Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2016 https://archive.org/details/inquiryintoconse00mars_0 AN INQUIRY INTO THE CONSEQUENCES OF NEGLECTING TO GIVE THE PRAYER BOOK WITH THE BIBLE. IN'TSniFEHSED WITH REMARKS ON SOME LATE SPEECHES AT CAMBRIDGE, AND OTHER IMPORTANT MATTER RELATIVE TO Hie British and Foi'eign Bible Society, y BY HERBERT ^lARSH, P.D. F.R.S. KAUCAnET PROFESSOn OP DIVINITT. SECOND EDITION. LONDON; Printed by Law and Gilbert, St. John’s-Square, Clerkenuidl-, AND SOLD BY RIVINGTONS, ST. PAUL’S CHURCH-YARD; AND DEICHTON, NICHOLSON, AND BARRETT, CAMBRIDGE. 1812. . K YHl'JpXi • ^ airr :yi/. ■t,- i '■» AOi »u ii ■; ft- :if n' n 7 * o ' or r// np'u 'V-» r 3.iaiH Mirr U'vvu ■ r wft /r if /-4 - . , . . . . vi >I A- M 3 .‘■»4 • •^.jOtai:Ly> 'r/i • ji irvAiM a'lB’ru az A (■? T; ' i * '^' 4ji- r/;;«itl . 1 ..V <41- , »,. '¥■ ; r ‘ V » - * . ■'/■ -» . :i :'. A. ■ 1».' I' . i j ■liUniw^ir-V-^w ; ■ ., V vfiri ,_rJb ■ t fr^r, if '^:> - ■■ ■ ' V vfifi ,rJb ., . ...i*7? 1' a.a M’ KCUl.l^ill <0i .imuiiL w-'xi it.stiH ' ■ ' V * ■?t. '' u; fOit •\fw«h ' "*-.\ . \ ' '.'A- ;'■■»•»<*<'•*. ■'■. ^ ' 1 *> ■ ' I jn- H' ? ** ' * ' I ■ 3^ I- vii« 4 4 ■* *^ ^ ' ' 4 O'^iAs' VX AU “’ '• 4i«'' 4k ' '■'* ' » — ■f I Vir l'« *M 3T> oi'-: { >fc; . C A ,KI'J f’AH 43-'A, cV-.f ■ •J-M'-', .•'•/I '■** *A»i \ ^... i V5Mjt^..» ■■■ • ■ '.Vk 'f 7- '•' ^ ,. .,»«... >V # •1' AN INQUIRY, .Se. w HOEVER objects to the British and Foreirtn Bible Society is invariably asked ; Where is the harm of giving away a Bible ? I vvill answer therefore by saying, None xvhatever. On the contrary, the more widely the Scriptures are disseminated, the greater in all respects must be the good produced. Having answered this question, and, as I hope, to the satisfaction of every member in tlie Society, I beg leave to ask in my turn; AVliere is the harm of giving away a Prayer Book? Of course I propose this question only to those members of the Society, who are also members of the Church. For I have explicitly declared, both in the Sermon at St. Paul's,* and in the Address- to the Senate, that I have no desire to interfere, either with the religious opinions, or the religious conduct of the Dissenters. An at- tempt to impose the Liturgy on men, who from principle reject it, would be a violation of that reli- gious liberty, which I sincerely hope will ever be maintained in this country. I neither expect there- fore, nor even desire, unless it is their own volun* tary act, that Dissenters should eitlier give or re- ceive our Book of Common Prayer. lam addressing myself to Churchmen in their intercourse with A % 4 Churchmen, such as the Clergyman of a parish has viih his parisliioners. And, as the Liturgy is the Book which distinguishes Churchmen, I 'may cer- tainly ask of them, Where can be the harm, when M e give a\vay a Bible, of giving a/w a Prayer Book ? As I think no real Churchman would say that there is, he cannot consistently object to those, who re- commend their joint distribution. Secondly, I ask the Churchman, whether it is not useful, when we give away a Bible, to give also the Book of Common Prayer, not as a Corrective, a name lately given it by the Dean of Carlisle ', but as a proper Companion for the Bible. Does it not contain devotional exer- cises composed in the true spirit of the Scriptures ? Is it not the Book, which we hear constantly at Church ; and is it not equally designed for our me- ditations in the closet? The usefulness then of this book to every Churchman, I think, no Churchman can deny. He cannot therefore, at least not with consistency, complain of those, who object to the withholding of this usefulness ; who object to the emission of giving the Liturgy; or, in other words, who object to the distribution, on the part of Churchmen, of the Bible alone or without the Li- turgy. Thirdly, I ask the Churchman, whether it is not necessary, when he gives Bibles to the poor, (I do not mean among Dissenters, as I have repeat- edly declared) to provide them at the same time with a Prayer Book} Ought it not to be used by every Churchman ? and can he join in the service * In his speech at the Town Hall, on Thursday the lt2th cf Pccemher, 5 of the Church without it ? Can it therefore be a matter of indifference, whether the poor of our esta- blishment are provided with Prayer Books ? Do we perform our duty, do we properly provide for their . religious instruction, if we provide them only with the Bible, and leave them unprovided with the Prayer Book ? In this case, the Rubrick and the Canons have very unnecessarily enforced the learning of the Church Catechism. When we further consider, that there is at present hardly a town, or even a village, which is not visited by illiterate teachers, who ex- pound the Bible with more confidence than the most profound theologian, it becomes doubly necessary, if we would preserve the poor of the establishment in the religion of their fathers, to provide them with a safeguard against the delusions of false interpreta^ tion. And what better safeguard ca7i we offer than the Book of Common Prayer, which contains the doctrines of the Bible, according to its true expo- sition ; in which those doctrines are applied, throughout the prayers and collects, to the best pur- poses of religion, and are condensed in a manner, which is intelligible to all, in that excellent formu- lary the Church Catechism? Under these circum- stances, to leave the poor, who without assistance cannot understand the Scriptures, as the itinerant preachers themselves admit by their own practice, to leave, I say, the poor, under such circumstances, to be tossed about by every wind of doctrine, which they must be unless provided with that authorised exposition of the Scriptures, which is contained in the Liturgy, and which every honest Churchman must believe to be the true one, is at least in niy 6 judgement (I speak with defei encc to the judgement of others) such a dereliction of our duty as Churdi- inen, that 1 little expected, to hear Clergymen, Milhin the precincts of the University, reprehend a Professor of Divinity, because he contended, that the Prayer Book should be distributed with the Bible. But though I certainly did not expect it, I am still ready to confess, that if it is really blameable, to object to the distribution, on the part of Churchmen, of the Bible or unaccompanied with the Li- iiirgy, the modern Bible Society can require no fur- ther vindication. For if the proposition, which I have hitherto ventured to maintain, is not only un- tenable, but a fit subject for reproach, it necessarily follows, that the omission of the Prayer Book, in the distribution of the Bible, is not only allo'ccable, hni laudable. Now, that I //«re been reproached, and bitterly reproached for asserting that Cluirch- men should not content themselves with distributing O only Bibles to the poor, is a matter of notoriety. To say nothing of other places, where I have been attacked on this account, I need only appeal to Avhat was said at the public Meeting in Cambridge for the formation of an Auxiliary Society, especially in the speeches of Dr. Milner and Dr. Clarke*. Strange, therefore, as it may appear, that a Pro- fessor of Divinity should have now to defend hiin- ®'Tlic Speeches to wliich J allude were delivered in the Town Hall of Cainlji'idgc, on Deceinher 12, IS 11, and were printed in the Cambridge Chronicle of December 20, of course with the knowledge and approbation of ihc speakars. 7 self, in his own University, against the charge of pleading for the Liturgy, yet as I am put on my defence, I must request to be heard, before I am finally condemned. The first person who particularly complained of the objection to the distribution of the Bible alone, that is, as repeatedly explained, without the Prayer Book, was Dr. Clarke. “ Is the distribution of the “ Bible alone (says Dr. Clarke) detrimental to the “ interests of the establishment ? Have we forgot that “ we are Englishmen.'’ Have we forgot that we are “ PROTESTANTS } What would Latimer, and Ridley, and Chillingvvorth have thought or said “ had they lived unto this day to bear testimony to “ such a declaration ? As the only answer to it, I, as a member, and as a minister of the Church of England, do not hesitate to declare, so soon as it shall be proved, that the distribution of the Bible “ alone is hostile to the interests of the established “ church, then, and then only, be that church sub- “ verted.” Such are grounds, on which a Church- man justifies the distribution of the Bible alone, or unaccompanied with the Liturgy : and they de- serve particular examination, not as being tlie sentiments of an individual, but as beintr the senti- inents of a party. This is evident, not only from the general applause with which the speech w’as re- ceived, but from the circumstance, that the same sentiments are now entertained by very respectable writers, and are even conveyed through the channel of the public papers. Before I examine the grounds, on which my ob- jection to the omission of the Liturgy is now ar- 4 raigned, I beg leave to call the attentron of the reader to the I'ACT, that the omission of the Li- turgy, in the distribution of the Bible, is justified, and justified by Churchmen. And 1 request the reader to keep this FACT in remembrance, because we shall find it of great importance, when the views of the Society are more particularly examined. ir. 1 acknowledge, that the arguments for the distri- bution of the Bible alone are so specious, so popular, so apparently in the spirit of true Protestantism, while the arguments for the contrary lie so con- cealed from the public view, and are now so confi- dently asserted to savour of Popery ^ that they are equally difficult to explain, and dangerous to pro- pose. Believing, however, as I do, that there is a fallacy in the arguments of those who oppose me, and conscious of the rectitude of my intentions, I tremble not at the obstacles, which present them- selves on every side. If it were now a question, as it w'as at the Reformation, whether the should be distributed or not, men might justly exclaim to those who xvithheld it; can the Bible be injurious 5 “ They arc such, as were used by Papists al tlic Reforma- “ tion, and can only be advanced by those, who think the “ Church of England cannot stand the test of the word of God." This passage is taken from a Letter in the Shrewsbury Clironicic signed, “ A member of the Established Church.” — N. B. I have been informed that there is another Letter in the Shrewsbury Chronicle to the same purport : but I have not yet seer. it. to the real interest of the Church ! But this is NOT the question, as every one must know, who argues against me. There were channels in abundance for the distribution of the BiblCy long before the exist- ence of the modern Society, And I challenge my opponents to declare, whether they have laboured harder, than I have done, to promote the study of it^ But it is urged, if you still require, that the Bible, however extensively you may be willing to distribute it, should be accompanied by the Li~ turgy, you must certainly suspect, that there is danger to the established Church from the distribu- tion of the Bible aloiic K Here let me ask, whether + That the reader however may judge of the Christian Spirit which animates some of the advocates of this Society, at the very time when they arc boasting of their promotion of Christianity, f need only quote the following passage from a Letter, which first appeared in the Suffolk papers, was reprinted in Cambridge with a superscription alluding to my Addrtss to the Senate, and was very generally distributer! in Cambridge within a few days after that Address. The author of this Letter speaking of the auxiliary Societies now forming in different parts of the kingdom says “ And yet to these Societies there are they, who dare to object. “ 1 say dare, because, circulated as the New Testament has “ been described to be, without tract or comment, they who “ oppose them, oppose the circulation of the Kord of God, as “ originally delivered forth, and would have probably opposed onr Saviour himself, had they lived in his time.” — On such, language and conduct it is unnecessary to make an observatio* *. * It can be hardly necessary to repeat what I have already explained, that, when I contend for the distribution of the Li- turgy in company with the Bible, I mean only among memiers of the Church of England. It would indeed be useless, to give away a book to those whose religious principles must induce them to reject it, wliether those persons lived in England or abroad.. 