terrupt the harmony of their proceedings. I agree with Mr. Vansittart (and here also with Dr. Milner) that the co-operation of Churchmen and Dissenters, "so far as they can conscientiously co-operate," is the best mode of lessening the evils of dissent. But when Churchmen and Dissenters co-operate in the omission of the Liturgy, which is the Bulwark of the Established Church, it is a co-operation, in which I must declare for myself, that as a Churchman, I cannot conscientiously join.

And with respect to the danger, for which such union is supposed a remedy, though I very clearly perceive that a Society of Dissenters, professedly formed for the advancement of religion, may easily become a political engine, yet I cannot subscribe to the opinion of those, who think that the dissenting interest of the Society in question will receive the most effectual check from the presence and co-operation of Churchmen. The most effectual barrier against the rising power of the Dissenters would be a general union of Churchmen with Churchmen, all acting on a common principle, and that principle, the principle of the Established Church. But the remedy now applied, in the co-operation of Churchmen with Dissenters, though it is considered as effectual, is really worse than the disease. While it provides against contingent evil, it creates a present one; in the hope of preventing political mischief, it undermines the established religion; without receiving the smallest compensation, it surrenders the interest of the Church, by bringing Churchmen and Dissenters to act upon a common principle, which excludes what is essential to the Church. Thus the strength of the establishment, instead of being retained within its own channel, for its own preservation, is not only diverted to another channel, but turns the current against itself.

IX.

If indeed the Society would consent to change its constitution, to become only a Society for sending Bibles abroad, and leave to other Societies, whether of Churchmen or of Dissenters, to provide the poor of this country, either with Bibles and Prayer Books, or with Bibles alone, according to their respective tenets, the arguments, which have been used in this Inquiry, which apply

only to its present constitution, and its home department, would be obviated at once, as I have already declared, and already explained in the last paragraph of the fourth Section. If the common principle, on which the Society now acts, were so far altered, whether absolutely or relatively, as to render it equally beneficial to both parties, the equality, which is observed in the government of the Society, would become equally fair for both parties. If such an alteration were made in its mode of operation, as to restrict it to countries where the pre-eminence of our own church, which it is necessary to preserve at home, had no possible concern, such an alteration would render the common principle of action equally beneficial to both parties, and remove the injurious effects, which now arise from placing them on the same level in respect to the government of the Society, while the terms, on which they act, are not terms of reciprocity. In a Society, therefore, composed of Churchmen and Dissenters for the sole purpose of circulating the Scriptures in foreign countries, I would readily and heartily partake. I know indeed that Dr. Milner, while he held in his hand my Address to the Senate, took the liberty of declaring, "The principles of the learned author, I say again,' seem to me to have nothing to do with Dissenters in any concern, which is connected with religion." I am aware, also, that he almost immediately added in commendation of himself, that he did not "dread the Dissenters, as if they were infected with a CONTAGION." I am aware, also, that Mr. Dealtry has the same insinuation with Dr. Milner. For though he neither produced my Address to the Senate, nor named the Author of it, yet he so clearly alluded both to the one and to the other, that no one of the whole audience could be mistaken, in applying his remarks to me, especially, as among the persons who disapprove of the Society, I was the only one, who was mentioned on that day, and my Address was the subject of remark from the very opening of their proceedings. Now, says Mr. Dealtry, "The counsel of those gentlemen who are hostile to the Bible Society, and who recommend us to desert

1 Dr. Milner had previously said, “There appears to me in their minds, a corner, in which resides a rooted aversion to any connexion in religious coneerns with Christians of any denomination, if they dissent from the established church,"

it, appear to me not a little extraordinary. They advise the Dissenters to have their own institution upon a similar basis, but would keep us from the CONTAGION." Here let me appeal to the public to determine, whether the respectful manner, in which I spake of the Dissenters, as well in the Sermon at St. Paul's, as in the Address to the Senate, whether the sentiments of religious liberty, which I have proclaimed in both, ought not to have secured me from a term of reproach, which though apparently indirect in its application, could not fail to be applied to me, could not fail therefore to excite the indignation of every Dissenter who heard it, and the indignation of every Dissenter who reads it, as if I regarded their intercourse as contagious. I leave the public to determine, whether I have deserved such treatment from Churchmen and Clergymen, who derive both their consequence and their support from that very establishment, which, whether mistakenly or not, I was laboring to defend. I will leave the public to judge of the Christian spirit, which animates my opponents, while they ⚫ are professing a regard for the propagation of the Gospel. But I will declare for myself, and declare it both to Dr. Miluer and Mr. Dealtry, that I fear no contagion from the Dissenters. Indeed I know of none. There are many, and very many among them, for whom, as individuals, I have the highest respect. I would associate with them even for religious purposes, as far as my duty allowed me; and if I went beyond that line, I am sure the Dissenters themselves would not applaud me. And were it necessary, I could appeal to dissenting families in this town, who themselves would bear witness, that, so far from dreading a contagion from their intercourse, I freely communicate the contributions which I can spare, without the smallest regard to religious distinction. I hope the reader will pardon this digression on a subject, which is merely personal; but as my adversaries have gone out of their way to asperse my character, I may take the same liberty, in order to defend it,'

