Part 4

You ask, “what concord hath a mitre with a meeting-house?” The Pharisees of old were fond of asking questions of the same sort—“Why eateth your Master with publicans and sinners?” The Pharisees were very little satisfied with the answer they received; and, I dare say, any answer that could be given to the Country Clergyman would satisfy him as little. I must therefore leave him to doubt whether _any concord_ can subsist between kindred souls, pursuing the same object under different forms, and in unequal stations, till he shall see how near the spirits of an Usher and a Baxter, of a Taylor and a Henry, of a Tillotson and a Watts, of a Seeker and a Doddridge, will _venture_ to approach each other, in the new heaven and new earth wherein dwelleth _righteousness_.

And pray what are we to understand by your merry question about the _unequal yoke_? “Why (you ask) should a clergyman of the church of England be unequally yoked with a lovely sister of the conventicle?” And then you desire “a certain officer of the Society” {51b} to be consulted. What sort of an answer that “officer” might think proper to give, it belongs to himself to determine; but I confess I see nothing in the question which I should be afraid to meet. I am at a loss to see what harm “a lovely sister of the conventicle” can do to any man. I am sure there is every probability that such an “unequal yoke” would do the Country Clergyman’s temper a great deal of good. But I cannot give him any great encouragement, if he should _venture himself_ upon such a speculation, _into the company of those of whom he has always hitherto been horribly afraid_. The sectaries, on whom he has laid such heavy blows, will keep (I fear) their “lovely sisters” for priests of a gentler nature and better breeding; and leave the Country Clergyman to whisper his tale of love into some high-church ear, and to be as “equally yoked” as Richard Hooker, {52} or any other country clergyman ever was before him.

But though I can pardon in this “certain officer of the Society,” his _hymeneal_ error (for matches, you know, Sir, are made in heaven), yet I have no such allowance to make for those other transgressions, in which he is, or ought to be, a freer agent. “Perhaps (you say) he can resolve us, how a clergyman of the church can attend the meeting-house, without danger to his principles, or gross indecorum towards the church and its spiritual superior. He perhaps can show us too, how a clergyman of the church can securely, and without breach of trust, take his pupils to hear the harangues of those who daily revile her. This, to common understandings, does not appear to be the likely way ‘to banish and drive away all erroneous and strange doctrines, contrary to God’s word,’ which every clergyman at his ordination solemnly promises to do. It wants some clearing up.” {53}

There is really, Sir, no accounting for the fancies of some of our order. Dean Swift was fond of vulgar manners, and therefore he would take his dinner in a cellar; some clergymen love the sports of the field, and therefore join the hounds at a fox-chase: I suppose this “certain officer of the Society” has a sort of ear for public speaking, and has sometimes stepped a little out of his way in order to gratify it. But then (as you might naturally say) are not the _theatres_ open for him, as well as for his brethren; and if he wants a slice of good oratory, cannot he give six shillings to a box-keeper, and take it like a gentleman? _He_ may perhaps have a doubt (for he seems to hold opinions of his own) “how a clergyman of the church can attend” _the theatre_, “without danger to his principles, or gross indecorum towards the church and its spiritual superior.” Perhaps also he may entertain a doubt “how a clergyman of the church can, securely, and without breach of trust, take his pupils to hear the harangues of those” dramatic characters, “which,” as Archbishop Tillotson says, “do most notoriously minister to infidelity and vice.” {54a} Possibly “this,” to his understanding, may “not appear to be the likely way ‘to frame and fashion himself and his family according to the doctrine of Christ, and to make both himself and them, as much as in him lieth, wholesome examples and patterns to the flock of Christ,’ {54b} which every clergyman at his ordination solemnly promises to do.” But I think with you, that the whole of this matter “wants clearing up.” I have, I confess, some difficulty about conceiving how this priest can execute either such, or so many duties as he is said to do, of a parochial and domestic nature; and yet find either time to conduct his pupils to hear the church reviled, or pupils tractable enough to be conducted by him. But, as I said before, the whole matter “wants clearing up;” and if you should be found to have aimed a blow at his professional character, which he has not quite deserved, you have nothing to do but to say, as the Roman assassins are reported to do when they stab the wrong man in the dark, “_Padrone è un sbaglio_,”—“I beg your pardon, it was _a mistake_.”

