« ElőzőTovább »
have abited the great family of Christiaos." Nor is this all. It is these sentiments, containing such a gross and palpable violation of the fundamental principle and comprehensive spirit of the Bible Society, that are pronounced by the Committee of the Calcutta Association 1o be " troly Christian and Catholic."? It is the atterance of these sentiments that is hajied with delight
as a bigbly auspicious sign of the times." And it is the “ lovely spirit” they dis. play which it is confidently hoped " will eocreasingly prevail.” We do not at present object to this lag, guage considered in itself, but as being wholls oosuir. able to the character and professions of the lostitution that adopts it. To meet with it in a Chorob, or Independent, Baptist Missionary Report would neither surprise nor offend us : but to give place to such language in a Bible Society Report is to prosti. lute to sectarian purposes an lostitation which claims, and deserves, aod, but for this and similar deviations from its principles, would oblain the universal suf. frages of Christians, We do noi, therefore, cunsider that we are unreasonable in demandiog either that the Caicotta Bible Assuciation gwall publicly avow that it
has been formed for the express purpose of propagating Trinitarian and Calvinistic doctrines; or that in its future proceedings and Reports it shall refrain from the use of language which wany Christiaos, and even some who bave liberally contribated to its funds, can regard in no other light than as an attack upon the denomination to wbich they belong.
It will perhaps be replied that Unitarians aro pot reckoned amoog those " trae believers of all deno. minatioos" who it is confi. dently hoped “ will more and more approximate to each oiber," aod that therefore no deference is due to their scraples, no compromise is to be made with their errors. It is to be hop. ed that bigotry and yocha. ritableness have not gained so firm a footing in Calcutta as soch a defence would imply ; botif such a defence should be made, it wonld at once determine the realchar. acter of the Calcutta Bible Association. Uoitarians indeed inight urge that, if they chose to imitate bad example, they could with as great ease and justice deny the Christiau oame or char. acter to Trinitarians, as Trinitarians deny it to them. Bat such recrimi. vatiops would place them 100 much on a level with
those whose principles and spirit they disapprove, and would lead, only by a wore unpleasant course, to a resaltrendered previously necessary, viz. the entire withdrawal of their subscriptions and sapport from an Association which has 80 far lost sight of its proper object as to erect itself into a tribunal of faith and conscience. But we again say that we hope better tbings, aod that although Dothing can be advanced to justify the language we have quoted, yet that in future tbe practice of the Associa. tion will more fully come up to its professions,
The next passage worthy of notice is cootained in the Appendix, No II, p. 20:
“ He has a. pretty correct idea of tbe principles of our blessed religion : but there are certain doctrines wbich be yet stumbles at, such as the Trin. ity. This, however, should not surprize vs, for there are many among us even, to whom it is a rock of offence and a stone of stumbling.' On the other hand, he invariably ad. mics of the justice of God, and begins to stayger at the idea of a sioper's beiog saved mere. ly on the score of mercy.'
The Rev. D. Schmid, one of the Secretaries of the Calcatta Bible Association, addressed a Circular to the Missionaries in which they " were requested to com. municate any facts respecto ing the readiness of the Na.
tives to receive the Scrips
It is evidently quite with in the province of a Bible Secretary to inquire of Miss sionaries respecting the readiness of the gatives to receive the Scriptures" bęg cause the circulation of the Scriptores! is the express object for which Bible Socor ieties are instituted. But the interpretation of the Scripturex is no part of that object : on tbe contrary it is in direct terms disavowed, and therea fore the Bible Secres tary seeips to have forgot ten both to whom he was writing and in wbat character he wrole, when he're quested to be informed by the Missionaries of“ any io. stances wherein the copies distribuied appeared productive of spiritual good."! How could a Missionary rc, ply to such an inquiry wide out exbibitio, his owo pe.
