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.
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}