Mr. Gisborne has abandoned the limitation of certain good works, with which he first set out, and has declared, that if the principle of our not associating in good works with the dissenters be once let loose, he knows not where, or why it is to stop. The syllogism of Mr. Gisborne, therefore, now assumes the following form: In all good works we must associate with the dissenters; the distribution of the Bible is the best of works, ergo we ought to associate with the dissenters in the distribution of the Bible. By a parity of reasoning it might be stated, In all good works we must associate with the dissenters; preaching and praying are the best of works, ergo we ought all to go to Ebenezer Chapel. We know not how far Mr. Gisborne may be displeased with this conclusion; at all events, he will find that it results from premises as irrefragable as his own.

The only part of Mr. Gisborne's proof which is at all intelligible, is his declaration that the onus probandi lies upon his opponents, and his complaint that they have evaded the burthen thus imposed upon them. If the reasoning of Dr. Marsh upon this important question has not been read, or if read, has not been understood by Mr. Gisborne, we cannot expect that any argument of ours will be more fortunate. As, however, Mr. G. finds it impracticable even to devise to himself a reason, we will endeavour, more indeed for the sake of our readers than of himself, to supply the deficiency, aud to prove, as has been proved a thousand times before, that the distribution of the Bible at home is not one of those good works in which the Churchman may fitly unite with the dissenter.

As we are desirous to meet Mr. Gisborne upon as close terms as his rambling and incoherence will allow us, we will take him upon his own grounds.

"If Churchmen, we venture to ask, may unite with dissenters in measures for the relief of the bodies of men, why not for the benefit of their souls? Favour us with the reasons of the distinction."

Our reasons are two. The first is, because it will be more for the benefit of the souls of men, if Churchmen do not unite with Dissenters; the second is, because there is a fallacy in the very terms of the union,

Upon the first point we shall observe, that whatever has a tendency to increase the varieties and to strengthen the powers of religious divisions in any country, cannot fail to injure the cause of Christianity; firstly, by multiplying error; for these opposite opinions cannot be all alike true; secondly, by fomenting those discords which are the scandal of the Christian Church, and by destroying that unity which is the readiest path to the reception and preservation of the Christian faith. If, therefore,

ие

we so unite with Dissenters in a religious work, as to strengthen their general influence, and to supply each opposite sect with additional power to enforce doctrines, half of which, at least, must be erroneous; such an union is dangerous, not beneficial, to the souls of our countrymen.

Again. As the most absurd and fatal errors which ever disgraced the Christian Church, have every one of them been deduced from a perverted interpretation of the Holy Scriptures, to place Bibles for distribution in the hands of those who preach such doctrines, and who can prove to the satisfaction of their de luded hearers that such doctrines are derived from Scripture, is to increase the progress of error, and every such Bible becomes a curse, not a blessing, in the hands of its possessors. It was with the Bible in one hand, and the sword in the other, that the host, first of the Puritans, then of the Independents, marched forth to ravage and to lay waste this devoted country, and to involve every establishment, ecclesiastical and civil, in one tremendous tuin. And when the armies appeared satiated with slaughter and with blood, it was from the Bible that their fanatical leaders rekindled the flame of devastation, and renewed the thirst for destruction. The Bible, like every other good gift of God, may be perverted-most fatally perverted. Mr. Gisborne cannot deny this; he is too well acquainted with the Evangelists to deny, that the devil himself can sometimes cite Scripture to auswer his own purpose; and we are equally assured that those who are doing the devil's work, can quote the Bible with as much readiness as their master. Most dangerous, therefore, and fatal is it to the souls of the lower orders, by an union with such men, to supply them with arms for our own destruction, and to give them influence sufficient to use them with success. We do not say that all Dissenters are thus inclined; many, especially of the older sort, are good and worthy men; but the daily increasing numbers of furions fanatics are unhappily more than sufficient to warrant our assertion.

If we really believe, that in our English Church, Christianity, both as to doctrine and to discipline, is to be found in its purest form, we must also believe, that as the doctrine of any sect recedes from this standard, in such proportion it must degenerate into error; and again, as these sectaries are multiplied in influence and number, that in such proportion is the establishment of the Church endangered by the increase of its enemies, and its power of propagating the truth invalidated by the growth and encouragement of error. But it is replied, "If the doctrine and discipline of the Church be founded on the Bible, why should it be alarmed at the extended distribution of that Bible, on which it is founded?" That the doctrines and discipline of

the

the Church are founded on the Bible, we are proud to acknow ledge, and ready to demonstrate; but that Independency, Quakerism, Antinomianism, and Unitarianism are also referred by their several preachers to the same source, no one will attempt to deny. When, therefore, by our co-operation we enable these several sectaries to distribute the Holy Scriptures to a vast extent, we enable them to undermine the Established Church, by the the means of those very Scriptures on which it is founded. For it is to be remembered, that the lower ranks of our countrymen are wholly incompetent to decide upon the merits of the controversy: what they are taught, that they will believe; and what is taught with the greatest vehemence, they will receive with the surest confidence. And all this growing evil, which Mr. Gisborne, in his public character of a Churchman at least, must acknowledge to be an evil, might be in great measure avoided, by the transfer of the enormous subscriptions now made by Churchmen in support of the Bible Society, to that ancient and venerable Institution, which, by the distribution of an equal number of Bibles through a purer channel, and, coupled with Prayer-books, and other approved Church of England tracts, would stem the rising torrent of fanaticism, and recall the wandering and infuriated multitude to that primitive and apostolic Church, whose ways, like those of the Wisdom from above, are ways of pleasantness, and all her paths are peace.

