Evidences of the good effects of the Plan.

silence the excellency of this manner of distributing the copies of the holy scriptures. It may be doubted, by many persons, whether such large numbers of books are disseminated as the society assert: here the doubt is dissipated by the fact. It may be questioned, whether the Bible is of the authorised version: here the books are open for inspection. It may be insinuated, that tracts accompany the pure word of God: here the treachery must be instantly detected."

:

Plymouth, &c. 1819." The advantages of public over private distributions of the Scriptures are great: a practical refutation is thus given to the calumnies of those, who assert that the Bibles never reach the poor, or that notes and comments accompany their delivery interest is excited in all classes, and more especially among the poor; who, without these meetings, would have few, if any, opportunities of becoming acquainted with the extensive operations of the Parent Society: while the rich and the poor, brought thus into contact, in circumstances peculiarly calculated to awaken benevolent and moral feeling, find, that, in co-operating to promote the glory of GOD and the happiness of mankind, they insensibly imbibe a spirit of mutual kindness, with which envy and discontent, pride and selfishness, are equally incompatible. Your Collectors have repeatedly witnessed such effects with delight: and so great has been the interest excited by the distributions, that purchasers of Bibles and Testaments, supplied by this means, have frequently become free contributors, for the avowed purpose of enjoying the privilege of attending them: even, in some cases, where circumstances prevented a stated subscription, a small donation has been given, as it were, to purchase the pleasure. But at no period are public distributions so advantageous as in the early stages of a society, when the first object is to ensure confidence in the minds of the subscribers: and by no other means can this be so effectually attained."

It is certainly difficult, especially in the country, and among a scattered population, to induce the labouring classes to attend an Annual Meeting; and thus the attainment of one principal object of a Bible Association-that of interesting the poor in the nature and design of the Institution—is at least rendered more uncertain. But they have a personal motive to attend a public distribution, and frequently make considerable sacrifices for this gratification.

In conclusion:-the strongest argument that can be urged in favour of the plan, is, that it affords a practical refutation of the assertion, that "notes and comments" are distributed with the Bibles issued by the Society. The author is fully aware that an objection has been taken to those meetings, on the ground of reported injudicious addresses: but he can conscientiously aver, that in those which he has attended, the only "notes and comments" he has heard may be comprised in one sentence-" Read your Bibles; and shew, by your lives and conversation, that you are influenced by what you read."

APPENDIX.

No. I.

TWO LETTERS

ON THE

SUBJECT OF THE BRITISH AND FOREIGN BIBLE SOCIETY, By the RIGHT HON. NICHOLAS VANSITTART.

LETTER to the Rev. Dr. MARSH, Margaret Professor of Divinity in the University of Cambridge; occasioned by his ADDRESS to the Senate of

--

that University.

DEAR SIR, I beg to return my best acknowledgments for the communication of your Address to the Senate of Cambridge; which I the more strongly feel as a mark of your kind attention, as I have not the honour of belonging to that University, and as it is a considerable time since I have been so fortunate as to have had an opportunity of meeting you. You were perhaps not aware that you were sending your Address to a member of the British and Foreign Bible Society; but I accept, as a proof of kindness, your candid and friendly admonition, which affords me an opportunity of justifying myself to you, as a Church-of-England man, for contributing my

assistance to that institution.

I never indeed before thought it necessary to offer any apology for so doing for though I was aware, before I engaged in the society, that it had been represented as dangerous to the Church, it appeared to me that this charge had been so completely refuted, that it is with no less surprise than regret that I now learn that you still think it well founded.

I must first remark, that your observation respecting the funds of the Society for promoting Christian Knowledge, compared with those of the Bible Society, must give a very erroneous impression respecting the comparative wealth of the two societies. You state that the funds of the latter are much superior to those of the former. This is so far from being the case, that, by the latest annual account, the Society for promoting Christian Knowledge appears to be possessed of property in the public funds producing about 53001. per annum, besides some landed property; while the Bible Society was, in April last, possessed of no more than 3891. per annum in the funds, and of money and exchequer-bills capable of producing about 1802. more; making together about 570l. per annum : and although its total receipts within the year exceeded those of the Society for promoting Christian Knowledge, in the proportion of about 24,600%. to about 19,000l. yet these receipts were not only principally derived from casual and occasional sources, such as congregational collections, and contributions from Auxiliary Societies, but they actually fell short of the expenditure of the year by upwards of 36001. It is not therefore without necessity, much less is it from an invidious spirit of rivalry towards any other institution, that the friends of the Bible Society are making those exertions to obtain further patronage and support from the public, which appear to excite your alarm-an alarm for which I confess myself totally unable to account,

