Part 3

But you must go farther, Sir, or else you had better not have begun.—You must interdict the free circulation of all “Apologies for the Bible,” all dissertations upon its authenticity and evidence, and particularly all discourses upon its excellence and usefulness. You must prevail upon the many venerable prelates, archdeacons’, and priests, of the present day, who have done themselves so much honor by advocating the cause of Christianity, to expunge from their writings all unguarded commendations of the Holy Scriptures; or to provide for their works, if they know how, an exclusive circulation in ecclesiastical channels. Nor is this all: you must invite, solicit, and (if you can find the means) compel, all the different denominations of Christians, to deliver up forthwith the Bibles they possess into the hands of the nearest parish priest. When all this is accomplished (and until it is, your end will be very imperfectly obtained) it will only remain for those well-meaning Societies, in connexion with the established church, to ask a bill of indemnity for the degree in which they have contributed to the propagation of error, by their incautious distribution of Bibles; and to bind themselves over to commit no more such acts of ecclesiastical suicide. Your business, it shall be supposed, is now accomplished; and what is the result?—Why, you may now congratulate yourself upon having withdrawn the _antidote_ and left the _poison_ in circulation; for the different denominations of Christians are still in possession of the privilege of multiplying _tracts_ ad infinitum, and you have deprived their readers of the only means of detecting the _heresy_ they contain.

But really, Sir, to be serious—“I feel very strong objections to the whole plan, not indeed the simple, pure object of” securing the Scriptures from perversion; “the mischief lies in the _manner_ and means,” which must at all events be employed for “carrying that object into effect.” {34}

The word of God, which is a savour of life unto life, _may_ also, I know, become a savour of death unto death. I am sorry for it: but to restrain the circulation of it, in order to provide against this _contingent_ evil, would, I continue to think, with the authority before cited, be at once as unreasonable and unjust, as to “forbid people to eat or drink, for fear they should abuse that liberty.”

I am really sorry, Sir, you were so much at a loss to interpret the meaning of that “liberal basis,” upon which his Lordship recommended the Society to your notice. The terms “broad bottom,” {35a} which you substitute in their place, would have expressed well enough his Lordship’s intention; but as he was writing to a _Country Clergyman_, and not to “a preaching blacksmith,” he would not “fail in the respect” that is due to “a gentleman and a Christian.” {35b}—“Those who are used to good company (you say) know how to behave.” {35c} What then is his Lordship to think of _you_, when you tell him, that you have “not been educated on liberal-basis’d or broad-bottomed principles,” {35d} but that either you have not put on your prettiest behaviour, or that you would “feel” less “uneasy,” than you pretend, in that class of company to which, as a member of the Bible Society, you would expect to be introduced?

But were there no other authorities to which you could have recourse, when the lexicographer failed you, than the mouths of the “_vulgar_?” {36} I have an authority before me, which throws so much more light upon his Lordship’s “liberal basis,” than either the synonyms of the “lexicographer,” the slang of the “vulgar,” or the etymological quirks of the “Country Clergyman,” that I shall make no apology for producing it:

“Give us all grace, to put away from us all rancour of religious dissension, that they who agree in the essentials of our most holy faith, and look for pardon through the merits and intercession of the Saviour, may, notwithstanding the differences upon points of doubtful opinion, and in the forms of external worship, still be united in the bonds of Christian charity, and fulfil thy blessed Son’s commandment, of loving one another as he hath loved them.”—_Form of Prayer for the Fast_, _October_ 19, 1803.

Now here, Sir, I found that “liberal basis” upon which the Society is erected, and I am surprised you did not think of looking for it in the same place. But perhaps the liberal basis of the prayer, like that of the Society, “has no charms for” _you_. I will not presume such a fact; but if you were to affirm that it is so, I should have very little difficulty in believing you.

You do not however intend “to deny the possibility of any _sort or degree_ of union among certain descriptions of persons composing the Society.” {37a} You are “perfectly aware that all the various and discordant tribes of dissenters from the church of England may unite from the Papist down to the Quaker; for they frequently have, and frequently do unite _against_ the church.” {37b}—“But when (say you) was it ever known that they have united _with_ the church? Show me the history, lay your finger on the page, and say, my Lord, _when_, _where_, and upon what _occasion_, did they ever unite _with_ the church for any important and righteous design. I must be satisfied on this point; I must request some fair example and precedent, to prove that the thing is neither impossible nor improbable, before it can be even prudent to listen to your Lordship’s proposal.” {37c}

