THE BRITISH AND FOREIGN BIBLE SOCIETY; THE STUDY OF THE APOCRYPHA; RATIONALISM AND ROMANISM.
§1. The Bible Society.
SOME account of the means that have been employed by our Protestant countrymen of diffusing the Scriptures may be of interest. We shall confine ourselves to one great organization, which lies near to the heart of every enlightened British Christian,—the British and Foreign Bible Society. It was founded in 1804, to provide English Bibles and Testaments in the Authorized Version, without note or comment,' for circulation in the British dominions, and Bibles in other languages as opportunity should present itself. Through this strictly Protestant Society, the Bible has been carried to every quarter of the globe. It has been translated into 240 languages and dialects. To Turkey alone, the land of so many religions, the Bible is sent in thirty languages. Daily, 5000 copies are dispatched in all directions from the Bible House. The English edition can be purchased for the sum of sixpence.
An interesting account of the circulation of the Bible in some Roman Catholic countries where Romanist translations drive all others out of the field, may be seen in a Report. The Vulgate itself is not circulated by the Society, but half a dozen versions made from it.' `It was the reading of the Vulgate,' it is here truly said, which opened Luther's eyes to the truth, and brought him out of Rome. It was Wickliffe's translation of it into English, completed just five hundred years ago, which sowed the seeds of Protestantism in England.' And so Figueiredo's version is distributed in Portugal, of which the Report says, There is not the slightest doubt it is doing the work of the Lord, both enlightening minds and converting sinners.'
Of the Vulgate as a vehicle of truth in the Middle Ages, the following remarks of Cutts seem to be correct: 'It is one of the vulgarest of vulgar errors that the Scriptures were kept in Latin in the Middle Ages to keep them from the people; on the contrary they were circulated in Latin that everybody who could read might read them.' This would only enhance the wickedness of the policy of the modern Roman Church, in respect of the hindrances imposed upon the reading of the Bible by the laity.
A writer in Herzog's Encyclopedia remarks, The British Society has given birth to almost all the Bible Societies in Europe and America.'
The Society has of course had many an obstacle thrown in its way. Many have been the prejudices against it. Nothing has so harassed its operations as the question of the Canon: gladly do Roman Catholics snatch at the rejection by Protestants of the Apocrypha to disparage the Bible this Society circulates. Down to the year 1822, either the Apocrypha was included in the Book issued by it for use in Roman Catholic countries, or the circulation of the same was assisted by the Society. The consciences of the Committee were roused by the Edinburgh Auxiliary to feel the evil this must work.
Since 1827 one of the Regulations has been that no part of the funds of the Society shall be applied to the dissemination of any but the canonical Scriptures; so that no colporteur employed by it carries a single copy of the Apocrypha for sale.
Amongst those Continental societies which we regret to say still circulate the rejected books, is the Protestant Bible Society of Paris.
It does not appear that the Synods of the Greek Church, in Russia at least, are hostile to the spread of Bibles which omit the Apocrypha: Russian provincial governors have assisted the distribution of the Protestant Bible. The English are apt to think harshly of the Russian people, from a political animus, which alas continues to be mutual. As would appear from what we have said of the Catechism, the ecclesiastical leaders do not withhold the Bible from the people: Bibles in the vulgar tongue may be found in the cottages of the peasantry in all parts. Thus the Greek Church, of which the subjects of the Czar are the most considerable and influential members, has been faithful to the past in a greater degree than the Roman.
The earnest words of John Chrysostom (fourth century) have never lost their power: There can be no proof of the true faith and of Christianity, neither can there be other refuge of Christians that desire to know the truth, but the Holy Scriptures.... Formerly it was manifested in several ways which was the Church of Christ, but now there is no way of knowing which is the true Church of Christ save only by Scripture.' He further says, 'Heretics have in their schism all things which belong to Christ in truth,' amongst all else Christ Himself. How then can anyone wishing to know which is the true Church of Christ in such a confusing likeness do so save only by the Scriptures?' (Homily XLIX, on Matt. 24).
§2. The Study of the Apocrypha.
