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

But I proceed to notice a third class of objections to this Society, viz.: those which are aimed at it as opposed to the Established Church, and to the Society in Bartlett’s Buildings. How is this objection verified? The Society in Bartlett’s Buildings had proceeded for many years with a tolerably even step, and during the four years preceding the establishment of the Bible Society, the avenge of its subscriptions and donations was about £2,234, whilst its whole income was £11,818. If this New Society had tended to its injury, the subscriptions and income would of course have diminished. But what is now the state of the case? The subscriptions to that Society during the last year amounted to £7,440, and its income to £44,215. And here let it be observed, that, not only has the income of the Society increased, but that part of its income which is applicable to the dispersion of Prayer Books and Tracts has much more increased. For the national supply of Bibles, which are in proportion to their sizes, more costly to the Society than Prayer Books, being at least divided by the Bible Society, a larger fund must remain for the distribution of Commentaries and Tracts.

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.