10 the Bible itself is not capable perversion, whetljcr the best of Books may not be misapplied to the worst of pin'poses ? Have we not inspired authority for an- swering this question in the afllrmative? St. Peter himself, speaking of the Epistles of St. Paul, said, “ In which are some things hard to be understood, “ which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest “ as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own “ destruction.” Would St. Peter, if he had lived in the present age, have thought this admonition less necessary, than in the age of the Apostles? Can Churchmen therefore who know, that one party wrests the scriptures, by the aid of false interpreta- tion, into authority for the rejection of the Trinity and the Atonement, that another party wxQsis them into authority for the rejection of the Sacraments, that other parties again on the authority of the same Bible, prove other doctrines, which are at vari- ance with their own, think it unnecessary, when they distribute Bibles to the poor, who are incapable, without assistance, of judging for themselves, and who alone are the objects of distribution, can Churchmen, I say, under such circumstances think it unnecessary to accompany the Bible with the Liturgy, in which the doctrines of the Trinity, the Atonement, the Sacraments, with the other doc- trines of our Church, are delivered as contained in the Bible? It is not the Bible itself but the perver- sion of it, the wresting of the Scriptures (as St. Peter expresses it) by the “ unlearned and unstable,” with which England now swarms, whence the danger proceeds. And this danger must increase in propor- tion as we neglect the means of counteracting it. But 11 if \vc neglect to provide the poor of the establish- ment with the Book of Common Prayer, as well as with the Bible, we certainly neglect the means of preventing their seduction from the Established Church. The Dissenters remain Dissenters, be- cause they use not the Liturgy; and Churchmen will become Dissenters, if they likewise neglect to use it with the Bible. Have the persons to whom Bibles are gratuitously distributed, either the leisure, or the inclination, or the ability, to weigh the argu- ments for religious opinions? Do they possess the knowledge and the judgement, which are necessary to direct men in the choice of their religion? Must they not learn it therefore from their instructors? And can there be a better instructor, in the opinion of Churchmen, than the Book of Common Prayer? But the Bible alone contains all thigns, which are necessary for Salvation : and to assert the contrary is to argue in the spirit, not of a Protestant, but of a Papist! — This position is indisputably true; it is the very basis of Protestantism; and no Protestant, as far as I know, has ever contended, that any doc- trine shonld be received as an article of Faith, which is not contained in the Bible. But have not Chris- tians of every age and nation been at variance on the question, what doctrines are contained in the Bible? If you ask a'l’rinitarian why he receives the doctrine of the Trinity, he w'ill answer, Because it is con- tained in the Bible. If you ask a Unitarian, why he rejects that doctrine, he will answer that it is 7iot contained in the Bible. On the authority of the Bible the Church of England admits only two Sacra- ments, in opposition to the Church of Rome, while 12 the Quakers, in opposition to the Church of Eng* land, admit no Sacrament at all. From the same Bible the Calvinist proves the doctrine of absolute decrees, and the Arminian the doctrine of conditional salvation. On the Bible the Church of England grounds the doctrine of the Atonement, which, with reference to the same authority, is discarded by the modern Socinians. If you ask a Churchman why it is right to kneel at the altar, when he receives the sacrament, he will answer, that it is an act of reve- rence, due from every Christian to the institutor of that holy rite, at whose name, it is declared in scrip- ture, that “ every knee should bow.” If you ask a Presbyterian, he will answer with the same autho- rity before him, that kneeling at the sacrament is an act of idolatry. Put then a Wible alone into the hands of the illi- terate, and leave them to their own judgement, with- out Liturgy or other assistance, and determine what articles of faith they shall adopt. If a Churchman withholds the Liturgy, when he gives a Bible to the poor, because the Bible alone contains all things which are necessary for salvation, he cannot con- sistently interfere with his own instruction : for if the Liturgy is not wanted to explain the Bible, it would be the height of presumption for a Churchman to suppose, that the instruction of an individual could be wanted. Nor would men in this case give the Bible alone: they would accompany it at least with a verbal explanation. And can any sober-ruinded Churchman really believe, that by putting the Bible, under the circumstances above described, into the hands of the illiterate, they Avill secure them from 13 the seductions of false interpretatiofi, and the con- sequent defection from the established church ? 1 know indeed that a very respectable writer, whose sentiments on this subject are on many accounts important, expresses himself as follows : “ 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 “ 1 should hope, that it would produce a more ge- “ neral acknowledgement 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 onli/, is the religion of the Protest- “ ant ; it is the sole basis of the Church of Eng- “ land, and the only one, on which you, I am sure, “ would wish to place it.” ^ Undoubtedly the Bible is the sole basis of the Church of England ; and this respectable writer does me justice in believing, that it is the sole basis ^ This is part of a Letter, which was originally a private com- munication to me from the Right Hon. N. Vansittart, contain- ing remarks on my Address to the Senate, but was published by the Author, at the desire of our Chancellor, who is Patron of the Auxiliary Society in Cambridge. This Letter derives addi- tional importance from the author’s being a Vice President of the Society, and from the general circulation which the friends of the Society gave to it in Cambridge. Though I have the misfortune to view the British and Foreign Bible Society in a different light from Mr. Vansittart, I must express my acknow- ledgements for the candour and liberality, which peiwades the whole Letter. It is written in all the amiable spirit of a sincere and benevolent Christian. Let other advocates of this Society take a lesson from Mr. Vansittart, 14 for which I contend, notwithstanding some late in- sinuations to the contrary. Equally true is the ge- neral proposition, that the Bible only is the religion of the Protestant. But are all Protestants alike in their religion ? Have we not Protestants of the Church of England, Protestants of the Church of Scotland, Protestants who hold the confession of Augsburg? Have we not both Arminian and Cal- vinistic Protestants? Are not the Moravians, the Methodists, the Baptists, the Quakers, and even the Jumpers, the Dunkers, and Swedenborgians nil Protestants? Since therefore Protestantism assumes so many different forms, men speak quite indeji- 7)itely, if they speak of it without explaining the par- ticular kind, which they mean. When I hear of a Swedish or a Danish Protestant (namely one who belongs to the church established in those coun- tries) I know that it means a person, whose religion is the Bible only, but the Bible, as expounded in the Confession of Augsburg. When I hear of a Protestant of the Church of Holland, I know that it means a person, whose religion is the Bible only, but the Bible as expounded in the Synod of Dort. In like manner a Protestant of the Church of Eng- land, is a person whose religion is the Bible only, but the Bible as expounded in the Liturgy and Ar- ticles'^.— How therefore can we know, if we give Hence it is, that by the laws of this country a Cliurchmaii 7!ficr qualifies, by declaring his assent only to the BjWc. This general assent is admitted only from Protestant Uis&entcrs, when they apply for a Licence to preach. All, that is necessary to be ascertained in respect of them, is, that they arc Protestants, but not of the Church of England. What /««£/ of Protestants in 15 the Bible only, what sort of Protestantism will be deduced from it? And if we believe, that the Bible is more correctly expounded in our formulary of faith than in any other, do we act rightly, if w’o withhold that formulary, and thus expose men to the danger of coming to conclusions, which we must consistently believe to be false ? 1 should be as sorry, as l\ir, Vansittart, to think, that tlie study of the Scriptures should lead to a disregard of our Liturgy. And I should equally rejoice, if that study led all men to the same conclusions, as it led our English Reformers. But where is the use of pther respects they may be, the legislature does not inquire, and is therefore satisfied with the general declaration of their assent to the Bible. Biit when a Churchman qualifies, he qualifies as a Protestant of kind. His test therefore is not the Bible alone, which is the religion of all Protestants. By the laws of this country the Liturgy is the great criterion of the Church- man. The Clergy arc required by the Canons to subscribe to the Liturgy, and also to the Articles. But all Churchmen, both Clergy and Laity, appeal to the Liturgy, as a proof of their Churchmanship. In the two Universities, where it is especially necessary to provide for the support of the established religion, not only Heads of Houses and Professors, but every Fellow, whe- ther in orders or not, isbound, by the Act of Uniformity, under no less a penalty than the voidance of his election, to declare by his subscription, that he will conform to the Liturgy of the Church of England, as now by Law established. For similar rea- sons every Sclwolmasta' is required to make the same declara- tion. And even they, who qualify for ewY offices, are required, under a similar penalty, not only to attend the public service of the Churc , within three months after their appointment, but to join in the most solemn of its rites, the celebration of the Lord’s supper, after the manner and form preset ibed in the Look of Common Prayer. 16 rejoicing at an expectation, which Wc know can ne- ver be realised ? If the devout study of the Bible yiccessarilif led to an approbation of the Liturgy, why is it still rejected by the Di^sejiters? And how are men to know, what the excellencies of the Li- turgy are, if the Bible only is put into their hands ? How' can they make the comparison, if they have not both Bible and Prayer Book? Suppose, however, it woseHrue, that the study of the Bible, unaccompanied by the Liturgy, would lead all men to the same conclusions, as it led our Eng- lish Reformers, there can surely be no objection to put into their hands, at the same time with the Bi- ble, a Book which will lead them to those con- clusions *. But since w'e know by expe- rience, that the study of the Bible does not lead all men to the same conclusions, or there would not ® The “ Member of the established church” already quoted in Note (3), asks indeed, whether uniformity of doctrine really it promoted by accompanying the Bible with the Liturgy. Per- haps not so completely as might be wished. But is this a rea- son for imittiiig the Liturgy, when we give a Biblef Because it fails in some cases to do the good intended, shall we neglect it in all? If even with the Liturgy theeffectis incomplete, what must be the case without it ? — 1 take the present oppovtunily of in- forming this anonymous writer, who plainly shows to what party he belongs, when he speaks of the Bishop of Lincoln contradic- ting the doctrines of the Church, that though he had full liberty to examine jny Address to the Senate without putting his name, so far as relates to the subject matter, it is no less cowardly than ungenerous to attempt (as he has done in more than one passage) to traduce the character of the author. Such conduct does no honour cither to himself or to the Society, which he defends. ^YJien the argumentum ad conlumeliam is wanted, one may always suspect a deficiency of the argumentum .ad Judicium, 0 ir be so many Protestants, who differ from the esta- blished church, may it not he said without reproach, that Churchmen should not content themselves witli the distribution of the Bible alone? III. But says t)n Clarke in language, applauded by the assembly, and repeated with approbation by the distinguished advocate of this Society, “ Have we “ forgot that we are Protestants? What would La- “ timer, and Ridley, and Chillingworth have thought “ or said, had they lived unto this day to bear testi- “ mony to such a declaration?” What Chilling^ ti orth would have said shall be examined hereafter. But it requires examination to discover, what La- tinier and Ridley, whatCranmer and Hooper, what our great REFORMERS would have said, could they have foreseen, that