{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_62232/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_62232","id":"gutenberg_62232","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/62232","summary":null,"tags":["British and Foreign Bible Society","Category: British Literature","Category: Essays, Letters & Speeches","Category: History - Religious","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Sikes, Thomas, 1765 or 1766-1834. Address to Lord Teignmouth","Teignmouth, John Shore, Baron, 1751-1834"],"text":"Transcribed from the 1805 J. Hatchard edition by David Price, email\nccx074@pglaf.org, using scans from the British Library.\n\n                        [Picture: Pamphlet cover]\n\n\n\n\n\n                                    A\n                                  LETTER\n                                   TO A\n                           _COUNTRY CLERGYMAN_,\n                              OCCASIONED BY\n                               HIS ADDRESS\n                                    TO\n                            _LORD TEIGNMOUTH_,\n                   PRESIDENT OF THE BRITISH AND FOREIGN\n                              BIBLE SOCIETY.\n\n\n                                * * * * *\n\n                                    BY\n                         _A SUB-URBAN CLERGYMAN_.\n\n                                * * * * *\n\n        \u201cUnum gestit interdum, ne _ignorata_ damnetur.\u201d\u2014TERTULL. APOL.\n\n                                * * * * *\n\n                                 LONDON:\n           PRINTED FOR J. HATCHARD, BOOKSELLER TO HER MAJESTY,\n               NO. 190, OPPOSITE ALBANY HOUSE, PICCADILLY.\n\n                                  1805.\n\n                                * * * * *\n\n\n\n\nA LETTER, &c.\n\n\nREV. SIR,\n\nONE of those good-natured friends with which the world abounds, took an\nearly opportunity of conveying to my hands a copy of your Address to Lord\nTeignmouth as President of the British and Foreign Bible Society; and I\ncan really assume you, that its effect upon my nerves was almost as great\nas that which his Lordship\u2019s circular letter produced upon yours.  \u201cThe\nemotions of my mind,\u201d too, \u201cupon the receipt of it, were such as I am not\ninclined, for several reasons, to describe.\u201d {1}\n\nYou must know, Sir, that it had been my fortune to fall into the same\nugly snare as the worthy Nobleman whose eyes you have so graciously\nendeavoured to open.  I too had been drawn into the horrid Bible-plot,\nwithout dreaming that there was any plot in the business; and, to tell\nyou the honest truth, before your pamphlet reached me, I had actually\nlent all the name I possessed, and all the money I could spare, in order\nto assist in carrying its designs into execution.\n\nJudge then, Sir, what must have been my feelings upon learning from you,\nthat our Noble President, instead of being, as I thought, most loyally,\nusefully, and religiously employed, had \u201cbestowed his patronage and\nprotection upon every description of the church\u2019s enemies;\u201d that he had\ndeserted \u201cthe cause of sound religion;\u201d and that he was actually\n\u201cconfederating with persons openly labouring the destruction of all that\nis sober and established.\u201d {2}\n\nThe inference was too much against me to leave me at rest.  I called to\nmy recollection, how prone the world is to say, \u201clike master, like man;\u201d\nand in the first paroxysms of my fear, had half a mind to send a line to\nthe Secretary, and request that my name might be withdrawn.  This seemed,\nhowever, too strong a measure to be adopted in so early a stage of the\nbusiness; besides, though I could not wholly suppress my alarms, yet I\nhad some little scruple about proclaiming them publicly to the world.  In\nthese moments of irresolution, it occurred to my mind, that you might\nperhaps, without any malicious design, have overstated the mischief; that\nthe evils which you predicted as likely to follow from this unhallowed\nproject, might in reality have nothing to do with it; and that, at all\nevents, your frightful statement exhibited only _one side_ of the case.\nPerhaps, thought I, some \u201cliberal-basis\u2019d\u201d {3a} gentleman will overthrow\nthis high-church reasoning, and try to bring this bilious Country Priest\nto a better temper: I may then be inclined to wish, that I had paid less\nhomage to that ex-parte evidence by which he sought to discredit a noble\ncause.\n\nUnluckily for me, the printers had scarcely struck off the large\nimpression of your Address, when they came to a resolution to print\nnothing further. {3b}  Now though I did not suspect any confederacy in\nthe business, yet I could not help thinking that _you_ were much obliged\nto them.  However that may be, it was evidently in vain to wait for\nReplies: if fifty had been written (and I suppose that at least as many\nwere expected), not one could find its way before the public.  At length\nI hit upon a project; and what do you think it was?  But _you_ would be\nthe last to guess.  It was that of _reading your pamphlet over again_.  I\nhad observed that the birds in my garden who were scared away by the\nfirst sight of my man-of-straw, would, after a second view, pursue their\ninstinctive robberies with as much composure as if they had really\ndiscovered how little mischief he could do them.  I was pleased with the\nthought, and anticipated much the same consequences.  Well, Sir, I made\nthe experiment; and the event, I assure you, exceeded my highest\nexpectation.  I rose from the _second_ reading of your Address with\nfeelings so different from those of conviction or alarm, that if I did\nnot think it would ruffle a temper so irritable as yours, I could almost\nfind it in my heart to tell you what they were.  However, as I shall have\noccasion to speak my mind pretty freely in the course of this Letter, you\nwill have no difficulty in discovering what I ultimately thought both of\nyou and your performance.\n\nBut now, Sir, to business.  You open your Address to Lord Teignmouth with\na preamble, which sets forth, that you are \u201cnot inclined, for several\nreasons, to describe the emotions of your mind upon the receipt of his\nLordship\u2019s Address, as President of the British and Foreign Bible\nSociety.\u201d  There is an air of mystery in these words, which recommended\nthem strongly to my notice; and if you do me the favour to turn back to\nmy first page, you will find that I have employed them as you have done,\n_in fronte operis_.  I am, however, upon reflection, inclined to think\nthat \u201cthere is,\u201d to use your own words upon another occasion, \u201cmore of\nsound than sense\u201d in this affectation of reserve on both sides.  For, to\nsay the truth, I have already revealed _my_ emotions, and I am sure you\nhave taken no pains to conceal _yours_: and yet it must be manifest that\nif each of us had not been _inclined_ to do it, neither of us would have\ndone it.  However, the preamble has its use; for it invites the reader to\nbelieve, that we are both of us men of peace and charity, and very\nunwilling to injure the feelings and reputation of our neighbour: an\nassumption which, in your case, it was the more necessary to make; as\notherwise the reader of your pages might, innocently enough, have\nconcluded the reverse.\n\nThis brief exordium dispatched, you enter, pell-mell, upon the matter of\nyour indictment, and prefer your charges against the Noble Lord with as\nlittle ceremony, as if you had borrowed the robes of his Majesty\u2019s\nAttorney General, and were prosecuting the Noble delinquent at the suit\nof the Crown.  But let us hear the accusation opened.  His Lordship (you\nsay), by taking the presidency of the Bible Society, has \u201cbestowed his\npatronage and protection upon every description of the church\u2019s enemies.\u201d\nNow here I doubt the accuracy of your representation: I am strongly\ninclined to think that you do not mean to affirm quite so much as you\nsay.  The church\u2019s enemies are so numerous, and some of them so little\nknown, that I think it very probable many descriptions could be\nmentioned, which have never obtained a place in your enumeration.  I have\n_your_ authority for setting down all the individuals who dissent from\nthe church\u2019s communion as her decided enemies, for they wish to a man to\nblow up the national establishment, \u201cclergy and all:\u201d you know they\ndo\u2014\u201c_one_ of them said\u201d so.  Such evidence as this, to be sure, must not\nfor a moment be questioned; though I should have thought better of it, if\nyour informer had shown his instructions for saying so much in the name\nof the rest.  But if I concede to you that _these_ are the church\u2019s\nenemies, I cannot admit, what I suspect you wish to imply, that these are\nthe _only_ enemies with which she has to contend.  What think you of\n\u201cthose men of influence and consideration, who continue to revile the\nchurch, and still think proper to remain nominal members of her\ncommunity?\u201d {6a}  Into what class do you throw those \u201cmen of the world,\nwho, in their sober moments, think it more creditable to be accounted\nmembers of our venerable church, than a subscriber to the meeting-house?\u201d\n{6b}  And lastly, where do you place those partisans, whether priests or\nlaymen, who, while they contend for the church as the \u201cchaste spouse of\nChrist,\u201d {6c} confound most unwittingly both her pretensions and her\ncharacter, with those by which that spiritual harlot is known, who has\ncommitted fornication with the kings of the earth? {6d}  For my part, I\nrecognise among such _false friends_ as the two first descriptions, and\nsuch _injudicious __advocates_ as the last, some of those enemies, from\nwhich the church has most to fear.  But I think I do you no injustice\nwhen I say, that it does not seem to have been your intention to include\nsuch characters as these within those \u201cdescriptions of the church\u2019s\nenemies,\u201d upon which his Lordship is blameable for having bestowed his\npatronage and protection.\n\nBut, waiving these considerations, let me ask the Country Clergyman,\nwherein he designs to make the Noble President\u2019s guilt consist.  It\ncannot be in the _bare and simple act_ of bestowing his patronage and\nprotection upon every description of \u201cthe church\u2019s enemies.\u201d  For such an\n_act_ his Lordship has the highest precedent, and the least questionable\nauthority.  For every time the several denominations of Christians meet\nto worship God according to their various rites (and they may meet just\nas often as they will), they enjoy the patronage and protection of that\nexalted Personage, who, as the guardian of the constitution, is present\nwherever there are rights to protect, and laws to protect them.  Upon\nthis point, therefore, no controversy can arise: and the main question\nbetween us will be, whether the _object_ for which this patronage and\nprotection are bestowed be of a nature to favour the assumed hostilities\nof the different denominations of Christians against the established\nchurch.  Now that object, as defined by his Lordship, is, \u201cto promote the\ncirculation of the Scriptures at home and abroad;\u201d and this you admit \u201cis\nan object in which every one, who professes the religion of Christ, must\nfeel a deep interest.\u201d  I am glad to find you admitting as much as this;\nand I hope I do not misunderstand you.  