Such an acquaintance with the Apocrypha as would probably satisfy most of our readers may be obtained from a paper in the Bible Educator.' Plumptre there draws attention to a well-worn saying, which is a text of I Esdras iv. 41. The more learned reader might refer with advantage to Schaff's Encyclopedia, where the Literature' of the subject is set out. Davidson seeks to exalt books of the Apocrypha by lowering those of the Canon, which will not surprise. The fact that Paul quotes heathen poets, but leaves these other books to their obscurity, is lost upon Davidson. He thinks to find omissions in Canonical Books which vitiate their supremacy. He says, The doctrine of immortality clearly expressed in the Book of Wisdom is not in Ecclesiastes, neither is God once named in the Book of Esther.' Has this writer never learned the drift of these Books of Scripture which he thus impeaches? How would immortality fit a discourse from beginning to end upon what takes place under the sun'? What need can there be in the history of the Jewish princess of any mention of Elohim, Jehovah, or other Divine name? The present mysterious providence of God—without any name in the Hebrew—for the people of His inheritance, a people destined after judgment and suffering to be the executors of His government yet on earth, is the one theme. To this immortality, as such, bears no special relation. Warburton could not find the doctrine of immortality in the Pentateuch: why does not Davidson in this connection assail the Mosaic Books? People even who are rationalistic weary of the senseless attacks upon, for instance, the Fifth Book of the Law, just as they feel how equally groundless are the onslaughts upon the Fourth of the Gospel.
§ 3. Rationalism and Romanism Tend to the Same Result.
The analogy between Romanist uncertainty and Rationalist incredulity, or the similarity of the tactics employed by the votaries of superstition on the one hand, and of negative criticism on the other, has often been pointed out, and by none better than by the late Dr. McCaul. This learned man has said, The Rationalist and the Romanizer appear at first sight to be at the greatest possible distance from each other. But they have a common bond of union, and a common interest, the overthrow of the authority of the Bible-and they 'have a common spirit of bitter persecution, and they have a similarity of object, the establishment of their own authority. The Romanist says, Believe the Church, that is, the Priest. The Rationalist, Believe the Theologian. By neither is the laity allowed an opinion. Naturally. The only source whence the majority of laymen can form an independent and reasonable opinion on matters of religion is the Bible. The Romanist says, It is unintelligible without the Church. The Rationalist, that it cannot be understood without Theology, and adds that even if it could, it is no authority. The laity must therefore submit to authority on one side or other, or give themselves over to unbelief, or worldliness, or both. Both equally lead to spiritual bondage.' He further says: The Deistic writers in England were the forerunners of the Rationalists in Germany. But Rationalism is in all countries the offspring of the natural enmity of the carnal mind to God. When driven out from the darkness of superstition, unregenerate men cannot bear the presence and interposition of the Almighty. Popery interposed Christ's vicar and the Virgin Mary, and saints, and angels, and martyrs. Rationalists interpose the works of God, nature, reason, and philosophy, to escape direct communication with their Creator. The hope of the former is the subjugation of the world under Christ's representative, and therefore the advent of Christ indefinitely postponed to leave room for the Church. Of the latter, the continuance of the world forever as it is at present. Ever new discoveries in science—ever new developments of the intellectual powers—immutability of the laws of nature—and therefore no advent at all—no resurrection—no judgment. God forever excluded from his own world to make way for the supremacy of intellect.' Cf. Herzog's article in his Encyclopedia on Bible Reading by' the Laity,' &c., from which it appears that Semler and Lessing and other Protestant Rationalists have taken similar ground '—to the Roman—' against allowing the laity to read the Bible' (Schaff).
As Dr. Manning well remarks, ours is the century of unbelief. With much that he says of Rationalism in his True Story' we cordially agree. But however true it may be that before the Reformation men believed the voice of the Church,' history is against him when he says that from the sixteenth century it was left for each to say what is the voice of the Bible.'
He here proclaims one half of the truth; records of the past supply the other. Before leaving this part of the subject we venture to quote from Lord Hatherley some further words of value in respect of rationalistic theories: The Bible has been continuous in its historical object, in its predictions, and in their fulfillment in Christ. The Bible has been continuous in its moral object.... It has been continuous in its spiritual object.... The fruits of this wondrous Book have been no less continuous, namely, a gradual advancement in morals,' &c. If there be one characteristic of the Bible by which it may be most briefly contrasted with every other work intended to affect the lives and conduct of men, it is this: that it is historically not argumentatively didactic. It does not tell men merely what they ought to be, and leave them there, but teaching them how and for what purpose they were created, it tells them also historically that they have hopelessly fallen from that condition; it tells them historically that they could only be restored by one standing outside their corruption yet partaking of their essence, that such an one could only be God himself; and historically also that such a Savior has appeared,... and further historically also, that He our Redeemer, has risen from the grave, and ascended into heaven.... Much has been said about leaving young people to their unbiased judgment. But if this had been intended by the Author of our being, we should not have been ushered into the world as infants, but as full-grown men or women. Authority must and ever will form every human mind. Well is it for us if that authority be divine. Well is it for us that we can listen to the living Word, Whose words are spirit and life.'