Part 2

But now, Sir, though I make no doubt you believe every thing you say, what ground have you for expecting that I should? If you tell me you have seen a ghost, and that he frightened you out of your wits, I may have the best reasons in the world for believing that you have seen a ghost; and yet I may doubt all the time whether there were a ghost to be seen. In like manner, though I dare say you are a devout believer in the threats of these incendiaries, the howlings of these wolves, and the voracious declarations of these cannibals; yet, I may after all have liberty to doubt, whether such stories are entitled to a moment’s regard. Travellers, you know, Sir, with the best intentions in the world, often play a trick upon us; and I think it very possible, that a Country Clergyman, with no worse intentions, may be led to do the same. When Bruce described the Abyssinian as cutting a steak from the rump of a living animal, and then driving him on as if nothing had happened, the world smiled at the easy credulity of the honest traveller, and did not believe one particle of the matter: I am inclined to think that the marvellous tales of the Country Clergyman will scarcely meet with a better fate.

But let me, Sir, expostulate with you for a moment. I know how unreasonable a passion fear is, and I think it is always worth while to take every honest method of getting rid of it.

As a Country Clergyman, I dare say, you are a pretty good horseman; and though I do not suspect you of appearing upon a race-course, or galloping after the hounds, yet I suppose you are no enemy to a pleasant ride. Now it must have happened to you, at least once in your life, as well as to inferior horsemen, to be in imminent danger of breaking your neck by the sudden and unaccountable starting of your horse. Irritable and overbearing men will, you know, under such circumstances, make a furious application of the whip and the spur to the back and sides of the terrified animal. The consequence is, that if he was afraid of the object at first, he will be “horribly afraid” of it ever after. You and I know a better way; and that is, to lead the animal up to the object which occasioned his alarm, and to give him an opportunity of forming a more correct judgment of it. I cannot help thinking, that if you had adopted some such steps, under your first impressions of alarm at the Subscribers to the Bible Society; if, without _venturing yourself_ “into the company of men of whom you have hitherto been always horribly afraid,” you had yet _ventured yourself_ near enough to them, to see whether they were likely men to blow you up in the air, or bury you in their stomachs; you would have been saved from the humiliating necessity of soliciting “the charity of the Noble President to pity your weakness and excuse your unconquerable fears.” {19}

But let me tell you a story—A friend of mine (who by the way is a Country Clergyman as well as yourself) was lately invited to dine with a Mohawk Chief, of whose visit to this country the provincial papers have doubtless informed you. My friend was very much in your situation. His head was full of stories against this “denomination” of people. He had been credibly assured, that they were “the enemies of all that is sober or established;” that they enjoyed nothing so much as pulling men’s scalps over their ears, and eating them up, _clothes and all_. He could not therefore, for some time, be induced to _venture himself_ “into the company of men of whom he had hitherto been always horribly afraid.” At length, however, he was prevailed upon to accept the invitation; not without some apprehensions on his own part, that he “should feel uneasy, and be illiberally, perhaps, looking towards the door.” {20} How he actually behaved, I am not told; but what do you think was the event of his visit?—Why, he returned from the interview, with his flesh upon his bones, his scalp upon his head, and not a single mark of the tomahawk all over his body. Add to this, he received so favorable an impression of this “denomination” of people, that he resolved hereafter to consider them as _brethren_, and to co-operate with them in every object which might promise to promote their common welfare, without interfering with their separate, local, and independent interests. I leave the Country Clergyman to use his discretion about trying such experiments as these; but, whether he try them or not, I make no question, that, in many cases, they would be attended with similar success.

It seems, however, that such Associations are forbidden by that least forbidding of all the Christian graces, _Charity_. “Christian charity (you tell us) no where recommends associations of discordant principles, combinations of men professedly at variance and in hostility with each other: but Christian charity enjoins that which renders all these elaborate societies useless; it teaches and _obliges_ Christians to be _like-minded_, to have one faith, one baptism, one speech, and one hope of their calling.” {21a} Now, Sir, though I am far from thinking that you are singular in your notion of Christian charity; for the church of Rome entertained the same opinions, and does, I dare say, entertain them to this day—yet I think you will have a difficulty in turning this notion to any important use. The fact is, that Christian Charity, much as she may _enjoin_ an uniformity of opinion upon questions of a controvertible nature, cannot succeed in effecting it without the aid of those _compelling_ means, of which she has been so long deprived. From the time that some prototype of Lord T. prevailed upon the church “to throw away that natural defence” of whips, and screws, and faggots, “which God Almighty had given her,” {21b} Christian Charity has assumed a new character, and taken up an employment the very opposite to that in which she had been for ages before engaged. Her attention is now turned from the _heads_ to the _hearts_ of men; and when she cannot succeed in making them _like-minded_, she tries to make them _love one another_. She is said to have actually disclaimed all the sentiments and measures which were ascribed to her during her alliance with the Holy Father. The account which is given of the matter, is plausible enough; and as it does not appear to have reached your ears, I will give it you just as I received it.

