from a statesman of such distinguished talents and judgment, on a point on which professionally he is so well entitled to speak.

This able advocate then proceeds to reply to Dr. Marsh's imputations against the foreign transactions of the society. The "violations of truth and candour," imputed to the Reports of that Society, "struck me," says Mr. Vansittart, "with some surprise, not that you should make such a charge if you think it well founded; but that you should make the charge, and reserve the proof of it for an Appendix, not yet published, after the expiration of nearly two months."--On this subject, however, we will reserve ourselves till we shall have seen Dr. Marsh's Appendix.

66

Mr. Vansittart then proceeds to Dr. Marsh's flourish, on the plentiful supply of Bibles in Germany. We have already stated his ill use of a change of expression in the report of the Foreign Secretary's speech upon that subject. The first report of his speech had made him speak of "the want of Bibles throughout all Germany, with the exception of Saxony alone." The correct account of his speech makes him say, Though there are provinces, districts, towns, and villages, in Germany (among which Saxony stands pre-eminent), where the Bible is cheap and plentiful, still there are others......in which it is greatly wanted...... It has been pressingly applied for." This alteration was known by Dr. Marsh three weeks before the 67th page of the Inquiry was printed. Yet in that 67th page he writes thus: "to speak of Germany" (not with the exception of Saxony, as even the first report had expressed it, but) "to speak of Germany wanting Bibles, which the Foreign Secretary himself has hitherto done: of Germany, which had printed the Scriptures in Hebrew, Greek, &c., &c., &c., to speak of such a country wanting Bibles, &c.** To which is super

This passage in Dr. Marsh's pamphlet, always seemed to us about as conclusive as

added the note given in our remarks on Mr. Dealtry, insinuating that " he had been desired to see a very different account from all that had been said before, &c., &c." To all this -what must we call it? Mr.Vansittart calmly replies, "It is unnecessary to explain, why, in so extensive a country as Germany, divided into so many sovereignties, and greatly differing in the religion and manners of its several parts, the Bible might be almost unknown in some districts, while in others it was cheap and plentiful." p. 39. And in reply to Dr. Marsh's allusion to the Caustein Institution, which can "multiply copies by thousands and tens of thousands," Mr. Vansittart continues,

"Such of your readers as are unacquainted with the Bible Society, will be somewhat surprised to find, that the fullest, if not the only, account in English of the Canstein Institution, is to be found in the second report of the society; that the head of that Institution has been in constant correspondence with them, so long as correspondence could be maintained with the continent, and that the Institution has been employed to a large extent by the society, wherever its aid could be available." pp. 39, 40.

Mr.Vansittart well replies to the proposal for making this a mere Foreign Bible Society, that its local Auxiliary Societies for home distribution, are its principal support. And

if an Englishman abroad, previous to the institution of the British and Foreign Bible Society, had undertaken thus for the principality of Wales *. "And to speak of Great Britain (meaning Wales) wanting Bibles; of Britain, which has printed the Scriptures in Hebrew, Greek, Latin, and English, for centuries; of Britain, the nurse of the Refor mation, the birth-place of Wickliffe, whose translation was made at least 150 years before that of Luther; of Britain (meaning all this time Wales), where the Society for promoting Christian Knowledge, established a century ago, can multiply copies by thousands and tens of thousands, &c., &c., to

speak of such a country wanting Bibles!"

* Mr. Gisborne's speech, before referred to, teaches us we might here substitute the principality of Durham for that of Wales,

"What co-operation could be expected among men united for a common exertion abroad, upon principles which implied disunion, jealousy, and enmity, at home?".... ...." How different from the meetings of the Bible Society, in which the Churchman and Dissenter meet to lay aside their prejudices, and, forgetting partial distinctions, look only to the Scriptures, which they alike acknowledge, and the Saviour whom they equally adore, &c." pp. 42, 43.

Mr.Vansittart touches the subject of the Naval and Military Bible Society with great skill, and gathers comfort from reflecting upon its high patronage.

"But you, who know that men may be discreet, and yet mistaken, can derive no consolation from such a source; but must class those distinguished prelates among the bishops who may sometimes err." p. 45.

To the chimerical suggestion respecting the test act, of which Dr. Marsh anticipates the repeal through the means of the Bible Society, Mr. Vansittart replies with his characteristic good sense and Christian feeling:

"In any political way, I will venture to affirm, that the Bible Society is as little likely to lead to a repeal of the test act, as to a repeal of the habeas corpus act. Any attempt to convert the society to political purposes would certainly be fatal to the society itself: and of this all the parties composing it are equally convinced." p. 48.

