Part 1

Transcribed from the [1817] J. Keymer edition by David Price, email [email protected]

OBSERVATIONS ON AN ANONYMOUS PAMPHLET,

WHICH _HAS BEEN DISTRIBUTED_ IN Lowestoft, and its Neighbourhood, ENTITLED REASONS WHY A CHURCHMAN MAY WITH GREAT JUSTICE REFUSE TO SUBSCRIBE TO THE BRITISH AND FOREIGN BIBLE SOCIETY.

* * * * *

BY FRANCIS CUNNINGHAM, A.B RECTOR OF PAKEFIELD; _And Secretary of the Lowestoft Branch Bible Society_.

* * * * *

YARMOUTH: Printed and Sold by J. Keymer, King-Street;

SOLD ALSO BY GOWING, LOWESTOFT; PARSONS, NORWICH; HATCHARD, AND SEELEY, LONDON.

* * * * *

_OBSERVATIONS_ ON AN ANONYMOUS PAMPHLET.

THERE are many circumstances which might have induced a friend of the Bible Society to refrain from noticing a work, under the circumstances of the present pamphlet. And, had it strictly adhered to its title, and simply stated the reasons why a churchman might properly refuse to subscribe to this institution, it would probably have remained unnoticed by me. It might, in that case, have been hoped, that statements which are unacknowledged would not have been believed, and the reasonings of the work might have been left, without much alarm, to do their worst. But, as it has been observed to me, that the very circumstance of putting even the most improbable statements in print, invests them with a species of authority; and as there are many persons still unacquainted with the nature and operations of the Bible Society, and who, therefore, may mistake the boldness of assertion in this little work for the confidence of truth, I have yielded to the advice of some of my friends, in attempting to reply to it. Before I proceed, however, to this reply, I will beg leave to make a single observation on the _temper_ in which this attempt will, I trust, be made.

The author of this pamphlet has, in the first page of his work, reprobated the “arrogant and dogmatical style” of his opponents; and, in the conclusion of it, he has called their measures “wicked, cruel, and unchristian.” It is my hope, that I shall not fall into the same error. I desire “nothing to extenuate, nor set down aught in malice;” to state facts, not from the mere authority of the parties concerned in this controversy, but upon that of the most authentic documents; and, should I fail to convince my readers, it is my confident intention not at once to conclude their opinions “unchristian” and “cruel,” because they differ from my own; hard words, I may venture to say, ought not to be the weapons of our warfare, and I trust they never will be of mine. I desire to remember the declaration of our Lord, “they that take the sword, shall perish by the sword.”

I may be permitted also to add, that in entering upon the consideration of this question, I consider myself as approaching a subject of the highest importance. When I am canvassing the merits of an instrument for circulating the Word of God over every part of the world, I tremble lest the ark should suffer in my hands; and I desire to go out to the warfare, not so much with a “sword and a shield” of human fabrication, as, “in the name of the Lord,” for the circulation of whose Word I wish to contend.

This pamphlet is entitled “Reasons why a Churchman may with great justice refuse to subscribe to the Bible Society;” and the reasons which are assigned may be said to be of three kinds: First, _That a better Society_, _of a like kind_, _exists in the church_; Secondly, _That the Bible Society does not answer to the professions and praises of its advocates_; Thirdly, _That it is injurious to the established church_. Upon each of these points I shall now venture to make a few observations.

_First_, It is said, _That a better Society_, _of a like kind_, _exists in the church_. The Society to which the author alludes, is that established more than 100 years since, which is called the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge. Its object is threefold: To distribute Bibles; also, Prayer Books and Tracts; and to send Missionaries. Every member of this Society is obliged to give good security that he is a churchman, and there is no way in which, by its means, any other denomination of christians can be benefited, but by the hands of churchmen.

The advantages of this institution over the Bible Society which the author endeavours to establish are four. _First_, It is a _Society which consists entirely of churchmen_; _Secondly_, Bibles can be procured in it at a _cheaper rate_; _Thirdly_, The Bibles which it issues are more _useful_; _Fourthly_, It furnishes _Prayer Books and Tracts_.

