Part 2

But we are taught, by the author, that the Society is injurious to the Established Church itself. That the Bible may be injurious to scepticism or superstition is to be believed; but how it can be injurious to a church, founded upon the Word of Truth, it is not easy to comprehend. Will the Bible, like the heathen parent of ancient story, devour his own offspring? But it is said, that the baptist, or the socinian, will give the Word of God the colour of their own creed. This, however, the churchman cannot help. However the baptist, or socinian, may procure a Bible, he will, of course, put his own interpretation to it. But we would ask, how are the baptist or the socinian ever to be converted to what we term orthodoxy? It must be by appealing to the Word of God. They will not accept our interpretation of Scripture, any more than we will theirs. It is, then, only on the Word of God that we can meet for discussion. This is the only remedy which we can propose, in ordinary circumstances, for any error, because it is the only one which the person in error will allow to be applied.

Let me beg the author to remember the principle upon which our church is founded. It is an appeal to _the Scriptures_. “We do not,” says Bishop Jewell, _Apol. Ecc. Ang._, cap. 4, “betake ourselves to the fire and the sword, but to the _Scriptures_; nor do we assault with force of arms, but with the _Word of God_.” “By the _Scriptures_,” as says Turtullian, “we nourish our faith; by them we erect our hope; by them we establish our confidence.” And, speaking of the churches of England and of Rome, he says, (cap, 5.) “not to mention all the differences, because they are almost infinite; _we have turned the Holy Scriptures into all languages_, and they will scarce allow them to be extant in any tongue; _we invite the people to hear and read the Word of God_, they drive them away from it; we desire the cause in controversy should be understood by all, but they fly from judgment; we trust to knowledge, they to ignorance; we bring truth to light, they to darkness; we venerate, as it is fit that we should, the words of the apostles and prophets, they burn them.” Thus we see, that the Scriptures were made the ground of appeal by our ancestors, when they separated from the Established Church, and formed our present establishment. Should we not, therefore, allow others to make the same appeal; and should we not be content to rest our defence upon the same ground?

But let us next, in considering the influence of the Society on the Established Church, take into account certain facts, which force themselves on the eye of the most cursory examiner. It is obvious, that the attendance at church in these times is considerably increased, and certainly not the least increased where a Bible Society spirit most abounds. In many places, also, great efforts have been made to build new churches, to accommodate an overgrown population; and, moreover, a most extraordinary increase in the circulation of the Liturgy has taken place. A new Society also has arisen, whose only object is to distribute the Formularies of the Established Church.

But we are not yet at the end of the objections of this very industrious opponent. The meetings of the Bible Society, it is said, by breaking in a degree the line of demarcation between churchmen and dissenters, tend to injure the establishment; and that, although the dissenter may gain, the churchman must lose by them. But how can this be? can the union of persons, where the peculiarities of each is kept out of view, have any bearing upon those peculiarities? Is it the fact, that churchmen have been converted to dissenters by these meetings? If there is a danger of conversion taking place, is it not a bad compliment to the church to suppose that she will be the loser? In physics, when a larger body meets a less, as in the case of the heavenly bodies, the smaller never fails to follow the motion of the larger. Why in the case of the church and dissenters alone, is this law to be reversed?

Will the author allow me to add this observation, that if danger to the establishment need not be apprehended from the distribution of the Bible, it is very much to be feared from the conduct of those who oppose this Society. In the first place, there is something very awful and ominous, in seeing those who are the appointed stewards of the Word of God, rising up to oppose any means by which its circulation is promoted; magnifying mole hills into mountains, if only they can throw them into the course of this Society. Opposition, such as this, is well calculated to shake “opinion,” upon which every establishment must mainly, under the blessing of God, depend. May not the enemies of the church, at least plausibly urge, that the church cannot be built upon the Scriptures, when so many churchmen oppose their distribution without their own commentary? And if the persuasion were established among the poor, that our church is erected on the foundation of commentaries and tracts, instead of that of the “apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone,” would not popular attachment quickly dissolve?