enliar views of the sense of Seripture ? What one Migsi. onary reckons spiritual GOOD another may reckon spiritu. al evil. Of this we have an example in the extract that has been quoted. The wri. ter represents a respectable Moghulinquirer as unhappi. ly objecting to the doctrine of the Trinity and erroneously seeking to be saved" merely on the score of mercy.” Now if the Secretary's Circular had been addressed to a Unitarian Missionary, and if he had happened to meet with the same Moghol inquirer, bow different the staiemepis his reply would have contained. He would have expressed in the Bible SeCretary the pleasure be had e'xperienced in conversing with a respectable Mussol. man who was willing to receive and read the Scriptures, and who had no other objection to Christianity except what was created by the doctrine of the Trinity--an objeciion which of course was at once removed by informing bim that this was no doctrine of Chris. tianity, bota gross and palpable corruption of one of jis fundamental principles. He would also, oo donbt, bave stated the gratification which he had received from observing his træly Chri«. tian state of mind, since he professed to hope for sale vation, not through his owa
merits, or throogh the mea rits of any oiber being, båt simply and entirely through the vadeserved and prrchased mercy of God. Woold a reply contains ing these or similar state. meots have
been admitted into the Appendix and referred to with an probation in the Report ? Such a reply wonid tainly have been of a moch
“ pleasing nalure," in the estimation of some of the Subscribers, than that actoally communicated. Bui no, The BibleSecretary, and Couimittee, and Association, would, at a single glaoce, bave perceived that all this was exceedingly irrelevant to the object of a Bible Society. Why can They not, with equal clear. Dess, perceive tbat what ig written in favour of the Tri. pity &c. is just as irrelevant to that object as wbat is written against it? One more remark on this
The writer of tho letter affirms,that “there are many among us ever. to whom it (the Tripity) is ' a rock of offence and a stone of stombling.'' The language of prophecy bere quoted is used by the Apostles of Christ in reference to those Jews who rejecied Jesas as the Messiah: it would be difficolt to say in what sense it is here emplos. ed. If it is used by this write selves to the one God and Saviour revealed in the Bible, his translator explains this ratber obscore pbrase in
ter in the same
seose in wbicb the Apostles used it, and if, therefore, the “mapy” spoken of are those who, reject Christianity altogether, then how serious the responsibility of those who sopport a doctrine which, pot oply its enemies cop. teod is onscriptoral and onreasonable, but which even its friends admit is attended witb the most fatal consequences
in driving “many"into infidelity. But if the language bere employed is meant only to describe those Christiuns who reject the Trinity, then, whilst we are glad to learn from such a quarter that there are so “many” of this description, we consider it in no other light than as holding up this confessedly oumerons class of fellow Christians to public odium, and tbat too where all
party distinctions should be ookoowo and all party feelings banished.
The only other passage upon which we will stop to animadvert is an explanatory note by the Translator of Dr. Van Ess's Cricular already mentioned, found in the Appendix, No 111, p. 22. The Catholic Professor having expressed his hope that those Protestant Chris. tians who differ from rach other in more than external matters will re unite them.
“ He alludes bere to the prevalence of Socinian and Deistical principles in Germany among such as call tiemselves Protestants."
litbis is a just interpretation of the allosion, and we see no reason to question it, then it is one viber proof thaithe zeal for which this Roman Caibolic eleresman has been so much laaded in Bible Society Reports is directed bot merely to the dissemination of tho Scriptures, the only legiti
object of Bible Societies, but also to the spread of his own peculiar views of the Christian sys. tem. We would be the last to do any thing to prevent him from osing bis atmost endeavours io diffnsing what he believes to be di. vine troth; bot we think that these endeavours would be more honourable to him. self if they were not made onder the covert of tho Bi. ble Society's pame and in the character of a Bible Sne ciety agent; and that the Bible Society, if it would
to the Christian world the entire and anal. loyed advantages which it is fitted to impart, should discourage in those whom
it aids every soch aberration from its genuino principles and spirit.
But it is with the Translaior of Van Ess's Circular, wbo we understand to be the Rev. D. Schmid, and with the Association whichi has incorporated his explapatory pole into its Repori, that we are at present principally concerned. The lan. guage of the Circular was sofficiently general to bave oscaped the notice of most readers, and therefore to rescue ibis hidden allusion from neglect, aud to give full point to its sectarian meaniog, the Translator, a Bible Society Secretary, must needs append a note whicb coutains as much misrepresentation on the one hand, and concession on the other, as could rea. sonably be expected io so brief a notice. We happen to know a little more of the state of religion in Germany tban can
be learned from this pote; bot let us suppose that we know nothing more than it ioforms us. Wbat then, is the amount of the information we receive? We are told that there is a
prevalence" of certain principles in Germany mong such as call ihemselves Protestants." It is admit. ted, iben, that those who have embraced the princi. ples referred to are numer. ous, and ibat they profess
to be Christiuns, ProtesTANT Christians.
These are very plain and important concessions. And in what way is this numerous bo. dy of Protestant Christo iaus described ? It is in the first place insinuated by the Trauslator that they call themselves Protestants but that they are not so in reality. That is, they hold certain sentiments which some other Protestants do not hold, or they rejeci cer. taip doctrines which soma other Protestants believe, and therefore they are not Protestanis, Admirablo reasuning it must be con. fessed; for on the principle these self-called Protestants might with equal justice deoy the name to those who deny it to them. But if they are not Protestants, what are they? They are Deisis or at least iofeet. ed wiib “ Deistical principles.” Diistical principles are such as lead either, first, to a belief in natural reli. gion, or secondly to a rejection of revealed religion. In which ofthese seoses this phrase is here used it is impossible for us to divine. Perhaps in oeither of them, but probably in a sense difu ferent from both. Every one who does not think, and believe, and profess with the multicude is a Deist, or Athiesi,or something worse, if worse can be,