to which I belong, for the sake of sending Bibles, however numerous, to foreign churches, though I would gladly contribute to the latter, when it can be done with safety to the former.

Even therefore, if the exertions of the Society in foreign countries were really as great, as they have been represented, I should still think, the safety of our own Church required the first consideration. But since those exertions have been represented in such splendid and dazzling colors, since they have been considered as a new propagation of the Gospel, and since the various translations, which this Society is said to have made of the Scriptures, are regarded by its advocates as a renewal of the Pentecost, when the Apostles were enabled to speak to all nations in their several languages, I have thought it proper to inquire into the foundation of these pretensions, but shall reserve that Inquiry for an Appendix, because my arguments in the present Inquiry have no dependence whatever on the truth or falsehood of those pretensions, though I believe that hundreds and thousands have subscribed to the Society in consequence of those pretensions. Now it will appear from that Appendix, that the editions of the Scriptures, already printed or caused to be printed by this Society, in languages, into which they had never been translated before, so far from amounting to FIFTY-FOUR, which the ambiguity of Mr. Vansittart's expression, aided by the splendor of his description, might induce men to suppose, amount to a very few more than a tenth of that number.' It will further appear, that among the translations, now preparing in India, there are several in languages, into which the Scriptures had been already translated. It will appear that others had previously issued from the Missionary press at Serampore, independently of the aid of the Society. It will

1 Previous to the late meeting at Ipswich for the formation of an Auxiliary Bible Society, Mr. Clarkson informed the Public, through the channel of the Suffolk Papers, that the Society had “translated the Scriptures into no less than forty-three different languages or dialects." See the Ipswich Journal for November 23, 1811. But when Mr. Clarkson's letter was re-published in Cambridge, with a superscription alluding to my Address to the Senate (see Note, p. 103.) the learned Editor had the precaution to amend the text of his Author by inserting in a bracket [printed or] before the word "translated." Now it makes a material difference whether new translations are made, or old translations reprinted: otherwise, we may say with equal justice, that the King's Printer is " the means of preaching the gospel" as often as he prints an English Bible. But if this is meant, men should not compare it with the day of Pentecost.

also appear that among the European languages, in which they have reprinted, or assisted in reprinting the Scriptures, some of them are spoken in countries, where the Bible is already so common and so cheap, that to speak of this Society as being" the means of preaching the Gospel" in those countries, is really to speak in terms not suited to the subject. And to speak of Germany as wanting Bibles, which the foreign Secretary himself has hitherto done : of Germany, which had printed the Scriptures in Hebrew, in Greek, in Latin, had in German, before England had printed them even in English : of Germany, the cradle of the Reformation, the birth-place of Luther, whose translation was partly transfused into our own; of Germany, where the Canstein Bible Institution, established a century ago, can multiply copies by thousands and tens of thousands; of Germany, where every bookseller can furnish German Bibles to any amount at a price inferior to fourteen English pence; to speak of such a country as wanting Bibles, is more than could have been expected, even from the zeal of our present advocates."

But since it is of no importance to the Inquiry now before us, whether the exertions of the Society in foreign countries are such, as have been represented, or not, I shall reserve every thing, which I have to say on that subject, for an Appendix. At present, let it be granted that this Society has printed or re-printed the Bible in fifty-four languages, let it be granted also that these Editions have been printed by the sole exertions of this society, let it be granted that none of them would have been printed, if this Society had not existed, let it be granted, even, that these fifty-four editions are in languages, in which the Scriptures had never appeared before, and lastly, let it be granted that the extinction of these foreign translations would be the extinction of "one of the eyes of Britain," yet, with all these concessions, it is no necessary consequence, that this eye would be extinguished, if Churchmen adopted the proposal, which was made at the end of the preceding section. For it is not proposed that Churchmen should

I am aware that there is now in the press a Speech of the foreign Secretary which I have been desired to see, and which gives a very different account from all that had been said before. But all the other speeches at Cambridge, which now have been printed above a month in the Cambridge Chronicle, and have remained uncontradicted by the authors of them, might also, at this rate, be new-modelied in consequence of my objections to them. On this subject I shall say more in the Appendix.

cease entirely from the propagation of the Gospel in foreign parts; it was only proposed that they should transfer their contributions and influence. I proposed that they should continue to operate, and change only the medium of operation.

