible Society. The Bishop of Carlisle, however, now assures his clergy, that the declaration of Chillingworth could never have been so appealed to, had it been properly understood; and, to prove this, he exhibits it with the context at large, and adds a commentary of his own. avoid any imputation of unfairness, we will readily transcribe both text and commentary : Το Bibles without note or comment, according to the present view of things. He had not an idea of it. He was contending against the practice of the Romish Church, in extolling the traditions which had been received, as of equal anthority with the written word, and in thus adopting both a written and unwritten word of God, and in short making the doctrines of the Council of Trent, and not the Bible, the rule of faith. In this respect his argument was invincible, and sufficient too; as it obviated all the particulars of the case about which the dispute was held. But his great name, with regard to the use of the Bible without note or comment, ought not to have any farther application, than to this his expressly intended respect and refer ence. "Judge ye yourselves : 'It remains "It is in the Sixth Book of Chillingworth's prudent and immortal work on the religion of Protestants, where he is particularly contending that Protestants are not heretics, that this notable say ing of his is to be found. how,' saith he to his opponent, 'that I should shew, that many reasons of moment may be alleged for the justification of Protestants, which are dissembled by you, and not put into the balance. Know then, sir, that when I say, the religion of Protestants is in prudence to be preferred before yours; as on the one side, I do not understand by your religion, the doctrine of Bellarmine or Baronius, or any other private man amongst you, nor the doctrine of the Sorbonne, or of the Jesuits, or of the Dominicans, or of any other particular company among you, but that wherein you all agree, or profess to agree, the doctrine of the Coun cil of Trent: so accordingly, on the other side, by the religion of Protestants, I do not understand the doctrine of Luther, or Calvin, or Melanethon, nor the Confession of Angusta, or Geneva, nor the Catechism of Heidelberg, nor the Articles of the Church of England, no nor the Harmony of the Protestant Confessions; but that wherein all agree, and which they all subscribe with a greater harmony, as a perfect rule of their faith and actions; that is, THE BIBLE. THE BIBLE, I say, The Bible only is the religion of Protestants. Whatsoever else they believe besides it, and the plain refragable indubitable consequences of it, well may they hold it as a matter of opinion; but as matter of faith and religion, neither can they with CHRIST. OBSERV. No. 181. coherence to their own grounds, believe it themselves, nor require the belief of it of others, without most high and most schismatical presumption.' Chap. 6. Part i. Sect. 56. "And now what is the intent of the whole of this celebrated passage? To rebut Roman-Catholic arguments, and the upholding of the Council of Trent as a rule of faith: to oppose the Bible to tradition; the revelations of God to the decrees of men. But there was not an idea of the unexplained Bible's terminating any difference, which might have arisen between Bellarmine and the doctors of the Sorbonne, and the Jesuits or the Dominicans amongst themselves: nor any difference which may subsist between the various companies of Protestants one with another. The whole design is to place the Bible in contradistinction to the Romish authorities, to the doctrines of the Council of Trent." pp. 12-14. It must be conceded to the right reverend author, that Chillingworth was not, directly or speci fically, recommending the system, in support of which he has been cited. The expediency of an associated distribution of the sacred text was not the question immediately in his view, when he wrote the celebrated passage under consideration. But neither was that the question immediately in the view of Lactantius, when he wrote a passage which the Bishop has elsewhere referred to as pointedly applicable to the subject. This example, then, proves that an eminent departed writer may very fairly be appealed to as an authority in a question of which "he had not an idea;" though certainly it does not prove that the appeal will necessarily be successful. With what effect the learned prelate objects to the appeal now in question, will best be perceived by conceding the truth of all that he says respecting Chillingworth's sentiments. Chillingworth, it seems, did not mean to set up the unexpounded Bible as decisive of the questions in dispute among Protestants. Chillingworth, therefore, is not to be quoted as an authority G |