Indeed I am so desirous of\ntracing an agreement between us, wherever I can find a ground for doing\nit, that I will endeavour to persuade myself, though the delusion should\nprove never so short, that the circulation of the Scriptures is not among\nthe points on which we differ.  But you question whether _this_ be the\nobject; since \u201cthe object of a society is not to be known from its public\ndeclaration in print;\u201d {8} and yet, shrewd as this remark appears, I\ncannot but think that \u201cthe declaration in print,\u201d of a large body of men,\nsubscribed with their names, is rather better authority for judging of\ntheir specific object, than _the insinuation in print_ of an anonymous\nindividual: and I believe that most of the world will be of the same\nopinion.  I know indeed that declarations in print are not to be credited\nmerely because they are _made_: but yet I cannot think that the mere act\nof _making_ them is a reason why they should be discredited.  For, if the\nrule were established for interpreting every \u201cdeclaration in print\u201d into\nits opposite, I should be justified at once in concluding that _your\nobject_ is to become a member of this obnoxious Association; _merely_\nbecause you declare in print, \u201cI cannot join myself to your Bible\nSociety.\u201d {9a}\n\nSurely, Sir, as a Country Clergyman, you must have heard of the vaccine\ninoculation.  Now there is an association in the metropolis to which that\ningenious invention has given birth, and which is publicly known as the\n_Jennerian Society_.  I see no reason why it might not as properly be\ncalled \u201cthe British and Foreign Vaccine Society,\u201d since its object is \u201cto\npromote the circulation of vaccine matter at home and abroad.\u201d  Now\nindulge yourself for a moment with the supposition, that when this\nSociety had printed their \u201cobject, their principles, and their reasons,\u201d\nand solicited the countenance and support of the faculty and persons of\nevery denomination, some country physician had stepped from his\nobscurity, and opened a smart attack upon them.  Suppose him to have\ncontended with all the gravity in the world, \u201cthat the object of a\nSociety is not to be known from its public declaration in print;\u201d {9b}\nthat Societies which afterwards found their way \u201cto the Old Bailey, or\nthe Maidstone assizes,\u201d had announced themselves to the world by \u201cprinted\ndeclarations of their reasons, objects, and principles;\u201d {9c} and that\nfor his own part, though he saw in their President a nobleman, \u201cfor whose\nhead and heart he had the highest respect,\u201d and among their supporters\n\u201cmany respectable names, with which he should be happy to place his own;\u201d\n{10a} yet because they received guineas from quacks and empirics, as well\nas from regulars and licentiates in medicine, he considered the whole\nSociety as a dangerous combination against the health of the community,\nand a conspiracy for effecting the diabolical design of poisoning his\nMajesty\u2019s subjects.  What, Sir, would you think of such a worthy\ngentleman?  You would not question his sincerity, for no man who was not\n\u201chorribly afraid\u201d {10b} would intimate suspicions for which he was likely\nto gain so little credit among mankind: but I think you would feel\nyourself at liberty to question something about him, which if it did not\nprovoke your resentment, might deservedly enough excite your compassion.\n\nI am glad to find, as I advance farther into your pages, that things are\nnot quite so bad as I had apprehended.  \u201cFar be it from me to say,\u201d you\ntell his Lordship, \u201cthat you preside over an association of men combined\nfor designs altogether bad; that you patronize and protect a Society,\nwhose objects and principles are wilfully nefarious.\u201d {10c}  Now though\nthis apology for insinuations which might as well have been withheld, is\nnot wholly purged from bile, yet I confess it gives me pleasure to see it\nmade at all; because it delivers _me_ from the logical difficulty of\nproving a negative, and _you_ from the logical disgrace of requiring it.\n\nAt present then it seems, that the majority of this Society, though weak\nand deceivable, are not Jacobinical or designing men.  It is not within\ntheir _present_ intention to \u201cpursue an object of an evil tendency in a\nclose and clandestine manner, under favour of a public declaration of\ndifferent, and\u201d even \u201ca contrary character.\u201d {11a}  Nay, so little are\nthey suspected of being _as yet_ \u201cwilfully nefarious,\u201d that if his\nLordship can give you such a security as you require, for the maintenance\nof its original intentions, you think the Society \u201cwill be what it\nproposes,\u201d and you \u201cshall be proud to rank\u201d your \u201cname, and make exertion\nunder his protection.\u201d {11b}\n\nI do assure you, Sir, that my jealousies on this particular are quite as\nmuch alive as yours can be.  I know how apt Societies are to depart from\nthe principles upon which their original association was formed; and I am\nhalf inclined to think, that in this and other parts of your pamphlet you\nare reading a lesson to some Societies in the metropolis, that I could\nname.  However, I do not absolutely affirm that such is your intention;\nfor though I might take advantage of your own axiom, and suspect your\n\u201cdeclaration in print\u201d to be _one_ thing and your real object _another_,\nyet I should think it scarcely decorous to say so.  Besides, it is very\npossible after all, that the whole may have been the result of accident;\nand that you had no design whatever of publishing the _actual_ state of\none Society, when you were merely predicting the _future_ state of\nanother.\n\nBut, Sir, let me ask you now, in the best humour in the world, what\nsecurity you would require for the maintenance of an original object\nwhich the Bible Society has not already given you.  I grant, if you had\nbeen invited to join a Society, whose object was the promotion of\nChristianity, the reformation of manners, or the suppression of vice, you\nmight reasonably enough have doubted whether the nature of the object\nsufficiently explained the views of the associators, and gave you any\ncompetent pledge for the purity of those measures which they might in\nprocess of time adopt.  You might then have argued with some show of\nplausibility, that \u201cthe _real object_ will take its colour from the\nopinions and pursuits of those _effective members_, who shall contrive,\neither by an actual majority, or an _assiduity and activity equivalent in\nforce to the power of a majority_, to give direction to the energy of the\nassociation;\u201d {12} and the event, in certain cases, would have proved,\nthat you were not very greatly mistaken.  But in the case under\nconsideration, the object is definite.  For the Bible (_which_ and which\n_alone_ constitutes that object) is specific; and is further secured, by\nits authorized translation into all the languages of the United Kingdom,\nagainst the possibility of losing its specific character.  Now since the\nSociety are bound, by a law of their constitution, to circulate the\n_authorized_ version of the Scriptures, and that _alone_, their object\nmust remain so uniform and determinate, that no deviation from it can\noccur, without a perceivable, an obvious, a felonious sacrifice of\njustice, honor, and good faith.  Of such departure therefore, if ever it\nshould be attempted, the public will most infallibly be apprized.  For\nthose respectable characters _at least_, with whom you would be proud to\nrank your name, will be the witnesses, the opposers, and (if unsuccessful\nin their opposition) the reporters of such apostacy; and I hardly need\nremind you that the efficiency of their exertions under all these\ncharacters, will be diminished in the same proportion, in which you may\ncontrive to reduce their numbers, and discredit their association.\n\nSo much for that security which the object of the Society affords.  But\nlet us hear what sort of security you, in the exercise of your\nmoderation, are disposed to require.  \u201cIf Lord T. will pledge himself\nthat the six hundred members of his Society are, like himself, honourable\nand upright men, who speak what they mean, and practise what they\nprofess, who abhor duplicity and deceit, and know no discordance between\nthe object they _profess_ and the object they _pursue_\u2014if Lord T. can\nassure me this, I shall be proud to rank my name, and make exertion under\nhis protection.\u201d {14a}\n\nAnd are these really, Sir, the lowest terms upon which the benefit of\nyour name can be obtained for the British and Foreign Bible Society?  If\nthey are, I must fairly own, humiliating as the confession may appear, I\nhave no hope of hearing that the Secretary has been called upon \u201cto\ninsert your name and accept your donation.\u201d {14b}  No Sir; his Lordship\ncannot go such lengths as you require.  I dare say he would do every\nthing in his power to satisfy you; but I think I may venture to say,\nwithout consulting him, that this exceeds his power.  His Lordship is a\nstudent of human nature, and the situations which he has filled, have\nafforded him opportunities of pursuing his favorite study.  How he has\nemployed those opportunities, and what fruit he has derived from them, I\nneed not tell you.  I dare say you have not lost your respect for the\nbiographer of Sir William Jones, in your resentment against the President\nof the Bible Society.  But, with all his powers of discrimination, his\nLordship has his limits as well as _other_ men; and I hope you would not\nwish him to vouch _for_ or _against_ a large class of individuals, as you\nmay have found some people inclined to do, merely on account of certain\npeculiar specimens which he has seen, or some indistinct reports which he\nhas heard.\n\nBut surely, Sir, I may be excused for doubting whether you \u201cbe in jest or\nearnest,\u201d {15} when you meet his Lordship\u2019s proposition with such\nexorbitant demands.  Did you ever know a President who could engage for\nquite so much as you require?  Or did you ever see \u201csix hundred\u201d names\ntogether, that stood for nothing less than so many \u201chonorable and upright\nmen?\u201d  I am sure I venerate every useful Society throughout the kingdom,\nfrom the Society for _promoting Christian Knowledge_, down to the Society\nfor _superseding the Necessity of Climbing Boys_; and yet I should not be\nsurprised if their respective Presidents should decline bearing their\ntestimony to the individual characters of the first _six hundred_ members\nof those several Societies upon which I might choose to lay my hand.\nBesides, Sir, consider\u2014a rule for _one_, in such a case is a rule for\n_all_.  What you require _before_ you subscribe your name, others may\nthink themselves justified in requiring _after_ you have subscribed it.\nAnd what will be the consequence?\u2014His Lordship will next be called upon\nto pledge himself for _you_; and though I dare say he could do it with\nperfect safety, yet I think he might have reasons for wishing to be\nexcused.\n\nThe object of this extravagant demand at length comes out; and it seems I\nwas perfectly justified in doubting whether you were in jest or earnest\nwhen you advanced it.  \u201cAll (you say) that I here assert\u201d (and questions\nof a certain description are the strongest of all assertions) \u201cis this;\nthat your Lordship, for whose head and heart I have the highest respect,\nappears to have undertaken the patronage of you know not whom or what.