when I consider that the sole and exclusive object of the Bible Society, so far as it respects the United Kingdom, is the circulation of the authorised translation of the Scriptures, without note or comment. I should, as a member of the Church, be very sorry to think that the devout study of the Scriptures could lead to the disregard of our Liturgy: on the contrary, I should hope that it would produce a more general acknowledgment of its excellence; as it originally, at the period of the Reformation, led, through the blessing of Divine Providence, to its establishment. The Bible, says Chillingworth, and the Bible only, is the religion of the Protestant; it is the sole basis of the Church of England, and the only one on which you, I am sure, would wish to place it. But you observe, that you can have no guarantee, that, as the power of the Bible Society increases, other objects, inimical to the Church, will not in time be associated with the main object. To this I answer, that so long as the members of the Church take part in the Bible Society, its very constitution will afford such a guarantee as you desire. The President, and all the Vice-Presidents without exception, are Churchmen, and are constant members of the managing committee, in which they always preside; and of the other members of this committee, the Churchmen are equal in number to all the Dissenters of different sects = so that, in every question, the Church must have a constant majority; and in the general meetings, in which alone all points affecting the constitution of the society must be decided, the members of the Church must have a weight in proportion to their numbers and consequence. In proportion, therefore, as Churchmen of talents, rank, and influence, join the society, this preponderance must increase. Among the patrons, either of the Parent Society or its branches, are already numbered the four Archbishops of Ireland, and eight English and eight Irish Bishops. I doubt whether the Society for promoting Christian Knowledge, which now, as you observe, enjoys the countenance of the whole Episcopal Bench, was, at so short a period from its formation, honoured with the support of so large a body of the Prelates; and I should hope the time might not be fardistant, when the two societies may equally flourish under the general patronage of them all. This would appear to me the most effectual remedy for any supposed danger from the Dissenting influence in the Bible Society." To those who are intimately acquainted with the society, this danger must indeed appear chimerical. So little does the spirit of mutual jealousy exist, that there has been no instance of a division taking place in a general meeting; and I scarcely recollect one even in the committee, in the course of a frequent attendance: but what may appear to you more extraor dinary, I have not yet been able to discover which of the members of the committee are Churchmen and which are Dissenters, except in the instances of those gentlemen with whom I happen to be personally acquainted, and a few members of the Society of Friends, who are of course distinguished by their dress.

But supposing, for the sake of the argument, that there may be real. danger from the preponderance of the Dissenting interest, What is the remedy you propose?-that all Churchmen should withdraw themselves from the society, and leave it wholly in the hands of the Dissenters. If any thing can make the society dangerous, this must do it; because there would then be, no check to any sectarian spirit which might introduce itself, and which must be unavoidably irritated by so harsh, and, I think, so unjust an indication of jealousy. But even if no sentiment of resentment should be excited, one of two consequences must inevitably follow: either the society, being deprived of the hope of further support, and crippled by the loss of its pecuniary means, and of many of its most valuable members, would wholly expire, or sink into insignificance; or else the Dissenting interest, making up for these losses 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.

In the first case, you would have crushed an establishment which has done more for the diffusion of Christianity than has been effected in the same space of time in any age since the Apostolic: which has in seven years been the means of preaching the Gospel in fifty-four languages. This would indeed be putting out one of the eyes of Britain.

The other alternative would be, to transfer to the body of Dissenters all the honour and influence of whatever has been done, and whatever may be done, by an institution, of which the dawn has been so glorious, but which is visibly rising into brighter day. Shall it be said that the Dissenters alone have carried the Word of God to every nation under heaven? or shall' the Church of England continue to claim the leading part in this important work? And can the Church of England stand so secure upon a narrow and exclusive policy, as by deserving the blessings, and uniting the prayers, of all people, nations, and languages?

The evils of either alternative seem to me equally fatal and inevitable. I am far from undervaluing the efforts of the Society for promoting Christian Knowledge: I am an old member of that society, and am heartily disposed to lend any assistance in my power to its useful plans. But how little, either that, or any other society now existing, would be competent to supply the place of the Bible Society, the experience of above a century has shewn. Even supposing (what I think impossible) that it might be made, in some considerable degree, to answer the same purposes, I see superior advantages in the present constitution of the Bible Society. The co-operation of Churchmen and Dissenters in religious matters, so far as they can conscientiously co-operate, seems to me one of the most efficacious means of lessening both the political and religious evils of dissent. It dispels prejudices, promotes candour and good-will, and must prepare the mind for the reception of that truth, which every one perceives to be no less the object of those who differ from him than his own. From such a communication, the Church of England has nothing to fear, and every thing to hope; as holding (in our judgments at least) that middle line of truth in which all opposite opinions have a natural tendency to coincide. And is that truth more likely to be acknowledged and embraced by minds embittered by mutual jealousy and aversion, or by such as have been previously softened by conciliation ?

