But let me tell you a story—A friend of mine (who by the way is a Country Clergyman as well as yourself) was lately invited to dine with a Mohawk Chief, of whose visit to this country the provincial papers have doubtless informed you. My friend was very much in your situation. His head was full of stories against this “denomination” of people. He had been credibly assured, that they were “the enemies of all that is sober or established;” that they enjoyed nothing so much as pulling men’s scalps over their ears, and eating them up, clothes and all. He could not therefore, for some time, be induced to venture himself “into the company of men of whom he had hitherto been always horribly afraid.” At length, however, he was prevailed upon to accept the invitation; not without some apprehensions on his own part, that he “should feel uneasy, and be illiberally, perhaps, looking towards the door.” [20] How he actually behaved, I am not told; but what do you think was the event of his visit?—Why, he returned from the interview, with his flesh upon his bones, his scalp upon his head, and not a single mark of the tomahawk all over his body. Add to this, he received so favorable an impression of this “denomination” of people, that he resolved hereafter to consider them as brethren, and to co-operate with them in every object which might promise to promote their common welfare, without interfering with their separate, local, and independent interests. I leave the Country Clergyman to use his discretion about trying such experiments as these; but, whether he try them or not, I make no question, that, in many cases, they would be attended with similar success.
It seems, however, that such Associations are forbidden by that least forbidding of all the Christian graces, Charity. “Christian charity (you tell us) no where recommends associations of discordant principles, combinations of men professedly at variance and in hostility with each other: but Christian charity enjoins that which renders all these elaborate societies useless; it teaches and obliges Christians to be like-minded, to have one faith, one baptism, one speech, and one hope of their calling.” [21a] Now, Sir, though I am far from thinking that you are singular in your notion of Christian charity; for the church of Rome entertained the same opinions, and does, I dare say, entertain them to this day—yet I think you will have a difficulty in turning this notion to any important use. The fact is, that Christian Charity, much as she may enjoin an uniformity of opinion upon questions of a controvertible nature, cannot succeed in effecting it without the aid of those compelling means, of which she has been so long deprived. From the time that some prototype of Lord T. prevailed upon the church “to throw away that natural defence” of whips, and screws, and faggots, “which God Almighty had given her,” [21b] Christian Charity has assumed a new character, and taken up an employment the very opposite to that in which she had been for ages before engaged. Her attention is now turned from the heads to the hearts of men; and when she cannot succeed in making them like-minded, she tries to make them love one another. She is said to have actually disclaimed all the sentiments and measures which were ascribed to her during her alliance with the Holy Father. The account which is given of the matter, is plausible enough; and as it does not appear to have reached your ears, I will give it you just as I received it.
Somewhere about the time when the churches of the West came under the dominion of the Holy See, the successor of St. Peter was observed to cool in his regard for Charity, and to withdraw his affections very sensibly from her. The cause of this decline in his attachment was at length discovered. A rival, not unknown for many ages before, had now acquired a very formidable ascendancy in the breast of the Holy Pontiff; and the new attachment was not a little cherished by the leading members of the subjugated church. The influence of the favorite rapidly increased, and that of Charity proportionably declined; till at length, matters went so far that the latter was deposed and imprisoned, and the former enthroned in her place. The name of Bigotry (for so she had been called from her birth) was against her, and so was her countenance. The first of these difficulties she got over by assuming the name of her disgraced predecessor; the latter, it is said, remains a difficulty to this very day. In the mean time, Charity continued immured in the closest confinement; and when the monasteries were pulled down at the Reformation, this queen of all the virtues was found pale and almost lifeless in a subterraneous cell. Her health had been so much impaired by confinement, and her character misrepresented by the artifices of her rival, that it took her a great deal of time to regain her strength and make herself properly known. In both these respects she has now to a great degree succeeded: and though the Pope denies her rights, and many persons, who ought to know better, continue to question them, yet her countenance and temper most clearly identify her with that heavenly original, whose office it is to sanctify the confidence of faith and the fervor of hope; and to make them the instruments of promoting glory to God in the highest, and peace and good-will among men.
Now though this looks very much like an allegorical account of the matter, yet I think it accords so well with the fact, that I trust both you and I shall be the better for the moral of it. I am sure if I thought that uniformity of opinion upon the details of Christianity, could be brought about among those who agree in the fundamentals of it, I should rejoice to contribute my proportion to the advancement of so desirable an event. But I do not expect, what in the present constitution of human nature I believe to be impossible. I think that the nearest advances to such uniformity may be made by resolving to unite as far as we are like-minded, and to be reciprocally forbearing where we are not, and thus to fulfil our Saviour’s commandment of loving one another. I am sure that if every Country Clergyman will substitute this species of Charity for the adulterous idol which you have set up (and I have little doubt but they will), the church will then maintain herself in vigour, usefulness, and beauty; “and the gates of nonconformity” [24a] will not prevail against her.