But it will be said that the ancient Bible Society has not the activity of the modern one. Let this be admitted. Let the inferiority of its energies be admitted in any proportion you please, yet, if those energies are exerted with safety to the established church, and the energies of the modern are not, we had better have security at home, with diminished energy abroad, than diminish our security at home, by increasing our energy abroad. If Churchmen, by a transfer of their contributions, should not increase the exertions of one society in the same proportion, as they would diminish the exertions of the other, the augmentation must at any rate be such, as to recommend itself to those, who are attached to the establishment. For a moderate increase in the influence of a Society, which is calculated to support the church, must be better than a great increase in the influence of a Society, which tends to undermine it. Nor should we forget that there is one respect, in which the ancient Bible Society is much better calculated to promote Christianity among Heathens, than the modern Society. For the latter is rather a preparatory Society: it prepares the way for the exertion of missionaries, by supplying them with Bibles in various languages. But no missionary can be employed by the Society; for the sending of missionaries would be contrary to its constitution. Now the former Society not only can, but really does employ missionaries for the propagation of the Gospel, and would increase their numbers, with an augmentation of its funds. I know, indeed, that the advocates of the modern Society think nothing more is requisite, for conversion to Christianity, than the simple operations of their own body. They think the Bible, when once distributed, whether among Mahometans or Hindoos, whether among Tartars or Chinese, will make its own way, without the aid of a missionary, to explain it, and to enforce its doctrines. But as we have the authority, not only of St. Paul, but, of our Saviour himself, for believing that a preacher is requisite for the propagation of the Gospel, we may venture at least to doubt, whether the Bible, unaccompanied by a preacher, will be able, as is imagined, to extirpate, either the Koran or the Chouking, either the Vedam or the Shaster.

Let us now examine the other part of Mr. Vansittart's dilemma, namely, that if the British and Foreign Bible Society is continued at all, after Churchmen have withdrawn from it, the honor of conducting it will be left entirely to the Dissenters. And here, exclaims Mr. Vansittart, "Shall it be said that the Dissenters alone have carried the Word of God to every nation under heaven?" -Certainly not: nor does it at all follow from my proposal, which consists not in abstaining from action, but in action through another medium. Here Mr. Vansittart asks: "Can the Church of England stand so secure upon a narrow and exclusive policy, as by deserving the blessings, and uniting the prayers of all people, nations, and languages?" Now to speak of "all people, nations, and languages," or (in the words of the former quotation) of every nation under heaven," as conferring a blessing on the modern Society, is, really, to speak in terms, with which their exertions, however great, can never be commensurate. And with respect to the narrow policy of Churchmen and Dissenters acting in separate Societies for the propagation of the Gospel, I should think that, if their union (how greatly soever it might raise their powers of action above the sum of their separate operations) yet contributed by its operation at home to endanger our own establishment, neither the wishes nor the praises of foreign nations would be sufficient to avert that danger.

But Mr. Vansittart seems to think that the danger would be increased, if Churchmen now withdrew, and left the Society in possession of the Dissenters. This is certainly a question of great importance for there are many Churchmen, who are aware of the dangers of this Society, and who would not have become members of it when first established, yet are of opinion, that it is now the best policy to join it. Let us consider therefore with attention what Mr. Vansittart says on this subject. Speaking of the second part of the alternative he says: "The dissenting interest making up for these losses (namely from the secession of the Churchmen) by more extensive sacrifices, and an increase of zeal and activity, and availing itself of the assistance of the foreign Societies already formed, would carry on the Institution in nearly the same manner as before." Now, in this case, we should have a Society of Dissenters on the one hand, and a Society of Churchmen on the other,

both endeavouring to propagate the Gospel, yet acting on that exclusive policy, on which Mr. Vansittart asks whether the Church of England can "stand so secure." In the first place, let us examine what accession of strength (that is, of political strength, according to the present argument) the Dissenters would derive from being left in possession of the foreign societies already formed. I have carefully examined the Reports of the Society, but I do not find that any one of their foreign auxiliary societies (though Mr. Dealtry also attaches the same importance to them') have ever contributed to the parent Society. On the contrary, they are in the habit of receiving contributions: they draw from the parent Institution a portion of those supplies, which are afforded by the, auxiliary society at home. Its power, therefore, as a political engine, is not increased, but diminished by the foreign Societies. And since their attachment depends on the supplies, which they receive, they would be ready to transfer their allegiance to any other Society, which had equal means of supplying their demands. Nay, a hundred such Societies might be instantly formed, by only giving notice, that such formation would be followed by pecuniary assistance. And with respect to an "increase of zeal and activity" on the part of the Dissenters, if Churchmen seceded from the Society, there would be infinitely less to apprehend from it, than from the present union of Churchmen and Dissenters in the distribution of Bibles, without the Liturgy, at home. If Churchmen in general resolved to act by themselves in the distribution of Bibles and Prayer Books, and Dissenters formed another Society for the distribution of Bibles alone, agreeably to their respective religious opinions, the two Societies might act, without mutual bitterness, and without an encroachment on each other's rights. Surely harmony may be preserved, without requiring that one party shall sacrifice to the other. Nor can such a sacrifice be necessary, for the purpose of conducting their operations abroad. The competition which might ensue, would be a competition for good: and, as each party would retain the full possession of its own doctrine and discipline, there would be no drawback on either side, to in

'Alluding to the case of a separation on the part of Churchmen, he says, the Dissenters" would probably retain the co-operation of the continental Societies."

VOL. I.

No. I.

K