a Professor of Divinity in an English University would be publicly censured by Churchmen and Clergymen, within the precincts of that University, for urging the distrioution of a Book, which they composed, and which contains the doc- trines for which they died? It is not the distribution of the Bible to the poor and illiterate, (the only ob- jects of gratuitous distribution) which exposes men to the danger of being seduced from the established faith, and is consequently injurious to the w'elfare of the Church. The danger arises from the neglect to give them also the Liturgy. And it is a gross perver- sion of my meaning, to ascribe to ih^presence of the former^ what I ascribe only to the absence of the B 18 latter^. But the objection would be less popular, if they direct Ip denied tbc utility of the Prayer Book. 1 can makegreat allow ancejbr the eftervescence pro-* duced by an ardent desire to become ix gemtine Frv testaut. But let not nien suppose, that tliey become hettcr Protestants by becoming xcorsc Churchmen. Let them not suppose, that because the Bible con- tains all things which are necessary for salvation, they do all tilings which are wanted on their parts, if they give not the Liturgy in aid of religious i)h struction. Men, w ho entertain this notion, enter- tain it, not in conformitp, as they suppose, with (he conduct of onr Reformers, but in direct opposition to their conduct. When our Reformers contended, and pj'operly cow- * In a similar strain tlm anom nions writer aborc quoted from tbe >i»rew3l)Uiy L’hronick- e.xrlaims, “ W bat, tbe hiblc kiiock “ down tile Church — No. It is not tite Bible, that (in the ole- ^aiu language of this writer) will knock down the Church ; but the Church will be undermined if we neglect the Liturgy. With- T)ut the I.ilurgy wo cease to be Churchmen, and become Dissen- ■ters. We give up the very book which makes us Churchmen. If by the term “ Cdiurch" men understand the universal Church, or ithe whole body of Christians dispersed throughout the world, it is true that mr Liturgy is not necessary for its support. U’hat- "erer l>e the form, under w'hich Christianity rs professed, it still belongs to the universal church. Rut when wc speak of aparti- Ai/lar church, as the church ol England, that particular church must have something to it, beside that which is common to all churches. 'I'hat our legislators arc of this opinion is evi- dent^ from Note (7-) And such was the importance attached to the Liturgy by the Long Parliament, as the criterion, and the 'bulwark of the church, that, when they resolved to overturn th« 'Jatter, they forbad the use of the former, even in private. 19 tended for the Bible alone, they contended in oppo-* sition to tliose ,o^//cr sources of authority, which were recognised by the Churcli of RoinCi Without deny- ing the validity of those other sources, such asTra* dition, and the decrees of Councils, they could nevef have secured to the Bible such an interpretation, as they themselves believed to be true. For this pur- pose it was previously necessary to divest it of the glosses, which perverted its real meaning. But did they stop here, and leave the Bible without any in- terpretation ? No. One of the first steps, which were taken by Luther and Melancthon was to com- pose a Confession of Faith, w\\\c\\ in their opinion was founded on a true interpretation of the Bible. This Confession was aftet wardsiinproved into the Confes- sion of Augsburg, which became,and still remains, the standard of Lutheran faith. Our own Reformers acted in the same manner. Though they asserted, that the Bible alone contained all things, which were necessary to salvation, they did not leave the inter* pretation of it to mere chance. From a knowledge of former perversions, they justly apprehended perver- sions of it in future. Nor was it possible, w'ithout devising some means of security, to prevent a re- lapse into those very errors, which they sacrificed their lives to remove. They deemed it necessaiy, therefore, to employ that knowledge of the Scrip- tures, which they so eminently possessed, in com- posing a system of doctrines, which are really founded on the Bible when rightly understood. But says the Dean of Carlisle (after properly ob- serving, that “ our Liturgy itselt owes its establish- ment to the free use of the Bible among the people’*) ii S 20 “ I greatl3f mistake, if an>ong tlic muncrous errors of the Cliurch of Rome there exists a more dangerous •tenet, than, that the Holy Scriptures themselves wust he tried at the bar of the traditions of fallible rnen.” Now with great deference to the Dean of •Carlisle, I would humbly ask him, whether we try the Scriptures by our Liturgy and Articles, or the Li- turgy and Articles by the Scriptures. As far as my , reading extends, I know of no Protestant, from the Reformers themselves to the Divines of the present age, who have had recourse to the former kind of -trial. At least I can answer for myself, that I have •always made the Scriptures the test, by which I have tried the Liturgy and Articles: and the more frequently I have tried them by that test, the more ■firmly I have been persuaded, that the doctrines' contained in them are wai'ranled by Scripture. It is on this ground, and on this ground onlp, that I re- commend their distribution in company with, the- Bible, not as a “ corrective"^ as Dr. Milner calls it, but as a safeguard against the false interpretations^ -to which men are now exposed on every side. Our .Reformers themselves acted on the same principle. -They did not withhold the Bible from general use, . and say, “ Here are the doctrines which are decreed . by the Church." They laid it open to all men, to compare it with the doctrines, which they deduced and they claimed the assent of the public to their interpretation of the Bible, on the ground of its. conformity, with the original. On the ground of this conformity our Liturgy and Articles were afterwards . sanctioned by the authority of Parliament, and were incorporated in the law of the land. No doubt our 21 Reformers v:ere fallible, like other men. But the question is not, whether they were fallible, but whe- ther they failed ; not whether they could not err, but whether they did err. Ami I am sure the Dean of Carlisle will not assert that they did err, or he ' would not by his subscription, agreeably to the Act .of Uniformity, have declared his “ unfeigned assent and consent to all and every thing contained and prescribed in and by the Book intitled the Book of Common Prayer.” However desirous Dr. Milner may have been, to vindicate the distribution of the Bible alone by the Society, of which he is so zealous an advocate, however desirous therefore he might have been to hold out to public indignation a Pro- fessor, who contends for the distribution of the Li- turgy, in company with the Bible, it w'as surely in- cautious in a Dean.and a Master of a College, to de- liver before a numerous body of young men, of whom the greater part were designed for holy orders, such sentiments, as could not fail to diminish, iir their estimation, the value of a book, to which they will shortly subscribe, and which is really the bulwark of the established church. It is true, that Dr. Milner had previously declared, that no man could entertain a more exalted idea of our Liturgy than himself ; nor do I question the sincerity of his assertion. But w'hen he afterwards declared, that he “ would not represent the distribution of the Hible alone, as a thing that cannot be done with safety, un- less accornpanied with the Corrective of a Prayer Book of the Church of England when mention- ing the Liturgy again by name, he represented it as “ a dangerous tenet'" that the Scriptures should 22 be tried by “ ///d traditions of fallible men," his hearers could not fail to apply this last expression to the Liturgy itself; they could not fail therefore to conclude, that the Liturgy was not so necessary for a true Protestant, 3-s the Margaret Professor would make them believe. Nor was this the only unfavourable impression, which rpust have been jnade on their minds. The very name of tradition, %vhen applied by a Protestant to the Church of Rome, is a term of reproach. And is it wise in a dig- nitary of the Church to apply a term of reproach to the Liturgy ? Let any man read the whole passage in connexion, and sep, whether the expression “tra- ditions of fallible men” can be construed ofany thing else Dr. Milner first denies my position, that it was necessary to accompany the Ihble with the Li- turgy; he continues tlic subject of the Bible and the Liturgy, by saying (and very rightly) that the latter owes its establishment to the use of tlie former; and immediately concludes with the remark on the Bible compared with the “ traditions of fallible men.” I should be very sorry to do injustice to the Dean of Carlisle by torturing his words into a meaning, ” 1 he paragraph to wl.ich T allude, in Dr. Milner's speech, js the following, as printed in the Cambridge Chronicle. “ My “■ Liord, our Litur"y itself qwes its establishment to the free use “ of the Bible aiiionj; the people; and I greatly mistake, if, “ among the numerous errors of the Cluirch of Home, there ex- “ ists a more dangerous tenet, than that the Il.dy Scriptures “ themselves must Im tried at the ban.: the traditions of fallible “ men." This sentence was delivered hy Dr. Milner irnmcdiaicli^ alter his censure of my position, that the Liturgy should be dis- tributed in company wiih the Bilile. I 23 which they do not really convey : but I believe, that men in general will understand them, as I iin-‘ derstand them myself. For, when a parallel is drawn • between two books by name ; when that parallel is repeated, and also by name ; and a third time, im- mediately following the second, the parallel goes. on* w’ith of those books again by name, but with a** circumlocution for the other subject of comparison, it is impossible, that the circumlocution should ap-‘ ply to any other book, than that, which had been already mentioned. No allusion even had been made to any other book. ^\’hen we consider therefore,' tiiat this speech has, with the approbation of the au- thor, been })rinted in a public paper, and dessomi-' nated, not witliin its usual limits, but througliout* the whole kingdom, what a notion will men form of tiie University of Cambridge, when they read, that the Master of a College, whose name stands deserv-^ edly so high as that of Dr. Milner, not only repri- mands a Professor of Divinity, as being unnecessa- rily anxious for the distribution of the Liturgy, but compares that Liturgy with Popish tradition. Lan- guage like this, though it may justify the distri- bution of the Bible alone, is better calculated to serve the cause of the Dissenters, than the cause of the Church. ^ The same effect must be produced, when, to jus- tify the distribution of the Bible alone, it is asked by Dr. Clarke, whether the light of revelation “shall be conveyed through the public portals of the temple, or by the gate belonging only to the priests.'’ If out ileformers were novv vilive, those priests who com- posed the Liturgy and Articles, they would tell hiii- 24 titiat their office was only mmistei'ial / that the know- ledge of the book of life was not derived from them and them alone ; that they desired not to stop the pilgrim at the threshold of the temple ; that they were ready to admit him to its innermost recesses : but, since between the portal and the altar were dark and intricate passages, where many a pilgrim had lost his way, they requested only permission to pre sent him with a clue, which wmuld lead him in safety. If the Liturgy is not wanted, why do Churchmen DOW object to the religious instruction^ Mr, Lan- caster? Mr. Lancaster the Bible, and the Bible alone. He disdains, with our present advo- cates, “ the gate belonging only to the priests,” and approaches at once to “ the portals of the temple.’