Somewhere about the time when the churches of the West came under the dominion of the Holy See, the successor of St. Peter was observed to cool in his regard for _Charity_, and to withdraw his affections very sensibly from _her_. The cause of this decline in his attachment was at length discovered. A rival, not unknown for many ages before, had now acquired a very formidable ascendancy in the breast of the Holy Pontiff; and the new attachment was not a little cherished by the leading members of the subjugated church. The influence of the favorite rapidly increased, and that of _Charity_ proportionably declined; till at length, matters went so far that the latter was deposed and imprisoned, and the former enthroned in her place. The name of _Bigotry_ (for so she had been called from her birth) was against her, and so was her countenance. The first of these difficulties she got over by assuming the name of her disgraced predecessor; the latter, it is said, remains a difficulty to this very day. In the mean time, _Charity_ continued immured in the closest confinement; and when the monasteries were pulled down at the Reformation, this queen of all the virtues was found pale and almost lifeless in a subterraneous cell. Her health had been so much impaired by confinement, and her character misrepresented by the artifices of her rival, that it took her a great deal of time to regain her strength and make herself properly known. In both these respects she has now to a great degree succeeded: and though the Pope denies her rights, and many persons, who ought to know better, continue to question them, yet her countenance and temper most clearly identify her with that heavenly original, whose office it is to sanctify the confidence of faith and the fervor of hope; and to make them the instruments of promoting glory to God in the highest, and peace and good-will among men.

Now though this looks very much like an allegorical account of the matter, yet I think it accords so well with the fact, that I trust both you and I shall be the better for the moral of it. I am sure if I thought that uniformity of opinion upon the details of Christianity, could be brought about among those who agree in the fundamentals of it, I should rejoice to contribute my proportion to the advancement of so desirable an event. But I do not expect, what in the present constitution of human nature I believe to be impossible. I think that the nearest advances to such uniformity may be made by resolving to unite as far as we are _like-minded_, and to be reciprocally forbearing where we are _not_, and thus to fulfil our Saviour’s commandment of loving one another. I am sure that if every Country Clergyman will substitute this species of Charity for the adulterous idol which you have set up (and I have little doubt but they will), the church will then maintain herself in vigour, usefulness, and beauty; “and the gates of nonconformity” {24a} will not prevail against her.

I have hitherto been reasoning upon the presumption, that circulating the Holy Scriptures was an act upon the excellence of which no question could arise between us; but it seems that I have been mistaken: for his Lordship is cautioned (and every member of the Society through him) not to be “deceived with the notion, that the _bare act of distributing Bibles_, _is the act of disseminating truth_.” {24b}

This species of caution, and the reasons by which it is supported, have acquired so much the air of novelty by having been shut up for more than two hundred years, that I confess I was not a little struck with them; and I dare say, the feelings of most of your readers will be in unison with mine. But I will give the passage at length:

“Be not then deceived, my Lord, with the notion that the _bare act of distributing Bibles is the __act of disseminating the sacred truth_. The word of God in itself is pure, and perfect, and more to be desired than much fine gold; but as the finest gold may be turned to base purposes, so may the Scriptures. For, alas! through the lusts of men and the covetousness of the world, the precious book of life is made the instrument of error as well as of truth; of much evil as well as of infinite good. When it is remembered that to the Scriptures, not only the true church of Christ appeals for confirmation of its divine doctrine; but likewise that every sect and heresy, by which it ever was defaced, has regularly pretended likewise to produce its error; when we observe the Papist, and Puritan, the Socinian, and Calvinist, the Baptist, and Quaker, all appealing to the Bible for the truth of their principles, and pretending to prove them thereby;—it will not be maintained, I think, that the _mere distribution of Bibles_ under the present circumstances of the times, is likely to spread the truth. On the contrary, it is to be expected that each member of your heterogeneous Society will draw his portion of books for the promotion of his particular opinion; for it is easily seen, that a Bible given away by a Papist, will be productive of Popery. The Socinian will make his Bible speak, and spread Socinianism; while the Calvinist, the Baptist, and the Quaker, will teach the opinions peculiar to their sects. Supply these men with Bibles (I speak as to a true churchman), and you supply them with arms against yourself.” {26}