I have hitherto been reasoning upon the presumption, that circulating the Holy Scriptures was an act upon the excellence of which no question could arise between us; but it seems that I have been mistaken: for his Lordship is cautioned (and every member of the Society through him) not to be “deceived with the notion, that the bare act of distributing Bibles, is the act of disseminating truth.” [24b]
This species of caution, and the reasons by which it is supported, have acquired so much the air of novelty by having been shut up for more than two hundred years, that I confess I was not a little struck with them; and I dare say, the feelings of most of your readers will be in unison with mine. But I will give the passage at length:
“Be not then deceived, my Lord, with the notion that the bare act of distributing Bibles is the act of disseminating the sacred truth. The word of God in itself is pure, and perfect, and more to be desired than much fine gold; but as the finest gold may be turned to base purposes, so may the Scriptures. For, alas! through the lusts of men and the covetousness of the world, the precious book of life is made the instrument of error as well as of truth; of much evil as well as of infinite good. When it is remembered that to the Scriptures, not only the true church of Christ appeals for confirmation of its divine doctrine; but likewise that every sect and heresy, by which it ever was defaced, has regularly pretended likewise to produce its error; when we observe the Papist, and Puritan, the Socinian, and Calvinist, the Baptist, and Quaker, all appealing to the Bible for the truth of their principles, and pretending to prove them thereby;—it will not be maintained, I think, that the mere distribution of Bibles under the present circumstances of the times, is likely to spread the truth. On the contrary, it is to be expected that each member of your heterogeneous Society will draw his portion of books for the promotion of his particular opinion; for it is easily seen, that a Bible given away by a Papist, will be productive of Popery. The Socinian will make his Bible speak, and spread Socinianism; while the Calvinist, the Baptist, and the Quaker, will teach the opinions peculiar to their sects. Supply these men with Bibles (I speak as to a true churchman), and you supply them with arms against yourself.” [26]
Really, Sir, in reading over this extraordinary morceau, which I do assure you I have done again and again, I have found my astonishment continually increase, and am now as much at a loss as ever, to account for your raising up again those notions, which have been buried by public authority for so many ages. An old parishioner of mine, who scarcely reads any books but the Bible and Fox’s Martyrology, was ready to swoon when she came to this part of your pamphlet; and I could not, for the life of me, prevail upon her to go any farther. She was utterly astonished at my being able to smile at what she was pleased to call, the rankest Popery she had ever read. I told her, it could not be Popery; for it was written by a Country Clergyman: she said, the whole was a trick; and that the Papists abounded in such tricks. It was in vain that I repeated to her my conviction, that the author was a Protestant Clergyman, and that, I feared, he was not singular in holding these opinions: I could not get her to believe one syllable of either. She persisted in her declaration, that, whatever you might call yourself, you were some Romish Priest in the interest of the Catholics; and that you only wanted to prepare the people for parting with their Bibles.
Now, Sir, though I by no means go the same lengths as my orthodox parishioner, yet I am free to confess, that I agree with her in the main. I dare believe, that you have no more intention of bringing back the Pope than I have; and yet I do not know how you could have written more to the purpose, if you had wished to accomplish such a measure. The dangers which you point out as accompanying the perusal of the Holy Scriptures by the unlearned, were matters of constant anxiety to his Papal bosom all the time that he acted as visible head of the English church; and many a Country Clergyman was employed, under his direction, to enforce upon Lords and Commoners that prudent caution against distributing Bibles, which you so earnestly press upon the Noble President of the British and Foreign Bible Society. Our forefathers, however, were too much of his Lordship’s way of thinking to yield to such considerations: having derived so much benefit from reading the Bible themselves, they would not endure the thought of refusing it to others; and they were, therefore, among the foremost “to promote the circulation of the Scriptures at home and abroad.”
I lament with you that “the Holy Book is made a nose of wax;” I, too, am “sadly experiencing” this, “daily before my eyes;” [27] and, the strange interpretation which you have given of “Christian Charity,” is another proof of the sad extent to which this practice has spread. But I could not consent on that account to deprive you of your Bible, nor even to refuse you another if you wanted it. Indeed, Sir, the conduct which you blame, and of which you have condescended to become an example, is a grievous evil: but the remedy which you propose, and which the Council of Trent proposed before you, is abundantly worse than the disease.