As the Society whose cause the author exclusively advocates, is a society of churchmen, he maintains that, by its extension and prevalence, no variety of interpretation in essential points would prevail, and therefore no confusion be introduced amongst the unlearned. All churchmen would, he conceives, teach the same truths in the same manner. But, is this accurate? Is there such a perfect accordance of opinion amongst churchmen? If, for instance, Dr. Marat and Mr. Scott, each of them churchmen, each of them members of the Old Society, and each of them men of respectability, were to circulate Bibles, with their own interpretations, would an exact conformity of opinion be produced? Assuredly not. What, then, is the conclusion from this? That of churchmen, it can only be said as of churchmen and dissenters, they agree in the authority of the Bible; but there is no complete agreement as to the interpretations of the Bible. If churchmen, who are members of the Old Society, widely disagree upon essential points in the interpretation of the Bible, even the Old Society is no guarantee for unity. A person, to be quite right, on the principle of the author, should subscribe exclusively to a Society, where each person would agree to promulgate only the same interpretation of scripture; and where, it may be asked, would such a Society be found?

But, secondly, the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge is affirmed to be best, because “_it procures Bibles at a __cheaper rate_.” What is meant by this assertion I cannot discover, unless the author designs to say, that Bibles cost less to that Society in their original purchase. This would be very inaccurate, as each are purchased at the same markets—the markets to which the sale is confined by legislative enactment. But the author proceeds to a statement of _facts_ on this subject, which it may be well to consider. It is said, page 7, “A 12mo Non-pareil Bible is allowed to the subscribers for Promoting Christian Knowledge for 3_s._ 3_d._, but the British and Foreign Bible Society expects from its subscribers 4_s._, 6_d._, for the same edition.” As to this statement, I would say, in the first place, that it is grossly incorrect. By every printed document of the Bible Society, this Bible, which is stated to be charged to its subscribers at 4_s._ 6_d._, is offered to them at 3_s._ 7_s._ But it may yet be said, The Bible from the Old Society is then at all events cheaper than that of the New: Why are not the prices of the New Society reduced? I answer, that in all the instances, the Bibles of the New Society are within a few pence as cheap as in the Old. But, if not, a most satisfactory reason may be given, in the consideration of the object of the New Society, and of the means it has adapted to pursue that object. Its object is simply this, _to do the greatest possible good_. And, in order to accomplish this, it determines to supply Bibles precisely at the rate which may suit the convenience of individuals, without impairing the general means of the Society; to suit the exigencies of the poor on the one hand, and, on the other, to obtain a suitable return for their money. An exactly parallel case presents itself. The Society for the relief of the Poor, in Spitalfields, are now selling rice at three-pence per pound. Why, it might be asked, is the rice not sold cheaper than this? It would be answered, because the object is to do the greatest possible good. Three-pence per pound is a price which the poor can afford to pay, and, by receiving this instead of a less price, the Society may perhaps be able to encounter the continued pressure of the times. Thus it is with Bibles. The poor (as is evident from their free purchase of them) can afford to pay what they now pay for Bibles, and which is about one half of what they would pay in the shops; whilst the Society is by this return enabled to supply Bibles gratuitously to the destitute, and continue its operations through the world. Nor is this all: One reason why the Old Society originally made its prices so low, was, that it did not allow its subscribers to _sell_ their Bibles, even at reduced prices, but constrained them to _give_ them away. The New Society first discovered the error of this proceeding, and concluding that a poor man would be likely more to value the Bible which was bought, than the Bible which was given, recommended its subscribers as a general rule, rather to sell than to give. Hence, amongst other advantages, its subscribers might be justly called upon to pay to this Society a higher price. It may be observed, that the Old Society has now extended this privilege to its subscribers, and, on this ground, it is privileged to raise its prices.

But not only, is it said, are the Bibles _cheaper_, but they are _better_: _better_, because, at the Old Society, may be had a _Bible with a commentary_, the lowest price of which is fifty shillings.

Now it may be observed, that this argument does not very happily square with the last. First, says our author, the Bibles of the Old Society are better, because they are cheaper; next, they are better, because they have a commentary costing fifty shillings. One of these two arguments must be surrendered. The Bibles cannot be at once cheaper, and cost a price which excludes them from general circulation. But, further, it may be said, that every argument which assumes the importance of the commentary to the Society, assumes the accuracy and value of the commentary itself.—Are all commentaries then valuable?—Are there none which might be very dear at fifty shillings?

But a fourth reason, it is said, for the superiority of the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, is, that it provides Prayer Books and Religious Tracts. The friends of the Bible Society are charged with saying, “that the Bible, and the Bible alone, is the religion of Protestants;” and our author affirms, that, but for the exertions of Dr. Marsh, the Prayer Book would not have been circulated.

