་

G.'s but because they care for the sacred volume as little as they do for the Koran. This is one specimen of the Christian spirit of Mr. Gisborne, toward the adversaries, not of himself, but of his favourite Society; but this is quite charitable in comparison with what we shall have occasion to notice.

We

Mr. G. expresses his surprise, that a Society which confines its distribution to the Bible, should have been suspected of "tending to check the circulation of the Prayer-book.' "'The following," says Mr. G. at page 5, "is the language which we might have hoped to hear. The grace of God be with all who disperse the Bible. Disperse but the parent Bible in abundance, and its daughter the Prayer-book will follow of course.' say likewise with Mr. G. " the grace of God be with all who disperse the Bible;" but we cannot possibly add, "its daughter the Prayer-book will follow of course," when we perceive that the dissenters, who are all of them members of the institution for which Mr. Gisborne pleads, and most of them very zealous members, uniformly persevere, amid all their efforts for the distribution of the Bible, to reject from their places of worship its daughter the Prayer-book. But says Mr. G. the fact cannot be denied, that since the institution of the British and Foreign Bible Society, the distribution of Prayer-books has increased. Undoubtedly the distribution of Prayer-books among the members of the Establishment has greatly increased within these four years. But what is the cause of this increase? No other than this, that the true friends of the Church took alarm at the language holden by the advocates of the Bible Society at the end of 1811, who from the indisputable truth that the Bible only is the religion of the Protestant, argued as if the Bible only should be distributed by the Protestant. The necessity therefore of an increased distribution of the Prayer-book, became so obvious to all who were desirous of supporting the present Church Establishment, that every effort was made for that purpose, especially by the Society for promoting Christian Knowledge. Thus the natural tendency of the new institution was happily counteracted. Yet Mr. G. gives his readers to understand, that this institution was the cause of that effect. He says, at page 6,

"The truth of the position that the British and Foreign Bible Society has increased in an extraordinary degree the circulation of our Established Liturgy is incontestible."

He then triumphantly adds,

"Let it be treated as incontestable. If any man of strange perception deny or doubt it; let not the point be debated. Waste not time and argument in demonstrating demonstration. Let the answer be, the fact is ascertained, is settled, is recognized. The earth revolves round the sun."

Such is Mr. G.'s mode of reasoning from effect to cause, and such is the flippancy of his language, which well accords with the reasoning itself. And this observation applies to almost every page of his pamphlet.

At page 7, Mr. G. adverts to the objection which was made. to his Society so early as the year 1805, when it was just coming into notice; namely, that it is an association of Churchmen with dissenters. But Mr. G. has taken the usual precaution of stating it in such a manner, as to convey a meaning very different from that which it is known the objectors intended. He says that his Society" has been accused of associating Churchmen and dissenters, in the distribution of the Word of God.” Any one unacquainted with the controversy might suppose from this sentence, either that the distribution of the Word of God," formed the ground of the objection; or that an union of Churchmen and dissenters, is a thing to be deprecated in all possible cases. But how does the matter really stand? As far as we have been able to collect the sentiments of those who object to the new institution (for new it is in comparison with the Bible Society established at Bartlett's Buildings) they are to the following purport. "Let us associate for the distribution of the Word of God; but then let us do it in a manner, that while we are promoting this laudable work, we do not at the same time neglect those other duties, which are incumbent on us as Churchmen. We may either associate for that purpose with Churchmen only, as in the Society for promoting Christian Knowledge, which distributes both Bibles and Prayer-books; or we may associate both with Churchmen and with dissenters in the other Bible Society, which from the very circumstance that the dissenters belong to it, must confine its distribution to the Bible. Since then we have the choice, let us prefer the former Society, which enables us to do our duty as Christians, and at the same tine enables us to do our duty as Churchmen. This we conceive to be the meaning of those who object, not to the distribution of Bibles, either by Churchmen or by dissenters, but to an association, which, while it provides for the general duty of a Christian, is unable to provide for the particular duty of a Churchman. If indeed there were no other means of distributing the Bible, than through the medium of this new institution, the duty of distributing the Prayerbook would properly yield to the paramount duty of distributing the Bible. But when they have the choice of a Society, in which both duties are fulfilled, it really does surprise us, that Churchmen do not give it their whole support, instead of associating with, and thus augmenting the importance of those, whose views, from the very nature of things, must be hostile to the Establishment.

At

At page 9, Mr. G. who is obliged to eke out even this short pamphlet by perpetual repetitions of the same thing, again asks,

Must not the distribution of the Bible tend to diminish dissent?" This question we may oppose by another. Has the increased distribution of the Bible by the means of the new Society, diminished the number even of the old dissenters'? And is it not notorious, that the methodists, who dissent at least from the discipline of the Church, and who make a common cause with the old dissenters, have received an alarming increase within these ten years? Even with respect to the distribution of the Bible, it is much to be apprehended, that the spirit of the Gospel has not been distributed equally with the letter of the Gospel.

At page 10, Mr. G. again asks, "Why may not Churchmen and dissenters be united in distributing the Bible? Is it because it is unfit, that they should be united in any good work. Or of this good work in particular."

These questions have been so repeatedly answered, that it is really disgusting to see them renewed, as if no answers had ever been given. That Churchmen and dissenters are unfit to be united in any good work, is a sentiment, which though frequently ascribed to the opponents of the British and Foreign Bible Society, Mr. Gisborne knows that they have never entertained. Indeed the absurdity of the charge confutes itself. But replies Mr. G. at page 13.

