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

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 3s. 3d., but the British and Foreign Bible Society expects from its subscribers 4s., 6d., 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 4s. 6d., is offered to them at 3s. 7s. 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.