網頁圖片
PDF
ePub 版

whom a prominent clergymanmade common cause with him in leaving the established church. Notwithstanding, he did not think it proper to depart from the ordinary language of history respecting Anabaptists. He values highly the evangelical Episcopalians. He has the strongest motives to be tender toward their peculiarities: for he is intimately and pleasantly associated with many Episcopal residents at Geneva, who have rendered important aid to the church with which he is connected. He was on terms of closest friendship with an excellent Episcopal missionary who had retired to Geneva to reside, and has recently deceased there. He has a most catholic spirit, and the warmest fraternal feeling toward all who love Christ in sincerity. He has lately been engaged in plans and endeav. ors to promote unity among the different evangelical Protestant denominations. With all this pressure of motive to suppress, he has yet given the historical facts, not merely respecting papacy, but respecting prelacy and hierarchy. The very reasons which could not prevail on the author to depart from the usual statements and forms of statement of history in writing the work, surely can not justify others in altering those statements or forms of statement when written. The author, with his numerous manuscripts and varied facilities for writing exact history before him, did not omit or modify the statements and references in question. But the committee of the Tract Society, without these facilities for securing historical accuracy before them, omit and mod ify those statements and references, and do this, not to make them more exact, but indeed to make them less exact, that they may better suit certain denominations of Christians! Is it not a very strange inquiry to make, when preparing another man's history for the press, How will this or that statement and reference suit

this or that denomination, and what omissions or modifications will make it suit? Moreover, the Committee had evidence, in D'Aubigné's late spirited Lecture on Puseyism and High-churchism, that his conviction is very deep, and his feeling very strong, of the evils of prelacy.

To have made these alterations without consulting D'Aubigné, is a discourtesy and wrong toward him, which the Committee now see and regret, and which has received the decided disapprobation of himself and his friends. That the Committee did not see and prevent this, is remarkable. That they did not at least consult with the author's intimate friend and frequent corres. pondent, Rev. Dr. Baird, a resident of the same city with themselves, is still more remarkable.

We are informed, by the Address of the Committee, that D'Aubigné is, at their request, revising this history, and adapting it to the purposes of the Society. We are reluctant to object to this, and yet we do not exactly like it. This adaptation of the work to the Society's channels, though it will doubtless be done with the best motives, will, we fear, be-surely it will appear to be-a suppression of important historical. statements, in order to answer a purpose. Some years since, James K. Paulding, after he became engaged in partisan politics-he was, we believe, an incumbent in, or aspiring to, a high political officepublished a new edition of his works, striking out a very true, spirited and just passage respecting slavery in the southern states. act was regarded with general contempt. Now D'Aubigné will revise and alter his history for the Tract Society-if he does it-with far other motives than those of this author, corrupted in manliness and honesty by political ambition. Yet we fear that his revision will beafter what has happened it will appear to be-a modification or soft

The

ening of the lessons of history, that they may not offend any among evangelical Christians. To "offend not in word," even though that word be truth, is a good rule in social intercourse, but a bad one for a witness in a court of justice, or on the pages of history. "Facts are stubborn things," and we like not to see their stubbornness broken down.

In the remarks which we have hith erto made, we do not deny the propriety of a publication by the committee of the Tract Society, or by individuals, of a history openly and avowedly corrected by a competent historical hand. That would be the publication of a new work—the history of A corrected by B.

Nor do we wish to be considered as expressing any opinion concerning the propriety of publishing his tory with notes which contradict or correct the text; nor whether a man may rightfully expurgate Shakspeare, or, should he choose, travesty Virgil, or turn Milton into doggerel. Such questions have no bearing on the present discussion, and we have no room for their consideration.

Much less do we deny the right to abridge history. Abridgment is not alteration. It professes, not to change, but to give the essence. An abridgment of history is not regarded as the genuine work. It avows itself to be, not the testimony of the author as he gave it, but the testimony of the author as abridged by another; and its authority rests jointly on the author and abridger, and will be proportioned to our confidence in the correctness of the one, and the ability and fidelity of the other.

We come now to the second question, Is it right for the publishing committee of the Tract Society to alter the practical works, and the doctrinal works of a practical bearing, of standard authors?