\u201d\n{16}  Now, Sir, there is but one portion of this _assertion_ to which I\nhave any objection.  His Lordship certainly does know _what_ he has\nundertaken to patronize; for to the circulation of the Scriptures, the\nScriptures as printed by authority, the Scriptures without any addition,\ndeduction, or variation, both his patronage and that of the truly\nvenerable characters associated with him, are restrained.  The rest of\nthe assertion is perfectly harmless.  His Lordship has undertaken the\npatronage of he _knows not whom_: this is strictly true; nor would it be\nless so, if his Lordship filled the chair of any other Society, or if the\nCountry Clergyman and his friends occupied the place of the six hundred\nmembers over whom his Lordship _actually does_ preside.\n\nIt seems, however, that if his Lordship does not know over _whom_ he\npresides, the Country Clergyman can tell him.  Lord T. does not know \u201cthe\nmen and their communication\u201d to whom he has joined himself; but you, it\nshould seem, can explain them both.  No sooner do you cast your eye over\nthe List of Subscribers which his Lordship has sent you, than you see \u201ca\nvery large proportion\u201d of persons \u201cwith which, as an honest man,\u201d you\n\u201ccan have nothing to do;\u201d men of whose company you \u201chave hitherto always\nbeen horribly afraid, being frightened at the idea of having the national\nestablishment blown up, as one of them said, clergy and all;\u201d\u2014\u201cwolves,\u201d\nwho design to worry your \u201cpoor sheep;\u201d\u2014\u201ccrafty beasts;\u201d and, finally,\n\u201cthose who openly and fairly avow that their object is to eat up both\nsheep and shepherd.\u201d {17}  This is indeed, Sir, a very alarming\ndiscovery; and I could almost wish, for the honor of the Society, it had\nnever been made.  However, though I love the Society much, I love truth\nmore; and therefore, whatever sacrifice it may cost me, I trust it will\nalways prevail.\n\nBut now, Sir, though I make no doubt you believe every thing you say,\nwhat ground have you for expecting that I should?  If you tell me you\nhave seen a ghost, and that he frightened you out of your wits, I may\nhave the best reasons in the world for believing that you have seen a\nghost; and yet I may doubt all the time whether there were a ghost to be\nseen.  In like manner, though I dare say you are a devout believer in the\nthreats of these incendiaries, the howlings of these wolves, and the\nvoracious declarations of these cannibals; yet, I may after all have\nliberty to doubt, whether such stories are entitled to a moment\u2019s regard.\nTravellers, you know, Sir, with the best intentions in the world, often\nplay a trick upon us; and I think it very possible, that a Country\nClergyman, with no worse intentions, may be led to do the same.  When\nBruce described the Abyssinian as cutting a steak from the rump of a\nliving animal, and then driving him on as if nothing had happened, the\nworld smiled at the easy credulity of the honest traveller, and did not\nbelieve one particle of the matter: I am inclined to think that the\nmarvellous tales of the Country Clergyman will scarcely meet with a\nbetter fate.\n\nBut let me, Sir, expostulate with you for a moment.  I know how\nunreasonable a passion fear is, and I think it is always worth while to\ntake every honest method of getting rid of it.\n\nAs a Country Clergyman, I dare say, you are a pretty good horseman; and\nthough I do not suspect you of appearing upon a race-course, or galloping\nafter the hounds, yet I suppose you are no enemy to a pleasant ride.  Now\nit must have happened to you, at least once in your life, as well as to\ninferior horsemen, to be in imminent danger of breaking your neck by the\nsudden and unaccountable starting of your horse.  Irritable and\noverbearing men will, you know, under such circumstances, make a furious\napplication of the whip and the spur to the back and sides of the\nterrified animal.  The consequence is, that if he was afraid of the\nobject at first, he will be \u201chorribly afraid\u201d of it ever after.  You and\nI know a better way; and that is, to lead the animal up to the object\nwhich occasioned his alarm, and to give him an opportunity of forming a\nmore correct judgment of it.  I cannot help thinking, that if you had\nadopted some such steps, under your first impressions of alarm at the\nSubscribers to the Bible Society; if, without _venturing yourself_ \u201cinto\nthe company of men of whom you have hitherto been always horribly\nafraid,\u201d you had yet _ventured yourself_ near enough to them, to see\nwhether they were likely men to blow you up in the air, or bury you in\ntheir stomachs; you would have been saved from the humiliating necessity\nof soliciting \u201cthe charity of the Noble President to pity your weakness\nand excuse your unconquerable fears.\u201d {19}\n\nBut let me tell you a story\u2014A friend of mine (who by the way is a Country\nClergyman as well as yourself) was lately invited to dine with a Mohawk\nChief, of whose visit to this country the provincial papers have\ndoubtless informed you.  My friend was very much in your situation.  His\nhead was full of stories against this \u201cdenomination\u201d of people.  He had\nbeen credibly assured, that they were \u201cthe enemies of all that is sober\nor established;\u201d that they enjoyed nothing so much as pulling men\u2019s\nscalps over their ears, and eating them up, _clothes and all_.  He could\nnot therefore, for some time, be induced to _venture himself_ \u201cinto the\ncompany of men of whom he had hitherto been always horribly afraid.\u201d  At\nlength, however, he was prevailed upon to accept the invitation; not\nwithout some apprehensions on his own part, that he \u201cshould feel uneasy,\nand be illiberally, perhaps, looking towards the door.\u201d {20}  How he\nactually behaved, I am not told; but what do you think was the event of\nhis visit?\u2014Why, he returned from the interview, with his flesh upon his\nbones, his scalp upon his head, and not a single mark of the tomahawk all\nover his body.  Add to this, he received so favorable an impression of\nthis \u201cdenomination\u201d of people, that he resolved hereafter to consider\nthem as _brethren_, and to co-operate with them in every object which\nmight promise to promote their common welfare, without interfering with\ntheir separate, local, and independent interests.  I leave the Country\nClergyman to use his discretion about trying such experiments as these;\nbut, whether he try them or not, I make no question, that, in many cases,\nthey would be attended with similar success.\n\nIt seems, however, that such Associations are forbidden by that least\nforbidding of all the Christian graces, _Charity_.  \u201cChristian charity\n(you tell us) no where recommends associations of discordant principles,\ncombinations of men professedly at variance and in hostility with each\nother: but Christian charity enjoins that which renders all these\nelaborate societies useless; it teaches and _obliges_ Christians to be\n_like-minded_, to have one faith, one baptism, one speech, and one hope\nof their calling.\u201d {21a}  Now, Sir, though I am far from thinking that\nyou are singular in your notion of Christian charity; for the church of\nRome entertained the same opinions, and does, I dare say, entertain them\nto this day\u2014yet I think you will have a difficulty in turning this notion\nto any important use.  The fact is, that Christian Charity, much as she\nmay _enjoin_ an uniformity of opinion upon questions of a controvertible\nnature, cannot succeed in effecting it without the aid of those\n_compelling_ means, of which she has been so long deprived.  From the\ntime that some prototype of Lord T. prevailed upon the church \u201cto throw\naway that natural defence\u201d of whips, and screws, and faggots, \u201cwhich God\nAlmighty had given her,\u201d {21b} Christian Charity has assumed a new\ncharacter, and taken up an employment the very opposite to that in which\nshe had been for ages before engaged.  Her attention is now turned from\nthe _heads_ to the _hearts_ of men; and when she cannot succeed in making\nthem _like-minded_, she tries to make them _love one another_.  She is\nsaid to have actually disclaimed all the sentiments and measures which\nwere ascribed to her during her alliance with the Holy Father.  The\naccount which is given of the matter, is plausible enough; and as it does\nnot appear to have reached your ears, I will give it you just as I\nreceived it.\n\nSomewhere about the time when the churches of the West came under the\ndominion of the Holy See, the successor of St. Peter was observed to cool\nin his regard for _Charity_, and to withdraw his affections very sensibly\nfrom _her_.  The cause of this decline in his attachment was at length\ndiscovered.  A rival, not unknown for many ages before, had now acquired\na very formidable ascendancy in the breast of the Holy Pontiff; and the\nnew attachment was not a little cherished by the leading members of the\nsubjugated church.  The influence of the favorite rapidly increased, and\nthat of _Charity_ proportionably declined; till at length, matters went\nso far that the latter was deposed and imprisoned, and the former\nenthroned in her place.  The name of _Bigotry_ (for so she had been\ncalled from her birth) was against her, and so was her countenance.  The\nfirst of these difficulties she got over by assuming the name of her\ndisgraced predecessor; the latter, it is said, remains a difficulty to\nthis very day.  In the mean time, _Charity_ continued immured in the\nclosest confinement; and when the monasteries were pulled down at the\nReformation, this queen of all the virtues was found pale and almost\nlifeless in a subterraneous cell.  Her health had been so much impaired\nby confinement, and her character misrepresented by the artifices of her\nrival, that it took her a great deal of time to regain her strength and\nmake herself properly known.  In both these respects she has now to a\ngreat degree succeeded: and though the Pope denies her rights, and many\npersons, who ought to know better, continue to question them, yet her\ncountenance and temper most clearly identify her with that heavenly\noriginal, whose office it is to sanctify the confidence of faith and the\nfervor of hope; and to make them the instruments of promoting glory to\nGod in the highest, and peace and good-will among men.\n\nNow though this looks very much like an allegorical account of the\nmatter, yet I think it accords so well with the fact, that I trust both\nyou and I shall be the better for the moral of it.  I am sure if I\nthought that uniformity of opinion upon the details of Christianity,\ncould be brought about among those who agree in the fundamentals of it, I\nshould rejoice to contribute my proportion to the advancement of so\ndesirable an event.  But I do not expect, what in the present\nconstitution of human nature I believe to be impossible.  I think that\nthe nearest advances to such uniformity may be made by resolving to unite\nas far as we are _like-minded_, and to be reciprocally forbearing where\nwe are _not_, and thus to fulfil our Saviour\u2019s commandment of loving one\nanother.  