Equally sensible and cheering are his remarks on the respect and attention now paid by the government of the country to the national church. And on this head, the following admonition, we conceive, ought to be engraven on the heart of every true lover of his church; and, if he be its advocate also, to guide his pen.

"Yet I will own that there are possible cases in which I think danger may arise to the church—one of them would be, if the abuses of the church should be confounded with its interests. The spirit of the age is liberally attentive to all fair claims; but it is an inquisitive and scrutinizing age, and many circumstances which formerly attracted little

notice, are now drawn into full light. The returns of the non-resident clergy, for instance, are now annually printed. If the friends of the church, instead of taking the lead in a mild reform of abuses, contend

obstinately for their protection, and treat every man as an enemy who aims at reform, they will certainly be overpowered at last, and the corrective applied by those who will apply it with no sparing hand." p. 51.

monishes the Professor of the “ridiMr. Vansittart then strongly adcule which must ever attach to arguments which are only to be supported by treating the clearest and simplest subjects as the most intricate and perplexed: and that ridicule,” he adds, "cannot fail of being reflected on the church itself, which is so defended. After all that ingenuity nion must at last be decided by the and subtlety can do, the public opiplain reason of plain men. With such the appeal will always be to fact and experience."

"They will not believe it to be an offence to carry home to the habitations of the poor

and ignorant, that Bible alone, which is daily read in the church, as alone containing the lieve the members of the Bible Society to be words of everlasting life. They will not bebad churchmen (with whatever dexterity you may prove that they must be so), while they perform, both in the church and in society, the offices of good men and good Christians." pp. 52, 53.

Many persons, Mr.Vansittart adds, amongst his acquaintance, even of rank and education, and of extensive general information, have not yet heard of such a society.

I do not recollect to have met with one for the first time, explained to him, failed to who, when its objects and operations were, express the most decided approbation of them-such is the first natural movement of an unprejudiced miud.” p. 54.

In the same place, comparing the patronage of the two Societies, Mr. Vansittart mentions, that the Society in Bartlett's Buildings numbers, even now, amongst its subscribers, only about 2900 clergymen, out of the 11,000 parishes which England con tains.

This excellent letter ends with the following bright and cheering anticipation of what may still be the favourable intentions of Al mighty God, in regard to our fa

voured nation and favoured church. Having stated the dire alternative,

"I am inclined," he continues," to indulge in the more pleasing prospect, and to view the Church of England as rising to greater eminence, and shining with greater lustre."

"Amidst public difficulty and private embarrassment, I see the hand of Charity extended to every species of distress with an extent of bounty not only unknown to former times, but which would have been incredible to them. I see every where new institutions forming, yet old establishments supported; and let it be remembered, that in these noble works, which I trust will rise in remembrance before God on behalf of this nation, the Dissenters claim their full share with the Church of England-I see the ships

of Britain no longer tearing the natives of Africa from their parent soil, but carrying to them the arts of life, and the blessings of the Gospel-I see the Church of England surrounded and assisted by differing, but respectful, and no longer hostile sects, extending the light of truth to the remotest regions of the earth; and when to these considerations we add the wonderful preservation of the independence and constitution of this nation for so many years of impending danger amidst the ruin which has swallowed up all the surrounding states, may we not indulge the hope that the religion of this nation is a portion of that Church against which the gates of hell shall not prevail; and this country a favoured instrument of Providence in effecting its most sublime and beneficent designs?

"It is indeed an important crisis for the Church of England. Greatness and glory wait on her decision one way-I forbear to state the consequences of the contrary decision which you would recommend: for I trust the Church has already decided, and

that the triumphs of the Bible Society, which you already compare to the enthusiasm of the crusades, are but the prelude to more extensive triumphs; when this nation shall indeed take up the cross-to carry.not the sword, but the Saviour, throughout the world, and when you will be, I trust, not the last to cast away your unfounded apprchensions, and to hail with unmingled satisfaction the opening of a new era of light and truth." pp. 56-58.