- But having ventured without a clue to explore the innermost recesses, he was bewildered jn his way, till at length he wandered to the devious passage, where Christianity itself becomes lost from tlic view. IV. But let us descend from allegory, and draw a par rallel in common language between the religious in>» struction afforded by Mr- Lancaster, and the reli- gious instruction afforded by the modern Bible So- .ciety. The former confines religious instruction to the children of the poor, the latter extends it 19 adults, who are frequently in equal want of it. Both agree in providing a ; both agree in leaving that Bible unaccompanied with the Liturgy. Burt 35 the omission of the Liturgy, in the instruction of chtl-’ dreu, with the consequent want of provision for their going to church, and their being educated as church- men^ is at present very generally admitted by the friends of the establishment, to be dangerous to the welfare of church and state. Now the fundamental principle, M'hichpeiwadesthe iohble of my Sermon at St. Paul’s, is the necessity, on the part of Churchmen, of associating the Li- turgy xt'itk the Bible. In the five first sections, that principle was applied to the instruction of childi'cn; in the sixth to the instruction of adults: and if the principle is generally true, it must no less apply to the latter, than to the former. That my sentiments on this subject may be fully understood, I will transcribe that passage in the sixth section, which relates to the importance, of adding the Liturgy in the distribution of the Bible. Where the Church “ of England is established, it is not Christianity under anyiovva, which it is our duty to promote. “ Our exertions (though without the smallest re>» “ straint on the zeal of other parties) must be espe- “ dally directed to the furtherance of that system, which we are especially pledged to support. Th« “ Society therefore for promoting Christian Know- “ ledge does not confine itself, where the Church of “ England is established, to the distribution of the “ Bible alouc^\ It adds, Liturgy, in which “ This is the expression, which has been so ingeniously top* tured, though I have had the precaution, both here and elsewher*;, to explain the meaning of it, by sayaig that the Liturgy should 26 " those doctrines are derived from the Bible, which “ we believe to be correctly derived from it. For, be addotl, as being tlie book in which the doctrines of the Bible Here correctly derived from it. If my objection, therefore, had hecn fairlji stated at the Town Hall, it would have been simply this ; that I objected (namely on the part of Cliurdnncn) to the distribution of the Bildc alone, or without the iJturgy. But this statement would not have produced the effect intended. The comparison would then have been between Churchmen and Dis- senters; and as the Liturgy is the book, which makes the distinc- tion between them, the Dissenters themselves might at least have thought, that the Margaret Professor was not very unwise in contending for the Liturgy. But by stopping short at the w’ords BIBLE ALONE, Dr. Clarke was enabled to give a new turn to the e.xpression, and to convert the real parallel between Church- men and Dissenters into a Jictitious parallel between Protestants and Papists. “ Have we forgot that we arc Englishmen 9 Have wc forgot that we are Protestants f — No. But you forget, that you arc Churchmen. After all, I am unable to discover where the Popery lies in recommending the distribution of the Liturgy with the Bible, Catholics give no JJih/e at alls whereas I contend for the Bible as much as any man, though 1 object to our losing sight of the I.iturgy. ^Vhy, says Dr. Alilner, of all the errors of Popery, there is none more dangerous, tiian that of trying the Holy Scrip- tures at the bar of the traditions of fallible men. But the trial, which I have uniformly made, is the trial of the Liturgy by the Bible, not the Bible by the Liturgy, But, as I wjis accused in my absence, and under circumstances, which would have pre- •vented my being heard, had I been present, the whole assembly Was impressed with the notioti, that the Margaret Professor had so far departed from the principles of a Protestant, as to maintain fh:it the UibU alone containeth not all thitigs, which are necessary foe salvation. It is true, that no one ventured to say so in posi- Jtve terms, especially as I had declan-d in that very Address, which Dr. .Milia r then held in his hands, that the Bible was tliu “ only fountain religious trutli.” But men $cruple i\ot to /«- Sinuate what they dare not assert, i * 27 “ though, without the Bible, the Liturgy has no sup- “ port, yet without the Liturgy men ai'e left in doubt, “ whether the principles of our faith should be em- “ braced by them, or not. Without the Liturgy, they “ want to lead them to theEstablishedChurch. “ Without the Liturgy, the Bible may be misapplied “ todoctrine and discipline most discordantwithour “ own. Where the Church of England therefore is established, the Bible and the Liturgy should be “ united. For every Christian party either finds, or “ supposes that it finds its peculiar tenets in the Bible. “ And hence the Act of Uniformity expressly en- “ joins, that no Sermon shall be preached or Lec- ture given, except in the University Churches, “ till after the Liturgy has been publicly read.” It is worthy of remark, that though the Sermon, from which this extract was taken, passed through so many editions, and was generally read, I never heard of any objection, that was made to it by the friends of the establishment The National Society w'as avowedly founded on the fundamental principle Indeed an hoiioiu- was coiitei red on this Sermon, which 1 be- lieve was without pifccdont: for at the first public Meeting at Jiartlctt’s Buildings after the Sermon was preached, it was re- solved (the Archbishop of Canterbury himself being in the Chair) that the publication of it should not be deferred, as usual, till the time of circulating the Society’s packet, but that it should he printed immediatdy on account of its great importance. This re- solution gave rise to the five octavo ct)itioiis of it, which preceded the Society’? editi(/i), consisting of five thousand copies. But how gre p. 2.1. C r> M 36 tion was at an end, the Parliament resolved to ap- point in its stead an Assembli/ of Divines composed of members better suited to its purpose This new Assembly of Divines was not composed entirely*of spiritual persons, for some of the most zealous mem- bers, both of the upper and of the lower house, are placed at the head of the list ; and scattered among the names of its inferior members are those of three • Prelates, the Primate of Ireland, with the Bishops of Exeter and Bristol. The Assembly soon adopted a set of Resolutions (presented to parliament in the form of a Petition) of which the eigluh was, that “ the xohole boclx) and practice of Popery, may be “ totally abolished Now by the expression “ body and practice of Popery,” they could only mean the doctrine and discipline of the Church of England, which was still establiyhed by law, and was alone therefore “ the body and practice” which could be abolished. Indeed the iexms, Liturgy and Popery were among the Puritans synonymous : and at the very time they were destroying the Church of England, they invariably pretended, that their measures were directed against the church of Rome. At length on the 26th of August, 164,5, the Lords and Commons assembled m parliament, repealed, at the suggestion of this Assembly, the Acts which had been passed in the reigns of Edward and Elizabeth, m support of the Liturgy, and enacted, that it be no The ordinance for this Assembly is "iven in Scobel’s Collec- tion, p 42-4.4. It is dated 12 June, lf)43. Tiie names of the p(>rsoiis appoi nled are ail enumerated in this ordinance. Rushworlh’s Collection, rart III. Voi. li. p. 345. 37 longer used in any place of public worship^^ The reasons alleged by the Assembly of Divines, are given in the Preface .to the Directory, which they substituted for the book of Common Prayer*®. They allege that “ the Liturgy used in the Church of “ England, notwithstanding all the pains and reli- “ gious intentions of the compilers of it, hath proved “ an offence not only tq many of the Godly at home^ “ but also to the reformed churches abroad : — that “the Prelates ami their faction have laboured to raise the estimation of it to such a height, &c. — • “ that the Papists made their advantage this way, “ boasted that the Common Prayer came up to a “ compliance with a great part of their service, Thereupon they .declare that they have agreed to set aside the Common Prayer, “ not from any love to “ novelt}’, or intention to disparage our Jirst Re- “ formers, — but that we may in some measure an- “ swer the gracious providence of God, which at “this time calleth upon us foryirr/4er Reformation.” But the Idiurgy, though the use of it was prohibited in public, continued to be used in private houses by the friends of the established church, whose numbers were still considerable The Puritans therefore. *5 See Scobcls Collection, p. 75-7 »ard to the forms of public worship, is printed in Scobols Cot- lection, p. 77-9-* V Before the Liturgy was abolished, petitions had been piv- sented to Parliament from various counties in favour of the esta- blished church : and though the means of procuring signatures to petitions at that time are not to be compared with the present means ol procuring them, the petitions in favour of the established 38 who now governed in Parliament, well knowing that the use of the Liturgy, even in private, would keep alive that regard lor the Church, which they wished to extirpate, obtained an Ordinance in the following month of August, by which the use of the Liturgy was prohibited in .any private place or family," under the penalty of five pounds for the first offence, ten for the second, and a year's imprisonment for the third**. No sooner was the Liturgy thus finally abolishe^, than a dispute arose between the Presbyterians and the Independents, the latter of whom dissented from the newly established church, and were called there- fore, in their controversies with the former, the Dis- senting Brethren*^. The JAturgy, which is a system both of doctrine and discipline, having been ex- changed for the Directory, which relates more to the latter, the Independents, who would suffer no controul, either in the one, or in the other, applied the same terms to the Directory, which the Presby-? terians had applied to the Liturgy. The new church- men in vain attempted to resist the new dissenters, by refusing that toleration, which men of every re- ligion may justly claim. “ Beware, lest out of cow- ardice ye tolerate wliat God would not have tole- rated,” said one of their preachers in his Sermon be- churth were signed by nearly _;7/b' thounand. See Collier’s Kc- clcsiasticjil History, Vol. 11. p. 8‘2‘2. See .Sfobel’s Collection, p. t}/. In lG48, a book was published in Loixion calli’d, “ Pa- pers and Answers of the Dissenting Brethren and the Committee • 01 the .\sscinb!y of Divines.” ’ * 39 fore the Commons. “ Take heed of Toleration," said another in his Sermon before the Lords, “For God's sake, my Lords, let us not leave a llcf ordina- tion, which may need a. Toleration'”." But the into- lerance of the Presbyterians found a counterpoise in the pore er of the arnii), which was thrown into the scale of rhe Independents. In this manner was discipline set afloat, as doctrine had been before : and public worship in the churches of this kingdom was regulated by the discretion or caprice of the ofticiat, ing minister. Hence the number of religious sects, which arose about that period, exceeded all that are recorded in the catalogues of IrenaBus, Epiphanius, and Augustine. One of the celebrated preachers of that time, said in a Sermon before tlie Parliament, “ There is such a numerous increase of errors and “ heresies, that I blush to repeat what some have af- “ firmed, namely, that there are no less than an hnn- '' dred andfoiirscore%ewe\ a.\ heresies, propagated and “ spread in the neighbouring city, and many of such “ a nature, that I may truly say in Calvin’s language, “ the errors and innovations, under which they “ groaned of late years, were but tolerable trifles, “ children’s play, compared with these damnable “ doctrines of devils'*.” Bishop Beveridge in his These SeriHOiis were preacheil, the one on Mareli 25th, the otlier on April 29, More extracts of the same kind may be icen in Ch. V. of the work called, “ A Century of I’resbyteriaii I’rcachers.” See Mr. Case's Tliankseiving Sermon for the faking of Chcsti'i’.— Also in the year IbdO’, (whicli was several 3'ears after the Liturgy began tu be neglected, and one yvnr after the 40 Sermon On the Excellency ami usefulness of the Com- mon Prayer, (a Sermon which should be read by every member of the Bible Society) says likewise in reference to that age, and to the abolition of the Li- turgy, “ People being deprived of that, whereby they “ should have been edified, were immediately tossed “ to and fro with every wind of doctrine, until at “ length many of them fell into the most pernicious “ and damnable heresies, that were ever heard of in “ the Church. Yea together with the Liturgy they “ laid aside all distinction between sacred and com- “ mon things, by which means the whole nation was in danger of being overspread with profane- “ ness and irreligion — Yet the very men, who are described in these extracts, had the Bible in con- stcmt use : the sectaries of that age were ready with a abolition of it) Mr. Edwards, a Calvinistic Clergyman, published a book containing many curious facts, under the title of “ Gan- “ graena, or a catalogue and discovery of many of the errors, “ heresies, blasphemies, and pernicious practices of the Sectaries “ of this time, vented and acted in England these four lastyestrs.’ I would particularly recommend a perusal of this book to those gentlemen who now contend for the distribution of the Bible alone. Even the Imprimatur of this Book is a curious document; it runs thus, “ Reader, that thou mayest discern the mischief of “ Ecclesiastical Anarchy, the monstrousnesse of the much affected “ Toleration, and be warned to be wise to sobriety, and fear and “ suspect the pretended Neio Lights, I approve that this Treatise “ discovering the Gangrene of so many strange Opinions, should “ be imprinted," 3* I take this opportunity of reminding the advocates of the Bible Society, that by their oun acknowledgement, the Bible is capable of perveision, or they would not be perpetual y boasting, U they give it without note or coranicnt. 41 text of scripture for every occurrence, trivial or important. With the Bible in their mouths, they overturned both the altar and the throne. But the^ had the Bible alone, or unaccompanied with the Li- turgy: they cxpoumkd, every man from his own caprice: and the sectaries became as numerous, as the interpretations of the Bible were various. The tender page with horny fists was gall’d. And he was gifted most, that loudest bawl’d. The Spirit gave the doctoral degree, ^ And every member of a company > Was of his Trade and of his Bible free, j Plain truths enough for needful use they found, But men would still be itching to expound. Each was ambitious of the obscurest place. No measure ta’en from knowledge, all from grace. Study and pains were now no more their care. Texts were explained hy fasting and by prayer. This was the fruit the private spirit brought. Occasioned by great zeal, and little thought. While crowds unlearned, with rude devotion warnij About the sacred viands buz and swarm. T\\c fy -blown text creates a crawling brood. And turns to maggots what was meant for food- A thousand daily seels rise up and die, A thousand more the perished race supply. So all the use we make of Heaven’s discover’d will. Is not to have it, or to use it ill * Dryden’s Religio Laici. Ver. 405-424. — By way of con- trast, not only with Bishop Beveridge, but even with the Cal- vinistic Divines above quoted, I will add a passage from Dr. Milner’s Speech, which heintroduced almost immediatelyaftcrhis censure of my position, that the Liturgy should accompany the Bible. “ It is my firm belief, that, if Dissenters of all denomi- 42 VI. I HAVE thus shewn, as well from liistory as from argument, that the Liturgy is essential to the wel- fare of the established church; and that in propor- tion, as the former is disregarded, in the same pro- portion the latter must be endangered. I have been the more diffuse on this subject, because among all the writers, who have engaged in the controversy about the modern Bible Society, I do not perceive that any one, except myself, has pointed out the danger arising to the established church, from the practice of neglecting to give the Prayer Book with the Bible I have read again what was written “ nations, by no means excluding Roman Catholics, or the mem- “ bcrs of our own communion, did but read and study their Bi— “ bles more constantly, and with more devout care and applica- “ tion, and with more of a direct view to improve the heart and “ correct the practice, Christians of eieri/ dt nominal ion, 'tcith- “ out exception, would approach much nearer to one another “ than they now do, uoutd actually coincide, or nearly so, m “ most essentials, Ikc.” Surely, Dr. Milner, with his knowledge of ecclesiastical history, a knowledge, which he himself pro- claimed in his own speech, could not be. ignorant, that even in the essentials of Christianity, very different conclusions have bceu drawn from the Bible, and by men, of whom it would be very unjust to say, that they had not studied it dcxoutly. There is, however, one method of producing uniformity o( sentiment among those, to whom Bibles are distributed, even if they receive not the Prayer Book, and that is, by the addition of Tracis. If for instance, they who withhold the Liturgy, accompany the Bible with Calvinistic Tracts, the Bible in such comj)any, will be w«t- form in the production of Calvinism. The passage in my .Sermon at St. Paul’s, relative to this subject, has been already (judted in the fourth section of this 43 by the two principal combatants, Dr. Wordsworth and Mr. Dealtry, and I do not find any allusion to pamphlet, and the Atldrcss to the Senate contains precisely tlie same sentiments. Having stated the time of foundation and otlier circumstances relative as well to the ancient to the »»o- (lern Bible Society, I proceeded as follows; “ The two Societies agree in the very laudable object of dis- “ tributing Bioles both at home and abroad, though the number ' of Bibles distributed by the latter, especially abroad, greatly “ exceeds the number distributed by the former. For not only “ are the funds of the latter much superior to those of the former, “ but those funds arc employed in the distribution of Bibles* only, whereas the funds of the former are employed partly on‘ “ Bibles, partly on Prayer-Books, and partly on Religious* “ Tracts, which are in unison with the doctrine and discipline* of the Established Church. From this short statement it appears, that the former, or the ancient Society, is not only a Bihle Society, but likewise (what the other is not) a Church-of England Society. M'ith the former it is an invariable rule, in promoting Christian “ Knowledge, to keep in view the Doctrines, which the members of the Society believe and maintain. Especially where the “ Church of England is established, they consider it as their duty to promote Christianity, not under any form, but under that particular form, which, above every other, they arc pledged to “ support, which alone is the tenure of ecclesiastical and even of “ civil preferment. In conformity with that rule, the Society for promoting Christian Knowledge (the ancunt Bible Society) “ distributes, in its home circulation, as well the Liturgy as the “ Bible: for though in the spirit of true Protestantism it acknow- “ ledges the Bible as the im\y fountain of n ligious truth, yet it “ knows, ffom the experience of all ages, that the waters of that “ fountain will be clear or turbid, according to the channel into “ which they are drawn. And as the members of the Society ie- “ Ikie (though without reproach to those whose belief is dif* ferent) that the tloctrines of the Liturgy arc cor re etly derived “ from the Bible, they consider it as their indispensable duly, to 44 this danger, though the more I consider it, the more I am convinced of its magnitude. It is true, that the question was agitated whetiier religious tracts should accompany the Bible. But this is a question, of vei’y inferior moment to the question, whether the “ unite rhe one with the other. Indecfl uniformity of doctrine can never be produced without an adherence to this rule: for txcnj Christian party either finds, or supposes that it finds, its- “• peculiar doctrines in the Bible. But this salutary rule, so ne- cessary to promote uniformity, so desirable therefore by every “• true Churchman, cannot be observed by the modern Bible “ Society : for such a rule would not only be contrary to its present avowed object, but absolutely inadmissible from the “ very Constitution of the Society.” I am aware indeed, that the Christian Observer (under the Iread. of Religious Intelligence for December 1811) has informed his readers that a Noble Earl, to whom I sent the Address, has confuted it in the following single sentence. “ After all you “ have said, I am wholly unable to see, how the most extensive “ circulation of the Bible, can possibly injure the Church of “ England.'^ I admit, that the Noble Earl did write to me a Letter containing this sentence. But it cannot be a confutation of my Address, for this plain reason, that it is no contradiction of it. The very Advlress, of which it is here called a confutation, rtcMninends the circulation of the Bible: for it describes that cir- culation as a “ very laudable object.” The very Address, there- fore, which is thus represented by the Christian Observer, and indeed by other advocates of the modern Society, as mimical to the circulation of the Scriptures, is itself a proof of its being friendly to that circulation. J am equally with the Noble Earl, and the whole army of my opponents, who are accustomed to say the very same thing, unable to comprehend how “ the most ex- “ tensive circulation of the Bible can possibly injure the Church “ of England.” The point, on which I am at issue with them is, whether the Cliurcb of England may not possibly be injured by an EXTENSIVE OMISSION OF THE LITURGY. 45 JAturgy shall accompany the Bible. The Liturgy is the Criterion of the Churchman. The Liturgy, by the law of the land, is the Test by which Church- manship is tried. Whoever rejects the Liturgy^ ceases to be a Churchman, But in respect to Tracts# every man may exercise his own Judgement, not only in respect to the choice of them, but in respect to the question, whether he shall omit them altoge- ther. The primary duty of a Churchman is to pro- vide the poor with Bibles and Prayer Books : the providing them with Tracts is only a secondary con- sideration. No harm can be done by giving the Prayer Book with the Bible : much harm may be done by giving Tracts w'ith the Bible. On the other hand, much good may be done by the addition of Tracts, if they are properly chosen : and I believe there is no collection of Tracts, which upon the whole is more entitled to the approbation of the true Churchman, than the twelve volumes published by the Society for promoting Christian Knowledge 35 This Collection is arranged under the following heads ; Tracts on the Holy Scriptures, on public and private Dcvotioi » on the Catechism, on Confirmation, on Baptism, on the Holy Communion, on Christian doctrine and practice, on particular duties, against common vices, on the education and instruction of children and families, against Popery, against Enthusiasm. — Tracts against Enthusiasm are particularly useful in the present age, whatever opinion may be formed of this, or th t particular Tract. By Enthusiasm is not meant a well-tempered religious 2eal, without which no Clergyman can be e.xtensively useful. In religion we should have zc ./, and also moderation : we must only endeavour (said Sir RichaiHl Steele) to keep fire out of the one and frost out of the other. The advocates of the Bible Society, 46 But let us return to the Liturgy, and take a re* view of the several very interesting facts recorded in the preceding section, which deserve the more at- .tention, as they have a striking similarity to the events now passing before us. We have seen, that in the first place was introduced a system of gene^ ralised Protestantism, of Protestantism in the ab- who certainly avoid the extreme of frost, prefer the Tracts against Popery, which arc very excellent, and very useful, though not the only Tracts, of which we stand in need. But there is ‘pe- culiar advantage in quoting the Tracts against Popery, an advan- tage indeed of a tico-f old uatwre. For since the Church of Rome admits Tradition to be one source of authority, and the Bible another source, every true Protestant, when arguing with a Ca- tholic, must contend for the Bible alone. And as the very nature of the controversy between Catholics and Protestants excludes all consideration of the Liturgy, the Tracts against Popery by our most distinguished Divines, will supply j)assages in abun- dance, where mention is made of the Bible alone, and n» mention is made of the Liturgy. Hence the practice of the modern Bi- ble Society is apparently ]u$ti(ied by such distinguished names as Tillotson, and Seeker. But would Tillofson and Seeker in a controversy with Dissenters, h.ave approred the distribution of tfec Bible alone. Would they, would especially the latter, who wrote Lectures on the Church Catechism, have justified the neg- lect of giving the Prayer Book with the Bible ? We have already seen what Bishop Beveridge, who was a contemporary of Tillot- son, thouglit on this subject. And Tillotson himself, though bred among the Puritans, must from his ou'n knowledge of the mischiefs which arose from the neglect of the Liturg)', have been induced to abstain from recommending that neglect. He well knew, that the grand distinction between Protestant Church- men and Protestant Dissenters lies in the adoption or rejection of the Liturgy. He knew also, that the overthrow of the Church, of which he was a witness, proceeded not from Popish, but Protestant Dissenters. 