I am sure that if every Country Clergyman will substitute this\nspecies of Charity for the adulterous idol which you have set up (and I\nhave little doubt but they will), the church will then maintain herself\nin vigour, usefulness, and beauty; \u201cand the gates of nonconformity\u201d {24a}\nwill not prevail against her.\n\nI have hitherto been reasoning upon the presumption, that circulating the\nHoly Scriptures was an act upon the excellence of which no question could\narise between us; but it seems that I have been mistaken: for his\nLordship is cautioned (and every member of the Society through him) not\nto be \u201cdeceived with the notion, that the _bare act of distributing\nBibles_, _is the act of disseminating truth_.\u201d {24b}\n\nThis species of caution, and the reasons by which it is supported, have\nacquired so much the air of novelty by having been shut up for more than\ntwo hundred years, that I confess I was not a little struck with them;\nand I dare say, the feelings of most of your readers will be in unison\nwith mine.  But I will give the passage at length:\n\n    \u201cBe not then deceived, my Lord, with the notion that the _bare act of\n    distributing Bibles is the __act of disseminating the sacred truth_.\n    The word of God in itself is pure, and perfect, and more to be\n    desired than much fine gold; but as the finest gold may be turned to\n    base purposes, so may the Scriptures.  For, alas! through the lusts\n    of men and the covetousness of the world, the precious book of life\n    is made the instrument of error as well as of truth; of much evil as\n    well as of infinite good.  When it is remembered that to the\n    Scriptures, not only the true church of Christ appeals for\n    confirmation of its divine doctrine; but likewise that every sect and\n    heresy, by which it ever was defaced, has regularly pretended\n    likewise to produce its error; when we observe the Papist, and\n    Puritan, the Socinian, and Calvinist, the Baptist, and Quaker, all\n    appealing to the Bible for the truth of their principles, and\n    pretending to prove them thereby;\u2014it will not be maintained, I think,\n    that the _mere distribution of Bibles_ under the present\n    circumstances of the times, is likely to spread the truth.  On the\n    contrary, it is to be expected that each member of your heterogeneous\n    Society will draw his portion of books for the promotion of his\n    particular opinion; for it is easily seen, that a Bible given away by\n    a Papist, will be productive of Popery.  The Socinian will make his\n    Bible speak, and spread Socinianism; while the Calvinist, the\n    Baptist, and the Quaker, will teach the opinions peculiar to their\n    sects.  Supply these men with Bibles (I speak as to a true\n    churchman), and you supply them with arms against yourself.\u201d {26}\n\nReally, Sir, in reading over this extraordinary morceau, which I do\nassure you I have done again and again, I have found my astonishment\ncontinually increase, and am now as much at a loss as ever, to account\nfor your raising up again those notions, which have been buried by public\nauthority for so many ages.  An old parishioner of mine, who scarcely\nreads any books but the Bible and Fox\u2019s Martyrology, was ready to swoon\nwhen she came to this part of your pamphlet; and I could not, for the\nlife of me, prevail upon her to go any farther.  She was utterly\nastonished at my being able to smile at what she was pleased to call, the\n_rankest Popery she had_ ever read.  I told her, it could not be Popery;\nfor it was written by a Country Clergyman: she said, the whole was a\ntrick; and that the Papists abounded in such tricks.  It was in vain that\nI repeated to her my conviction, that the author was a Protestant\nClergyman, and that, I feared, he was not singular in holding these\nopinions: I could not get her to believe one syllable of either.  She\npersisted in her declaration, that, whatever you might call yourself, you\nwere some Romish Priest in the interest of the Catholics; and that you\nonly wanted to prepare the people for parting with their Bibles.\n\nNow, Sir, though I by no means go the same lengths as my orthodox\nparishioner, yet I am free to confess, that I agree with her in the main.\nI dare believe, that you have no more intention of bringing back the Pope\nthan I have; and yet I do not know how you could have written more to the\npurpose, if you had wished to accomplish such a measure.  The dangers\nwhich you point out as accompanying the perusal of the Holy Scriptures by\nthe unlearned, were matters of constant anxiety to his Papal bosom all\nthe time that he acted as visible head of the English church; and many a\nCountry Clergyman was employed, under his direction, to enforce upon\nLords and Commoners that prudent caution against _distributing Bibles_,\nwhich you so earnestly press upon the Noble President of the British and\nForeign Bible Society.  Our forefathers, however, were too much of his\nLordship\u2019s way of thinking to yield to such considerations: having\nderived so much benefit from reading the Bible themselves, they would not\nendure the thought of refusing it to others; and they were, therefore,\namong the foremost \u201cto promote the circulation of the Scriptures at home\nand abroad.\u201d\n\nI lament with you that \u201cthe Holy Book is made a nose of wax;\u201d I, too, am\n\u201c_sadly_ experiencing\u201d this, \u201cdaily before my eyes;\u201d {27} and, the\nstrange interpretation which you have given of \u201cChristian Charity,\u201d is\nanother proof of the _sad_ extent to which this practice has spread.  But\nI could not consent on that account to deprive _you_ of your Bible, nor\neven to refuse you another if you wanted it.  Indeed, Sir, the conduct\nwhich you blame, and of which you have condescended to become an example,\nis a grievous evil: but the remedy which you propose, and which the\nCouncil of Trent proposed before you, is abundantly worse than the\ndisease.\n\nBy the way, Sir, I wonder you were not a little afraid of venturing such\nsentiments abroad, without first consulting those of your friends who are\nbetter acquainted with the principles of the Reformation than you appear\nto be.  You talk of _the church_, in the same language, with the same\npride of appropriation, and with the same prerogative of limiting the\ncourse and interpretation of Scripture, as if you had never heard that\nthe church of Rome disputes all these things with you, or as if you had\nnever heard of a separation from her.  Had no such separation taken\nplace, your observations would have been perfectly in order.  You might\nthen have followed them up too with this precautionary proposition, that\nBibles should be suppressed; and that every subject of the empire should\nengage (in the language of the Douay Catechism) to \u201cbelieve whatsoever\nthe Catholic church proposes to be believed.\u201d  This would certainly (if\nit could have been carried into effect) have rendered \u201call such elaborate\nSocieties\u201d as confine themselves to \u201cthe _bare act of distributing\nBibles_, useless;\u201d and consequently the growth of _heresy_, _error_, and\n_delusion_, impossible.\n\nBut, Sir, you and I must take things as we find them: and it does so\nhappen, that things _are not_, in the church established in these realms,\nas they _once were_.  Whether it be a wise or an unwise measure to open\nthe Scriptures to the people at large, it is now too late to dispute: to\nthe people at large they _are_ opened; and their distribution is\nlegitimated both by canon and precedent, as an act of the strictest\njustice, and the purest benevolence.\n\nIndeed I must take upon myself to tell you, that your fears for the\nchurch, from \u201cthe circulation of the Scriptures,\u201d are not calculated to\ndo her any honor in the world.  She either does not think with you, that,\nin supplying the different denominations of Christians with Bibles, she\nis really supplying them \u201cwith arms against herself;\u201d or if she does, she\nhas the magnanimity to promote their salvation, though it were at her own\nexpense.  I dare say you will set me down for no \u201ctrue churchman,\u201d when I\nsay this; but I will give you an authority to this effect, which has much\nweight with me, and which _you_ will scarcely venture to dispute.  In a\nlittle tract, called \u201cQuestions and Answers concerning the respective\nTenets of the Church of England and the Church of Rome,\u201d I find the\nfollowing passage:\n\n    \u201cQuestion.  Why do you find fault with the church of ROME for not\n    suffering the common people _to read the Bible_?\n\n    \u201cAnswer. 1.  Because in so doing they act contrary to the command\n    Christ gives to _all_, \u2018Search the Scriptures,\u2019 John, v. 39.\n\n    \u201c2.  Because what they forbid, the Apostles commend, as we see in the\n    example of the Bereans, who are _commended_ for reading the\n    Scriptures, Acts, xvii. 11.\n\n    \u201c3.  It is contrary to the practice of the primitive church, in which\n    the fathers _earnestly exhorted_ the people to an assiduous and\n    diligent reading of the Scriptures.\n\n    \u201c4.  It agrees not with St. Paul\u2019s counsel and exhortation, 1 Thess.\n    v. 7.  \u2018_I charge you_ that this Epistle be read to all the holy\n    brethren.\u2019\n\n    \u201c5.  It was a duty of the Jews to have the law in their houses, and\n    to read it to their children, Deut. vi. 7, and therefore must be much\n    more the duty of Christians to read or peruse the Gospel, as being a\n    people living under a greater and richer economy.\n\n    \u201c6.  Whereas it is pretended that the Scriptures are obscure, and\n    that this prohibition is _to prevent heresies_: _we_ answer, that the\n    Scriptures are not so obscure, in places relating to things necessary\n    to salvation, but that they may be understood by the laity: and as to\n    the plea of _preventing heresies_, that is only a pretence, no\n    argument, since _they __might as well forbid people to eat and\n    drink_, _for_, _fear they should abuse that liberty_.\u201d\n\nNow, as this tract is issued by the Society for promoting Christian\nKnowledge, I cannot but think it a misfortune, that, as a _Country\nClergyman_, you should not have seen it before you wrote your Address to\nLord T.: you would scarcely then have challenged the Noble Lord to show\nthat he was \u201ca true churchman,\u201d by fearing and restraining the\ncirculation of the Scriptures.  As it is, you can scarcely, I should\nthink, expect to escape rebuke.  Like that \u201cofficer of the Society,\u201d {31}\nwhose secret history you seem to have studied so well, you have stepped a\nlittle out of your regular line, and, like him too, have been guilty of\nsome \u201cindecorum towards the church and its spiritual superiors.\u201d\n\nBut supposing, Sir, that I could admit your dubious proposition, that the\ndissemination of truth did not depend upon the _Bible_ which was given,\nbut upon the _hand_ which might give it; a proposition, which, if true to\nthe extent of your statement, would prove equally, that the effect of\nyour pamphlet upon the interests of the Bible Society will depend less\nupon the merits of your work, than upon the hands through which it may\npass;\u2014what expedient would you propose, in the exercise of your sagacity,\nfor providing against the consequences you fear?  I am aware of your\nanswer\u2014\u201c_Dissolve the Bible Society_.