We have weighed this question carefully, and we answer, Yes-on

certain conditions. We think that it may be done with great and blessed results; and, if done according to the conditions which we shall mention, with few if any evil results. If Baxter, and Flavel, and Edwards, and others like them— men such as the world does not see in every age-can, by being deprived of those parts which treat of matters wherein evangelical denominations differ, have their readers multiplied ten, twenty or a hundred fold; if they can thus implant the principles of the common Christianity, which they so ably advocate and powerfully impress, and which they chiefly prized, in a hundred times as many minds as they would if their works were unaltered; if the choice Christian writers of the world-the next best instrumentality to the Bible and the living ministry-can thus have their sphere of usefulness indefinitely expanded, and this without harm in any direction, surely, a most important end will be gained, a glorious result accomplished-one which theywho love and long for the spread of the common Christianity will not lightly prevent. Now we believe that, by divesting these authors, in some of their treatises, of the little of denominational matter which they have, they can be made, by this catholic Society, with its power-presses and its hundreds of distributers, both in densely and sparsely populated regions, to preach to hundreds, where before they preached to tens. With the reasons on which we ground such an opinion, we need not occupy the space which we can not spare. They are familiar to all who read or hear the communications of the Tract Society.

But, while the benefits from the wider circulation of these works, by means of their alteration to suit the channels of this catholic association, are fully acknowledged, there are those who fear evil results which will more than counterbalance these benefits. They say, these Christian

classics lie in our hearts next to the Bible. We can not bear to see them mutilated. We feel as does an artist, when he sees rude hands marring a chef-d'œuvre. A rough shock is given to some of their most sacred associations. And they think that no benevolent society can be sustained, which thus wars with the religious tastes and feelings of the Christian community.

They say, also, You are destroy ing the testimony and burying in oblivion the authority and the reasoning of our strongest writers on interdenominational questions, and the questions between different schools. These questions we acknowledge to be less important than those on which all evangelical denominations agree. But they are not unimportant. The right statement and explanation and successful defense of them is essential to the best development and most effective influence of the evangelical system. These questions are greatly interesting to us and to the cause of Christ. These questions have been settled, in our view beyond dispute, by these giants in Christian literature. And you destroy all this their work. You consign to oblivion their logic and authority on these questions. Says the Old School Calvinist, You are striking election out of Edwards, or at least diminishing the proportion and prominence of election. Says the New School Calvinist, You are striking new school out of Baxter. I can show you three solid pages of real Taylorism in his "Call to the Unconverted," sacrificed on the altar of mutilation. Says the Pedobaptist, You divest these works of all their conclusive arguments against the Baptists. You rob Wilberforce of his testimony in behalf of Episcopacy, says the Churchman. You strike out this and that logical annihilation of prelacy, exclaims the advocate of parity in the ministry. You will not even allow of incidental expressions

against Arminianism, adds the Cal. vinist. You must not publish any thing against Arminianism, rejoins some Calvinistic Episcopalian, who is reluctant to be known in his own denomination as other than Arminian. And then, say they all in chorus, You send out the mutilated book as genuine, without any bona fide information of the alteration; and by your cheap and forced circulation, you push all other editions of these works out of the channels of trade, and ultimately out of the world. Thus in your zeal to multiply certain portions of these authors' works, you bury certain other portions. You kill the authors in part, that you may make their other part more active. And then you profess to have done nothing except to change a little obsolete phraseology! This course, moreover, which you are commencing, is one of indefinite evil. You establish a precedent whose influence and effects you can not measure nor forecast. On the same principle, a Unitarian might publish the works of Dwight or Edwards, divesting them of every thing opposed to his heresies, and pass them off as genuine, with the exception of such alterations as time renders necessary. And so might this practice run on, till the whole religious press should be employed in stereotyping deceit.

These objections from various quarters have, we think, great weight, and, could they not be obviated, we should say, alter no books. But we believe that they can be in a great measure obviated by the conditions which we propose.

The first condition, not perhaps in the order of nature, but in importance, as related to these objec tions, is, Let the fact and nature of the alterations be distinctly announced-so distinctly announced, that no one who reads the title-page or preface can receive the idea that the Tract Society's edition is the complete and genuine work of the au

thor. Let there be no concealment, not the least, on this point. Let it be confessed, or rather professed, that the work has been divested of all denominational matter, and that the object of the Society is, not to publish works completely genuine, but works so altered (let the word be spoken right out) as to be acceptable and useful among the masses in all evangelical denominations. This, plainly, is the only honest course. It is the only course which tells the truth-the only course which does not deceive. To send out a work deprived of important pages, or sentences, or words, of denominational matter, with no declaration of the fact on the titlepage and in the preface, or with a declaration that slight changes have been made, such only as are required by style and obsolete phrase ology, is to publish an untruth, and that as often as there are volumes published, yea, as often as those volumes are read. We feel strongly-we would speak decidedly, on this point. It is telling untruths by stereotype font and steam press. Who can estimate the fearful influence of such an example of a great and benevolent association, seen in its true light, on the community?

