upon a larger scale than those resulting from the benevolence of her charitable neighbour. She was immediately offended; and inquired with some earnestness, what all this rivalry meant? "Were not children very well taught before? And was not this promiscuous instruction of all sorts and descriptions likely to do harm? It was very proper to select some from the poorer classes, and to teach them; but if all were to be taught, they would get bad books, and adopt bad habits, and virtue and good morals would be discarded from the place.”

How difficult is it even for benevolent minds to prevent the intrusion of narrow feelings, and to rejoice in the extension of good by the bands of others!

Objection 15. The Bible Society is supported only by five bishops, out of the forty-eight who compose the bench of England and Ireland.

This argument is obtruded upon us with much noise and parade by "a Country Clergyman;" it is alluded to in your 35th page, and is evidently considered by many as decisive.

Suppose the Bible Society had a single bishop at the head of it, does it become "a Country Clergyman" to revile and insult it? Is no respect to be paid by the inferior clergy to their superiors, except just when the conduct of our dignitaries happens to please these self-elected and self-appointed judges? If the Bishop of Durham alone had stood forward the champion of the cause, is it decent in Mr. Daubeny to affirm, that the first measures of the Society were adopted "in order to give an advantage to the Dissenters?"* Is it to be tolerated that * Charge, p. 22.

"a Country Clergyman" shall assert of such a Society," that no bishop ought to encourage it?"* We are not to travel back, I trust, to the days of jacobinical phrensy, and to display our liberty, by insulting those most respectable and venerable names, whom it has pleased the Almighty to place over us as guardians of his church and people. To that faction, whatever be its pretensions, I will never belong; nor can I bring myself to regard with very high consideration the patrons of such a sect.

The Bible Society, we are told, is supported only by five Bishops. It is concluded, from this hypothesis, that forty-three are hostile to the institution: and that if a man "bows to the example of five, he must be disrespectful to the forty and three †." It is here assumed, that all the bishops, who do not support an institution, are hostile to its existence. Let us try this principle. You have heard, already, of the Naval and Military Bible Society, instituted in 1780. The President is his Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury the Bishop of Durham is one of the Vice-presidents; and the Bishop of London is a subcriber; but there is not upon the whole bench another subscriber. Am I to conclude, that this most excellent institution is disliked by the remaining forty-five? If I bow to the example of these three, and put down my name, must I indeed be disrespectful to the forty and five? Would it not be the extreme of insolence in me to tell the Archbishop of Canterbury, that "so great a majority of respectable prelates ought, in reason and in decency, to give law, or at least become precedent and example, for + Ibid. p. 5.

* Country Clergyman, p. 9.

all true churchmen, and particularly for the cler. gy"?* And that, therefore, his Grace would act unreasonably and indecently if he did not withdraw? Would not the most charitable conclusion, which his Grace could form in reference to me, be founded on the hope that I had lost my understanding, or that I never had any understanding to lose?

According to this principle, every person of rank, who is not a member of the Society for promoting Christian Knowledge, is an enemy to it. How does it happen then, let me ask, that Lord Sidmouth is not in the list? Is it because Lord Sidmouth is an enemy to the Church; because he disapproves of the objects of our Society; because he wishes to shew disrespect to the Bishops? I humbly conceive that no man in his senses will venture to bring such a charge against him; why then insinuate any thing of the sort against Lord Teignmouth? Is not the principle, in short, absurd in the extreme?

Besides, I would ask, is no Society to solicit the patronage of a Bishop, unless it can depend upon obtaining the same honour from the whole body? And is no Bishop to feel himself at liberty to patronize a Society, which he approves, unless he is persuaded that all his brethren on the bench will immediately follow his example? Is a man to be deprived of his free agency because he is a Bishop? Or is that respect, which in any other case would be considered as due to his individual act, in this instance to be withheld from it? The Bishops are not to be expected to rise in a mass at every challenge to a public good work: they are not all equally in the

* Country Clergyman, p. 9.

way of being informed, what is going on in the world, and what are the true merits of the several charitable institutions. They have also their own plans, ́ their own engagements, and (without disparagement be it said) theiro wn views; with all which it would be impertinent to interfere. It is therefore to be presumed, that those among them, who join a society, do it because they approve the institution, and find it agreeable and convenient to lend it their support. Their countenance implies decisive friendship, and positive approbation; and therefore confers sanction upon the measures which they patronize, in proportion to the weight of their respective characters. This sanction would be strengthened by the presence of other Bishops, but can in no degree be diminished by their absence. Nor is it to be overlooked in the present case, that the Bishops, who espoused the cause of the Bible Society, have for the most part paid a close attention to its proceedings, and that their attachment to the institution has proportionably increased.

Let us consider this point in another view. Suppose, upon any question, the bench were equally divided; am I to "withhold my hand" from an act of charity, till a majority appears? And cannot I then join the twenty-five, without an indirect censure upon the twenty-three? This doctrine of indirect censure, which is so frequently urged, is both preposterous and pernicious: every man must judge for himself, (Bishops as well as others), as every man has to answer for himself before the tribunal of God.

The "Country Clergyman" says, that the Bishops

who have testified their approbation of the Bible Society are only five. I will give you their names. In England, we find the Bishops of Durham, Salisbury, and Bristol: in Wales, the Bishop of St. David's in Ireland, his Grace the Lord Primate, the Archbishop of Dublin, the Archbishop of Cashel, the Bishops of Kildare, Derry, Clogher, Cloyne, Limerick, Cork, and Down: and two, who have been active in the cause, are now in a better world. His talent for counting, you perceive, is pretty much in harmony with the rest of his qualifications. It cannot be urged, that he alluded only to the English bench: he has expressly mentioned five out of forty-eight Bishops, which includes not only England and Wales, but Ireland. I know also, that the sentiments of other Bishops are friendly to the

cause.

Had any of the episcopal patrons of the Bible Society condescended to come forward in vindication of their own conduct, I know not whether it would be possible for them to adopt language more beautiful or more appropriate, than you will find in a charge of Bishop Fleetwood, delivered in 1710. The following extract bears so admirably upon many of the topics, which have been introduced under the head of Objections, and especially upon this, that it might seem to be written for the occasion. You will read it, I have no doubt, with all the attention which it so well deserves.

"We do indeed stand in need of all our people's prayers, and all the assistance of the grace of God, and all that our reason, observation, and experience can afford, to direct us in all our ways, for