\u201d  Suppose that done; though there\nwould, I think, be difficulties in the way of doing it: still the tares\nare sowing in a thousand directions, and the business of prevention is\nscarcely yet begun.  Your expedient must provide for putting Bibles into\nthe hands of churchmen _only_, or of those who will _infallibly_ become\nchurchmen by reading them; or it will never succeed.  But what will you\ndo with those wholesale Bible-mongers, the universities of Oxford and\nCambridge, and his Majesty\u2019s Printer, and all their subordinate agents\nand instruments, the book and Bible sellers throughout the country?\nWhile such merchants as these may dispose of Bibles _ad libitum_ as an\narticle of trade, and such bodies as the Society for promoting Christian\nKnowledge, and others of the same description, will continue to favor the\ntraffic, I cannot see how you will contrive to dam up the waters of life\nto any orthodox purpose; or to prevent their irrigating those lands that\nare alienated from the established church.\n\nPerhaps it might forward your purpose to put the printing and\ndistributing of Bibles under some new and more definite limitation.  As\nthe members of the church of England do not exceed four fifths of the\npopulation of the country, and the chance of converting a sectary is\nscarcely worth the risk of supplying him with \u201carms against yourself,\u201d\nwhat think you of a petition to the Legislature against uselessly and\ndangerously multiplying copies of the Holy Scriptures?  I will suppose\nyour application successful, and that only four Bibles are printed for\nevery five individuals upon the records of the population.  I will also\nsuppose, which is quite as necessary, that these Bibles, when printed,\nare consigned to an ecclesiastical depot, of which the whole and sole\ncustody shall be vested in the Country Clergyman; and that not a single\ncopy of the Bible shall be issued but under his direction.  And now, Sir,\ndo you really think, that, \u201cold as you are in the business,\u201d you would be\nable to detect all _the dogs_ that, under various disguises, would be\nseeking _the children\u2019s meat_?  If you find in the little range of your\nown parish such \u201chard work with these crafty beasts,\u201d how much would your\nwork be increased, and your difficulties multiplied, by the daily care of\nall the churches?\n\nBut you must go farther, Sir, or else you had better not have begun.\u2014You\nmust interdict the free circulation of all \u201cApologies for the Bible,\u201d all\ndissertations upon its authenticity and evidence, and particularly all\ndiscourses upon its excellence and usefulness.  You must prevail upon the\nmany venerable prelates, archdeacons\u2019, and priests, of the present day,\nwho have done themselves so much honor by advocating the cause of\nChristianity, to expunge from their writings all unguarded commendations\nof the Holy Scriptures; or to provide for their works, if they know how,\nan exclusive circulation in ecclesiastical channels.  Nor is this all:\nyou must invite, solicit, and (if you can find the means) compel, all the\ndifferent denominations of Christians, to deliver up forthwith the Bibles\nthey possess into the hands of the nearest parish priest.  When all this\nis accomplished (and until it is, your end will be very imperfectly\nobtained) it will only remain for those well-meaning Societies, in\nconnexion with the established church, to ask a bill of indemnity for the\ndegree in which they have contributed to the propagation of error, by\ntheir incautious distribution of Bibles; and to bind themselves over to\ncommit no more such acts of ecclesiastical suicide.  Your business, it\nshall be supposed, is now accomplished; and what is the result?\u2014Why, you\nmay now congratulate yourself upon having withdrawn the _antidote_ and\nleft the _poison_ in circulation; for the different denominations of\nChristians are still in possession of the privilege of multiplying\n_tracts_ ad infinitum, and you have deprived their readers of the only\nmeans of detecting the _heresy_ they contain.\n\nBut really, Sir, to be serious\u2014\u201cI feel very strong objections to the\nwhole plan, not indeed the simple, pure object of\u201d securing the\nScriptures from perversion; \u201cthe mischief lies in the _manner_ and\nmeans,\u201d which must at all events be employed for \u201ccarrying that object\ninto effect.\u201d {34}\n\nThe word of God, which is a savour of life unto life, _may_ also, I know,\nbecome a savour of death unto death.  I am sorry for it: but to restrain\nthe circulation of it, in order to provide against this _contingent_\nevil, would, I continue to think, with the authority before cited, be at\nonce as unreasonable and unjust, as to \u201cforbid people to eat or drink,\nfor fear they should abuse that liberty.\u201d\n\nI am really sorry, Sir, you were so much at a loss to interpret the\nmeaning of that \u201cliberal basis,\u201d upon which his Lordship recommended the\nSociety to your notice.  The terms \u201cbroad bottom,\u201d {35a} which you\nsubstitute in their place, would have expressed well enough his\nLordship\u2019s intention; but as he was writing to a _Country Clergyman_, and\nnot to \u201ca preaching blacksmith,\u201d he would not \u201cfail in the respect\u201d that\nis due to \u201ca gentleman and a Christian.\u201d {35b}\u2014\u201cThose who are used to\ngood company (you say) know how to behave.\u201d {35c}  What then is his\nLordship to think of _you_, when you tell him, that you have \u201cnot been\neducated on liberal-basis\u2019d or broad-bottomed principles,\u201d {35d} but that\neither you have not put on your prettiest behaviour, or that you would\n\u201cfeel\u201d less \u201cuneasy,\u201d than you pretend, in that class of company to\nwhich, as a member of the Bible Society, you would expect to be\nintroduced?\n\nBut were there no other authorities to which you could have recourse,\nwhen the lexicographer failed you, than the mouths of the \u201c_vulgar_?\u201d\n{36}  I have an authority before me, which throws so much more light upon\nhis Lordship\u2019s \u201cliberal basis,\u201d than either the synonyms of the\n\u201clexicographer,\u201d the slang of the \u201cvulgar,\u201d or the etymological quirks of\nthe \u201cCountry Clergyman,\u201d that I shall make no apology for producing it:\n\n    \u201cGive us all grace, to put away from us all rancour of religious\n    dissension, that they who agree in the essentials of our most holy\n    faith, and look for pardon through the merits and intercession of the\n    Saviour, may, notwithstanding the differences upon points of doubtful\n    opinion, and in the forms of external worship, still be united in the\n    bonds of Christian charity, and fulfil thy blessed Son\u2019s commandment,\n    of loving one another as he hath loved them.\u201d\u2014_Form of Prayer for the\n    Fast_, _October_ 19, 1803.\n\nNow here, Sir, I found that \u201cliberal basis\u201d upon which the Society is\nerected, and I am surprised you did not think of looking for it in the\nsame place.  But perhaps the liberal basis of the prayer, like that of\nthe Society, \u201chas no charms for\u201d _you_.  I will not presume such a fact;\nbut if you were to affirm that it is so, I should have very little\ndifficulty in believing you.\n\nYou do not however intend \u201cto deny the possibility of any _sort or\ndegree_ of union among certain descriptions of persons composing the\nSociety.\u201d {37a}  You are \u201cperfectly aware that all the various and\ndiscordant tribes of dissenters from the church of England may unite from\nthe Papist down to the Quaker; for they frequently have, and frequently\ndo unite _against_ the church.\u201d {37b}\u2014\u201cBut when (say you) was it ever\nknown that they have united _with_ the church?  Show me the history, lay\nyour finger on the page, and say, my Lord, _when_, _where_, and upon what\n_occasion_, did they ever unite _with_ the church for any important and\nrighteous design.  I must be satisfied on this point; I must request some\nfair example and precedent, to prove that the thing is neither impossible\nnor improbable, before it can be even prudent to listen to your\nLordship\u2019s proposal.\u201d {37c}\n\nNow here, Sir, you throw out a challenge, which, with his Lordship\u2019s\npermission, I am willing to accept.  I will show you the history of such\nunion as you indirectly deny: I will lay my finger on the page, and say,\n_when_, and _where_, and upon what _occasion_ the different tribes of\nDissenters _did_ unite with the church for an important and righteous\ndesign.  The _history_ then to which I refer is that portion of our\ncountry\u2019s annals which commenced with the autumn of 1803, and which is\nnot yet completed.  The _page_ upon which I lay my finger is that which\ndisplays the voluntary creation of a national force; in which, if one\nfeature was more illustrious than another, it was the magnanimity with\nwhich the subjects of the same government agreed \u201cto put away all rancour\nof religious dissension,\u201d and to unite in the prosecution of that\n_righteous_ and _important_ design in which they had embarked,\n\u201cnotwithstanding their differences upon points of doubtful opinion, and\nin the forms of external worship.\u201d  Let the Country Clergyman peruse this\nawful yet luminous page of our history; let him weigh well the danger\nwhich threatened the throne, the church, and the nation; let him read in\nthose discourses, which gratitude will not allow us to forget, how that\ndanger was proclaimed by preachers of every denomination; let him walk\nthrough the land, in the length of it and the breadth of it, and see how\nmany myriads were added to the national force by those powerful and\nseasonable appeals to the feelings, the conscience, and the spirit of\nBritons; and he will want, I think, no other \u201cexample and precedent\u201d to\nprove that an union of the various tribes of Dissenters WITH the church\nof England, for an important and righteous design, \u201cis neither impossible\nnor improbable.\u201d\n\nWith such a recent portion of history before your eyes, I cannot see, I\nconfess, either the justice or the policy of your travelling back over a\ncentury and half of ground in order to find matter of accusation against\nthose of our fellow-subjects, with whom a sense of common danger has\nunited us, and with whom it is as important now as it was two years ago,\nthat we should continue united.  The politico-religious strife which\nsubsisted between our ancestors and theirs is not a sacred inheritance.\nI trust the various denominations of Christians of the present day would\nthink themselves as much disgraced by the events of \u201cthe grand\nrebellion,\u201d {39a} as the modern members of the establishment would by the\nrevenge with which it was followed.  \u201cThe church\u201d has, I know, \u201cher sores\nand scars;\u201d and so, I lament to say, have those who dissented from her.\nLet us own the truth\u2014\u201cthe heavenly dove\u201d {39b} has been sometimes\nencouraged to make a little too free with \u201cthe wings and feathers\u201d of the\nsmaller birds, and it must not therefore be wondered if her own have\nsuffered.  Let her but act up to the sweetness of her nature, and allow\nthe other tenants of the air to have their note; she then may plume her\ngolden breast without annoyance, and bear her grateful blessings on\noutstretched wings to every nation under heaven.\n\nYour zeal for extending the boundaries of that church in which you\nminister, is both natural and just: I participate in it with all the\nfeelings of my heart.  