Now here, Sir, you throw out a challenge, which, with his Lordship’s permission, I am willing to accept. I will show you the history of such union as you indirectly deny: I will lay my finger on the page, and say, _when_, and _where_, and upon what _occasion_ the different tribes of Dissenters _did_ unite with the church for an important and righteous design. The _history_ then to which I refer is that portion of our country’s annals which commenced with the autumn of 1803, and which is not yet completed. The _page_ upon which I lay my finger is that which displays the voluntary creation of a national force; in which, if one feature was more illustrious than another, it was the magnanimity with which the subjects of the same government agreed “to put away all rancour of religious dissension,” and to unite in the prosecution of that _righteous_ and _important_ design in which they had embarked, “notwithstanding their differences upon points of doubtful opinion, and in the forms of external worship.” Let the Country Clergyman peruse this awful yet luminous page of our history; let him weigh well the danger which threatened the throne, the church, and the nation; let him read in those discourses, which gratitude will not allow us to forget, how that danger was proclaimed by preachers of every denomination; let him walk through the land, in the length of it and the breadth of it, and see how many myriads were added to the national force by those powerful and seasonable appeals to the feelings, the conscience, and the spirit of Britons; and he will want, I think, no other “example and precedent” to prove that an union of the various tribes of Dissenters WITH the church of England, for an important and righteous design, “is neither impossible nor improbable.”

With such a recent portion of history before your eyes, I cannot see, I confess, either the justice or the policy of your travelling back over a century and half of ground in order to find matter of accusation against those of our fellow-subjects, with whom a sense of common danger has united us, and with whom it is as important now as it was two years ago, that we should continue united. The politico-religious strife which subsisted between our ancestors and theirs is not a sacred inheritance. I trust the various denominations of Christians of the present day would think themselves as much disgraced by the events of “the grand rebellion,” {39a} as the modern members of the establishment would by the revenge with which it was followed. “The church” has, I know, “her sores and scars;” and so, I lament to say, have those who dissented from her. Let us own the truth—“the heavenly dove” {39b} has been sometimes encouraged to make a little too free with “the wings and feathers” of the smaller birds, and it must not therefore be wondered if her own have suffered. Let her but act up to the sweetness of her nature, and allow the other tenants of the air to have their note; she then may plume her golden breast without annoyance, and bear her grateful blessings on outstretched wings to every nation under heaven.

Your zeal for extending the boundaries of that church in which you minister, is both natural and just: I participate in it with all the feelings of my heart. It is an object which has my prayers, and shall, by God’s assistance, through life command my services. But I will not set her up as the entire and only spouse of Christ: for how can I then curse those whom God hath not cursed?—Away with those superannuated fears, that she must grow barren because her younger sisters are fruitful. I have no doubt but both she and they have “borne many an illustrious child of God” {40a} to their heavenly bridegroom, and will continue to bear many more. I lament with you, that they prefer their _Gerizim_ to our _Zion_: but I must not therefore refuse to have any dealings {40b} with them, or to entertain any charity for them. If they worship God in spirit and truth, if with the heart they believe on the Lord Jesus unto righteousness, if they “agree in the essentials of our most holy faith, and look for pardon through the merits and intercession of the Saviour,” I cannot, I dare not, I will not put them out of the covenant of grace and mercy and peace. Aliens from our external commonwealth, they are yet fellow-citizens with the saints: and though the earthly Jerusalem disclaim them, they will hereafter be acknowledged by the Jerusalem above—the mother of us all. {40c}

But the treason can no longer be dissembled; the eleventh article of the Society’s constitution proclaims it: that article purports, that “the committee (which is to conduct the business of the Society, appoint all officers except the treasurer, have power to call special meetings, and are charged with procuring for the Society suitable patronage) shall consist of thirty-six laymen; of whom, twenty-four, who shall have most frequently attended, shall be eligible for re-election for the ensuing year; six shall be foreigners resident in London or its vicinity; half the remainder shall be members of the church of England, and the other half members of other denominations of Christians!!!”

“_We have here_ (say you) _a standing majority against the church_!” and then, after declaiming, with all the art of the buskin, upon this “death-warrant of the established church,” and with all the prescience of the seer upon the return of the “halcyon days of 1648,” you surround yourself with the imaginary ruins of “our” demolished “Zion,” and make your exit “weeping.” {41} I thought indeed when you played such awkward antics upon “his Lordship’s liberal basis,” that every thing was not right. I could not but regard the laugh in which you indulged, as a symptom of something very different from humour; and I have not been deceived. It was, I perceive, a _moody laugh_, and has ended, as all such hysterical affections do, in _a flood of tears_. As the fit is now over, we may examine this treasonable article, with a better chance of coming to a mutual understanding upon it.

