Read Ebook: 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 Cunningham Francis

Font size: 10 px 15 px 20 px 25 px 30 px 35 px

Background color: BlackWhiteGrayLight GrayDark GrayDim Gray

Text color: BlackWhiteGrayLight GrayDark GrayDim Gray

Apply/Save settings

Ebook has 34 lines and 12033 words, and 1 pages

OBSERVATIONS ON AN ANONYMOUS PAMPHLET,

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

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

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.

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?

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.

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.

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."

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," and of the "degradation" of a meeting assembled for grave deliberation into "a British Forum, or a Bear Garden," 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 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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

"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.

"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 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.

FINIS.

FOOTNOTES.

Vide British Critic for May 1816, Arte 10.

Vide British Critic for May 1816, Arte 10.

For additional contact information:

Share on: WhatsApp @Hash Facebook Tweet