But, Sir, let me ask you now, in the best humour in the world, what security you would require for the maintenance of an original object which the Bible Society has not already given you. I grant, if you had been invited to join a Society, whose object was the promotion of Christianity, the reformation of manners, or the suppression of vice, you might reasonably enough have doubted whether the nature of the object sufficiently explained the views of the associators, and gave you any competent pledge for the purity of those measures which they might in process of time adopt. You might then have argued with some show of plausibility, that “the _real object_ will take its colour from the opinions and pursuits of those _effective members_, who shall contrive, either by an actual majority, or an _assiduity and activity equivalent in force to the power of a majority_, to give direction to the energy of the association;” {12} and the event, in certain cases, would have proved, that you were not very greatly mistaken. But in the case under consideration, the object is definite. For the Bible (_which_ and which _alone_ constitutes that object) is specific; and is further secured, by its authorized translation into all the languages of the United Kingdom, against the possibility of losing its specific character. Now since the Society are bound, by a law of their constitution, to circulate the _authorized_ version of the Scriptures, and that _alone_, their object must remain so uniform and determinate, that no deviation from it can occur, without a perceivable, an obvious, a felonious sacrifice of justice, honor, and good faith. Of such departure therefore, if ever it should be attempted, the public will most infallibly be apprized. For those respectable characters _at least_, with whom you would be proud to rank your name, will be the witnesses, the opposers, and (if unsuccessful in their opposition) the reporters of such apostacy; and I hardly need remind you that the efficiency of their exertions under all these characters, will be diminished in the same proportion, in which you may contrive to reduce their numbers, and discredit their association. So much for that security which the object of the Society affords. But let us hear what sort of security you, in the exercise of your moderation, are disposed to require. “If Lord T. will pledge himself that the six hundred members of his Society are, like himself, honourable and upright men, who speak what they mean, and practise what they profess, who abhor duplicity and deceit, and know no discordance between the object they _profess_ and the object they _pursue_—if Lord T. can assure me this, I shall be proud to rank my name, and make exertion under his protection.” {14a}