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.