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 Vansittart's dilemma, namely, that if the British and Foreign Bible Society is continued at all, after Churchmen have withdrawn from it, the honor of conducting it will be left entirely to the Dissenters.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 af 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 competi tion 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."

NO. I.

Pam. 2d Ed.

VOL. I.

K

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

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 concerns 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 nie 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. Milner 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