stitution of the Bible Society. More than enough has been said to shew, that great benefits have already resulted from it, and that the prospect of additional benefits is widening every day. The examination of your objections will afford me an opportunity of stating incidentally some good effects, which I do not think it necessary to bring forward in a more formal manner: and I shall have occasion to discuss some points in that department of my inquiry, which I should otherwise have placed under the present head.

V. Objections.

SECTION V.

Much of the argument has been necessarily deferred to this division of my subject. This must be one apology for the length of the article upon which I am entering. My second apology I will give in your own words: "Unhappily, to shew the existence of errors and to refute them, takes up a great deal more time than to commit them *."

Several, indeed, of your objections have, I trust, been answered already; but as I did not wish to be very minute in the former part of my letter, I must now descend into particulars.

I have read, with all the attention which I can command, not merely your Letter to Lord Teign

* Dr. Wordsworth, p. 63.

mouth, but the other publications which have grown out of this discussion: at least so far as they have come to my knowledge. Upon some points I am well convinced that you entertain sentiments widely different from those of your coadjutors. I have no wish to consider you as in any degree responsible for the doctrines advanced by other men; but as I am anxious to meet the whole of the case, I shall stand excused, if, in replying to you, I also pay some

attention to them.

Of the objections" in a tangible shape" I reckon up about eighteen: a formidable catalogue indeed! But I much deceive myself if it will not be found that their terrors are only in their number: there is little to fear, when you look them in the face.

Objection 1. The first grand, leading, comprehensive objection, and which does in fact include all the rest, is the constitution of the Society.

"Its constitution affects and embraces a novel union and combination of Churchmen and Dissenters *." "The whole argument, you see, rests purely upon this point of co-operation †."

Yes, this circumstance, that it affects and embraces a novel union and combination of Churchmen and Dissenters, is the grand distinguishing characteristic of your Society, when placed by the side of ours."

"If, therefore, I could see that this discriminating principle was wise and good, and that the effects immediately consequent upon it, are likely to be

* Dr. Wordsworth, pp. 44 and 55. † P. 97.

P. 82.

permanently wholesome, and salutary; and not, on the contrary, injurious and pernicious, both in themselves, and also to that very object, by the circulation of the Scriptures to advance the glory of God, and the good of mankind, which is the sole primary declared aim and end of your institution; then I would burn these papers at once, and openly retract all that I have written against you in my letter to the Clergyman of the Diocese of London: and in maintaining the cause, and in seeking to promote the interests and influence of the Society for promoting Christian Knowledge, I should be scrupulously careful to lay all the stress of my arguments solely upon our own proper merits; and feeling that he that is not against us is for us*, I should' proceed in my design without any reference to your Society, except to tender it the poor tribute of my homage and reverence t."

Now I am perfectly ready to admit, that in some degree this is a new experiment: Churchmen and Dissenters have not before united' to this extent for the distribution of the Scriptures. And what then? Shall men of opposite sentiments and conflicting parties be permitted to combine for objects purely political, and which, whatever be their value, must terminate on this side of the grave; and shall they be condemned who unite to promote these, the highest of all interests ?

I have already proved the deplorable want of

«* Mr. Dealtry, p. 33."

† Dr. Wordsworth, p. 83.-See also pp. 23, 26, 29, 89. 90, 98, &c. &c.

Bibles through the British European dominions, and have further shewn (as far as probability can shew it), that two distinct Societies, one of Dissenters alone, and the other of Churchmen alone, could not be adequate to the distribution required. I would ask, then, was not some combination of this sort necessary? Is there any thing to be reprobated in the mere circumstance of the union, unless you can prove that injury will arise from it? You will tell me, that many "losses and injuries and defalcations" will certainly arise: I will examine them in their order.

Let me next inquire, whether you condemn the union of Churchmen and Dissenters, " as such," in all cases of charitable engagement? I find that you do not*. You are ready to unite with them in "joint contributions of levies on patronage for workhouses and hospitals; and for all other schemes and undertakings, for the relief and sanctuary of the needy and the afflicted t." Therefore, you admit the principle of uniting for certain charitable purposes: but you object in this instance, because this co-operation of the Bible Society is novel. There was a time, give me leave to observe, when dissent itself was a novel thing; and at that time, according to your notion, you ought to have re ́fused that very co-operation, which you now commend. You do, indeed, qualify the sentence, by saying, that this expedient has long been "sanctioned by the uncontradicted suffrage and practice

* See Dr. Wordsworth, pp. 9, 103, 104, &c.

† Dr. Wordsworth, p. 104.

of all men *;" and I admit, that general charity is a general duty. But the simple point at issue between us is, the union of Churchmen and Dissenters for a charitable object: and this union, I presume, could not be antecedent to the existence of dissent itself: when it first took place, it was a novel principle.

As a member of the Society in Bartlett's Buildings, I cannot but express my regret, that all those writers, who have recently undertaken to defend its cause, by putting it in opposition to the Bible Society, have in some important particulars directly impugned its own recorded principles. Your argument, which condemns an institution because it is novel, was formerly brought against the Society in Bartlett's Buildings: the refutation which it then gave to others, I shall now beg leave to recommend

to you.

"Nor have those a sufficient plea for themselves, that undervalue a design because it is new, and because it hath been little attempted by Protestants. Truly this should rather be an inducement (not to stifle the work in its infancy, but) to inflame that little of the spirit of power and love, which is left among us. Should we also be willing to die, because we see so many dead about us? I mean, so many, who are supine and negligent in the greatest concerns of life and happiness. Should we not rather strengthen the more the things which remain, but are ready to die, except they be supported betimes? Which consideration should make us shake

* Dr. Wordsworth, p. 104.