By the way, Sir, I wonder you were not a little afraid of venturing such sentiments abroad, without first consulting those of your friends who are better acquainted with the principles of the Reformation than you appear to be. You talk of the church, in the same language, with the same pride of appropriation, and with the same prerogative of limiting the course and interpretation of Scripture, as if you had never heard that the church of Rome disputes all these things with you, or as if you had never heard of a separation from her. Had no such separation taken place, your observations would have been perfectly in order. You might then have followed them up too with this precautionary proposition, that Bibles should be suppressed; and that every subject of the empire should engage (in the language of the Douay Catechism) to “believe whatsoever the Catholic church proposes to be believed.” This would certainly (if it could have been carried into effect) have rendered “all such elaborate Societies” as confine themselves to “the bare act of distributing Bibles, useless;” and consequently the growth of heresy, error, and delusion, impossible.
But, Sir, you and I must take things as we find them: and it does so happen, that things are not, in the church established in these realms, as they once were. Whether it be a wise or an unwise measure to open the Scriptures to the people at large, it is now too late to dispute: to the people at large they are opened; and their distribution is legitimated both by canon and precedent, as an act of the strictest justice, and the purest benevolence.
Indeed I must take upon myself to tell you, that your fears for the church, from “the circulation of the Scriptures,” are not calculated to do her any honor in the world. She either does not think with you, that, in supplying the different denominations of Christians with Bibles, she is really supplying them “with arms against herself;” or if she does, she has the magnanimity to promote their salvation, though it were at her own expense. I dare say you will set me down for no “true churchman,” when I say this; but I will give you an authority to this effect, which has much weight with me, and which you will scarcely venture to dispute. In a little tract, called “Questions and Answers concerning the respective Tenets of the Church of England and the Church of Rome,” I find the following passage:
“Question. Why do you find fault with the church of Rome for not suffering the common people to read the Bible?
“Answer. 1. Because in so doing they act contrary to the command Christ gives to all, ‘Search the Scriptures,’ John, v. 39.
“2. Because what they forbid, the Apostles commend, as we see in the example of the Bereans, who are commended for reading the Scriptures, Acts, xvii. 11.
“3. It is contrary to the practice of the primitive church, in which the fathers earnestly exhorted the people to an assiduous and diligent reading of the Scriptures.
“4. It agrees not with St. Paul’s counsel and exhortation, 1 Thess. v. 7. ‘I charge you that this Epistle be read to all the holy brethren.’
“5. It was a duty of the Jews to have the law in their houses, and to read it to their children, Deut. vi. 7, and therefore must be much more the duty of Christians to read or peruse the Gospel, as being a people living under a greater and richer economy.
“6. Whereas it is pretended that the Scriptures are obscure, and that this prohibition is to prevent heresies: we answer, that the Scriptures are not so obscure, in places relating to things necessary to salvation, but that they may be understood by the laity: and as to the plea of preventing heresies, that is only a pretence, no argument, since they might as well forbid people to eat and drink, for, fear they should abuse that liberty.”
Now, as this tract is issued by the Society for promoting Christian Knowledge, I cannot but think it a misfortune, that, as a Country Clergyman, you should not have seen it before you wrote your Address to Lord T.: you would scarcely then have challenged the Noble Lord to show that he was “a true churchman,” by fearing and restraining the circulation of the Scriptures. As it is, you can scarcely, I should think, expect to escape rebuke. Like that “officer of the Society,” [31] whose secret history you seem to have studied so well, you have stepped a little out of your regular line, and, like him too, have been guilty of some “indecorum towards the church and its spiritual superiors.”
But supposing, Sir, that I could admit your dubious proposition, that the dissemination of truth did not depend upon the Bible which was given, but upon the hand which might give it; a proposition, which, if true to the extent of your statement, would prove equally, that the effect of your pamphlet upon the interests of the Bible Society will depend less upon the merits of your work, than upon the hands through which it may pass;—what expedient would you propose, in the exercise of your sagacity, for providing against the consequences you fear? I am aware of your answer—“Dissolve the Bible Society.” Suppose that done; though there would, I think, be difficulties in the way of doing it: still the tares are sowing in a thousand directions, and the business of prevention is scarcely yet begun. Your expedient must provide for putting Bibles into the hands of churchmen only, or of those who will infallibly become churchmen by reading them; or it will never succeed. But what will you do with those wholesale Bible-mongers, the universities of Oxford and Cambridge, and his Majesty’s Printer, and all their subordinate agents and instruments, the book and Bible sellers throughout the country? While such merchants as these may dispose of Bibles ad libitum as an article of trade, and such bodies as the Society for promoting Christian Knowledge, and others of the same description, will continue to favor the traffic, I cannot see how you will contrive to dam up the waters of life to any orthodox purpose; or to prevent their irrigating those lands that are alienated from the established church.
Perhaps it might forward your purpose to put the printing and distributing of Bibles under some new and more definite limitation. As the members of the church of England do not exceed four fifths of the population of the country, and the chance of converting a sectary is scarcely worth the risk of supplying him with “arms against yourself,” what think you of a petition to the Legislature against uselessly and dangerously multiplying copies of the Holy Scriptures? I will suppose your application successful, and that only four Bibles are printed for every five individuals upon the records of the population. I will also suppose, which is quite as necessary, that these Bibles, when printed, are consigned to an ecclesiastical depot, of which the whole and sole custody shall be vested in the Country Clergyman; and that not a single copy of the Bible shall be issued but under his direction. And now, Sir, do you really think, that, “old as you are in the business,” you would be able to detect all the dogs that, under various disguises, would be seeking the children’s meat? If you find in the little range of your own parish such “hard work with these crafty beasts,” how much would your work be increased, and your difficulties multiplied, by the daily care of all the churches?
But you must go farther, Sir, or else you had better not have begun.—You must interdict the free circulation of all “Apologies for the Bible,” all dissertations upon its authenticity and evidence, and particularly all discourses upon its excellence and usefulness. You must prevail upon the many venerable prelates, archdeacons’, and priests, of the present day, who have done themselves so much honor by advocating the cause of Christianity, to expunge from their writings all unguarded commendations of the Holy Scriptures; or to provide for their works, if they know how, an exclusive circulation in ecclesiastical channels. Nor is this all: you must invite, solicit, and (if you can find the means) compel, all the different denominations of Christians, to deliver up forthwith the Bibles they possess into the hands of the nearest parish priest. When all this is accomplished (and until it is, your end will be very imperfectly obtained) it will only remain for those well-meaning Societies, in connexion with the established church, to ask a bill of indemnity for the degree in which they have contributed to the propagation of error, by their incautious distribution of Bibles; and to bind themselves over to commit no more such acts of ecclesiastical suicide. Your business, it shall be supposed, is now accomplished; and what is the result?—Why, you may now congratulate yourself upon having withdrawn the antidote and left the poison in circulation; for the different denominations of Christians are still in possession of the privilege of multiplying tracts ad infinitum, and you have deprived their readers of the only means of detecting the heresy they contain.
But really, Sir, to be serious—“I feel very strong objections to the whole plan, not indeed the simple, pure object of” securing the Scriptures from perversion; “the mischief lies in the manner and means,” which must at all events be employed for “carrying that object into effect.” [34]
The word of God, which is a savour of life unto life, may also, I know, become a savour of death unto death. I am sorry for it: but to restrain the circulation of it, in order to provide against this contingent evil, would, I continue to think, with the authority before cited, be at once as unreasonable and unjust, as to “forbid people to eat or drink, for fear they should abuse that liberty.”