I would not offer so great an affront to the respectable writer, whom I am now addressing, as to introduce into this Letter a reply to objections of any other description. Indeed, the public at large can feel no interest in personal abuse from an angry author: and with respect to myself, I trust, that my character is too well established, to make it necessary for my own sake, to notice the effusions of spleen or malice. But such effusions cannot fail to lower the authors themselves in the opinion of impartial judges: and, if malice is accompanied with an affectation of pleasantry, it cannot fail to excite disgust in every man, whose taste is not corrupt, or whose judgment is not perverted. But to proceed, without further preface, to your own Letter, which is of a very different description.

The propositions, which you undertake to combat, you have stated in the following words, in the second page of your Letter.'

"First, that the Bible Society produces a disregard of the Liturgy.

"Secondly, that its foreign operations have been misstated and exaggerated. And,

Thirdly, that its real objects are of a political, and not a religious nature."

These three propositions being quite distinct, it is of no consequence in what order they are examined. And as the two last require at present very little examination in comparison with the first, and are really unconnected with the decision of the main question, which was agitated in my Inquiry, it will be more convenient to dispose of these two propositions, before we enter on the first, which will then become the principal subject of examination.

'See Page 160. No. I.

The second proposition, which relates entirely to the foreign department, can have no influence on the decision of a question, which was wholly confined to operations a! home. For this reason, though I ventured to deny that the Society's exertions in foreign countries were intitled to that high applause, which was bestowed by its advocates, I did not argue from that denial, on the subject then before me, but conceded for the sake of argument, and argued from that concession.' Whether the proposition therefore is maintainable or not, the inference which I deduced from the neglect of the Prayer Book, in the home distribution, will remain unaltered. But having once advanced the proposition, though incidentally, and not in proof of any thing then depending, I thought it my duty, as soon as I was able, to produce the evidence, on which it was founded. And, that this evidence is now produced, affords me the more satisfaction, as I find from your second Letter, that the delay, though really unavoidable, was become a subject of complaint. Being now in possession of that evidence, you must be fully convinced, that the proposition I advanced, is perfectly true. You are not ignorant of the splendid descriptions, which the advocates of your Society have repeatedly made of its numerous translations into foreign languages; translations indeed so numerous, as to excite the recollection of the miraculous Pentecost, when the Apostles were gifted with the power of preaching to every man in his own language. Compare these splendid descriptions, compare even your own statement in your last Letter,' with the facts, which I have

See the paragraph, p. 142. No. I. beginning with the words, "But since it is of no importance to the Inquiry now before us," &c. Page 167. No. I.

2

3 Page 168. No. I.

proved by indisputable evidence, and then answer, whether the operations of your Society abroad have not been great

exaggerated. They have indeed been exaggerated in such a manner, as to exceed the belief of any man, who had not before him the evidence which I have produced. For I have proved, that your Society, according to the last printed documents, on which alone those splendid descriptions could have been founded, had not translated even the four Gospels into any one language, into which they had not been before translated. I have proved even, that they had not done it of so much as two Gospels. I have proved also, from the same authority, that your Society had not printed so much as one entire Gospel, in any one language, into which the Scriptures, or portions of the Scriptures, had not been translated, either before the existence of the Society, or independently of its assistance. And even with respect to new editions of existing translations, I have shown that the want of them was by no means such as the advocates of your Society have pretended.'

The third proposition, which you undertake to combat, namely, that your Society's "real objects are of a political and not of a religious nature;" it is not my business to defend for it is a proposition which I have never advanced, though you introduce it as one of my allegations. Your ascribing to me the position, that the real objects of the Society are not of a religious nature, is the more extraordinary, as the very reason, which I have assigned, why the mem

See the work lately published, under the title, "A History of the Translations, which have been made of the Scriptures, from the earliest to the present Age, throughout Europe, Asia, Africa, and

America."

1

bers of your Society overlook domestic danger, is, that "they are animated by religious zeal." I will quote the whole passage: "There is nothing, which so prevents men from seeing the danger of an object, as, when in the pursuit of that object they are animated by religious zeal. With the prospect of extending the universal Church, men find it difficult to contract their views within the limits of a single church. With the prospect of promulgating the Gospel to distant regions, where its light had never shone, they view, through a glass inverted, the danger at home. And to the danger thus diminished, they are ready to close their eyes, if the removal of that danger obscures the glory of the prospect." With a knowledge of this passage, how could you declare to the public, that I represented the objects of your Society as being not of a religious nature? You should consider that there are thousands attached to the Bible Society, who will read your letter without reading my reply, who will take therefore my opinions from your statement of them, and openly censure me for sentiments, which I have never entertained. Hence the various charges which have been laid at my door by men, who got their intelligence at second hand. I am not surprised at many perversions, which have been made of my opinions: I am not surprised, that they who judge of me from the various misre presentations, to which I have been exposed, should convert, for instance, the danger which I really apprehend from the omission of the Prayer Book, into a supposed apprehension of danger from the distribution of the Bible. But I really am surprised, that so respectable a writer as Mr. Vansittart, should lend his aid in the diffusion of unfounded allegations; that neither justice nor mercy to an opponent, assailed on all sides, should have suggested the propriety of

extreme circumspection, before he ventured to charge that opponent with asserting what must equally affect all the members of the Society, and equally excite the indignation of them all.

Having admitted in general terms, that the Society was animated by religious zeal, I did not conceal the opinion, that other objects were occasionally associated with that religious zeal. It provides, I said, "for temporal, as well as spiritual wants." But I did not exclude, as your position implies, the provision for spiritual wants. I did not ascribe to any man, and much less to the whole body, the mercenary motive of seeking merely the promotion of private interest. If this were my opinion, I should hardly have explained the inattention to domestic danger, as arising from a zeal for religion. I therefore positively deny the position which you ascribe to me: I deny the having said, or the having meant, that the real objects of your Society were not of a religious nature. The question, whether motives of private interest do not sometimes operate as well as motives of religion, in inducing men to join your Society, is quite distinct from that general position, which excludes religious motives altogether; which excludes them not from one only, but from every member of the Society. I asserted nothing more, than a partial association of temporal objects, which you have thought proper to convert into a total exclusion of religious objects. And though you represent that assertion as a principal subject of the Inquiry, it was introduced only incidentally in the following manner. The principal subject, namely, the danger of neglecting the Prayer Book, was finished with the eighth section. The ninth and last section related to a change in the constitution of your Society, which would remove every

'Page 151. No. I.