4 47 filract, or of Protestantism abstracted from all pe- culiar creeds. This soon became the favourite sys- tem of the Independents. And we know, that it is a favourite system with the present advocates of the Bible Society ; for they soar into the regions of high Protestantism, till the Church of England entirely disappears. Of the generalizing system we have seen another instance in the famous Protestation, which the Puritans proposed to the Episcopalians ; for while the latter supposed, that the members of the House of Commons were protesting in favour of the Liturgy, the former, tliough using the same xcords, were protesting against it. An error, which bears some resemblance to it, is very prevalent in the modern Society, where we find protestations so very comprehensive, as not to comprehend the Li- turgy. When the Assembly of Divines was insti- tuted for the express purpose of advancing the cause of reliiiion, it was honoured withtlie names of three Bishops, and two Heads of Hoitses in Cambridge These things are worthy of notice, because it has been said, that the modern Society can never be in- jurious to the Church, because several Bishops and Heads of Houses have joined it. Further, the Assembly of Divines, when they had formed the re- I must not, however, neglect to mention, that the Marga- ret Professor was a member of this Assembly. — The names of the members are all given in the Ordinance for its appointment, printed in Scobd’s Collection, p. 42. It is remarkable, that no Heads of Houses, and no Professors at Oxford, were enrolled in this Assembly of Dkincs, 48 solution of abolishing the Liturgy, presented a pe- tition to Parliament, to abolish ilie body and practice of Popery.'" At present also a Professor of Divinity is accused of Popery, because he pleads for the Liturgy. The Assembly of Divines, even when they set aside the Liturgy, declared they had no intention to disparage our first P (formers, of whom they speak in terms of the greatest respect. In like manner, the advocates of the modej'u So- ciety profess enthusiastic regard for our Ueformers, though they think it unnecessary to distribute the work, which those Pteformers composed. The As- sembly of Divines declared, that “ the providence of God called on them for further Reformation.” Whether the modern Society will lead to further Reformation, is now the subject of in(iuiry. But there was another feature in the Assembly of Di- vines, which we may distinctly perceive in the mo- dern Society. It consisted chiefly of Calvinists; and the Calvinistic Clergy of the Church of Eng- land are generally members of the modern Society. Now a man, who adopts the doctrines of Calvin, cannot be zealously attached to our English Liturgy. A Calvinist may in many respects have a great re- gard for it: but he cannot have muchpainhi parting with it, as it abounds with passages so decisive of conditional salvation, that no ingenuity can torture them into the language of absolute de- crees Indeed we know that the English Li- 57 When our Liturgy teaches us to pray, that the rest of our life may be pure and holy so that w e may come to eternal joy that the ministers of Christ may so prepare the way, that we may 3 49 turgy wis so oft’ensive to the Calvinists of Scotland, that the very attempt to introduce it in that country produced an insurrection, which ended with the so- lemn League and Covenant, to which the English Calvinists acceded. And this \Q\'y Assembly of Di- annes declared in the Preface to the Directory, that “ the Liturgy used in the Church of England, not- “ withstanding all the pains and religious intentions “ of the compilers of it, hath proved an offence, not “ only to many of the Godly at home, but also to “ the reformed churches abroad^ Now the foreign churches, which go by the name of “ reformed “ churchesf are Calvinistic, the others being called Lutheran: and the jrersons, to whom the term “ Godly" is applied, whether in ancient or in mo- dern times, are easily understood. Lastly, let us remember, that the language holden by the Calvinists in the reign of Charles the First ex- actly corresponds with the language now holden by many of the advocates of the modern Society. For a more intolerant and more persecuting spirit was never witnessed, than is frequently displayed in their writings and speeches, as sudiciently appears from the examples only, which are quoted in this Inquiry. Tlie only diderence is in favour of the ancient ora- tors, who had the candour to declare their meaning, be funnel aicepfable in his sight ; — that we may so pass through things temporal as finally to lost not the things eternal ; — that we may so faithfully serve him in this life, tliat we fail not finally to attain his heavenly promises ; such and similar expressions it is impossible to reconcile with Calvin’s doctrine of salvation, which entirely excludes conditionality. D 50 and to exclaim without reserve, Take heed of To- “ lerationT Should it here he ashed, whether arguing from analogy, and the experience of past ages, I am ap- prehensive, that the' same measure which was finally adopted by the Assembly of Divines, will be adopted in the present age, and that a direct at- tempt will be made to abolish the Liturgy by a formal appeal to the Legislature, I would answer, that I do not suspect it. But I am not without ap- prehensions, that someth ing^miVr/r will be attempted. We know, that the Liturgy, by the laws of this country, is the Test of the Churchman ; and, that a repeal of the Test Act is a thing, which has been already attempted, and is certainly not abandoned. Since therefore the indirect mode is the most practi- cable, we have the most reason to apprehend it. And here let me ask every cool and impartial ob- server, whether any thing can be better calculated to prepare the way for a repeal of the Test Act, than the rapid progress of the modern Bible Society. In proportion as the Liturgy is disregarded, in the same proportion must the Test, which in other words is the Liturgy itself, appear unimportant. In- deed, if the Liturgy is of so little consequence, as is now represented, the Church Establishment cannot 'be worth retaining, for it is X\\q Liturgy, with its rubrics, which constitutes the service of the Church. That Dissenters should unite urderthe banners of this modern Society is not a matter of surprise. And, if they unite under its banners for the very purpose of obtaining a repeal of the Test Act, no one has a right to blame them. It is tlieir interest 51 to do so, and, if Churchmen encourage them, the Dissenters themselves are free from reproach. But beside the Dissenters, it is well known, that a con* siderable body of Churchmen are friends to a repeal of the Test Act. And, if they consider the progress of this Bible Society, as affording the means of ob- taining their favourite object, they have a two-fold advantage in view, one of which is the removal of a restriction, which they consider (whether truly or not) as impolitic and unjust. That there are Churchmen and Statesmen, who are not only desirous that the Test Act should be repealed, but consider the present progress of the British and Foreign Bible Society, as the most ef- fectual means of obtaining that repeal, can hardly admit a doubt. The speech of I\Ir. Whitbread, at the late meeting at Bedford for the formation of an Auxiliary Society, is so decisive on this subject, that further evidence is superfluous. After dw'elling wdth pleasure on the advantages of having \hc Bible alone, he said, “ he firmly hoped and believed, that in a “ time much shorter than could have been anticl- “ pated, Christians will maintain their Christian cha- “ racter and profession, wu'thout regarding the points “ of diff’erence which subsisted among them. The “ barrier from this time might be considered as “ broken down; and it should be his endeavour, to “ demolish a'nd prevent the vestine of it from beino- “ left’*.” Now the barrier between Churchmen and 5® I have copied this passage from Mr. Whitbread's Speech, as printed in the Cambridge Chronicle of December '27, 181! ; ai (', D 2 52 Dissenters, the barrier interposed Ly the law of the land, is the Test Act. What therefore can we eon* * elude, when it is said, that not a vestige of this bar- rier shall remain, than, that a repeal of the Test Act is in contemplation? And ihe progress already made toward the eft'ecting of this purpose, by the rapid advance of the Bible Society (to which we have had nothing similar, since Peter the Hermit went preaching the Crusade"^ was viewed, in such a light, that this barrier even then was represented as “ broken down.^’ And, if it was broken down by the Auxiliary Society at Bedford, what further ha- vock must have been made on this barrier by the Auxiliary Societies, now established at Colchester, at Ipswich, at Huntingdon, and in the University of Cambridge! I know indeed, that there are other Statesmen not inferior in talent to Mr. Whitbread, w'ho espouse this Society with equal zeal; and yet, when the repeal of the Test Act is proposed (as Mr. Whitbread inti- mates, and which the Dissenters are really encou- raged to attempt) will think it their duty to oppose that repeal. And, as no man would designedly en- courage what must tend to facilitate a measure, w'hich he disapprox'es, we must conclude, that every Statesman, who is desirous of I'ctaining the Test Act, and yet promotes the progress of this Society, pro- motes it without apprehending the injurious effects, to which, if the arguments already used, have any as it was inserted by order of the Bedford Committee, th« Speech so printed may he considered as an official document. • ■ \ 53 validity, it must ultimately lead. I sincerely lament, that I have the misfortune to differ upon this sub- ject with men of such distinguished abilities, and such acknowledged integrity, that this difference- alone is sufficient to excite a distrust of my own opi- nion. But I have considered the subject iu all its bearings, and perhaps with more attention, than can possibly be bestowed on it by men in high situ- ations. It is of all subjects, on which I ever un- dertook to write, the most intricate and perplexed. And, though at various times I have instituted in- le not only becomes the leading principle of the 58 whole bodi/, but gradually approves itself to the whole body. When Churchmen, who have a Li- turgy, and Dissenters who' have none, agree in form- ing a Society, which by its constitution excludes the distribution of the Liturgy, the whole Society con- forms to the principle of the Dissenters. For, though there is a principle, which is common to them all Christians, namely the distribution of the Bible, yet the principle, which is peculiar to the Clmrchman, is wholly disregarded. Hence arises that notion of generalised Protestantism, which has been lately the theme of admiration : and because the Bible only is the religion of the Protestant, they disregard all distinctions, which separate one class of Protestants from another. In this manner do Churchmen become advocates of a principle, which, if they had ever belonged to this Bible Society, they would probably have condemned. In the preceding paragraph I have estimated the tendency of this Bible Society to produce an indif- ference to the Liturgy, among Churchmen in gene- ral : and I have shewn, that the bare connexion with it is sufficient to produce the effect, even when unas- sisted by the operation of oMer causes. I have taken nothing- for granted, in respect to any peculiar doc- trines, w hich those Churchmen may espouse, who are the most zealous advocates of this Society. The arguments, which I have here used, have derived no part of their energy, from the consideration of that bias, which the principles of Calvinism may give to those Churchmen, who are members of the So- ciety. I have not argued from the practice (whe- ther real or imaginary) of Churchmen supplying the 7 59 place ofthe Liturgy with Calvinistic Tracts ; though, if it be true, that, such Tracts (or even Expo- sitions) are communicated with the Ilible, the omis- sion of the Liturgy may be more easily cxjdained. I have left this consideration to those, whose connex- ions may afford them the means of more accurate in- formation. I have here appealed to no fact what- ever ; I have deduced an inference by the sole aid of abstract reasoning. But facts may be produced, and facts incontro- vertible, which put the truth of the inference beyond a doubt. The speeches and writings, which have been lately given to the public, contain decisive evi- dence on this subject: and I sincerely rejoice, that my Address to the Senate has been the means of bringing the Advocates of the Society to a full ex- planation on this subject. The tendency of tlieir Society is now apparent. And the means of avert- ing the danger of it will be the more readily applied, in proportion as that