Really, Sir, in reading over this extraordinary morceau, which I do assure you I have done again and again, I have found my astonishment continually increase, and am now as much at a loss as ever, to account for your raising up again those notions, which have been buried by public authority for so many ages. An old parishioner of mine, who scarcely reads any books but the Bible and Fox’s Martyrology, was ready to swoon when she came to this part of your pamphlet; and I could not, for the life of me, prevail upon her to go any farther. She was utterly astonished at my being able to smile at what she was pleased to call, the _rankest Popery she had_ ever read. I told her, it could not be Popery; for it was written by a Country Clergyman: she said, the whole was a trick; and that the Papists abounded in such tricks. It was in vain that I repeated to her my conviction, that the author was a Protestant Clergyman, and that, I feared, he was not singular in holding these opinions: I could not get her to believe one syllable of either. She persisted in her declaration, that, whatever you might call yourself, you were some Romish Priest in the interest of the Catholics; and that you only wanted to prepare the people for parting with their Bibles.

Now, Sir, though I by no means go the same lengths as my orthodox parishioner, yet I am free to confess, that I agree with her in the main. I dare believe, that you have no more intention of bringing back the Pope than I have; and yet I do not know how you could have written more to the purpose, if you had wished to accomplish such a measure. The dangers which you point out as accompanying the perusal of the Holy Scriptures by the unlearned, were matters of constant anxiety to his Papal bosom all the time that he acted as visible head of the English church; and many a Country Clergyman was employed, under his direction, to enforce upon Lords and Commoners that prudent caution against _distributing Bibles_, which you so earnestly press upon the Noble President of the British and Foreign Bible Society. Our forefathers, however, were too much of his Lordship’s way of thinking to yield to such considerations: having derived so much benefit from reading the Bible themselves, they would not endure the thought of refusing it to others; and they were, therefore, among the foremost “to promote the circulation of the Scriptures at home and abroad.”

I lament with you that “the Holy Book is made a nose of wax;” I, too, am “_sadly_ experiencing” this, “daily before my eyes;” {27} and, the strange interpretation which you have given of “Christian Charity,” is another proof of the _sad_ extent to which this practice has spread. But I could not consent on that account to deprive _you_ of your Bible, nor even to refuse you another if you wanted it. Indeed, Sir, the conduct which you blame, and of which you have condescended to become an example, is a grievous evil: but the remedy which you propose, and which the Council of Trent proposed before you, is abundantly worse than the disease.

By the way, Sir, I wonder you were not a little afraid of venturing such sentiments abroad, without first consulting those of your friends who are better acquainted with the principles of the Reformation than you appear to be. You talk of _the church_, in the same language, with the same pride of appropriation, and with the same prerogative of limiting the course and interpretation of Scripture, as if you had never heard that the church of Rome disputes all these things with you, or as if you had never heard of a separation from her. Had no such separation taken place, your observations would have been perfectly in order. You might then have followed them up too with this precautionary proposition, that Bibles should be suppressed; and that every subject of the empire should engage (in the language of the Douay Catechism) to “believe whatsoever the Catholic church proposes to be believed.” This would certainly (if it could have been carried into effect) have rendered “all such elaborate Societies” as confine themselves to “the _bare act of distributing Bibles_, useless;” and consequently the growth of _heresy_, _error_, and _delusion_, impossible.

But, Sir, you and I must take things as we find them: and it does so happen, that things _are not_, in the church established in these realms, as they _once were_. Whether it be a wise or an unwise measure to open the Scriptures to the people at large, it is now too late to dispute: to the people at large they _are_ opened; and their distribution is legitimated both by canon and precedent, as an act of the strictest justice, and the purest benevolence.