"Since it is acknowledged that there are good works in which we may join with our brethren out of the pale of the Establishment, and that the circulation of the Scriptures is a good work; is among the best of works; why is it so stoutly required of us to prove, that we may co-operate with them in this work?”.

Here we will readily grant both the major and the minor of Mr. G.'s proposition. We will readily grant that there are many, very many good works, in which Churchmen and dissenters may properly join; and we maintain, no less strenuously than Mr. G. that the distribution of the Bible is among the best of works. Yet notwithstanding the admission of these premises, we must confess, that we have hitherto seen no proof of the conclusion which Mr. G. deduces from them. However proper it may be to join with dissenters on many occasions, it may be very improper to join with them on some occasions. And however desirable it may be to promote the circulation of the Bible, yet if the Church of England is more effectually served by a union of Churchmen with Churchmen for that purpose, than by an union of Churchmen with dissenters, we are at a loss to comprehend how a Churchman can hesitate to prefer the former.

Following

Following the course of Mr. Gisborne's logic, we shall now lay before the reader his method of proving that the distribution of the Bible is one of those good works in which Churchmen may fitly unite with Dissenters.

"Now since it is acknowledged that there are good works in which we may join with our brethren out of the pale of the Establishment; and that the circulation of the Scriptures is a good work, is among the best of works; why is it so stoutly required from us to prove that we may co-operate with them in this work? Does not the presumption lie wholly on that side of the question? It is all in favour of co-operation. By what arguments is it assailed? I hope that I am not unwilling to render justice to an adverse side: but of arguments opposed to the presumption, I confess that my recollection furnishes few and scanty traces. We have seen mysterious visages; we have heard mysterious portents: -the impropriety of associating with Dissenters-the consequent danger to the Church of England-the unseen possibilities of unexpected, or of unintended, or of unimagined, or of unimaginable evils. When we have requested developement, and particularities, and specifications; we have received a repetition of dark oracular admonitions, accompanied perhaps with objurgatory declarations of our prejudice, our impenetrability, our hostility to the Church. There has been scarcely any thing with a tendency to be definite. Obscurity, I admit, is one of the sources of the Sublime and of the Alarming. Yet it is well to bear in mind that there is a limited period, beyond which the omne ignotum pro magnifico est' loses its effect: for men will perversely begin to suspect that there is little or nothing to be known. Let no wrong motive be attributed to those from whom we differ. But we cannot think it quite fair that their assertions should be estimated as proofs, and our proofs be counted as assertions. I really am afraid that we meet with better reciprocity in the Bible Society from the Dissenters. For some time it was from the middle ranks of our ecclesiastical establishment that the avowals of hostility against the British and Foreign Bible Society, as involving association with Dissenters, chiefly proceeded. Latterly, as rumour, truly or falsely, affirms, voices from higher stations have been raised; voices, I doubt not, raised, if raised at all, conscientiously; raised rightly, as expressing on an important topic the sentiments of the heart; but seldom, I think, raised to produce on any topic objections less substantiated by reason and fact." P. 13.

This is the commencement of what Mr. Gisborne is pleased, somewhat facetiously, to term a proof. Those of our readers who have sharper eyes than ourselves, may, perhaps, comprehend the chain of reasoning which Mr. Gisborne has adopted. We must confess our utter incapacity to discover any thing but the most impenetrable darkness and confusion. The collocation of the

sentences

sentences appears almost the work of chance; had they, indeed, been shaken together in a box, they might possibly have come out in a somewhat more connected and intelligible order. After this commencement of his proof, comes a digression of two pages and a half, on the power of the Bishop over the con sciences of his clergy; then follow two pages more, complaining of the deficiency of proof in the objections of his adversaries, interspersed with a little abuse of the Bishop of Lincoln, and concluding with a quotation from the Greek grammar; and again two pages more about speeches at anniversaries; and then Mr. Gisborne is good enough to reconduct the bewildered reader to the proof which had been broken off in the middle.

"I return to the principle of non co-operation between members of the Establishment and Dissenters. 'Misrepresent us not, cry the maintainers of the principle. 'We do not apply it to the support of an infirmary; nor to any plan, private or public, for the relief of bodily distress. We apply it only to union in religious associations.' It seems then, that while Churchmen and Dissenters may very laudably sit and act together as governors at the weekly board of the Infirmary, in providing food and medicine and every external comfort for the patients; if, unhappily, a motion should be introduced for supplying the wards with Bibles and Prayer Books, every true son of the Establishment must instantly quit the room! To remain, if any thing religious is to be considered, if the gift of the word of God is suggested, would be for loyal men to join in a political association with traitors, and to furnish arms and money to men known to be rebels and conspirators! Farther, however, 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 for the distinction.' In our expectation of reasons, of reasons deserving the name, we may have learned not to be sanguine: a circumstance the more unfortunate, as in the present case we find it impracticable to devise any to ourselves. In truth, if the principle of our not associating in good works with Dissenters be once let loose; I know not where, or why, it is to stop, until it arrive at the point-The Jews have no dealings with the Samaritans. And if we members of the Establishment stamp ourselves with this feature of the Jewish portrait; I am ignorant how we shall escape other lineaments of the likeness:-They have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge. They please not God; and are contrary to all men. Sufficient has been said on the ground of reason." P. 22.

The reader will now comprehend Mr. Gisborne's ideas of reason, and will doubtless consider the proposition as fully proved, that the distribution of the Bible is one of those good works, in which Churchmen may fitly unite with dissenters. He will observe, however, that in the latter part of his proof,

Mr.