A SPEECH,

DELIVERED AT THE SECOND ANNIVERSARY MEETING OF THE LEICESTER AUXILIARY BIble Society, APRIL 13, 1812.

PERMIT me to say that I heartily concur in the sentiments so forcibly expressed by the respectable speakers who have preceded me. The more I reflect upon the constitution, operation, and genius of the Bible Society, the more is my conviction confirmed of its excellence and utility. It is matter of surprise to me, that an institution so admirable, and so beneficial, should meet with the least opposition from the professors of our common Christianity, when the propriety of making the Scriptures as extensively known as possible might be supposed to pass among Protestants for an incontrovertible maxim. To imagine such a measure can be carried into effect without being productive of much good, and still more to augur mischievous consequences as the probable result, approaches so near to an impeachment of the perfection and sufficiency of the divine oracles, that to my poor judgment it appears difficult, if not impossible, to distinguish them. For my part, I am at an utter loss to conceive of a revelation from heaven that must not be trusted alone; of a rule of life and manners which in the same breath is declared to be perfect, and yet so obscure and incompetent that its tendency to mislead shall be greater than its tendency to conduct in the right path; of a fountain of truth (and the only original fountain, as our opponents themselves allow) more calculated, when left to its silent operation, to send forth bitter waters than sweet. If these must appear to a candid and impartial mind untenable and contradictory propositions, then must the chief objections of our opponents fall to the ground, and their prognostics of danger, from the operations of the Bible Society, be pronounced chimerical and unfounded. Whoever weighs the arguments of our opponents must be convinced that they all turn upon the following supposition-that the Scriptures are so ambiguous and obscure, that when left to themselves they are more likely to generate error than truth, to foment division than to produce unanimity and agreement. If this implies no reflection on the excellence of the Bible, and the wisdom of its Divine Author, what, I will ask, can imply such a reflection? And if this be not admitted, how is it possible for a moment to entertain a scruple respecting the propriety of giving them the most extensive circulation?

To dread the indiscriminate perusal of the Scriptures, and, under pretence of tender consideration for the weakness of the common people, prohibit their circulation, has always been regarded as one of the most detestable features of popery. From the very dawn of the Reformation it has been stigmatized by Protestants of every description, as constituting a principal branch of the mystery of iniquity. But wherein does the maxim of our opponents differ from that of the papists on this subject? If any difference can be perceived, it is certainly not in the nature but in the extension of the principle. The papists contend that the common people are not to be intrusted with the Bible at all; while our opponents assert that they are not to be trusted with it alone. The former instruct their votaries to shut their ears against the voice of God altogether; the latter insist that it is dangerous to hear it except in immediate conjunction with their own interpretation. Surely this must be considered as strange language in a Protestant country, and most offensive to Protestant ears.

What is the reason that the Scriptures may not be trusted alone? "Why," say our opponents, "they are liable to be misinterpreted, and wrested to countenance the respective opinions and practices of different sects and parties." Be it so: we admit this to be possible; but what remedy can be devised to obviate this evil? Is their use to be entirely proscribed? "No," say our opponents, "but they must be invariably accompanied by another book, which may be considered in the light of an authorized commentary." But we would ask again, are we to judge of this commentary; or are we to receive it simply on the ground of authority, and upon the principle of implicit faith; or is any exercise of private judgment permitted to us? If it be replied that it is not, this is neither more nor less than open and barefaced popery. If the judgment is to be exerted at all, and every thing is not to be taken upon trust, their commentary must be judged of by some criterion, and what can that be but the Scriptures? The Scriptures must then, after all, be appealed to, before it is possible to determine on the correctness of the commentary; and thus we are led back to the precise point from which we set out, that is, the examination of the Scriptures. According to the views of our opponents, we are either to admit the principle of implicit faith to its utmost extent, which is open and avowed popery; or we are first to interpret the Scriptures by the commentary, and then judge of the commentary by the Scriptures. This is the circle out of which it is impossible for our opponents to escape, and they may be lashed round it to all eternity! Let it once be admitted that the sacred volume is the only standard of truth, and the only infallible directory in practice, and it will necessarily follow that all other modes of instruction must be tried by it; and consequently, that every idea of giving it a corrective, or a companion, call it which you please, must be futile and absurd. I am persuaded I am speaking the sentiments, on this occasion, of every individual present at this meeting, and not abetting the views of any particular party. I trust none in the present assembly will do me the injustice of supposing that reflection is intended upon the liturgy: though a Protestant dis