We must now finish our quotations from this most admirable publication; but not before we have convinced our readers, as we are confident we have, that it is ex

actly the kind of answer which Dr. Marsh's able pamphlet required: meeting the vague suggestions of the Professor by other suggestions happily thrown together, of infinite weight and irresistible application to the common sense of mankind: and yet carrying throughout a temper and spirit of conciliation which constitutes it, in our minds, a model for controversy. Mr. Burke's designation of the ancient spirit of European chivalry, seems to us exactly to designate that of Mr. Vansittart's style, viz. the spirit of religion, and the spirit of a gentleman. And if, as in the case of a certain philosopher of the past age, an appeal to truth and common sense, in answer to ingenious and fine-spun speculations, is found to be the most galling infliction on the controversial theorist, we hesitate not to suspect that Dr. Marsh will have suffered a pang, in reading this letter, beyond the common lot of men who "never decline a controversy." With Dr. Clarke, perhaps, he may have smiled; by Mr. Dealtry he may have been stirred to anger; Mr. Simeon, on whom we have yet to say a few words, may have surprised him; but Mr. Vansittart must have made him blush.

Of our present catalogue of answers to Dr. Marsh, Mr. Simeon's appeared the last; and we are happy he has prefixed it to four important Sermons on the Excellence of the Liturgy, because it the publication, and thereby to afenables us to allude to both parts of ford more distinctly that answer to Dr. Marsh, which, after all, is the best answer that can be given-the actual respect and regard in which the Liturgy is held by the friends of the Bible Society. Mr. Simeon's answer, which is very simple and cogent, is wholly built upon this ground. It begins and ends with provoking Dr. Marsh to prove the FACT he has been pleased to assume, as the foundation of all his principles, viz. that the Liturgy is omitted, and its omission justified,

n the distribution of Bibles by churchmen. Mr. Simeon fairly and truly admits the adroitness of Dr. Marsh's argument, and that it is placed in a very imposing point of view; so that the indolent and the prejudiced may be " ready to think the pamphlet altogether unanswerable," p. 2. But he very properly remarks," one thing is kept out of sight," and informs Dr. Marsh, "Your argument is altogether founded on an assumption of a fact as true, which, if inquired into, will prove false."

In proof of this assumption, Mr. Simeon appeals to the very title of the pamphlet: "What is it? An Inquiry into the Consequences of Neglecting to give the Prayer-book with the Bible. Now, either you have proved that this neglect exists, or you have assumed its existence without proof. But where have you proved it? Where have you even attempted to prove it?" pp. 2, 3.

Some quotations then follow, which set the Professor's hardihood of assumption, on this point, in the strongest possible light, as that in the Inquiry, p. 42-"I do not perceive that any one, except myself, has pointed out the danger arising to the Established Church from the practice (N. B. The PRACTICE) of neglecting to give the Prayer-book with the Bible." (True, Sir; no one but yourself has had the hardihood to affirm the existence of such a FACT; and much less to assume it as the ground of all his arguments.")

p. 5.

"

Having, from other passages, clearly proved this assumption on the Professor in the plainest terms, Mr. Simeon then, with great propriety, refers to another part of the Inquiry, in which Dr. Marsh, as if tacitly conscious of his weakness in point of fact, makes an appeal to "abstract reasoning." "In the preceding paragraph," says Dr. Marsh, I have estimated the tendency of the Bible Society to produce an indifference to the Liturgy,

"

"Here then, Sir, I plant my foot. You have assumed a fact: and it is my intention to inquire into that fact. I have nothing to do with the dispute as it is personal: my business is with the QUESTION alone. Were I to follow you through all that relates to others, my answer would swell into a voJume: I will leave to others the work of lopping off the branches of your argument, and will lay my axe to the root. You have, I acknowledge, shewn great skill in putting together your materials, and have built a goodly fabric, and adorned it with some fine historical paintings; and your generous hospitality has invited all, bishops and clergy, statesmen and nobles, to come and take up their rest under its roof: but I am going, with permission, to examine its foundation; and, if it prove, as I am persuaded it will, to be of sand, the sooner you abandon your tottering edifice, the better." PP. 8, 9.

Mr. Simeon then proceeds, in opposition to Dr. Marsh's assumptions, to establish two things; 1st. That those clergy, who are the most zealous advocates for the British and Foreign Bible Society, are not indifferent to the Prayer-book; 2dly. That the institution and progress of that Society have neither occasioned, nor been attended with, any neglect of giving away the Prayer-book. In establishing the first of these positions, Mr. Simeon particularly adverts to the further unwarrantable assumption of the Professor, that, amongst the church friends of the Bible Society, are generally found