Indeed I must take upon myself to tell you, that your fears for the church, from “the circulation of the Scriptures,” are not calculated to do her any honor in the world. She either does not think with you, that, in supplying the different denominations of Christians with Bibles, she is really supplying them “with arms against herself;” or if she does, she has the magnanimity to promote their salvation, though it were at her own expense. I dare say you will set me down for no “true churchman,” when I say this; but I will give you an authority to this effect, which has much weight with me, and which _you_ will scarcely venture to dispute. In a little tract, called “Questions and Answers concerning the respective Tenets of the Church of England and the Church of Rome,” I find the following passage:

“Question. Why do you find fault with the church of ROME for not suffering the common people _to read the Bible_?

“Answer. 1. Because in so doing they act contrary to the command Christ gives to _all_, ‘Search the Scriptures,’ John, v. 39.

“2. Because what they forbid, the Apostles commend, as we see in the example of the Bereans, who are _commended_ for reading the Scriptures, Acts, xvii. 11.

“3. It is contrary to the practice of the primitive church, in which the fathers _earnestly exhorted_ the people to an assiduous and diligent reading of the Scriptures.

“4. It agrees not with St. Paul’s counsel and exhortation, 1 Thess. v. 7. ‘_I charge you_ that this Epistle be read to all the holy brethren.’

“5. It was a duty of the Jews to have the law in their houses, and to read it to their children, Deut. vi. 7, and therefore must be much more the duty of Christians to read or peruse the Gospel, as being a people living under a greater and richer economy.

“6. Whereas it is pretended that the Scriptures are obscure, and that this prohibition is _to prevent heresies_: _we_ answer, that the Scriptures are not so obscure, in places relating to things necessary to salvation, but that they may be understood by the laity: and as to the plea of _preventing heresies_, that is only a pretence, no argument, since _they __might as well forbid people to eat and drink_, _for_, _fear they should abuse that liberty_.”

Now, as this tract is issued by the Society for promoting Christian Knowledge, I cannot but think it a misfortune, that, as a _Country Clergyman_, you should not have seen it before you wrote your Address to Lord T.: you would scarcely then have challenged the Noble Lord to show that he was “a true churchman,” by fearing and restraining the circulation of the Scriptures. As it is, you can scarcely, I should think, expect to escape rebuke. Like that “officer of the Society,” {31} whose secret history you seem to have studied so well, you have stepped a little out of your regular line, and, like him too, have been guilty of some “indecorum towards the church and its spiritual superiors.”

But supposing, Sir, that I could admit your dubious proposition, that the dissemination of truth did not depend upon the _Bible_ which was given, but upon the _hand_ which might give it; a proposition, which, if true to the extent of your statement, would prove equally, that the effect of your pamphlet upon the interests of the Bible Society will depend less upon the merits of your work, than upon the hands through which it may pass;—what expedient would you propose, in the exercise of your sagacity, for providing against the consequences you fear? I am aware of your answer—“_Dissolve the Bible Society_.” Suppose that done; though there would, I think, be difficulties in the way of doing it: still the tares are sowing in a thousand directions, and the business of prevention is scarcely yet begun. Your expedient must provide for putting Bibles into the hands of churchmen _only_, or of those who will _infallibly_ become churchmen by reading them; or it will never succeed. But what will you do with those wholesale Bible-mongers, the universities of Oxford and Cambridge, and his Majesty’s Printer, and all their subordinate agents and instruments, the book and Bible sellers throughout the country? While such merchants as these may dispose of Bibles _ad libitum_ as an article of trade, and such bodies as the Society for promoting Christian Knowledge, and others of the same description, will continue to favor the traffic, I cannot see how you will contrive to dam up the waters of life to any orthodox purpose; or to prevent their irrigating those lands that are alienated from the established church.

Perhaps it might forward your purpose to put the printing and distributing of Bibles under some new and more definite limitation. As the members of the church of England do not exceed four fifths of the population of the country, and the chance of converting a sectary is scarcely worth the risk of supplying him with “arms against yourself,” what think you of a petition to the Legislature against uselessly and dangerously multiplying copies of the Holy Scriptures? I will suppose your application successful, and that only four Bibles are printed for every five individuals upon the records of the population. I will also suppose, which is quite as necessary, that these Bibles, when printed, are consigned to an ecclesiastical depot, of which the whole and sole custody shall be vested in the Country Clergyman; and that not a single copy of the Bible shall be issued but under his direction. And now, Sir, do you really think, that, “old as you are in the business,” you would be able to detect all _the dogs_ that, under various disguises, would be seeking _the children’s meat_? If you find in the little range of your own parish such “hard work with these crafty beasts,” how much would your work be increased, and your difficulties multiplied, by the daily care of all the churches?