It is an object which has my prayers, and shall,\nby God\u2019s assistance, through life command my services.  But I will not\nset her up as the entire and only spouse of Christ: for how can I then\ncurse those whom God hath not cursed?\u2014Away with those superannuated\nfears, that she must grow barren because her younger sisters are\nfruitful.  I have no doubt but both she and they have \u201cborne many an\nillustrious child of God\u201d {40a} to their heavenly bridegroom, and will\ncontinue to bear many more.  I lament with you, that they prefer their\n_Gerizim_ to our _Zion_: but I must not therefore refuse to have any\ndealings {40b} with them, or to entertain any charity for them.  If they\nworship God in spirit and truth, if with the heart they believe on the\nLord Jesus unto righteousness, if they \u201cagree in the essentials of our\nmost holy faith, and look for pardon through the merits and intercession\nof the Saviour,\u201d I cannot, I dare not, I will not put them out of the\ncovenant of grace and mercy and peace.  Aliens from our external\ncommonwealth, they are yet fellow-citizens with the saints: and though\nthe earthly Jerusalem disclaim them, they will hereafter be acknowledged\nby the Jerusalem above\u2014the mother of us all. {40c}\n\nBut the treason can no longer be dissembled; the eleventh article of the\nSociety\u2019s constitution proclaims it: that article purports, that \u201cthe\ncommittee (which is to conduct the business of the Society, appoint all\nofficers except the treasurer, have power to call special meetings, and\nare charged with procuring for the Society suitable patronage) shall\nconsist of thirty-six laymen; of whom, twenty-four, who shall have most\nfrequently attended, shall be eligible for re-election for the ensuing\nyear; six shall be foreigners resident in London or its vicinity; half\nthe remainder shall be members of the church of England, and the other\nhalf members of other denominations of Christians!!!\u201d\n\n\u201c_We have here_ (say you) _a standing majority against the church_!\u201d and\nthen, after declaiming, with all the art of the buskin, upon this\n\u201cdeath-warrant of the established church,\u201d and with all the prescience of\nthe seer upon the return of the \u201chalcyon days of 1648,\u201d you surround\nyourself with the imaginary ruins of \u201cour\u201d demolished \u201cZion,\u201d and make\nyour exit \u201cweeping.\u201d {41}  I thought indeed when you played such awkward\nantics upon \u201chis Lordship\u2019s liberal basis,\u201d that every thing was not\nright.  I could not but regard the laugh in which you indulged, as a\nsymptom of something very different from humour; and I have not been\ndeceived.  It was, I perceive, a _moody laugh_, and has ended, as all\nsuch hysterical affections do, in _a flood of tears_.  As the fit is now\nover, we may examine this treasonable article, with a better chance of\ncoming to a mutual understanding upon it.\n\nI will then indulge you for a moment with the full benefit of your\nassertion, that there is in this committee \u201c_a standing majority against\nthe church_;\u201d and what will you gain by such a concession?  The object,\nyou must now bear in mind, is specific\u2014the circulation of the Scriptures;\nthat object, you must also recollect, is limited, within the kingdom, to\nthe _authorized_, versions in use among us.  The same sort of limitation\nis not resorted to in case of foreign versions, for the best of all\nreasons; that it _cannot_ in the nature of things be applied.  The\ndifferent Protestant churches on the European continent have their\nauthorized versions, and _there_ the line of proceeding is direct: but\nwhere the church of Rome, or, as she calls herself _the church_,\nprevails; _there_, the Country Clergyman would scarcely wish the rule for\ncirculating the _authorized_ version to be observed.  As for those\nlanguages into which translations remain to be made, they are for the\nmost part so remote from the ordinary sphere of study and commerce, that\nthe office of executing such translations, and judging of their merits,\nmust generally be consigned to foreigners; who probably neither\nunderstand the distinctions to which we annex importance, nor could be\nmade to understand them.  No questions, therefore, can arise in this\ncommittee, which might bring into discussion the points of disagreement\nbetween the church of England and Dissenters: so that if there should be\nin such committee, a standing majority of members _out of_ the church,\nthat will by no means constitute a Standing majority _against_ her.\n\nBut let us see whether your _hypothesis_ does not assume rather too much.\nThe Society is denominated _British_ and _Foreign_.  In the constitution\nof its committee, it was but just to pay respect to both parts of its\ndesignation: nor does it appear extravagant to have assigned a sixth part\nof that committee to the members of those foreign churches, with which\nthe Society sought a friendly co-operation, and with which, I understand,\nshe _is_ actually co-operating to a very considerable extent.  Now these\nforeigners cannot be identified with the Dissenters from the established\nchurch, without as much violence to speech as makes a _solecism_, and to\nthe rights of hospitality, as constitutes a _calumny_.  Neither these men\nhave sinned, nor their parents, in the way which the Country Clergyman\n_supposes_: they brought their religion with them, as they did their\nlanguage; and they might as truly be said to have dissented from a\nlanguage which they never spake, as from a mode of religious worship\nwhich neither they nor their fathers ever professed.  They are, it should\nbe observed, for the most part members of sister churches, from which the\nSociety for promoting Christian Knowledge has obtained some of its most\nlaborious missionaries, and the established church of this country has\nderived, and must continue to derive, her nursing mothers. {44}  On many\ngrounds, these foreigners would feel the ties which bind them to the\nestablished church; and she may therefore fairly reckon upon their\n_neutrality_, if she may not promise herself their _support_.\n\nLet these _neutrals_ (for such _at least_ I am privileged to call them)\nbe withdrawn, and there remain fifteen members to support the church\u2019s\ninterests, and fifteen, as it is supposed by the Country Clergyman, to\nimpugn them.  The former will naturally be links of the same chain;\ncommon interest, and pledges of a peculiar nature, dictate to them an\nuniformity of reciprocal support, from which they may not be expected to\ndepart.  They may therefore be reckoned upon to the extent of their\nnumber.  But will you, Sir, who seem to know something of the world, will\nyou allow yourself to believe, that the same uniformity of co-operation\nmay be expected from the fifteen members who are to fight the battles of\n_dissent_?  Some among them are advocates for _infant_ baptism, some for\n_adult_ baptism, and some for _no_ baptism at all.  Some hold the tenets\nof Calvin, some of Arminius, and some of neither.  Their sentiments upon\nchurch government are also scarcely less various, than their opinions\nupon matters of faith: so that, widely as they may seem to dissent from\nthe church of England, many of them would be found, if controverted\nquestions could arise, to differ still more widely from each other.  Yet\nall these discordant members must harmonize together; and the foreigners,\nwho probably differ from them all, must harmonize with them; or else _the\nstanding majority against the church_ must remain a mere _standing_\nbugbear, to scare the Country Clergyman, and terrify those who choose to\nparticipate his alarms.\n\nI am, however, no enemy to strong improbabilities where a pleasant\nargument is concerned.  The fifteen members of all denominations of\nBritish Christians _shall_ unite together; the six members of foreign\nchurches shall do the same: and then, like the miraculous pieces of St.\nPeter\u2019s chain {45} (of which _the church_ makes such notable mention),\nthese two parties shall form a junction; _a majority_ shall thus be\ncreated _against_ the church.  What then?  Are not the presidents,\nvice-presidents, and treasurer, by virtue of their respective offices,\nmembers of the committee?  Suppose then for a moment, that the committee\nshould entertain so foul a proposition as that for \u201cblowing up the\nestablishment, clergy and all;\u201d suppose, that the Quakers should consent\nto renounce, _pro h\u00e2c vice_, their objections to the employment of\ngunpowder; suppose further that the foreigners should concur, nobody\nknows why, in voting for such a measure; the terrified minority would not\nbe without a remedy.  It would still be in their power, by the accession\nof these honorary members, to outnumber their dissenting adversaries at\nthe ensuing meeting; and, by objecting to the confirmation of the\nminutes, prevent the explosion of this nefarious plot.  But indeed there\nis no end of remedies.  Every clergyman subscribing a guinea a year, is a\n_member of the committee_. (Art. 12.)  Every subscriber of five guineas a\nyear, is a _member of the committee_. (Art. 5 and 7.)  Every subscriber\nof 50_l._ at one time, is a _member of the committee_. (Art. 6.)  And\nlastly, every executor paying a bequest of 100_l._ is a _member of the\ncommittee_. (Art. 8 and 7.)  Now, Sir, supposing the members of the\nchurch of England to be (upon your own estimate) to those of other\ndenominations as four to one, _whose_ fault do you think it will be, if\nthe balance of influence in the committee of the Bible Society should be\nagainst her?  Will _you_ be wholly innocent?\u2014\u201cOh, Sir, how could you join\nin such a plot?  What could induce you to lend your\u201d professional \u201cname\nto such a business as this?  And why should you think so basely of the\nclergy as to tempt them by your example,\u201d and the presumption of your\nfair reputation, to believe, that, in strengthening the hands of their\necclesiastical brethren, they would \u201csign the death-warrant of the\nestablished church, and the instrument of their own ruin?\u201d {47a}  Do,\nSir, lose no time in writing your palinodia.  I will not ask you to alter\nyour opinion of the Society, or to part with one of your suspicions of\nits mischievous designs.  You shall still be at liberty to talk, as\nfreely as ever, of \u201cpreaching blacksmiths and fanatical ranters in holy\norders;\u201d and of such \u201cdoves,\u201d as you and your friends, becoming \u201ca\nluscious and inviting morsel to all the several hungry denominations of\nChristians;\u201d provided you do but seek to multiply the number of our\necclesiastical subscribers, as much as you have hitherto laboured to\ndiminish it.  I will not promise, in return, that your \u201cliberality will\nbe sounded forth by every gospel-preacher in the church, and every\ntwanging teacher in the conventicle;\u201d {47b} but I may then venture to\npromise you, what I should think would afford you quite as much\npleasure\u2014the satisfaction of having converted a standing majority\n_against_ the church into a standing majority _in her favor_.\n\nI will not dispute with you, whether the established church will be a\ngainer by this new connexion on the score of _dignity_ and fashion.  