I will then indulge you for a moment with the full benefit of your assertion, that there is in this committee “_a standing majority against the church_;” and what will you gain by such a concession? The object, you must now bear in mind, is specific—the circulation of the Scriptures; that object, you must also recollect, is limited, within the kingdom, to the _authorized_, versions in use among us. The same sort of limitation is not resorted to in case of foreign versions, for the best of all reasons; that it _cannot_ in the nature of things be applied. The different Protestant churches on the European continent have their authorized versions, and _there_ the line of proceeding is direct: but where the church of Rome, or, as she calls herself _the church_, prevails; _there_, the Country Clergyman would scarcely wish the rule for circulating the _authorized_ version to be observed. As for those languages into which translations remain to be made, they are for the most part so remote from the ordinary sphere of study and commerce, that the office of executing such translations, and judging of their merits, must generally be consigned to foreigners; who probably neither understand the distinctions to which we annex importance, nor could be made to understand them. No questions, therefore, can arise in this committee, which might bring into discussion the points of disagreement between the church of England and Dissenters: so that if there should be in such committee, a standing majority of members _out of_ the church, that will by no means constitute a Standing majority _against_ her.

But let us see whether your _hypothesis_ does not assume rather too much. The Society is denominated _British_ and _Foreign_. In the constitution of its committee, it was but just to pay respect to both parts of its designation: nor does it appear extravagant to have assigned a sixth part of that committee to the members of those foreign churches, with which the Society sought a friendly co-operation, and with which, I understand, she _is_ actually co-operating to a very considerable extent. Now these foreigners cannot be identified with the Dissenters from the established church, without as much violence to speech as makes a _solecism_, and to the rights of hospitality, as constitutes a _calumny_. Neither these men have sinned, nor their parents, in the way which the Country Clergyman _supposes_: they brought their religion with them, as they did their language; and they might as truly be said to have dissented from a language which they never spake, as from a mode of religious worship which neither they nor their fathers ever professed. They are, it should be observed, for the most part members of sister churches, from which the Society for promoting Christian Knowledge has obtained some of its most laborious missionaries, and the established church of this country has derived, and must continue to derive, her nursing mothers. {44} On many grounds, these foreigners would feel the ties which bind them to the established church; and she may therefore fairly reckon upon their _neutrality_, if she may not promise herself their _support_.

Let these _neutrals_ (for such _at least_ I am privileged to call them) be withdrawn, and there remain fifteen members to support the church’s interests, and fifteen, as it is supposed by the Country Clergyman, to impugn them. The former will naturally be links of the same chain; common interest, and pledges of a peculiar nature, dictate to them an uniformity of reciprocal support, from which they may not be expected to depart. They may therefore be reckoned upon to the extent of their number. But will you, Sir, who seem to know something of the world, will you allow yourself to believe, that the same uniformity of co-operation may be expected from the fifteen members who are to fight the battles of _dissent_? Some among them are advocates for _infant_ baptism, some for _adult_ baptism, and some for _no_ baptism at all. Some hold the tenets of Calvin, some of Arminius, and some of neither. Their sentiments upon church government are also scarcely less various, than their opinions upon matters of faith: so that, widely as they may seem to dissent from the church of England, many of them would be found, if controverted questions could arise, to differ still more widely from each other. Yet all these discordant members must harmonize together; and the foreigners, who probably differ from them all, must harmonize with them; or else _the standing majority against the church_ must remain a mere _standing_ bugbear, to scare the Country Clergyman, and terrify those who choose to participate his alarms.

I am, however, no enemy to strong improbabilities where a pleasant argument is concerned. The fifteen members of all denominations of British Christians _shall_ unite together; the six members of foreign churches shall do the same: and then, like the miraculous pieces of St. Peter’s chain {45} (of which _the church_ makes such notable mention), these two parties shall form a junction; _a majority_ shall thus be created _against_ the church. What then? Are not the presidents, vice-presidents, and treasurer, by virtue of their respective offices, members of the committee? Suppose then for a moment, that the committee should entertain so foul a proposition as that for “blowing up the establishment, clergy and all;” suppose, that the Quakers should consent to renounce, _pro hâc vice_, their objections to the employment of gunpowder; suppose further that the foreigners should concur, nobody knows why, in voting for such a measure; the terrified minority would not be without a remedy. It would still be in their power, by the accession of these honorary members, to outnumber their dissenting adversaries at the ensuing meeting; and, by objecting to the confirmation of the minutes, prevent the explosion of this nefarious plot. But indeed there is no end of remedies. Every clergyman subscribing a guinea a year, is a _member of the committee_. (Art. 12.) Every subscriber of five guineas a year, is a _member of the committee_. (Art. 5 and 7.) Every subscriber of 50_l._ at one time, is a _member of the committee_. (Art. 6.) And lastly, every executor paying a bequest of 100_l._ is a _member of the committee_. (Art. 8 and 7.) Now, Sir, supposing the members of the church of England to be (upon your own estimate) to those of other denominations as four to one, _whose_ fault do you think it will be, if the balance of influence in the committee of the Bible Society should be against her? Will _you_ be wholly innocent?—“Oh, Sir, how could you join in such a plot? What could induce you to lend your” professional “name to such a business as this? And why should you think so basely of the clergy as to tempt them by your example,” and the presumption of your fair reputation, to believe, that, in strengthening the hands of their ecclesiastical brethren, they would “sign the death-warrant of the established church, and the instrument of their own ruin?” {47a} Do, Sir, lose no time in writing your palinodia. I will not ask you to alter your opinion of the Society, or to part with one of your suspicions of its mischievous designs. You shall still be at liberty to talk, as freely as ever, of “preaching blacksmiths and fanatical ranters in holy orders;” and of such “doves,” as you and your friends, becoming “a luscious and inviting morsel to all the several hungry denominations of Christians;” provided you do but seek to multiply the number of our ecclesiastical subscribers, as much as you have hitherto laboured to diminish it. I will not promise, in return, that your “liberality will be sounded forth by every gospel-preacher in the church, and every twanging teacher in the conventicle;” {47b} but I may then venture to promise you, what I should think would afford you quite as much pleasure—the satisfaction of having converted a standing majority _against_ the church into a standing majority _in her favor_.