Your last objection respects “the purity of the Holy Scriptures,” which, you think, will be endangered “if the translation and edition of the Sacred Book are to be intrusted to all the different denominations of Christians.” {55} The greater part of this objection has been anticipated. It has been already stated that the Society is restrained to editing and distributing the versions, _printed by authority_, throughout the united kingdom. In supplying the different parts of the European continent, the Society will find the versions already in circulation among the Protestant churches; and its proceedings in these cases will be chiefly directed by those Lutheran prelates and ministers, with whom a confidential communication has, I understand, been already opened, through the medium of its foreign secretary. Nor can there be any danger of the Bible Society intrusting “either the translating or the editing the Holy Scriptures to the care of that denomination of Christians called Papists;” {56a} for, besides the _improbability_ of “that denomination of Christians” joining the Bible Society, there is the absolute _certainty_, that there would always be in the committee a _standing majority against them_. With regard to _new_ translations, they relate, as has been already observed, to languages, over which the jurisdiction of the church of England would be as nugatory as that of any other denomination of Christians. The manner of conducting these must be almost, if not entirely, matter of discretion; and such a committee as the Bible Society has been shown to possess, affords the best security that such discretion will never be wanted. So far as the influence of the church in these cases is of importance, she has it, by the natural constitution of the committee; and if a preponderating influence be desirable, the doors are opened for obtaining it by proportional subscription. Should she adopt this measure, as I trust she will, “you see the consequences as well as I can.” The Society will then contain, beyond all question, _a standing majority in favor of the church_; and there will be no room for apprehending that “our present pure English Bible will be thrust aside to make way for others:” but while “every different party has its doctrine and its interpretation,” all parties will have but ONE BIBLE. {56b}

But, it seems, you have got possession of a fact which strengthens all your fears: you have been “credibly informed that the British and Foreign Bible Society are at this time preparing an edition of the Holy Scriptures in the Welsh language, in which such liberties are taken in the translation as are by no means warrantable.” You are right in saying you give this “merely as a _report_;” however, I cannot help suspecting that, where the Bible Society, or any of its _officers_, are likely to suffer by it, you have no particular objection to publishing what are “merely _reports_.” Others before you have charged upon the Society the nefarious crime of taking “unwarrantable liberties with the _translation_” and they had just as good authority for saying so as you have. The fact is, that _the original informer_ never imputed to the Society the guilt of altering the _translation_, but the _orthography_ of the text; and he, it must be observed, had never seen any portion of the corrected copy. But before your pamphlet left the press—perhaps before it went there; the parties, to whom the information had been originally conveyed, were in possession of another sort of _report_—a Report from the Committee of the British and Foreign Bible Society; in which the corrections that had occasioned this alarm, were shown to have been made (whether right or wrong, _judicent periti_), upon a collation of the orthographical variations, in the several _authorized editions only_. However, the question between the parties is in a train of arbitration, under the direction of the syndics of the Cambridge University-press; _who_, and _not the Committee of the Bible Society_, are to be the printers of the Welsh impression.

But lest the Welsh rumour should subside before the Society is overthrown, you have another little story to keep up the public prejudice against it. “The author (you say) has likewise been _told_, that the distribution of tracts as well as Bibles, was in the original plan of some of the first projectors of this scheme, one of whom is known to be a zealous adversary of the establishment.” {58a} Now, Sir, it is very possible that the original projector of this Society, and his project too, may have been very exceptionable, and yet the present institution be entitled to a very honorable character. I have never thought the worse of the Reformation, because I could not for the life of me think well of Henry the Eighth and his “original plan.” The “Philanthropic Society” is founded upon a supposition, which I think a very just one, that something may be made of the _offspring_, when nothing can be made of the _parent_; {58b} and I suppose the Country Clergyman would rather have his pamphlet judged from the _fair copy_ which he sent to the press, than from any one of those “original plans” of it, which were projected by his busy and inquisitive _reporters_. The question is, whether the _actual_ plan of the Society comprehends or excludes the distribution of _tracts_. The answer to this is, that the _first article_ of the constitution peremptorily _excludes_ them. After such a declaration, it is as unreasonable to dispute the _present_ object of the Bible Society, by a reference to any _antecedent_ designs; as it would be to question whether the Paradise Lost be an _epic poem_, merely because it stood as a _drama_ in Milton’s “original plan.”

But I have done.—My business was not to proclaim the _excellence_ of the Bible Society; but only to rescue it from _reproach_. I have therefore confined my remarks to those specific objections with which you have opposed it.

What _further_ objections you could have produced (and, it seems, you have nine times as many in reserve) {59} I shall not concern myself to inquire: if they resemble those, which have been already considered, I rejoice that you have had the grace to conceal them. You have already condescended enough “to do the enemy’s work:” and deserved sufficiently well of those who seek the church’s degradation. If this be _really_ the object of the several denominations of Christians, they are abundantly more indebted to the hostility of the _cassock_ than to the friendship of the _mitre_. _Yours_, Sir, is the description of services upon which they will set the most value: and, if they do you justice, “not a single nonconformist, Papist, Socinian, or Quaker, will be silent in your praise.”—“Ungrateful wretches would they be, were they to pass by unnoticed and un-eulogized so great a friend to their cause.” {60a} But I trust you have mistaken _them_, as much as you have dishonored _us_: _they_ will hope to get to heaven, though they should not have pulled down the church in their way; and _we_ shall hope to get there too, though we should not have _compelled_ them “to be like-minded,” nor refused them the free use of Bibles, and the offices of brotherly love.