The existence of dissent will perhaps be inseparable from religious freedom, so long as the mind of man is liable to error; but it is not unreasonable to hope, that hostility may cease where perfect agreement cannot be established. If we cannot reconcile all opinions, let us endeavour to unite all hearts.

I ought, perhaps, to apologise for troubling you with arguments which must probably have been already brought before you, as I know your opinions are not taken up hastily and lightly. But I have thought it necessary to state such as have chiefly induced me to consider my taking a part in the concerns of the Bible Society, not only as consistent with, but as a proof of the sincerity and warmth of my attachment to the Church of England; and which still, on reflection, seem to me to have so much weight, that, far from repenting of what I have done, I feel convinced I shall least of all repent of it as I approach that state in which the distinction of Churchman and Dissenter shall be no more.

Great George Street, 4th Dec. 1811.

I am, &c.

N. VANSIT TART.

LETTER to JOHN COKER, Esq. in answer to his Letter to the Right Hon. N. VANSITTART; published in the Oxford Paper.

DEAR SIR,-I have at all periods of my life had a particular objection to newspaper controversies; but to a controversy so amicable as that to which I am invited by your Letter-which not only breathes the spirit of a gentle. man, but the kindness of a friend-I cannot object, whatever may be its form. I consider your Letter as a public appeal to the University of Oxford, against the sentiments expressed in my Letter to Dr. Marsh. That Letter was, in the first instance, a mere private answer to his communication to me of his Address to the Senate of Cambridge. I expressed myself as a Churchman writing to a Churchman. I published my sentiments under the sanction of the highest authority in that University; and I have had the satisfaction of learning that many of the most distinguished members of both Universities approve of them. But I value both the judgment of our University, and your private opinion, too highly not to offer some further explanation.

The question between us is not, whether the Dissenters are, or are not, hostile to the Established Church, but whether they can acquire any power of injuring it from the operations of the Bible Society. What are those operations?-simply, the distribution of the authorised version of the Scriptures. How can such a distribution be injurious to the Church by which that version was made, and which professes to rest upon it as the sole foundation of its doctrines-that version from which the Church has taken the language of her Liturgy, and which has been sanctioned from age to age by the authority of all our ecclesiastical rulers? But if we pertinaciously reject the assistance of the Dissenters in circulating our Bible, what should hinder every sect from having, not only a Bible Society, but a Bible of its own? The Unitarians have already their improved version of the New Testament. And who can estimate the extent of mischief which might arise from such a collision of contending translations? To the unlearned, the version to which they are accustomed, stands in the place of an original; and to injure their opinion of its authenticity, is to shake their confidence in the Word of God itself.

We are apt to consider the Dissenters as narrow-minded and unreasonable: but while we condemn the prejudices of other men, let us be on our guard against our own. Let us for a moment suppose that the Bible Society, instead of being formed in London, had originated in the northern metropolis of our United Kingdom, under the patronage of the Church of Scotland; and that when their Episcopal brethren had petitioned to unite with them in the glorious work of diffusing the knowledge of their common Saviour, the Presbytery had replied, by a haughty refusal, ' Keep aloof! Your piety, your learning, may be equal to ours; your zeal may be exemplary, your morals irreproachable;-but you have no lay-elders, you have bishops and deans: nay more, you wear white surplices, and have organs in your churches: and we had rather the Scriptures should be for ever unknown, than disseminated by such polluted hands in conjunction with ours.' Such, my Dear Sir, is the conduct which you would recommend to the Church of England. How far it would conduce to its honour, or its substantial interests, I leave to your cool reflection. My ardent wish, as I know it is yours, is, that the Church of England may be the first of Christian churches, and our country the first of nations-not for the purposes of any worldly splendor (whatever ambition of that kind I may once have felt), but as an instrument in the hands of Divine Providence of extensive benefit to mankind: the first of churches, as the model of pure faith and unfeigned piety to all the kindreds of the world: the first of nations, as the guardian and champion of justice, liberty, and the true rights of man. These, however, are high considerations, and above the reach of human foresight. To us it belongs to use our reason in