or promote the adoption of a common scheme of exposition by shewing ourselves jealous of the text which is to be expounded.

These then are our three propositions:-It is an object with us to circulate essential and fundamental truths: it is not an absolute object with us, to circulate truths not essential but we do not exclude the hope that this also may be an ultimate effect of our labours. In so speaking, we give only our own views; but it is certainly our belief that, on these grounds, we should be met by a great majority of the members of the Bible Society.

And this course of remark naturally conducts us to the only topic on which we have yet to trouble the reader. Why should the Bishop of Carlisle be apprehensive that the Bible Society will injure the interests of our national establishment? In his view, as in ours, the Church of England, both in essentials and in less important respects, is built on the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets. Is it possible, then, that the abundant dissemination of the apostolic and prophetic writings should impair the influence of that establishment? Or will a close inspection of the massy foundation, teach men to distrust the solidity of the lofty superstructure?

In the eyes of an impartial observer, the system of the BibleSo ciety would probably appear peculiarly agreeable to the genius of the Church of England. That church has attached no comments inseparably to the sacred text; for the mischievous consequences of such a policy had been made sufficiently flagrant by history. Neither is it her principle to supply copies of the Bible for the individual use of the numerous population comprised within the sphere of her influence; for (among other objections) the provisions of funds for such an object would have been impracticable. But, neither supplying

such copies nor annexing such comments, she yet loudly and authoritatively enjoins on all her followers the private and domestic perusal of the holy Scriptures. Of course, all are bound to procure copies, who can; and, if they cannot, into what imagination could it enter, that they violate any duty, moral or ecclesiastical, by obtaining assistance for so excellent a purpose from the benevolence of their brethren?

--

It has, however, been contended that the Dissenters who have joined the Bible Society, must naturally indulge the expectation that the proceedings of that institution will operate, however silently and gradually, the supercession of the Church of England; and that this is good reason why a churchman should tremble, Even admitting, however, for the sake of argument, that such an expectation is entertained by the persons in question, on what grounds should a conscientious churchman adopt the same opinion? The Society is severely confined to the use of a single weapon the holy Scriptures:from such a weapon, what has a scriptural church to dread? The hopes and anticipations of the separatist may perhaps be very consistent; possibly he believes that the Bible will be against the church, because he believes that the church is against the Bible. why should we, who dissent from his belief on the one point, concur with it at the same moment on the other? Why should we commit the monstrous contradiction of pronouncing his hopes to be wellfounded, though we know the only foundation on which they rest to be sand? Or, in other words, while we flatly deny his premises, why should we obstinately embrace his conclusion?

-

But

Some distinguished advocates of the Bible Society have suggested a consideration on this subject which well merits the attention of the candid. If the coalition of Church

men and Dissenters in the Bible Society imports any concession on either side, it is on that of the Dissenters; since it is only the authorised version of the Scriptures which the Society circulates in this country. The slightest reflection will shew the correctness of this remark. Our national translation, being the work of Churchmen, is naturally tinctured with an ecclesiastical phraseology, which, with whatever propriety adopted, cannot be supposed altogether pleasing to a Non-conformist. Many of the Dissenters, perhaps, would be disposed to banish the word bishop, which so frequently occurs, and to substitute some term less forcibly conveying hierarchical associations. The Baptists contend that the Greek words rendered baptize, baptism, and baptist, should rather have been translated immerse, immersion, and immerser. These terms, they allege, would have been more critically exact; and it is plain that the familiar use of them in the English New Testament would have afforded a prima facie argument against baptism by sprinkling, which the adoption of the technical terms employed in their stead has the effect of excluding. It is no question with us, what may be the validity of such objections to the national Bible; but the members of the church will act only candidly in remembering that such objections are in fact waved by the separatists who subscribe to the Bible Society.

These remarks apply with peculiar force to one division of persons calling themselves Christians, who have, in a few instances, joined the Society, and whose junction with it, partial as it has been, has occasioned much discussion and animadversion. It is not necessary to inform our readers that, from all the distinctive tenets of the Socinians, the creed of the Christian Observer is completely" alien and abhorrent." The motives and the consciences of men must be left to

the judgment of a Higher Tribunal, but their avowed principles are matters of human cognizance. Concerning these we have formed a very decisive opinion in the case of the persons in question; and the result is, that no sect, religious or anti-religious, exists, with whom we hold so little communion of doctrine, or sympathy of sentiment;

" Nulla nobis cum illis societas, sed potius summa distractio;"—yet with this exception, that we feel no scruple in supporting warmly an institution to which a few of them contribute; for the truth is, that, in this truly "novel union and combination," the compromise of consistency is not on our part, but on theirs. The orthodox Christia no more surrenders his faith to Priestley or to Belsham, by uniting his subscriptions for such a purpose with those of a Socinian, than, by uniting them with the donations of Jews and Mohammedans (both of which classes have occasionally contributed to the Bible Society), he professes to embrace the legends of the Talmud or the Koran. Ou the contrary, nothing can be clearer than that it is the Jew, the Socinian, and the Mohammedan, who make the concession in such a case, by assisting in the dissemination of a system of religious doctrine which all of them pronounce to be false and idolatrous.