There are, however, still two points upon which I would wish to make a few observations. The first is, as to the statement of this writer, “that the income of the Bible Society is larger than its expenditure; that a large sum is invested by this Society in various funds, and, therefore, that the sum which has been obtained by subscriptions from the poor, is unjustly taken from them.” Now, to this I answer, that a large sum has indeed from time to time been invested by this Society. But, does the Bartlett’s Building’s Society, or any other body of men, in their senses, neglect such a precaution? By referring to the Report, we shall see that only so much is reserved by the Society, from year to year, as is necessary to meet the engagements under which it has laid itself. If the sum of stock, now stated by the auditors to be possessed by the Bible Society, is estimated, it will be found hardly more than is sufficient to pay the £36,000 for which the Society stands engaged. Had not such a reserve been made in the last year, from the temporary diminution in the income of the Society, it could not have fulfilled its engagements.

A second charge is brought against it, on the subject of _Bible Associations_. The principle of these Associations is this—The poor are permitted to pay one penny, or more, per week, to supply themselves with a Bible; and afterwards, if they are so disposed, towards the general funds of the Society. This is called, by the author of these Reasons, a “vexatious impost,” and he adds, that it is “wicked, cruel, and unchristian” to “deduct such a sum from a poor family,” to “tax the paupers of the kingdom to supply foreign nations.”

I wish my readers and myself to forget the epithets which are here bestowed upon some of the most respectable persons in this kingdom; upon the Bishop of Durham, for instance, who is president of one of these associations. It will be sufficient for me to reply to the argument upon which they are founded.

In the first place, it may be observed, that the payment of the sum of one penny per week, is not at all of the nature of a “tax,” or “vexatious impost,” it is strictly _voluntary_. Nor is it “_vexatious_,” for the disposition of man is not prone to inflict vexatious obligations upon himself. The days of the flagellants, if ever they existed, are over. But this charge of the author seems to me to be founded upon a wrong estimate of the character of the poor, as well as ignorance of the practical effects of the associations.

It arises, in the first place, from _a wrong estimate of the character of the poor_, and especially of the religious poor. The sympathy which is professed by the author of these Reasons, is for suffering which only exists in his own conception. Those who subscribe to Bible Associations have no feeling of the cruelty which they are said to endure. The best delight which can animate a human breast, is afforded to them by the means of the Bible Society, in the easiest manner, as well as in the highest degree.

Persons in higher situations of life, are apt to look upon those beneath them, as incapable of feeling those pleasures which they themselves enjoy. Thus the clean cottage, the small, but decorated garden of a poor man, is passed by with indifference by the rich; yet the poor man has, perhaps, more exquisite pleasure in his enjoyments, than another, pampered with all the superfluities of life. So may it be with these small subscriptions to Bible Associations. Although poor, a man is equally a man; he has drank “milk sweet as charity from human breasts;” and feeling, as acutely as any other, his own spiritual wants, he may have as earnest desire for the relief of his fellow-creatures. Such I am persuaded is the state of many of the poor, and their language in giving to these Associations is not the pang which _cruelty_ extorts, but of this kind—“I am not rich myself, but I will give my money, because I know that he who giveth to the poor, lendeth to the Lord; because the souls of multitudes are perishing for lack of that knowledge, which I am able, in a degree, to impart to them.”

But not only is this charge founded upon a wrong conception of the character and habits of the poor, but upon a mistaken view of the real political and moral influence of these Associations.

It is admitted on all hands, that the best remedy for national distress would be to create in the poor a spirit of independence; to raise them above a state, in which they would stoop to receive from the public, that support which ought to be procured by their own industry and foresight. On this ground, we establish clubs to provide against sickness; banks to deposit savings; and there is reason to conclude, from the example of Scotland, that if the principle of honest independence were duly cultivated, and means supplied for its full operation, an almost total subduction of our Poor Rate might take place. Bible Associations have, then, a direct tendency to teach and to set at work this very principle. They teach the poor economy, a habit of foresight, the benefit of order and christian co-operation. They raise the poor from the rank of beggars to that of benefactors; and, whilst in common with clubs, they cherish a habit of prudence, they root out the habit of selfishness, which clubs have, perhaps, a tendency to produce.

I may be permitted to say in conclusion, that although we may lament that such controversies should arise, because, as the author of these Reasons states, our divisions are by these means made greater, still it is our comfort to know, that the effect of such controversies is to create inquiry into the facts upon which they are founded. And this inquiry, all that love truth, must most earnestly desire. The friends of the Bible Society wish to lay open every fact, to offer every plan for investigation, conscious of the simplicity and purity of their object and conduct.