I am\ntold, indeed, that there are among the nonconformists those who can wear\nas gay a coat, play as good a hand at whist, and give as modish an\naccount of an opera or a play, as \u201cthose men of the world\u201d among us, who\n\u201cthink it more creditable to be accounted members of our venerable\nchurch, than a subscriber to the meeting-house:\u201d but I cannot say how\nmany there may be of this description among the subscribers to the Bible\nSociety.  However, though \u201cfew men of opulence, and fewer still of rank,\nfrequent the meeting-house or conventicle,\u201d there is \u201cinfluence and\nconsideration\u201d {48a} enough among the members of our communion to give\nrespectability to both.  I grant, indeed, that \u201cthe presence of _a\nnobleman_ cannot make the company which he honours with his presence\neither creditable or polite,\u201d yet surely the presence of a _number_ will\ngo a great way towards doing it: but then I admit with you, that they\nmust not be \u201cwandering stars,\u201d {48b} which shed a momentary lustre, but\nluminaries which keep a _fixed_ position, and dispense a _certain_ light.\n\nYou expect, as the result of this new association, that all will become\nunity, and charity, and Christian benevolence, and that you shall see\n\u201crealized the pretty hand-in-hand frontispiece to the Christian Ladies\nPocket-Book 1803.\u201d {48c}  Now though I am not so sanguine in my\nexpectations as you are, yet I trust you will not be wholly disappointed.\nAnd, in my opinion, a Protestant clergy will be not acting less out of\ntheir character by promoting \u201cunity, charity, and Christian benevolence,\u201d\nthan by disturbing them: nor can Christian prelates be quite so much\ndisgraced by shaking the hands of Dissenting ministers in the\nfrontispiece of a pocket-book, {49} as they would be if represented as\ndrawing those hands through the holes of a pillory.\n\nYour fears are awakened for the _purity_ of the church:\u2014I am certainly\nmore tender of her _purity_ than I am of her _dignity_; and that because\nI have been taught to regard her _white raiment_ as her truest _glory_.\nBut what defilement has she to apprehend from a co-operation with persons\ndiffering from her, in an object upon which they are agreed?  If\nSocinians are to be feared, if Calvinists are to be shunned, I question\nwhether the Bible Society will furnish dangers nearly so great as those\nwhich the established church incurs from members of her own communion.\nSocinians are not remarkable for their zeal in promoting the circulation\nof the Scriptures; and I question whether half a dozen of them have\nsubscribed their names as members of the Bible Society.  As for the\nCalvinists, they constitute, it must be remembered, only a proportion of\nthose denominations which are represented in the committee.  The Wesleian\nMethodists are not _Calvinists_; many of the Presbyterians are not\n_Calvinists_; the Quakers are not _Calvinists_; the Lutherans are not\n_Calvinists_; and individuals of other persuasions, which might be named,\nare not _Calvinists_.  Besides, though \u201cscratchings and fightings\u201d may be\n\u201cusual with the parties when on the outside of the tavern walls,\u201d {50}\nthat is not a reason for there being theological wranglings within.  The\nline of business is, with few exceptions, as direct at the Bible\nCommittee as it is at Lloyd\u2019s; and there is as little reason to expect\nthe peculiar tenets of Calvin or Socinus to enter into a debate for\ndispersing an edition of the Scriptures, as there would be if the same\nmen were met to underwrite a policy of insurance.  But why may it not be\nhoped that churchmen will not be the only losers by this connexion?  What\nif some of _us_ should grow less proud and phlegmatic, may not some of\n_them_ become less snarlish and fanatical?  The friction which takes off\nour asperities will assuredly do the same by theirs.  It is therefore\nhighly probable, that we may severally bring away with us our faith, our\nhope, and our charity, which are all we wish to save; and leave nothing\nbehind us but that \u201cbitterness, and wrath, and anger, and clamour, and\nevil-speaking, and malice,\u201d {51a} which can very well be spared.\n\nYou ask, \u201cwhat concord hath a mitre with a meeting-house?\u201d  The Pharisees\nof old were fond of asking questions of the same sort\u2014\u201cWhy eateth your\nMaster with publicans and sinners?\u201d  The Pharisees were very little\nsatisfied with the answer they received; and, I dare say, any answer that\ncould be given to the Country Clergyman would satisfy him as little.  I\nmust therefore leave him to doubt whether _any concord_ can subsist\nbetween kindred souls, pursuing the same object under different forms,\nand in unequal stations, till he shall see how near the spirits of an\nUsher and a Baxter, of a Taylor and a Henry, of a Tillotson and a Watts,\nof a Seeker and a Doddridge, will _venture_ to approach each other, in\nthe new heaven and new earth wherein dwelleth _righteousness_.\n\nAnd pray what are we to understand by your merry question about the\n_unequal yoke_?  \u201cWhy (you ask) should a clergyman of the church of\nEngland be unequally yoked with a lovely sister of the conventicle?\u201d  And\nthen you desire \u201ca certain officer of the Society\u201d {51b} to be consulted.\nWhat sort of an answer that \u201cofficer\u201d might think proper to give, it\nbelongs to himself to determine; but I confess I see nothing in the\nquestion which I should be afraid to meet.  I am at a loss to see what\nharm \u201ca lovely sister of the conventicle\u201d can do to any man.  I am sure\nthere is every probability that such an \u201cunequal yoke\u201d would do the\nCountry Clergyman\u2019s temper a great deal of good.  But I cannot give him\nany great encouragement, if he should _venture himself_ upon such a\nspeculation, _into the company of those of whom he has always hitherto\nbeen horribly afraid_.  The sectaries, on whom he has laid such heavy\nblows, will keep (I fear) their \u201clovely sisters\u201d for priests of a gentler\nnature and better breeding; and leave the Country Clergyman to whisper\nhis tale of love into some high-church ear, and to be as \u201cequally yoked\u201d\nas Richard Hooker, {52} or any other country clergyman ever was before\nhim.\n\nBut though I can pardon in this \u201ccertain officer of the Society,\u201d his\n_hymeneal_ error (for matches, you know, Sir, are made in heaven), yet I\nhave no such allowance to make for those other transgressions, in which\nhe is, or ought to be, a freer agent.  \u201cPerhaps (you say) he can resolve\nus, how a clergyman of the church can attend the meeting-house, without\ndanger to his principles, or gross indecorum towards the church and its\nspiritual superior.  He perhaps can show us too, how a clergyman of the\nchurch can securely, and without breach of trust, take his pupils to hear\nthe harangues of those who daily revile her.  This, to common\nunderstandings, does not appear to be the likely way \u2018to banish and drive\naway all erroneous and strange doctrines, contrary to God\u2019s word,\u2019 which\nevery clergyman at his ordination solemnly promises to do.  It wants some\nclearing up.\u201d {53}\n\nThere is really, Sir, no accounting for the fancies of some of our order.\nDean Swift was fond of vulgar manners, and therefore he would take his\ndinner in a cellar; some clergymen love the sports of the field, and\ntherefore join the hounds at a fox-chase: I suppose this \u201ccertain officer\nof the Society\u201d has a sort of ear for public speaking, and has sometimes\nstepped a little out of his way in order to gratify it.  But then (as you\nmight naturally say) are not the _theatres_ open for him, as well as for\nhis brethren; and if he wants a slice of good oratory, cannot he give six\nshillings to a box-keeper, and take it like a gentleman?  _He_ may\nperhaps have a doubt (for he seems to hold opinions of his own) \u201chow a\nclergyman of the church can attend\u201d _the theatre_, \u201cwithout danger to his\nprinciples, or gross indecorum towards the church and its spiritual\nsuperior.\u201d  Perhaps also he may entertain a doubt \u201chow a clergyman of the\nchurch can, securely, and without breach of trust, take his pupils to\nhear the harangues of those\u201d dramatic characters, \u201cwhich,\u201d as Archbishop\nTillotson says, \u201cdo most notoriously minister to infidelity and vice.\u201d\n{54a}  Possibly \u201cthis,\u201d to his understanding, may \u201cnot appear to be the\nlikely way \u2018to frame and fashion himself and his family according to the\ndoctrine of Christ, and to make both himself and them, as much as in him\nlieth, wholesome examples and patterns to the flock of Christ,\u2019 {54b}\nwhich every clergyman at his ordination solemnly promises to do.\u201d  But I\nthink with you, that the whole of this matter \u201cwants clearing up.\u201d  I\nhave, I confess, some difficulty about conceiving how this priest can\nexecute either such, or so many duties as he is said to do, of a\nparochial and domestic nature; and yet find either time to conduct his\npupils to hear the church reviled, or pupils tractable enough to be\nconducted by him.  But, as I said before, the whole matter \u201cwants\nclearing up;\u201d and if you should be found to have aimed a blow at his\nprofessional character, which he has not quite deserved, you have nothing\nto do but to say, as the Roman assassins are reported to do when they\nstab the wrong man in the dark, \u201c_Padrone \u00e8 un sbaglio_,\u201d\u2014\u201cI beg your\npardon, it was _a mistake_.\u201d\n\nYour last objection respects \u201cthe purity of the Holy Scriptures,\u201d which,\nyou think, will be endangered \u201cif the translation and edition of the\nSacred Book are to be intrusted to all the different denominations of\nChristians.\u201d {55}  The greater part of this objection has been\nanticipated.  It has been already stated that the Society is restrained\nto editing and distributing the versions, _printed by authority_,\nthroughout the united kingdom.  In supplying the different parts of the\nEuropean continent, the Society will find the versions already in\ncirculation among the Protestant churches; and its proceedings in these\ncases will be chiefly directed by those Lutheran prelates and ministers,\nwith whom a confidential communication has, I understand, been already\nopened, through the medium of its foreign secretary.  Nor can there be\nany danger of the Bible Society intrusting \u201ceither the translating or the\nediting the Holy Scriptures to the care of that denomination of\nChristians called Papists;\u201d {56a} for, besides the _improbability_ of\n\u201cthat denomination of Christians\u201d joining the Bible Society, there is the\nabsolute _certainty_, that there would always be in the committee a\n_standing majority against them_.  With regard to _new_ translations,\nthey relate, as has been already observed, to languages, over which the\njurisdiction of the church of England would be as nugatory as that of any\nother denomination of Christians.  The manner of conducting these must be\nalmost, if not entirely, matter of discretion; and such a committee as\nthe Bible Society has been shown to possess, affords the best security\nthat such discretion will never be wanted.  So far as the influence of\nthe church in these cases is of importance, she has it, by the natural\nconstitution of the committee; and if a preponderating influence be\ndesirable, the doors are opened for obtaining it by proportional\nsubscription.  