1 Having once digressed, I will take the opportunity of noticing some other passages in Mr. Dealtry's Speech, which I at first intended to pass over, because his allusions to my Address had been, for the most part, anticipated by other Speakers and Writers. But as the very circumstance, that an argument has been used by Mr. Dealtry, is regarded by many as a presumption in its favor, and this

To return however to an Association of Churchmen and Dissenters, for the purpose of distributing Bibles abroad, I again declare,

presumption is heightened by the author's confidence in himself, and his contempt of his adversaries, I will take a cursory view of the passages relating to the present subject. Mr. Dealtry asks, "Does the dispersion of the Scriptures tend to ruin the Church?" This question has been already answered to satiety.-He observes, "We have retained every syllable of our Liturgy, our Articles and Homilies." It is true, that the Liturgy is still retained: but if Churchmen justify the omission of it when they distribute Bibles to the poor, and even censure those, who complain of that omission, they are certainly on the road, which leads to the rejection of it.-Mr. Dealtry again exclaims, "Ruin the church? Where then is the discretion of our Archbishops and Bishops, &c. &c. who have supported the Bible Society?" Now a man may be discreet, and yet mistaken. Even Bishops may sometimes err. And Mr. Dealtry, who is so anxious to be thought a genuine Protestant, must be careful not to push this argument too far: for whoever makes a Bishop infallible, adopts a tenet of Popery.—But he considers the distribution of the authorised version by this Society as an argument for the security of the Church; and asks, in the event of Churchmen withdrawing from it, " what security we should then have for the purity of the versions distributed throughout the United Kingdom?" Now Churchmen would have the same security, as they have always had, since the Legislature has forbidden the printing of the authorised version unaccompanied with a comment, except in the two Universities, and by the King's Printer: and the Bible Society itself can obtain their copies of it from no other than these three sources. And with respect to other versions, it is not in the power, either of this or of any Society, to prevent their being made and distributed. But the Dissenters in general, if we except only the Socinians (who in spite of the Bible Society have a new version in extensive circulation) have no inclination to alter the text of the authorised version. Nor had they in the time of Charles the First. They are fully satisfied with expounding the present text: and against false exposition (the danger of which the Society itself admits by the credit which they take for giving it without a comment) they neglect to provide, since they omit the Liturgy. They neglect therefore to provide for the real danger. But says Mr. Dealtry, (who spake immediately after Dr. Milner, whose speech was a comment on my Address) "Let us never forget, that the Scriptures, for the distribution of which we are THUS publicly arraigned, are the Word of the most High." Now under the circumstances already described (and more might be added in corroboration) Mr. Dealtry himself will not pretend that he meant not to allude to me. I challenge him therefore, to produce the passage, in which I have arraigned, either him or any one, for the distribution of the Scriptures. If Mr. Dealtry examined my Address to the Senate, before he ventured to condemn it, he must have known, that at the very beginning of it I represented the distribution of the Scriptures as a “VERY LAUDABLE OBJECT;" he must have known that I objected solely to THE OMISSION OF THE LITURGY; he must have known therefore, when he declared he was arraigned for the distribution of the Scriptures, that what he declared was contrary to fact. On the one hand, if he

that such an Association would be entitled to the approbation of every Churchman. On the one hand, the general cause of Christianity would be promoted, while, on the other hand, our own Church, which no consideration should induce us to neglect, would be left uninjured. Here, then is the true line, which should guide the conduct of the Churchman. He may thus obtain the full benefit derived from the operations of the Society abroad, and obtain it without injury at home. Nay, this benefit would be increased, if the funds of the Society were wholly employed in the circulation of the Scriptures in foreign parts.

If then a regard for the distribution of the Scriptures is the sole motive, which induces men to partake of this Society, and it is their earnest wish to pursue that object in such a manner, as to secure the established church, why, it may be asked, should the Society refuse to change its constitution, in such a manner, as would answer both of those purposes, and render unnecessary the secession above proposed? Yet I hardly expect, that this change of constitution will be made. The Society, in its present form, has advantages, which not every member will abandon. Though

had not read my Address to the Senate, he took the liberty of laying a very heavy charge to a Professor of Divinity, at a public meeting within the precincts of his own University, at a public meeting composed chiefly of young men of that University, of young men who attend that Professor's Lectures, and of laying this heavy charge, with the consciousness of having no foundation for it.—If, instead of appealing to the Address, or to the Sermon at St. Paul's, from which the sentiments in the Address were borrowed, appeal is made to a printed paper, which Dr. Clarke produced at the public meeting, and of which I acknowledge myself the author, (see the second line of Note, p. 114. where I allude to it) that printed paper again contains the same sentiments, which had been advanced in the Sermon. The very first sentence is, "Whereas it has been insinuated that they, who object to the modern Bible Society, object to the distribution of the Bible, it is necessary to reply, that their objection is NOT to the distribution of the Bible, BUT to the distribution of the Bible alone." And in order to explain what is meant by the objection to the distribution of the Bible alone, is added; “If to the distribution of the Bible, which the two Societies have in common, were added the distribution of the Liturgy, which distinguishes the ancient Bible Society, and distinguishes the Churchman, the chief objection to the modern Bible Society would be removed." This remark is perfectly consonant with all that has been said in the present Inquiry, and shows that I have been always consistent in objecting NOT to the distribution of the Bible, BUT solely to the omission of the Liturgy.