any

senter, I am by no means insensible to its merits. I believe that the evangelical purity of its sentiments, the chastised fervour of its devotion, and the majestie simplicity of its language, have combined to place it in the very first rank of uninspired compositions. The maxim we wish to establish, as amply sufficient to overrule the objections of our opponents, is simply that which in the hands of the immortal Chillingworth was found capable of demolishing the whole fabric of popery. "The Bible," said he, "the Bible alone, is the religion of Protestants." The conduct of those who have distinguished themselves by their opposition to the Bible Society is also inconsistent in another point. While they deprecate the operations of the Bible Society in circulating the Bible alone in this country, they applaud this very identical measure in its application to foreign parts. This appears to me a very extraordinary conduct. Their proceeding can only be justified on the admission, that notwithstanding the possible perversion of the Scripture to ill purposes, it is calculated, when left to itself, to do good on the whole. In this instance, it is conceded that its use more than counterbalances the possible inconveniences arising from its abuse; a clear surplus of good is contemplated as the probable result, for, without such an expectation, how can the measure in question be entitled to commendation for a moment? I would ask, then, what principle of reasoning is that which will justify an opposition to the scheme of action which, it is admitted, is likely on the whole to do good, although it may possibly be accompanied with a portion of evil allowedly inferior. Are not all the calculations of prudence founded on a comparison of advantages and disadvantages? Have not all the plans of benevolence which have ever been devised proceeded on a necessary compromise with contingent evils, where, if it can be demonstrated that these bear no proportion to the good likely to result, every requisition is satisfied, and every reasonable suffrage secured? Are we to sit still, and attempt nothing for the improvement of our species, until we are mathematically certain that nothing can possibly spring from our efforts but pure, unmingled, defecated good; and this in a world abounding with imperfections of all sorts, where evil is so widely diffused as to insinuate itself into every mode of action, and every element of enjoyment? If this is not pretended, why should it be deemed necessary for the operations of the Bible Society to furnish an exception; or that it should be perfectly free from that portion of inconvenience and evil which cleaves to all the works of men? When our enemies object to the distribution of the Scriptures alone in this country, and at the same time applaud the same measures with respect to foreign parts, they surely forget that the same objections apply, and with equal force, to the latter as to the former proceeding. The obscurity of which they complain, which exposes them to the danger of being misinterpreted, their liability to be wrested to countenance error, heresy, and schism, are properties which, I presume, we shall not be very ready to ascribe to them. But, admitting them to possess these qualities, will they lose them by being conveyed to distant equntries? Is their tendency to be pronounced pernicious or salutary

according to the degrees of latitude and longitude? Are there not a variety of sects and parties on the Continent, as well as in Great Britain, to whose views the perversion of them may be rendered subservient? Is the information they afford in this country doubtful and obscure, and does it become at once clear and decisive when it is communicated in foreign parts? As our opponents seem to suppose they possess a valetudinarian habit, and require a very delicate management in this country, perhaps they imagine their constitution may be improved by a sea-voyage, and change of air!