Should she adopt this measure, as I trust she will, \u201cyou\nsee the consequences as well as I can.\u201d  The Society will then contain,\nbeyond all question, _a standing majority in favor of the church_; and\nthere will be no room for apprehending that \u201cour present pure English\nBible will be thrust aside to make way for others:\u201d but while \u201cevery\ndifferent party has its doctrine and its interpretation,\u201d all parties\nwill have but ONE BIBLE. {56b}\n\nBut, it seems, you have got possession of a fact which strengthens all\nyour fears: you have been \u201ccredibly informed that the British and Foreign\nBible Society are at this time preparing an edition of the Holy\nScriptures in the Welsh language, in which such liberties are taken in\nthe translation as are by no means warrantable.\u201d  You are right in saying\nyou give this \u201cmerely as a _report_;\u201d however, I cannot help suspecting\nthat, where the Bible Society, or any of its _officers_, are likely to\nsuffer by it, you have no particular objection to publishing what are\n\u201cmerely _reports_.\u201d  Others before you have charged upon the Society the\nnefarious crime of taking \u201cunwarrantable liberties with the\n_translation_\u201d and they had just as good authority for saying so as you\nhave.  The fact is, that _the original informer_ never imputed to the\nSociety the guilt of altering the _translation_, but the _orthography_ of\nthe text; and he, it must be observed, had never seen any portion of the\ncorrected copy.  But before your pamphlet left the press\u2014perhaps before\nit went there; the parties, to whom the information had been originally\nconveyed, were in possession of another sort of _report_\u2014a Report from\nthe Committee of the British and Foreign Bible Society; in which the\ncorrections that had occasioned this alarm, were shown to have been made\n(whether right or wrong, _judicent periti_), upon a collation of the\northographical variations, in the several _authorized editions only_.\nHowever, the question between the parties is in a train of arbitration,\nunder the direction of the syndics of the Cambridge University-press;\n_who_, and _not the Committee of the Bible Society_, are to be the\nprinters of the Welsh impression.\n\nBut lest the Welsh rumour should subside before the Society is\noverthrown, you have another little story to keep up the public prejudice\nagainst it.  \u201cThe author (you say) has likewise been _told_, that the\ndistribution of tracts as well as Bibles, was in the original plan of\nsome of the first projectors of this scheme, one of whom is known to be a\nzealous adversary of the establishment.\u201d {58a}  Now, Sir, it is very\npossible that the original projector of this Society, and his project\ntoo, may have been very exceptionable, and yet the present institution be\nentitled to a very honorable character.  I have never thought the worse\nof the Reformation, because I could not for the life of me think well of\nHenry the Eighth and his \u201coriginal plan.\u201d  The \u201cPhilanthropic Society\u201d is\nfounded upon a supposition, which I think a very just one, that something\nmay be made of the _offspring_, when nothing can be made of the _parent_;\n{58b} and I suppose the Country Clergyman would rather have his pamphlet\njudged from the _fair copy_ which he sent to the press, than from any one\nof those \u201coriginal plans\u201d of it, which were projected by his busy and\ninquisitive _reporters_.  The question is, whether the _actual_ plan of\nthe Society comprehends or excludes the distribution of _tracts_.  The\nanswer to this is, that the _first article_ of the constitution\nperemptorily _excludes_ them.  After such a declaration, it is as\nunreasonable to dispute the _present_ object of the Bible Society, by a\nreference to any _antecedent_ designs; as it would be to question whether\nthe Paradise Lost be an _epic poem_, merely because it stood as a _drama_\nin Milton\u2019s \u201coriginal plan.\u201d\n\nBut I have done.\u2014My business was not to proclaim the _excellence_ of the\nBible Society; but only to rescue it from _reproach_.  I have therefore\nconfined my remarks to those specific objections with which you have\nopposed it.\n\nWhat _further_ objections you could have produced (and, it seems, you\nhave nine times as many in reserve) {59} I shall not concern myself to\ninquire: if they resemble those, which have been already considered, I\nrejoice that you have had the grace to conceal them.  You have already\ncondescended enough \u201cto do the enemy\u2019s work:\u201d and deserved sufficiently\nwell of those who seek the church\u2019s degradation.  If this be _really_ the\nobject of the several denominations of Christians, they are abundantly\nmore indebted to the hostility of the _cassock_ than to the friendship of\nthe _mitre_.  _Yours_, Sir, is the description of services upon which\nthey will set the most value: and, if they do you justice, \u201cnot a single\nnonconformist, Papist, Socinian, or Quaker, will be silent in your\npraise.\u201d\u2014\u201cUngrateful wretches would they be, were they to pass by\nunnoticed and un-eulogized so great a friend to their cause.\u201d {60a}  But\nI trust you have mistaken _them_, as much as you have dishonored _us_:\n_they_ will hope to get to heaven, though they should not have pulled\ndown the church in their way; and _we_ shall hope to get there too,\nthough we should not have _compelled_ them \u201cto be like-minded,\u201d nor\nrefused them the free use of Bibles, and the offices of brotherly love.\n\nAnd now, Sir, before I take my leave (a ceremony to which we are\nhastening with mutual impatience), let me challenge your acknowledgment\nof that courteousness and suavity with which I have treated you.  It was\nnatural for you to expect revilings and reproaches; you esteem them an\n\u201chonor;\u201d you \u201chave enjoyed them before;\u201d {60b} and I must do you the\njustice to say, that you take some pains to deserve them.  However, in\nthe present instance, you have been disappointed.  I have neither reviled\nnor reproached you: I have not once called you \u201cBeelzebub,\u201d through the\nwhole of my letter: I have never once insinuated that you were a wolf in\nsheep\u2019s clothing: I have never once pried into the table of your\nalliances, nor dodged you from your house to your favorite places of\namusement, nor pretended to know any more of your private history, than\nwas strictly consistent with \u201ca gentleman and a Christian.\u201d\n\nI owe this self-government to \u201cthose liberal-basis\u2019d and broad-bottomed\nprinciples,\u201d to which you appear so profound a stranger: and I trust,\nthis consideration will do a great deal towards recommending them to your\nfavor.  They are, Sir, be assured, the genuine principles of\nChristianity, as well as those of the British constitution.  They are\ncalculated to reflect honor on the church, and to promote harmony through\nthe nation.  On them the British and Foreign Bible Society has been\nerected; and from such an institution, resting upon such \u201ca basis,\u201d the\nhappiest events may, under God, be expected, to the country\u2014to Europe\u2014and\nto the habitable world.\n\n                             I am, Rev. Sir,\n\n                                                      Your humble Servant.\n\n                                * * * * *\n\n                                * * * * *\n\n                                 THE END.\n\n                                * * * * *\n\n                                * * * * *\n\n                                * * * * *\n\n                S. GOSNELL, Printer, Little Queen Street.\n\n\n\n\nFOOTNOTES.\n\n\n{1}  Address, p. 1.\n\n{2}  Address, p. 1 and 2.\n\n{3a}  Address, p. 16.\n\n{3b}  This resolution was occasioned by the combination of the journeymen\nprinters, &c. against their masters.\n\n{6a}  Address, p. 28.\n\n{6b}  Ibid.\n\n{6c}  P. 21.\n\n{6d}  \u201cHistory proves that none but _the church_ have enjoyed the\n_splendour and favour of princes_.\u201d  Address, p. 27.\n\n{8}  Address, p. 5.\n\n{9a}  Address, p. 32.\n\n{9b}  P. 5.\n\n{9c}  P. 6.\n\n{10a}  Address, p.8.\n\n{10b}  P. 9.\n\n{10c}  P. 8.\n\n{11a}  Address, p. 5.\n\n{11b}  P. 7.\n\n{12}  Address, p. 5.\n\n{14a}  Address, p. 7.\n\n{14b}  P. 10.\n\n{15}  Address, p. 8.\n\n{16}  Address, p. 8.\n\n{17}  Address, p. 8, 9.\n\n{19}  Address, p. 9.\n\n{20}  Address, p. 16.\n\n{21a}  Address, p. 11.\n\n{21b}  P. 26.\n\n{24a}  Address, p. 21.\n\n{24b}  P. 12.\n\n{26}  Address, p. 18.\n\n{27}  Address, p. 13.\n\n{31}  Address, p. 32.\n\n{34}  Address, p. 11.\n\n{35a}  Address, p. 16.\n\n{35b}  P. 2.\n\n{35c}  P. 16.\n\n{35d}  Ibid.\n\n{36}  It struck me suddenly at last, that your Lordship must intend by\nthese classical words, only what the vulgar would call \u201cbroad bottom.\u201d\nAddress, p. 16.\n\n{37a}  Address, p. 17.\n\n{37b}  Ibid.\n\n{37c}  P. 18.\n\n{39a}  Address, p. 21.\n\n{39b}  \u201cWhose delight,\u201d speaking of the Dissenters, \u201chas always been to\nclip the silver wings of the heavenly dove, and to pluck her golden\nfeathers from her breast.\u201d  Address, p. 20.\n\n{40a}  Address, p. 21.\n\n{40b}  John, iv. 9.\n\n{40c}  Gal. iv. 26.\n\n{41} Address, p. 25.\n\n{44}  It need scarcely be observed, that our virtuous Queen, and the\nwives of her royal sons, were of the Lutheran church.\n\n{45}  A church at Rome, called _San Pietro in Vincolis_, is said to have\nbeen built in consequence of such a miraculous event.\n\n{47a}  Address, p. 23.\n\n{47b}  P. 24.\n\n{48a}  Address, p. 28.\n\n{48b}  P. 27.\n\n{48c}  Ibid.\n\n{49}  The reader, who is not acquainted with this part of ecclesiastical\nhistory, must be told, that a bookseller, desirous, it is presumed, of\nreconciling all \u201cdenominations of Christians\u201d to the purchase of his\nChristian \u201cLadies\u2019 Pocket-book, for 1803,\u201d took the liberty of\nrepresenting three ministers, respectively of the Presbyterian, Baptist,\nand Independent denominations of Protestant Dissenters, and a prelate of\nthe established church, together with an union of hands, in the\nfrontispiece of his work.\n\n{50}  Address, p. 22.\n\n{51a}  Ephes. iv. 3.\n\n{51b}  Address, p. 32.\n\n{52}  Richard Hooker was prevailed upon by Mrs. _Churchman_, the wife of\n\u201ca draper of good note,\u201d as honest Isaac Walton calls him, to let her\nchoose a wife for him.  \u201cNow,\u201d continues the pleasant biographer, \u201cthe\nwife provided for him was her daughter Joan, who brought him neither\nbeauty nor portion; and for her conditions, they were too like that\nwife\u2019s, which is by Solomon compared to a dripping house: so that he had\nno reason to _rejoice in the wife of his youth_, but rather to say with\nthe holy prophet, \u2018_Wo is me_, _that I am constrained to have my\nhabitation in the tents of Kedar_\u2019.\u201d  Walton\u2019s Life of Hooker.\n\n{53}  Address, p. 32.\n\n{54a}  Vide Archbishop Tillotson on the Stage (as quoted by Law).\n\n{54b}  Vide Ordination Service.\n\n{55}  Address, p. 32.\n\n{56a}  Address, p. 33.\n\n{56b}  P. 34.\n\n{58a}  Address, p. 36.\n\n{58b}  This Society provides for educating the _children of felons_.\n\n{59}  \u201cI have mentioned not a tenth part.\u201d  Address, p. 35.\n\n{60a}  Address, p. 24.\n\n{60b}  P. 4.","title":"A letter to a country clergyman, occasioned by his address to Lord Teignmouth","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":14923}