Our second reason is, that there is a fallacy in the very terms of union.

The union of all sects and denominations of Christians to distribute the word of God, has certainly a very imposing sound, and is well calculated to seduce the unwary, and to deceive the good. But as the force of an act consists not in the act itself, but in all those consequences which must inevitably result from it; so an union consists not in the act of uniting, but in all those certain consequences of such an act for the promotion of mutual intention and interest. Thus, when Churchmen and dissenters unite their donations and their attendance at the board of an hospital, the union is a real one, inasmuch as in all the consequences which will certainly result from that act, they are agreed. They are agreed not only in the general intention of providing relief, but in the same mode of administering that relief, and in the same hearty desire for the comfort and recovery of the poor patients who partake of it. Now, in the Bible Society the Churchman and the dissenter unite in subscribing money for the distribution of Bibles; but in the consequences immediately resulting from such distribution, they totally differ.

Mr. Gisborne, at page 21, professes that he cannot assent to the doctrines of Calvin. We will take him at his word; and we will ask him how then he can by his union with high Calvinistic dissenters, enable them more widely to disseminate doctrines. which he must own to be erroneous in point of faith, and pernicious in point of morals. He must be aware that the Bibles placed in their hands will all be applied to the propagation of those dangerous doctrines, among an ignorant and a deluded multitude. He cannot plead the general advantage to be derived from the distribution of the Scriptures, as by the same subscription on the part of himself and his friend to another Society, an equal number of copies might be distributed, without the danger of their readers being infected with Calvinistic notions. As a Churchman therefore, he either does or ought to protest against the consequences of the union which he recommends. The union therefore itself is not real, but fallacious. How a sincere Unitarian can join the ranks of the Bible Society, even in the first instance, we know not, when its object is to distribute a book, which, according to the opinions of his ministers is replete with wilful mistranslations; nor again are we able to comprehend how he can by the aid of his purse and his influence, place in the hands of Methodists or Anabaptists, the power of distributing a volume, with every copy of which must be inculcated the grossest and most idolatrous imposture. We leave it for all the discordant sectaries to settle this point among themselves; they are probably of opinion that the general good effect resulting from any diminution in the influence of their common object of hatred, the Church, will more than compensate for the evil arising from the propagation of false doctrine by their brethren in dissent. Thus then there is a fallacy in the very terms of the union, because the simple act alone is considered, without any reference to its immediate and necessary consequences. So far then from the Bible Society producing any union, that it is scattering widely the seeds of discord; the plants of which will appear in due season, to curse with their deadly harvest this unhappy country.

Illa est agricola messis iniqua suæ.

That it has already divided our national Church into two opposite parties is but too clear, and of the spirit which animates one of them, the pamphlet before us is a convincing evidence.

It is plain that this argument applies principally to the operations of the Society at home. There are many cases in which the Churchman and dissenter may unite for the purpose of sending Bibles abroad, in those countries especially, where the several established Churches have the power of applying such

donations

donations to their own purpose and in their own method; where consequently Churchman and dissenter can have but one view in supplying the spiritual wants of their fellow Christians. We very much doubt however, if the operations of the Society were confined to its foreign department, whether the Churchmen would not be left to conduct it alone, unless indeed the wide field which India opens to their prospect, might tempt the fana, tics to join their party.

These then are cur reasons, why "the distribution of the Bible is not one of those good works in which Churchmen may fitly unite with dissenters. Our readers have now before them Mr. Gisborne's proof of the affirmative, and our proof of the negative; and in the decision of those who are sufficiently cool to exercise their judgment upon this important point, we shall readily acquiesce.

In a part of the pamphlet to which we have before alluded, Mr. G. proposes the following important question; whether a clergyman who has solemnly promised to obey his ordinary "is not by that engagement bound to withdraw from the Bible Society, or to abstain from joining it, if duly apprised, that his diocesan disapproves the Society." This question Mr, G. after three pages of discussion, answers in the negative. And at the close of the discussion, he thus addresses himself to the Bishop of Gloucester.

"Were I a Gloucestershire clergyman, you might require me reverently to obey your command not to contribute a guinea to a county infirmary, so long as there should remain a subscribing dissenter. You might prohibit me by a godly admonition from looking into any book written by a member of the Bible Society."

And after an impertinent remark, which we shall not repeat, Mr. G. thus concludes.

"I do not conceive, that our Church and our Legislature, at the moment, when under the blessing of God, they emancipated themselves from the bondage of popery, elevated each succeeding bishop into a pope."

From the lecture, which Mr. G. thus gives to the Bishop of Gloucester, we suspect that Mr. G. is fearful, lest his Lordship at his primary visitation, should inculcate notions which Mr. G. disapproves: and therefore gives him to understand, that his clergy in that case would do well, not to listen to his advice, inasmuch as an English Bishop is not a Pope. We much doubt, whether the Bishop of Gloucester will thank Mr. G. for such a broad bint. For our own parts, we entertain no doubt that his Lordship will take occasion to insist on the peculiar

necessity

毙