Moreover, it is liable to all the objections to which we have alluded. It shocks the taste and principles of the scholar, and wounds the associa tions and attachments of the Christian reader. It destroys the authority and buries the arguments of great authors on those important questions which divide evangelical denominations and schools. It ought not to be allowed. There should be such an announcement of the fact and nature of alterations, when made, as to forbid the reader to believe that the edition is the exact and genuine production of the author.

Should it be said, that this course will diminish the circulation of the books-that many will not buy nor receive them, if they know that

they are not genuine-we answer, Be it so. Then we have no right to put our books upon them; no more than a tradesman has to put off damaged goods on a man who is searching for those which are sound. Be it so. We have no right to catch readers by guile. We have no right to do evil that good may come. We have no right, by a deceptive course, to force out of cir culation and print, the genuine works of the ablest Christian writers, and to nullify labors to which they, and thousands of like faith with them, attach great importance.

And it is poor policy. Better a diminished circulation, than the loss of the confidence of the Christian community, the withering of the Society's resources, and the destruction of its usefulness. We sup pose that, by this fair and open course, the circulation of the altered works would be diminished, just where it ought to be, not among the masses for whom they were chiefly designed, but among clergymen and scholars, who ought to have the genuine works.

We feel bound to say-and we say it with great reluctance-that the Publishing Committee, doubtless with the best intentions, have committed an error at this important point-an error which, in our view, they ought to perceive and renounce. They have not made that distinct announcement of alterations of which we have spoken. They have seemed to think it unnecessary; and have been apparently unwilling to let the world know that many of their books are-what they are-altered to suit a purpose, not the exact and genuine productions of their authors.

But, on the other hand, it will be asked, Will this prevent the evil results anticipated? We think, that in connection with another condition, it will. For, the distinct declaration that the Tract Society's edition of a treatise is altered, and

is not in all respects the genuine work of the author, will effectually prevent the burial of that author's authority and arguments on interdenominational questions. The genuine editions will then be in abundant demand, and of course will be abundantly supplied. And no one will ever presume to quote the Tract Society's edition as proof that the author did not maintain certain opinions on those questions, or to infer that he did not advance powerful and decisive arguments on those questions, from the fact that they are not found in that edition: for it will be distinctly understood, that this edition is published simply to advance the common Christianity of all the sects, and that whatever pertains to denominational Christianity, however important in that relation, has been expunged or modified. To illustrate this point, suppose that it had been proposed to Edwards, while living, to preach to Baptists, or Arminians, or Episcopalians, or to Fuller to preach to Pedobaptists, or to Wilberforce to lecture to Presbyterians, and to confine them. selves to subjects on which they and their hearers were agreed; would they not have cheerfully consented, provided that the fact of this limita tion was distinctly announced and well understood, and that they should be free to proclaim and enforce their peculiar opinions else where? Would they not have more than consented? Would they not have rejoiced thus to have had a wider scope given them for usefulness on the field of the common Christianity? This is just what the Tract Society, pursuing essentially the course we have indicated, would do with the works by which such authors, though dead, yet speak.

The other condition of altering practical and doctrinal works, is this. Let alterations, when made, be made cautiously, skillfully and judiciously.

Alteration of the standard works

of Christian literature, enshrined in the hearts of Christian scholars, is an exceedingly delicate task. It is far better, therefore, when practicable, to have works written than altered to suit the basis of the Society. And we believe that authors may now be found, who, by the aid of the light shed now for ages on practical and doctrinal subjects, will write treatises better adapted to the Society's purposes, than can be made by the alteration of works written without the Society's specific purposes in view. This is a topic which well deserves a distinct and minute consideration. But we have not room for it now. This, however, the writing of books for the Society, can only be done gradually. To supply volumes in this way, requires time-time in which thousands will perish for lack of knowledge. There seems to be a necessity, for a while at least, that the books already written should be adapted by alteration to the Society's purposes. But this should be done with extreme caution. They who do it should bear in mind the delicacy of the work-that it is a work to which many of our wisest men consent with extreme reluctance, even on condition that the fact and nature of alterations is distinctly announced; that it is a work which wars with the tastes and associations and feelings, if not with the judgment, of the enlightened Christian community. This should cause them to determine to make no changes, except when absolutely neces sary for the Society's purposes. The members of the Committee should lay aside, not indeed fidelity to, or the peculiar opinions of, the denominations they represent, but all the littleness and narrowness of the sectarian spirit.

This work of alteration should also be done with great judgment and skill. Bearing in mind the great delicacy and difficulty of the work, the Committee should employ

« 上一頁繼續 »