As to the first of these charges, the Society pleads guilty. They say, what the immortal Chillingworth said before them, They maintain the principle, for which their ancestors died triumphantly under the axe of a Popish executioner. As to the second, it appeared, upon a pretty rigid scrutiny, that whereas many of the friends of the Bible Society had made large demands upon the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge for _Prayer Books_, Dr. Marsh had confined himself, in his own parish, to the circulation of a little volume on the _Value of Tithes_. But let us look at the subject a little more generally.

Of Tracts it may be said as of a commentary that the connection of these with any Society must exceedingly limit its extension, even amongst churchmen. Accordingly, these Tracts have been stated in print by churchmen to be completely inconsistent with one another; some have been called “heretical;” some have been charged with involving “the worst errors of Popery.” And, whatever may be the merit of these Tracts, to call them, with our author, “sure and certain guides,” is to affirm of them what can be affirmed only of the Revelation of God. Indeed, if there were no other objection to our author’s statement, there is this, that these infallible guides are in the unfortunate habit of flatly contradicting each other. In this case, who is to arbitrate between them? I know not what arbitrator our author will propose. I should say the Bible? and I should go on to draw this inference—subscribe than to the Bible Society—and transmit the doctrine of infallible “guides’” in the first vessel from Lowestoft to Rome.

I am sorry that I should have felt any obligation to draw up what may bear even the semblance of a charge against the Society, at Bartlett’s Buildings, of which I am a member. That Society has many merits, and in its own sphere is capable of doing much good. But, when an attempt is made to canonize this Society; to apply it to objects which it can never reach; and to erect it on the ruins of a Society of wider basis and far more extensive capabilities, it is difficult to be entirely silent. It was heartily to be wished, that these two Societies should never have been brought into invidious comparison, for, in a comparison, one of them must fail; and, which ever suffers, Christianity suffers with it, because the promotion of Christianity is the object of both. As, however, these two Societies have been brought into comparison, by the author of these “Reasons,” it seems requisite now to show, that the New Society has certain peculiar and exclusive advantages, which justify churchmen in supporting it.

In the first place, then, _the constitution of the Old Society disqualified it from the universal supply of the Word of God_. It had existed for near a century, and during that time, I venture confidently to say, it had, even _at home_, done little of what was necessary for the distribution of the Scriptures; and, _abroad_, scarcely any thing at all.

_At home_, when examinations were made as to the circulation of the Scriptures in many parts of England, especially in Lincolnshire, there were villages where the Bible was alone to be found in the church; within about a mile of the depository of the Old Society, full one half of the families were without a copy of the Scriptures; in this diocese alone, it was calculated that ten thousand families were destitute of the Word of God; in that of Durham, seven thousand five hundred; and, which is a certain proof of this assertion, since that time, nearly one million five hundred thousand copies have been distributed, principally in our own country, without, at the same time, the demand for the Scriptures being by any means supplied.

_Abroad_, the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge has been able to effect still less. It had, indeed, only in one instance, attempted the distribution of the Scriptures. This was in the year 1720, when it printed, but not altogether at its own charge, an edition of the Psalms and the New Testament in the Arabic language. And such was the want of facilities for foreign operations, that, till lately, a part of that edition was mouldering in the cellars of the institution. Except this, and the assistance it has given to the Danish mission in the East Indies, it may be said to have done little or nothing for foreign countries. Nor let me be conceived to impute it as blame to this Society that it has done no more in a sphere, from which, from its constitution, it was excluded.

But what is the inference from this? That when, from the introduction of schools at home, an additional demand was created for the Scriptures, and when abroad the multiplication of missionaries created a new demand for the Bible, in all the languages of the earth, it was not sufficient that a Society existed which had proved itself insufficient for the supply of the Scriptures, even under less trying circumstances. It was necessary that something more should be attempted, and, accordingly, the New Society was constructed—a Society, erected on the widest possible basis, and comprehending all the means and energies of all the worshippers of Christ. The Old Society was left to pursue its domestic career; and the New Society, beginning at home, extended itself over the whole world. The one, as it has been said, is like the lamp at a particular sanctuary; the other, “the pillar which preceded the march of the whole people of God.”

Nor is this wider operation and extension of the New Society the fruit of accident—_it is the result of its constitution_. This constitution acknowledges no sect or party amongst christians; it partakes of no religious system; and therefore is equally applicable to all climates and all governments. Accordingly, in Russia, in England, and in America, in countries divided by the widest intervals in their religious and political administration, it is equally innoxious to the established order of things; it arrests every man who bears the title of a christian; seizes, as by a sort of natural affinity, upon that part of his creed which he holds in common with the whole christian world, and throws it down to form as it were a basis for this institution: he may have much religion, or little; what he has is converted by this Society to the glory of God, and the salvation of man.