When the members of this Society, those of them, at least, who are not under an error of judgment, are said in this pamphlet to “have the aim and ambition to puritanize the whole community, and to raise the fabric of enthusiasm upon the ruins of church and state,” I look to _fact_, which our author will at least allow to be as good a weapon as hypothesis, and having used in vain all my faculties to discover any ground for the assertion, I venture to conclude, either that the author has in his study dreamt of enemies whom he cannot have seen, or that he has inserted this passage for the purpose of concluding his work with a flourish, even at the expence of truth.

I recollect a fable, by which, some years since, this same false and foolish charge was illustrated. It said, that philosophers had fancied they saw a monster in the sun, which, however, upon further examination, proved to be a fly in their own glass. And my firm conviction is, that the supposed monsters in this Society will prove to be flies in the glasses of our opponents. From no single fact, at least, in the constitution and general proceedings of the Bible Society, can these persons shew, that the slightest ground for such portentous apprehensions as are suggested, does exist, but in their own imagination.

The Bible Society has now existed long enough to prove how vain are aspersions of this kind. If such suppositions had been warranted, fourteen years would have developed them; but they still remain utterly unproved, and this Society is sufficiently known, and has been sufficiently examined. We have, indeed, sometimes seen its brilliancy for a short time obscured by works like our author’s, where every thing is charged and taken for granted, but these clouds have passed away, and then we have, when they have passed, observed this institution in the mean time risen to a higher meridian, beaming with more pure and brilliant lustre, and imparting more extended and beneficent animation.

It is a happiness for the friends of the Bible Society to know, that opposition like this, is not new against an institution of the most acknowledged merits; and which has the testimony of the very writer of these “Reasons.” At an early period of the existence of the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, the very same opposition was raised against itself. In the year 1718, that Society thought proper to answer these allegations, and I will extract a passage from a preface which it published to some missionary letters.

Extract from the Preface to a Collection of Letters from Foreign Missionaries, part 3, published by the direction of the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge. London, 1718, page vii.

“As things of this nature are generally subject to various opinions and reflections, so hath in particular this undertaking met with the same treatment since it came to be known in Europe. It hath been highly approved by some, and disliked by others. Some, who do not suppose an enterprize of this nature to be altogether impracticable, do, however, think it now very improper, when every one _complains of hard tines_, and is called upon by _other expences nearer at home_; and, for this reason, they are fur putting it off to a more convenient season. Others have been startled _at the newness of the thing_ and are shy to venture into a road so little beaten in this age, and so much exposed to danger and difficulty. Others have been bare spectators in this matter, unwilling to judge of a work, which, like a tender blade, did but just appear above ground, _not discovering as yet what its fruit might prove_. Others again, have taken a transient view of the scheme, but declared their unwillingness to be farther concerned, till they should see some _eminent men espouse it_, and by their example encourage others to engage in the same. Others are displeased with the heathen themselves, who, for the sake of a little gain, will conform to the christian name, but, at the approach of danger, quit it again, and relapse into their former ways.

“It is not the design of this preface to examine at large the various opinions and judgments which hitherto have been passed on this affair, much less to determine how far they might be well-grounded, or how far, perhaps, they might be biassed by mistaken and prejudices. However, thus much may be said in answer to those, who, on the one hand, are so easily terrified by the common calamities of the times, and, on the other, by the expensiveness of the design, that they seem to be little acquainted with the ways and dispensations of Providence. For if we take a survey of the most considerable transactions, both under the law and the gospel, it will plainly appear, that, generally, the _best of works have been carried on in the worst of times_, and that they have triumphed at last (though after much toil and labour) over all the clamours and oppositions that wicked men and devils could raise against them.

“The prophet assures us, that Jerusalem was rebuilt in strait and troublous times. And another of the inspired writers tells us, that they were fain to work with one hand, and to hold their weapons in the other. And yet did the work gain ground in the midst of all those adversities; and the attempts made against it, were so far from disheartening the builders, that they did but more encourage them to go on with their labour, till they saw the design brought to a happy conclusion. However, it cannot be denied, that the opposition is then most destructive and fatal, when it comes from those that are WITHIN THE PALE OF THE CHURCH, AND WHO, UNDER AN EXTERNAL SHEW OF THE SAME CONFESSION, DESTROY THE VITALS OF THE CHRISTIAN FAITH.