I will not dispute with you, whether the established church will be a gainer by this new connexion on the score of _dignity_ and fashion. I am told, indeed, that there are among the nonconformists those who can wear as gay a coat, play as good a hand at whist, and give as modish an account of an opera or a play, as “those men of the world” among us, who “think it more creditable to be accounted members of our venerable church, than a subscriber to the meeting-house:” but I cannot say how many there may be of this description among the subscribers to the Bible Society. However, though “few men of opulence, and fewer still of rank, frequent the meeting-house or conventicle,” there is “influence and consideration” {48a} enough among the members of our communion to give respectability to both. I grant, indeed, that “the presence of _a nobleman_ cannot make the company which he honours with his presence either creditable or polite,” yet surely the presence of a _number_ will go a great way towards doing it: but then I admit with you, that they must not be “wandering stars,” {48b} which shed a momentary lustre, but luminaries which keep a _fixed_ position, and dispense a _certain_ light.

You expect, as the result of this new association, that all will become unity, and charity, and Christian benevolence, and that you shall see “realized the pretty hand-in-hand frontispiece to the Christian Ladies Pocket-Book 1803.” {48c} Now though I am not so sanguine in my expectations as you are, yet I trust you will not be wholly disappointed. And, in my opinion, a Protestant clergy will be not acting less out of their character by promoting “unity, charity, and Christian benevolence,” than by disturbing them: nor can Christian prelates be quite so much disgraced by shaking the hands of Dissenting ministers in the frontispiece of a pocket-book, {49} as they would be if represented as drawing those hands through the holes of a pillory.

Your fears are awakened for the _purity_ of the church:—I am certainly more tender of her _purity_ than I am of her _dignity_; and that because I have been taught to regard her _white raiment_ as her truest _glory_. But what defilement has she to apprehend from a co-operation with persons differing from her, in an object upon which they are agreed? If Socinians are to be feared, if Calvinists are to be shunned, I question whether the Bible Society will furnish dangers nearly so great as those which the established church incurs from members of her own communion. Socinians are not remarkable for their zeal in promoting the circulation of the Scriptures; and I question whether half a dozen of them have subscribed their names as members of the Bible Society. As for the Calvinists, they constitute, it must be remembered, only a proportion of those denominations which are represented in the committee. The Wesleian Methodists are not _Calvinists_; many of the Presbyterians are not _Calvinists_; the Quakers are not _Calvinists_; the Lutherans are not _Calvinists_; and individuals of other persuasions, which might be named, are not _Calvinists_. Besides, though “scratchings and fightings” may be “usual with the parties when on the outside of the tavern walls,” {50} that is not a reason for there being theological wranglings within. The line of business is, with few exceptions, as direct at the Bible Committee as it is at Lloyd’s; and there is as little reason to expect the peculiar tenets of Calvin or Socinus to enter into a debate for dispersing an edition of the Scriptures, as there would be if the same men were met to underwrite a policy of insurance. But why may it not be hoped that churchmen will not be the only losers by this connexion? What if some of _us_ should grow less proud and phlegmatic, may not some of _them_ become less snarlish and fanatical? The friction which takes off our asperities will assuredly do the same by theirs. It is therefore highly probable, that we may severally bring away with us our faith, our hope, and our charity, which are all we wish to save; and leave nothing behind us but that “bitterness, and wrath, and anger, and clamour, and evil-speaking, and malice,” {51a} which can very well be spared.