The Bishop of Carlisle is pleased to declare, that the unexplained Bible cannot successfully be "opposed" to any division of English Dissenters, except the Roman Catholics. The Socinians, therefore, are not to be excepted. But, perhaps, the Socinians may themselves be the best judges on this subject; and, when it is remembered of the acknowledged leaders of that sect, that, not content with placing the sacred text under a heavy guard of notes, comments, and glosses of all descriptions, they deem it expedient to expunge one half of it, and to misconstrue the other, some idea may be formed what sort of an

"opponent" the Socinians have found in the unexplained Bible.

The Country Clergyman," in his Address to Lord Teignmouth, is pleased to observe, that "the Socinian will make his Bible speak and spread Socinianism." Most truly he will-so far, at least, as the New Testament is concerned; the "Improved Version" of which affords a tolerable proof, both of the willingness of the Socinian for the purpose described, and also what sort of making the holy Scriptures dl take, before they become proficits in talking Socinianism. Besic's the injurious effects anticipated from the union and combination of Churchmen and Dissenters, there are certain other grounds on which the Bishop of Carlisle founds. his conclusion of danger to the church from the Bible Society. At the meetings, public or private, of the Society, "many unwarrantable things are often said, reflecting upon our church or its ministers."

- The complaint is not new; but

• The Socinian version of the New Testament has drawn many able advo

cates of the faith into the field.

We

bave formerly noticed among these, the deeply learned and powerful publication of the Bishop of St. David's; than whom no prelate has deserved better of the church, or of the Bible Society. It has lately been our happiness to read the enlarged remarks of Dr. Magee, the Dean of Cork, on the same subject, as

contained in the new edition of his work on the Scripture Doctrines of Atonement and Sacrifice. This masterly writer does indeed assail the enemy ἔγχει τε μεγάλῳ καὶ χειρὶ παχείη. His land is as crushing as that of Horsley. We cannot help recommending to the learn. ed and orthodox reader this specimen of victorious ratiocination. At the same time, a doubt may, perhaps, be entertained whether the author might not advantageously have tempered his truly Bentleian vigour of disquisition and argument with somewhat more forbearance of manner. It is, however,

but fair to refer the reader to the au

thor's own defence on this point. See Vol. II. part. i. p. 412.

CHRIST. OBSERV, No. 181.

Sua quisque exempla debet æquo anino pati."

The Bible Society has been delitérately stigmatized as a conspiracy against the Church of England. The charge necessarily imputed the grossest wickedness and hypocrisy to one part of the subscribers, the most despicable folly and rashness to the rest. Between these alternatives, if the parties accused were, in any instance, betrayed into expressions of impatience or resentment, yet surely it did not exactly lie in the mouth of their accusers to rebuke them. It would be a little hard to fall on men with the heaviest criminations, and then blame them for crying out. The truth, however, is, that the assailants have had nothing to complain of, beyond the ordinary sharpness of polemical encounter, which, however deserving of repression, widely differs from a moral accusation.. The forbearance, in particular, of the Dissenting members of the Society, under the rude attacks in question, has been beyond praise. The Bishop of Carlisle is pleased to assert, that, at the public meetings of the Society, unwarrantable reflections are often cast on the church and its ministers. In giving such accounts of scenes where, we regret to say, he has never been have been requisite. Of some of a little more caution might present, the ministers of the church-namely, of those ministers who have falsely accused the Society and all its members in a body-strong complaints may sometimes have been made; and we only wish they had been made unwarrantably. But, when it is asserted that reflec tions are habitually cast at those meetings on the church, or on its members as such, we positively deny the truth of the charge. We positively deny that such reflections

H

have habitually, or frequently, or occasionally, or (we believe we might add) ever been made at those meetings; and, if the accusation is persisted in, let the evidence be produced.

Probably the right reverend prelate, whose language is not always the most precise, intended his complaint to apply, not to the meetings of the general society, but to those of minor associations. At one or two of these, an instance may possibly have occurred of sentiments indiscreetly expressed; but, considering the number of these associations, we are well persuaded that such instances have been extremely rare-so rare as to be in fact evanescent-and that the reports which have been circulated of them are shameful exaggerations. It is to be feared that the Bishop may have been misled by the writings of one conspicuous disputant on the subject of the Bible Society:-a person, whose disengenuous perseverance in charges confessedly founded on anonymous information, after the parties affected by such charges have flatly denied them, and Irave challenged him for his proofs, ought for ever to exclude him from the pale of honourable controversy. Why then should those, who would disdain to follow his example, condescend to rely on his authority?