“How backward the Jews were in building the Lord’s temple, and under what frivolous pretences they put off so unwelcome a work, doth plainly appear from the reproof given them by the prophet. The time is not come, the time that the Lord’s house should be built, was the common plea for their sloth and drowsiness; but then the effect was, that whilst governors, priests, and people, were wholly bent on advancing their worldly interest, and shamefully neglected the Lord’s house, their vines and olives did not yield their increase, and the earth denied her fruits. All which may possibly convince us, that even _outward prosperity doth in a great measure depend upon the care employed in the worship of God_, _and its enlargement among_ JEWS AND HEATHENS.

“Nor have those a sufficient plea for themselves, that undervalue a design because it is new, and because it hath been little attempted by protestants. Truly, this should rather be an inducement (not to stifle the work in its infancy, but) to inflame that little of the spirit of power and love, which is left among us. Should we be also willing to die, because we see so many dead about us? I mean, so many who are supine and negligent in the greatest concerns of life and happiness. Should we not rather strengthen the more the things which remain, but are ready to die, except they be supported betimes? Which consideration should make us shake off that natural drowsiness, which confineth the mind to narrow ends and purposes, and indisposeth it for any generous enterprise. Nothing is more common, even among those who call themselves christians, than to frame new ways and new methods for increasing their stock, and to improve every opportunity offered for that end. Almost every year produceth new schemes, and these new pursuits after the things of this world. Let a design be never so new and uncommon, it will soon be embraced, if it be but profitable, and conducive to some temporal end or other. Why should a christian, then, be shy of a work because it is new, when it may carry with it a never-fading reward? Should not he be as ready and watchful to lay up riches in heaven, as the profane worldling is to improve his income on earth?”

Such was the opposition once shown to this venerable Society, and by persons too within the pale of the church. Who these persons were signifies now as little to us, as the arguments which they advanced, and which have so happily failed of success. And such we hope will be the fate of all objections to the Bible Society.

Could these opposers of the Old Society, now contemplate its progress, how would they shrink within themselves, and condemn their own blindness and bigotry. Could they now see the fields trodden by Ziegenbalgh and Swartz, once “a waste howling wilderness,” now “rejoicing and blossoming as the rose,” with what anguish would they regard their own hostility, and how would they bless the author of all good, for having wrenched the weapons from their hands. Now every thing is seen by them in its proper colour and dimensions; now every object is merged in the one great object of the prevalence of truth. The triumphs of the gospel fills, if we may so speak, their whole field of vision. Let the opponents, then, of the Bible Society, learn a lesson from this. For with them, soon, all the hopes and fears of this world will have passed away; they will see every object in the light of the sanctuary, and measure every institution upon its sacred scale: the world will be nothing, and Christ will be all in all.

May these persons at that awful day be enabled to justify themselves before that God, who would not that _any_ should perish, but that _all_ should come to the knowledge of the truth; before that Saviour who has commanded us to preach his gospel to all nations, and who, in the glowing language of his own book, has shadowed out this and similar institutions, under the image of an angel carrying the everlasting gospel to every nation, and language, and tongue, and people; before those souls, who are now crying to us for help—for that help, which the British and Foreign Bible Society is seeking to impart.

* * * * *

* * * * *

FINIS.

* * * * *

* * * * *

BY THE SAME AUTHOR, SERMON ON THE BIBLE SOCIETY, PREACHED _AT BECCLES_, AND AT ST. MARY’S CHURCH, BUNGAY. _Price_ 6_d._

* * * * *

ALSO, _THE FISHERMAN’S DAUGHTER_: A NARRATIVE FROM REAL LIFE.

_Price_ 3_d._ or 2_s._ 6_d._ _per dozen_.

* * * * *

_Printed by J. Keymer_, _King-Street_, _Yarmouth_.

FOOTNOTES.

{12a} Vide British Critic for May 1816, Arte 10.

{12b} Vide British Critic for May 1816, Arte 10.