danger is more distinctly per- ceived. It would be a waste of time to quote every sentence, in which my objection to the distribution of the Bible alone or without the Liturgy has been publicly censured. Quotations have been already given from the Letter of Mr. Vansittart, and the speeches at Cambridge : and after such authority, we need not appeal to other Letters, or other Speeches. It is sufficient to say, that my objection to the omission of the Liturgy //<7.s been condemned by the advocates of the Society ; that they have generally condemned it, wherever the Address has been noticed ; and that the most distinguished of these advocates have been the most strenuous in 60 their reproof. The FACT therefore, that the prac- tice of neglecting to give the Prayer Book with the Bible, is now justijied, and justified by Churchmen ihemsdves, is established beyond contradiction. Shall we recommend it therefore to Churchmen to become members of a Society, which not only has a tendency to bring the Liturgy into neglect, but which already as we know by experience /j/ or/wcc.y that ef- fect. If Churchmen by becoming members of it, learn \o justify the omission of the Liturgy, it can- not be supposed that they will correct that omission by supplying individually what the Society in its corporate capacity zvilhholds. If they learn to cen- sure the position, that Churchmen should not con- tent themselves with giving the it w ould be very extraordinary if they afterwards conformed to that position. And, since the vindication of the neglect in question, is sanctioned by the authority, not merely of minor orators, and minor letter-writers (whose number indeed is now considerable) but of distinguished and exalted characters, whose opinions must influence the public, it w'ould be a poor conso- lation to produce examples of churchmen, who, though members of this Society, are sensible of its defects, and endeavour to supply them by their indi- vidual exertions. For such examples would not only be exceptions to the general rule, but excep- tions to the vindication of that rule. We must ar- gue, not from single instances, but from the general character of the Society, and \is general effects. And what are those general effects, but to bring into neglect the bulwark oj the established church? When Churchmen and Dissenters unite in aSociety 61 for the distribution of the Biblealbne, even where the Church of England is established, and Churchmen conform to this regulation, because the Dissenters could not otherwise join with them, they sacrifice their ou'n principles to those of the Dissenters — If tiie operations of the Society were confined to foreign countries, the objection, which is founded on the omission of the Liturgy, would at once be removed. The Liturgy of a particular church has no concern with the distribution of Bibles, where that church is not established. But where it is established, we must either preserve the criterion and test of that establishment, or abandon the establishment altoge- ther. When Churchmen and Dissenters therefore agree to act on a principle, which excludes that cri- terion and test, and excludes it w-here the Church of England is established, an union of such parties on suck a principle, must ultimately lead to As far as I can judge, the very reason which is assigned for 720^ giving the Prayer Book with thu Bible, is a reason why Churchmen should be careful to abstain from that neglect. The more desirous the Dissenters may bi-, that the Prayer Rook should be omitted, the more desirous should Churchmen be to dhtri. lute it. But if I understand Dr. IMilner rightly, he considers the objection of the Dissenters to the Liturgy, as a reason not only why Churchmen may (mtit the Liturgy, wlien they give the Bible, but why they may omit it with safety. For he says, as the adop- tion of the Liturgy “ is not to be expected while Dissenters of “ several denominations adhere to their present system of cere- “ monies and church government, I would not represent the dislii- “ bution of the Bibte alone, as a thing that cannot be done with “ safety, unless accompanied with the Corrective of a Prayer “ Book of the Church of England.” ! 62 THE RUIN OF THAT PARTY, WHICH MAKES THE SACRIFICE. When Dissenters distribute the Bible alone, they do all that is requisite on theii' part. They have no Liturgy to distribute ; and consequently omit fiotlii/ig, which either their duty or their interest re* quires. But, when Churchmen, who have a Li- turgy, neglect to distribute it with the Bible, both duty and interest are neglefted on their part. They neglect the distribution of the book, which consti- tutes the Churchman. They make approaches there- fore to the Conventicle, while the Conventicle makes no approaches to the Church. Thus the Church is undermined, while the Conventicle remains entire. So long therefore as the British and Foreign Bible Society retains its present constitution^ I can disco- ver no other remedy for the evil, which has been the subject of this Inquiry, than, that Churchmen should withdraw from it, and transfer their contributions and their influence to that true Church of Eizgland Society, the Society for promoting Christian Know- ledge I will here take the opportunity, in reference to the preced- ing Note, of exposing one of the many misrepresentations, to which my defence of the Church has exposed me on every side. Ona of the Orators at Huntingdon, whose speech is recorded in the Cambridge Chronicle of January 10, 1812, took the liberty of informing his hearers, that there was an unnatural son of the Church, who did more than intimate “ that the circulation of the pure Word of God without note or comment endangered her, and that those Scriptures stood in need of a CORRECTIVE." Of the misrepresentation in the first part of this sentence enough 63^ VIII. I know, indeed, that Mr. Vansittart has prepared against this proposal so redoubtable a dilemma, that tlie advocates of the modern Society regard it as im- pregnable. If Churchmen withdraw themselves from the British and Foreign Bible Society, one of two consequences, says Mr. Vansittart, will inevitably follow. The Society will either cease to exist ; or, it will be conducted in future by Dissenters alone. Now I readily admit, that from those premises, one of these two consequences must follow, and there- fore that no exception can be taken to the dilemma itself. Let us next attend to the application of it, and begin of course with the^r^^ part of the alter- native. “ In the first case (says Mr. Vansittart) you would have crushed an establishment, which has done “ more for the diffusion of Christianity, than has has been said already. But as the Orator has here ascribed to me a term, which 1 have never used, and I have the charity to suppose that he did it by mistake, misled pcrha|)S by Dr. Milner’s Speech, it is necessary for me to declare, not only that I never applied to the Liturgy the term Corrective, but that I have never spoken of it in such a manner, as to warant the conclusion that I consider the Liturgy as a Corrective of the Bible, On the contrary, I represented in that very Address, which has been the subject of criticism, the Bible as the Corrective of the Liturgy, not the Liturgy as a Corrective of the Bible. See the passage quoted in Note 34, where I recommend the Liturgy on the ground that “ the doctrines^/ the Liturgy are correctly derived from the Bible.” 64 “ 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 Jifty-four\^n- “ guages. 'jfhis would indeed be putting oxiioneof “ the eyes of Britain^ — Now even were it truti that the exertions of this Society in foreign countries were entitled to the panegyric here given them by Mr. Vansittart, I should not hesitate to declare, that if its operations at home proiluce the mischief, which I have been endeavouring to shew, that mis- chief will not be compensated by a translation of the Bible into fifty-four, nor times fifty-four foreign languages. Tliat system of universal philanthropy, whether political or religious, which carries men so far in \.\\e\r general benevolence, as to find “ one of the eyes of Britain” any where but in Britain itself must in spite of that very patriotism, which I\Ir. Vansittart possesses, lead ultiraately-to the destruction, both of church and of state. I know indeed, that Anacharsis Cloots, one of the instru- ments of the French Revolution, used to style him- self the Orator of the human race, and to assert, that, a true philosopher should divest himself of the pre- judices contracted by the of birth and edu- cation ; that he should love ah countries alike; and be ready therefore to sacrifice his own to xhegood of mankind. Nor is it long, since a universal philan- thropist in this country asserted, that a father of a family should love other families as much as his o'con; and in consequence of this benevolence he left his own family without J'ood or raiment^ and, when conducted before a magistrate, persisted in re- fusing them relief. But I am not ashamed to acknow- 65 ledge, that I would rather possess the narrowness of paternal and patriotic affection, than the boasted universality, which extinguishes that affeciion. I would not starve my own children to feed the chil- dren of the stranger, though I give to the stranger what I can spare from my own. Nor would I en- danger the Church, to which I belong, for the sake of sending Bibles, however numerous, lo foreign churches, though I would gladly contribute to the latter, when it can be done with safety to the former. Even therefore, if the exertions of the Society in foreign countries were really us great, as they have been represented, I should still think the safety of our own Church required the first consideration. But since those exertions have been represented iil such splendid and dazzling colours, since they have been considered as a new propagation of the Gospel, and since the various translations, which this Society is said to have made of the Scriptures, are regarded by its advocates as divenewal of the Pentecost, when the Apostles were enabled to speak to all nations in their several languages, I have thought it proper to inquire into the foundation of these pretensions, but shall reserve that Inquiry for an Appendix, because my arguments in the present Inquiry have no de- pendence whatever on the truth or falsehood of those pretensions, though I believe that hundreds and thou- sands have subscribed to the Society in consequence of those pretensions. Now it will appear from that Appendix, that the editions of the Scriptures, already printed or caused to be printed by this Society, in languages, into which they had never been translate^. £ 66 before, so far from amounting to FIFTY-FOUR, which the ambiguity of Mr. Vansittart’s expression, aided by the splendour of his description, might in- duce men to suppose, amount to a very few more, than a tenth of that number ‘‘h It will further ap- pear, that among the translations, now preparing in India, there are several in languages, into which the Scriptures had been r/Zra/r/j/ translated. It will ap- pear, that others had previously issued from the mis- sionary press at Serampore, independently of the aid of the Society. It will also appear, that among the European languages, in which they have reprinted, or assisted in reprinting the Scriptures, some of them are spoken in countries, where the Bible is already 50 common and so cheap, that to speak of this So- ciety as being “ the means of preaching the Gospel' in tho.se countries, is really to speak in terms not suited to the subject. And to speak of Germany as Previous to the late Meeting at Ipsuich for the formation of an Auxiliary Bible Society, Mr. Clarkson inforincd the public through the channel of the Suffolk papers, that the Society had “ translated the Scriptures into no less than forty-three different “ languages or dialects.’’ See the Ipswich Journal for Novem- ber 23, IS 11. But when Mr. Clarkson's Letter was re-pub- lished in Cambridge, with a superscription alluding to my Ad- dress to the Senate (see Note 4) the learned Editor had the pre- caution to amend the text of his Author by inserting in a bracket [printed or] before the word “ translated.” Now it makes a material dift'erenec whether 7iew translations are made, or old translations reimntcd ; otherwise, we may say with equal jus- tice, that the King's Printer is “ the means of preaching the gospel" as often as he prints an English Bible. But if this is meant, men should not compare it with the day (f Pentecost. 