In taking our leave of the Bishop of Carlisle on this occasion, we certainly cannot but admire the general good temper with which (mistaken as we deem him) his Charge is composed; but must, at the same time, acknowledge that the satisfaction which the manner of his address afforded is much

more than compensated by our regret at the opinions it contains. We feel afresh afflicted by every new instance in which a prelate of the English Church commits the weight of his authority in opposition to such a cause; and sincerely should we rejoice, if the right reverend person, on whose work we have been animadverting, could be induced to re-consider and re-cast his sentiments on this most important subject. The Bishop speaks with much piety of the long life with which he has been favoured. No circumstance, we presume to think, would crown that life with a happier termination, than his concurrence, even yet, in the measures which he has so unhappily condemned. Not wholly declining to entertain this hope, may we be allowed, in conclusion, respectfully to set before him a striking declaration from one of the most venerable of his brethren, in the Episcopate of another communion, the Archbishop Metropolitan of the Russian Greek Church :"It is extremely pleasing and gratifying to every Christian, and particularly TO EVERY CHRISTIAN BISHOP, to share in the sacred intentions of so beneficent a community: the object of which is, to spread among the people of the earth the salutary light of Divine Revelation; to illumine their understandings, not with earthly, but with heavenly and spiritual, wisdom; to form their hearts to the laws of God; and to extend and consolidate the kingdom of Jesus Christ."

* Owen's History of the British and Foreign Bible Society, Vol. II. p. 426. ·

To the Editor of the Christian Observer. Hawthorn Hill, Bracknell, Berks, Dec. 13th, 1816.

SIR,-From the respect I enter

tain for the professed objects of your publication, it is painful to me to impute unfairness to it on a sub. ject closely connected with those

objects. If the Reviewer of my work in your last Number (which has just reached me) had stated the cature of my argument against Mr. Malthus with the same fairness as he has stated that of Mr. Malthus himself, I should have had no reason to complain, whatever the conclusion might have been. But when, after a clear and concise statement of Mr. Malthus's argument, he proceeds(I presume through inadvertence) to mistate and misrepresent mine, entirely avoiding the real and obvious point of difference between us; however I might be tempted to feel gratification as an author, I do feel much sorrow as a man, anxious only for the discovery of truth on a subject deeply affecting the temporal and eternal interests of mankind. In support of the imputation I have made, I think that I might refer to almost every page in the part of the Review yet published; but I will be satisfied with pointing out to you one instance only. In p. 736, I am asserted "to ADMIT DISTINCTLY the tendency of population to increase indefinitely, while the productive powers of the earth are limited!" And this assertion is supported by a quotation, beginning at the middle of a sentence in the 107th page of my work, and which, WHEN THUS TAKEN, appears to convey such an admission. But I beg you, as a fair and impartial man, to refer to that page of my work, and you will find the passage to be no admission on my part, but merely an hypothetical statement of an adversary's argument made at the outset of a chapter, which I immediately devote the whole of the same chapter to answer. Surely, sir, such a mode of making out a case is unworthy of a journal professing your principles. I must add, too, that it is the less excusable, inasmuch as, among the many imperfections of my work, it can scarcely be accused of not having shewn, very fully, that its OBJECT is almost exclusively to disprove

Mr. Malthus's assertion concerning the indefinite increase of population. To endeavour, therefore, to fix upon me a contradiction, by falsely stating that I FULLY ADMITTED such increase, is a course of criticism which I should scarcely have expected to discover in your journal. I wish I could say that the instance now pointed out is the only one of the same nature in the article to which I refer.

Having taken up my pen, I am induced to trouble you with a very few words concerning the real nature of my argument in opposition Mr. Malthus. I admit that his principles give (as your Reviewer expresses himself) "a clear and elementary view" of the subject,

as the author sees it; and if his view were the true one, this would be a great advantage. But if it be untrue, I apprehend that the philosophical and imposing manner in which it is advanced only renders it the more dangerous. Now I have ventured to deny its TRUTH, in one of its fundamental propositions-viz. that the natural force of the principle of population, if left perfectly free, is capable of doubling the actually existing numbers of people as rapidly in the advanced states of society as in the American Colonies;--and I have stated, that I believe the gratuitous assumption of this capability to be the great deception advanced in Mr. Malthus's work. It necessarily leads his readers, and has in fact led many of them, to suppose that the natural force of the principle of population, as established by the Creator, is greater than in fact it is; and to despair of the efficacy of any moral means of ameliorating the condition of mankind in opposition to it, when the powers of the soil become contracted from full cultivation. The TRUTH or falsehood, however, of the proposition, and not its consequences, or the mode of enunciating it, is the real question. I have endeavoured to impeach its truth, by shewing that