And now, Sir, before I take my leave (a ceremony to which we are hastening with mutual impatience), let me challenge your acknowledgment of that courteousness and suavity with which I have treated you. It was natural for you to expect revilings and reproaches; you esteem them an “honor;” you “have enjoyed them before;” {60b} and I must do you the justice to say, that you take some pains to deserve them. However, in the present instance, you have been disappointed. I have neither reviled nor reproached you: I have not once called you “Beelzebub,” through the whole of my letter: I have never once insinuated that you were a wolf in sheep’s clothing: I have never once pried into the table of your alliances, nor dodged you from your house to your favorite places of amusement, nor pretended to know any more of your private history, than was strictly consistent with “a gentleman and a Christian.”

I owe this self-government to “those liberal-basis’d and broad-bottomed principles,” to which you appear so profound a stranger: and I trust, this consideration will do a great deal towards recommending them to your favor. They are, Sir, be assured, the genuine principles of Christianity, as well as those of the British constitution. They are calculated to reflect honor on the church, and to promote harmony through the nation. On them the British and Foreign Bible Society has been erected; and from such an institution, resting upon such “a basis,” the happiest events may, under God, be expected, to the country—to Europe—and to the habitable world.

I am, Rev. Sir,

Your humble Servant.

* * * * *

* * * * *

THE END.

* * * * *

* * * * *

* * * * *

S. GOSNELL, Printer, Little Queen Street.

FOOTNOTES.

{1} Address, p. 1.

{2} Address, p. 1 and 2.

{3a} Address, p. 16.

{3b} This resolution was occasioned by the combination of the journeymen printers, &c. against their masters.

{6a} Address, p. 28.

{6b} Ibid.

{6c} P. 21.

{6d} “History proves that none but _the church_ have enjoyed the _splendour and favour of princes_.” Address, p. 27.

{8} Address, p. 5.

{9a} Address, p. 32.

{9b} P. 5.

{9c} P. 6.

{10a} Address, p.8.

{10b} P. 9.

{10c} P. 8.

{11a} Address, p. 5.

{11b} P. 7.

{12} Address, p. 5.

{14a} Address, p. 7.

{14b} P. 10.

{15} Address, p. 8.

{16} Address, p. 8.

{17} Address, p. 8, 9.

{19} Address, p. 9.

{20} Address, p. 16.

{21a} Address, p. 11.

{21b} P. 26.

{24a} Address, p. 21.

{24b} P. 12.

{26} Address, p. 18.

{27} Address, p. 13.

{31} Address, p. 32.

{34} Address, p. 11.

{35a} Address, p. 16.

{35b} P. 2.

{35c} P. 16.

{35d} Ibid.

{36} It struck me suddenly at last, that your Lordship must intend by these classical words, only what the vulgar would call “broad bottom.” Address, p. 16.

{37a} Address, p. 17.

{37b} Ibid.

{37c} P. 18.

{39a} Address, p. 21.

{39b} “Whose delight,” speaking of the Dissenters, “has always been to clip the silver wings of the heavenly dove, and to pluck her golden feathers from her breast.” Address, p. 20.

{40a} Address, p. 21.

{40b} John, iv. 9.

{40c} Gal. iv. 26.

{41} Address, p. 25.

{44} It need scarcely be observed, that our virtuous Queen, and the wives of her royal sons, were of the Lutheran church.

{45} A church at Rome, called _San Pietro in Vincolis_, is said to have been built in consequence of such a miraculous event.

{47a} Address, p. 23.

{47b} P. 24.

{48a} Address, p. 28.

{48b} P. 27.

{48c} Ibid.

{49} The reader, who is not acquainted with this part of ecclesiastical history, must be told, that a bookseller, desirous, it is presumed, of reconciling all “denominations of Christians” to the purchase of his Christian “Ladies’ Pocket-book, for 1803,” took the liberty of representing three ministers, respectively of the Presbyterian, Baptist, and Independent denominations of Protestant Dissenters, and a prelate of the established church, together with an union of hands, in the frontispiece of his work.

{50} Address, p. 22.

{51a} Ephes. iv. 3.

{51b} Address, p. 32.

{52} Richard Hooker was prevailed upon by Mrs. _Churchman_, the wife of “a draper of good note,” as honest Isaac Walton calls him, to let her choose a wife for him. “Now,” continues the pleasant biographer, “the wife provided for him was her daughter Joan, who brought him neither beauty nor portion; and for her conditions, they were too like that wife’s, which is by Solomon compared to a dripping house: so that he had no reason to _rejoice in the wife of his youth_, but rather to say with the holy prophet, ‘_Wo is me_, _that I am constrained to have my habitation in the tents of Kedar_’.” Walton’s Life of Hooker.

{53} Address, p. 32.

{54a} Vide Archbishop Tillotson on the Stage (as quoted by Law).

{54b} Vide Ordination Service.

{55} Address, p. 32.

{56a} Address, p. 33.

{56b} P. 34.

{58a} Address, p. 36.

{58b} This Society provides for educating the _children of felons_.

{59} “I have mentioned not a tenth part.” Address, p. 35.

{60a} Address, p. 24.

{60b} P. 4.