Let it be carefully remembered, that the topics insisted upon by the objectors to the Bible Society are precisely those on which the papists have been wont to insist in their controversy with Protestants,-the obscurity of the Scriptures, the danger of misinterpretation, and the facility with which they may be wrested to the support of heresy and schism. It is surely little to the credit of our opponents, that they have no other weapons to attack us with but what have been undeniably forged in the camp of the Philistines. It would, unquestionably, be an ill omen to this country, if pleas drawn from the supposed insufficiency of Scripture should be again received, and become popular, which have been the principal means, in former ages, of involving the world in the darkness of superstition and idolatry. The perversion of the Bible can proceed only from the corruption of its readers :now, what is the remedy for this corruption but the Scriptures themselves? Have they who oppose our proceeding discovered, in the plenitude of their wisdom, any better corrective of the ill propensities of the heart, the attachment to vice, a conceit of superior understanding, and the love of change, which are the prolific sources of error, than those lively oracles which God himself has declared are able to make us wise unto salvation? "The heavens and the earth," it is true, "declare the glory of God, and the firmament showeth his handiwork." This effect, however, they must be understood to produce only in minds rightly disposed; for, in point of fact, they have been the innocent means of enticing millions to idolatry, while they never, as far as we know, reclaimed a single individual from that impiety. Hence the Psalmist, after celebrating these works of the Most High, directs our attention to a superior source of illumination, adding, "The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul." St. Paul congratulates Timothy upon his having known, from a child, the Holy Scriptures, which were able to make him, with faith in Christ, wise unto salvation. "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for correction, for reproof, for instruction in righteousness; that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto every good word and work." When I reflect on these passages, and others of the same import, I feel no difficulty in acceding to the declaration of Lord Francis Osborne, that a child might answer the ablest of our opponents, provided that child were a Christian.

It is asserted that we have no reason to expect the conversion of foreign nations in consequence of the sole perusal of the sacred volume; and in support of this opinion our adversaries urge a passage

in the Epistle of St. Paul to the Romans:-"How shall they call on him on whom they have not believed; and how shall they believe on him of whom they have not heard; and how shall they hear without a preacher ?" This inference appears to me to be founded upon an entire misconstruction of the passage: the apostle means to distinguish between the situation of those who are necessarily unacquainted with the character of the Saviour, and that of the persons to whom this information was conveyed; without intending to determine, or at least to lay any stress on, the precise mode of communication by which they obtained it. This is the more manifest from the extension of meaning in which the term preach is used by the same writer:-" For Moses," saith the same St. Paul, "hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogue every Sabbath-day." But such is the want of candour on the part of our adversaries, and such the unworthy artifices by which they pervert the language of Scripture from the simplicity and majesty of its meaning.

It might be naturally concluded, from this species of objection to the Bible Society, that our opponents were distinguished by a more than ordinary portion of zeal for the propagation of Christianity in foreign parts, by the aid of missionaries: I sincerely wish the result of an attention to facts were such as would justify this inference. The friends of the Bible Society, it is well known, are the warmest supporters of foreign missions; and the holy flame by which they are animated expands in all directions, stimulating them at once to the most active exertions in the distribution of the Scriptures at home, and for the support of the ministry of the gospel in pagan countries. When we compare with their conduct the coldness and indifference of our adversaries to this object, we are compelled to perceive that the invidious preference they give to one mode of doing good is not so much to be ascribed to their peculiar attachment to it, as to a desire of depreciating and depressing the importance of another.

Permit me to close these observations (for the length of which I ought already to apologize to the respectable audience I am addressing) with briefly noticing some of the indirect, though important, advantages likely to result from the establishment and progress of the Bible Society. The direct benefit we contemplate as the fruit of this institution will undoubtedly be reaped by that innumerable multitude, among all nations, who by means of it will be furnished with an opportunity of perusing the sacred volume; but there are other collateral advantages of the most important kind which have already been experienced in part, and may be expected to accrue still more hereafter, from the admirable society of which this is an auxiliary branch. Among these we cannot pass over its tendency to promote a good understanding among Christians of different denominations. It pretends not, indeed, to cast any light on the questions which have unhappily divided the Christian world; but as far as the objects of it are concerned, it consigns them to oblivion ;-it presents a common ground of co-operation, and a centre of union, without a sacrifice of principle, or the surrender of the smallest atom of the respective opinions and