Nor is the universality of that Society its only peculiar property—it is peculiar to that institution _to be incorruptible_. Its object is so simple, that it needs no other safeguards than its own principles. With the Old Society that is not the case. It is entrusted to human agents; and how can a person who lives at too great distance to attend the Committees of this Society, know what Tracts may be admitted, or what may be suppressed; what security has he for the consistency of the proceedings? But the object and proceedings of the Bible Society are always the same. It is to distribute the authorised version of the Bible, without note or comment; and whilst it adheres to this, whether the members of a committee of this Society are well or ill affected to church or state, nothing more than the distribution of the authorised version of the Scriptures can be effected. Their deadliest plot can issue only in the circulation of that book, which is the best antidote to their own wickedness. In the universality of its application, therefore, and the incorruptibility of its plan, the New differs from the Old Society.

But let us now turn to the second objection of the author of this pamphlet, _viz._, _That the Bible Society has been unduly commended by its advocates_, page 4, “Neither,” says our author, “is the general circulation of the Scriptures enacted by them, nor do their meetings produce love and harmony amongst Christians of various denominations.” The first of those propositions, that the Scriptures are not distributed “_universally_” by the Bible Society is attempted to be proved by this circumstance that they are not circulated “_exclusively_” by it. In what manner one of three facts establishes the other, I am at a loss so discover. I heartily wish that, in the like way of reasoning it could be proved, that because the author is not the only person who has written against the Bible Society, _therefore_ he had not written against it at all. But now look at the fact, as to the distribution of the Scriptures. They are distributed to all classes, to heathens even, if they wish to possess them; and they are distributed not merely in the languages of this country, but in fifty-three languages or dialects, of almost every kindred and people over the world. Whatever comes short of a completely general distribution of the Scriptures by the Bible Society, is occasioned by the want of funds.

But the author is not satisfied with this gratuitous assertion. He goes on, in the same strain of independent and courageous affirmation, to maintain, that a feeling of love and harmony is not produced by the meeting of various denominations of christians in this Society; and, in proof of this, he appeals to certain recent occurrences. But what are these recent occurrences he leaves us to divine. If, indeed, he were to refer to certain recent occurrences in another quarter, as evidences of “bitter and unseemly contention,” {12a} and of the “degradation” of a meeting assembled for grave deliberation into “a British Forum, or a Bear Garden,” {12b} probably every churchman would understand the hint, however obliquely conveyed. But, as to the meeting of the Bible Society, I have attended both those of the Parent Institution, and in various parts of this and the neighbouring county, and I can truly say, that I have never seen any feeling predominate, but that of christian love. I have never known any offensive peculiarity obtruded upon the assembly; and although it might have been sometimes wished, that, in points of taste and expression, some of the speeches had been amended, yet, in point of temper and spirit, and sober adherence to the main objects of the meeting, they have admitted of no improvement.

The author of these observations has, I should suspect, never attended at a meeting of this Society, or he would not have hazarded so extraordinary a charge. Let him and his friends be persuaded to judge in future, rather from their own experience, than from the representation of others. Let them come to these meetings, and, as men of feeling and principle, they would, I am persuaded, be amongst the first to build up an institution, which they are now in such haste to destroy. They would find the principle of attraction in the Society to be as strong as its advocates pretend; would find even themselves surprised into the vortex, and constrained, by a holy violence, to love the very men whom now they appear to distrust.

But I proceed to notice a third class of objections to this Society, viz.: those which are aimed at it as opposed to the _Established Church_, and to the _Society in Bartlett’s Buildings_. How is this objection verified? The Society in Bartlett’s Buildings had proceeded for many years with a tolerably even step, and during the four years preceding the establishment of the Bible Society, the avenge of its subscriptions and donations was about £2,234, whilst its whole income was £11,818. If this New Society had tended to its injury, the subscriptions and income would of course have diminished. But what is now the state of the case? The subscriptions to that Society during the last year amounted to £7,440, and its income to £44,215. And here let it be observed, that, not only has the income of the Society increased, but that part of its income which is applicable to the dispersion of Prayer Books and Tracts has much more increased. For the national supply of Bibles, which are in proportion to their sizes, more costly to the Society than Prayer Books, being at least divided by the Bible Society, a larger fund must remain for the distribution of Commentaries and Tracts.