67 wanting Bibles, which the foreign Secretary liimsel has hitherto done ; of Germany, which had printed the Scriptures in Hebrew, in Greek, in Latin, and in German, before England had printed them even in English ; oi Germany, the cradle of the Reforma- tion, the birth-place of Luther, whose translation was partly transfused into our own ; of Germany, where the Canstein Bible Institution, established a century ago, can multij)ly copies by thousands and tens of thousands ; oiGermany, where every bookseller can furnish German Bibles to any amount at a price in- ferior to fourteen English pence ; to speak of such a country as w'anting Bibles, is more than could have been expected, even from the zeal of our present advocates But since it is of no importance to the Inquiry noxo before us, w'hether the exertions of the Society in foreign countries are such, as have been repre- sented or not, I shall reserve every thing, which I have to say on that subject, for an Appendix. At present let it be granted, that this Society has printed or re-printed, the Bible in fifty-four languages, let it be granted also, that these editions have been printed by the sole exertions of this Society, let it be I am aware, that there is new in the press a Speech of tha foreign Secretary which I have been desired to see, and which gives a very differerxt account from all that had been said before-. But all the other speeches at Cambridge, which now have been printed above a month in the Cambridge Chronicle, and have re- mained uncontradicted by the authors of them, might at this rate, be new-modelled in consequence of my objections to them. Gn this subject 1 shall say more in the Appendix, E 2 08 graivted tl)at of tliem would have been printed, if this Society had not existed, let it be granted even, that these fifty-four editions are in languages, in which the Scriptures had neva' appeared before, and lastly let it be granted, that the extinction of these foreign translat}ons\\'on\d be the extinction of of the eyes of Britain," yet, with all these conces- sions, it is no necessary consequence, that this eye woidd be extinguished, if Churchmen adopted the proposal, which was made at the end of the preced- ing section. For it is not proposed, that Church- men should cease entu ely from the propagation of the Gospel in foreign parts ; it was only proposed that they should transfer their contributions and in- fluence. I proposed, that they should continue to operate, and change only the medium of operation. But it will be said, that the ancient Bible Society has not the activity of the modern one. Let tiiis be admitted. Let the inferiority of its energies be ad- mitted in any proportion you please, yet, if those energies are exerted with safety to the established church, and the energies of the modern Society are not, we had better have security at home, with dimi- nished energy abroad, than diminish our security at home, by increasing our energy abroad. If Church- men, by a transfer of their contributions, should not increase the exertions of one society in xhesarne pro- portion, as they would diminish the exertions of the other, the augmentation must at any rale be such, as to recommend itself to those, who are attached to the establishment. For a moderate increase in the influence of a Society, which is calculated to sup- port the church, must be better than a great increase 7 69 in the influence of a Society, vvliich tends to under- mme it Nor should we forget that tliere is re- spect, in wliich the ancient Bible Society is much better calculated to promote Christianity among Heathens, than the modern Society. For the latter is rather a preparatory Society; it prepares the way for the exertion of missionaries, by sappiying them with Bibles in various languages. But no missionary can be employed by the Society; for the sending of tnissionaries would be contrary to its constitution. Now the ybrwer Society not only crtw, but really doe$ employ missionaries for the propagation of the Gos- pel, and would increase their numbers, with an aug- mentation of its funds. I know indeed, that the ad- vocates of the modern Society think nothing more is requisite, for conversion to Christianity, tlian the simple operations of their own body. They think the Bible, when once distributed, whether among Mahometans or Hindoos, wliether among Tartars or Chinese, will make itsor?;« zvay, without the aid of a missionary, to explain it, and to enforce its doctrines. But as we have the authoritj-, not only of St. Paul, but of our Saviour himself, for believing that a preacher is requisite for the propagation of the Gos- pel, we may venture at least to doubt, whether the Bible, unaccompanied by a preacher, w'ill be able, as is imagined, to extirpate, either the Koran or the Chon king, either the Vedam or the Shaster. Let us now examine the other part of Mr. Van- sittart’s dilemma, namely, that if the British ai d I'oreign Bible Society is continued at all, after Churchmen have withdrawn from it, the honour of 70 conducting It will be left entirely to the Dis- senters. And here exclaims Mr. Vansittart, “ Shall “ it be said, that the Dissenters alone have car- ried the Word of God to every nation under “ heaven?" — Certainly not: nor does itatallfollovy from rny proposal, which consists not in abstaining from action, but in action through another medium. Here Mr. Vansittart asks; “ Can the Church of ■“ England stand so secure upon a narrozo and exclui “ sive policy, as by deserving the blessings, and unit- “ ing the prayers of all people, nations, and laiir “ guages ?” Now to speak of “ all people, nations, “ and languages,” or (in the words of the former quotation) of “ every nation under heaven,” as con- ferring a blessing on the modern Society, is really to speak in terms, with which tfieir exertions, however great, can never be commensurate. And with re- spect to the narrozo policy of Churchmen and Dis- senters acting in separate Societies for the propaga- tion of the Gospel, I should think, that, if their (how greatly soever it might raise their powers of ac- tion above the sum of their separate operations) yet contributed by its operation at home to endanger our own establishment, neither the wishes nor the praises of foreign nations would be sufficient to avert that danger. But Mr. Vansittart seems to think, that the danger would be increased, if Churchmen novv withdrew, and left the Society in possession of the Dissenters. This is certainly a question of great importance: for there are many Churchmen, who are aware of the dangers of this Society, and who would not have be- 71 come members of it when establislied, }’et are of opinion, that it is noxo the best policy to join it. l.et us consider therefore with attention what Mr. Vansittart says on this sul)ject. Speaking of the se- cond part of the alternative he says, “ The dissenting “ interest making up for these losses (namely from “ the secession of the Churchmen) by more extensive “ sacrifices, and an increase of zeal and activity, and “ availing itself of the assistance of the foreign So- “ cieties already formed, would carry on the Institu- “ tion in nearly the same manner as before.” Now in this case we should have a Society of Dissenters on the one hand, and a Society of Churchmen on the other, both endeavouring to propagate the Gospel, yet acting on that exclusive policy, on which Mr. Vansittart asks whether the Church of England can ■“ stand so secure” In the first place, let us ex- amine what accession of strength (that is of political strength according to the present argument) the Dis- senters would derive from being left in possession of the foreign societies already formed. I have care- fully examined the Reports of the Society, but I do not find that a)iy one of their foreign auxiliary so- cieties (though Mr. Dealtry also attaches the same im- portance to them^*) have ever contributed to the pa- rent Society. On the contrary, they are in the ha- bit of contributions: they from the parent Institution a portion of those supplies, which 4* Alluding to the case of a separation on the part of Churcli- men he says the Dissenters “ would probably retain the co-ope- “ ration of the continental Societies.” 72 are afforded by the auxiliary Societies at home. Its power therefore, as a political engine, is not in- creased, but diminished by the foreign Societies. And since their attachment depends on the supplies, which they receive, they would be ready to transfer their allegiance to any other Society, which had equal means of supplying their demands. Nay, a hundred such Societies might be instantly formed, by only giving notice, that such formation would be followed by pecuniary assistance. And with respect to an “ increase of zeal and activity” on the part pf the Dissenters, if Churchmen seceded from the Society, there would be infinitely less to apprehend from it, than from the present union of Churchmen and Dissenters in the distribution of Bibles, without the Liturgy, at home. If Churchmen in general re- solved to act by themselves in the distribution of Bi- bles and Prana' Books, and Dissenters formed anor ther Society for the distribution of Bibles alone, agreeably to their respective religious opinions, the two Societies might act, without mutual bitterness, and without an encroachment on each other’s rights. Surely harmony may be preserved, without requiring that one party shall sacrifice to the other. Nor can such a sacrifice be necessary, for the purpose of con- ducting their operations abroad, The competition which might ensue, would be a competition for good : and, as each party would retain the full possession of itsoavr doctrine and discipline, there would be no drawback on either side, to interrupt the harmony of their proceedings. I agree with Mr. Vansittart (and here also with Dr. Milner) that the co-opera- tion of Churchmen and Dissenters “ so far as they 73 can consciet7iiousIy co-operate,” is the best mode of lessenim: the evils of dissent. But when Church- men and Dissenters co-operate in the oynission of the Liturgy, which is the Bulwark of the Established Church, it is a co-operation, in which I must de- clare for myself that as a Churchman, I cannot conscientiously join. And with respect to the dangci', for which such union is supposed a remedy, though I very clearly perceive, that a Society of Dissenters, professedly formed for the advancement of religion, may easily become a political engine, yet I cannot subscribe to the opinion of those, who think that the dissent^ ing interest of the Society in question will receive the most effectual check from the presence and co- operation of Churchmen, The most effectual bar- rier against the rising power of the Dissentere would be a general union of Churchmen with Churchmen^ all acting on a common principle, and that princi- ple, the principle of the Established Chuj'ch. But the remedy ?iow applied, in the co-operation of Churchmen with Dissenters, though it is considered as effectual, is really worse than the disease. While it provides against evil, it creates a pre- sent one : in the hope of preventing political mis- chief, it undermines the established religion ; with- out receiving the smallest compensation, it surren- ders the interest of the Church, by bringing Church- men and Dissenters to act upon a common princi- ple, which excludes what is essential to the Church. Thus the strength of the establishment, instead of being retained within i\.^ own channel, for its mn 74 preservation, is not only diverted to another chan- nel, but turns the current against iisslf, . IX. I.- indeeil the Society would consent to change its constitution, to become only a Society for send- ing Bibles abroad, and leave to o/Z/er Societies, whe- ther of Churchmen or of Dissenters, to provide tlie poor of this country, either with Bibles and Prayer Books, or with Bibles alone, according to their res- pective tenets, the arguments, which have been used in this Inquiry, which apply only to \\.s present constitution, and its home department, vrould be obviated at once, as I have already declared, and already explained in the last paragraph of the fourth Section. If the common principle, on which the Society now acts, were so far altered, whether absolutely or relatively, as to render it equally be- neficial to both parties, the equality, which is ob- served in the government of the Society, would be- come equally fair for both parties. If such an al- teraiion were made in its mode of operation, as to restrict it to countries, where the pre-eminence of our own church, which it is necessary to preserve dt home, had no possible concern, such an altera- tion would render the common principle of action equally beneficial to both parties, and remove the injurious effects, which 7iow arise from placing them on the same level in respect to the government of the Society, while the terms, on which they act, are not terms of reciprocity. In a Society therefore 75 composed of Churchmen and Dissenters for the sole purpose of circulating the Scriptures in /o/'t/o-M countries, I would readily and heartily partake. I know indeed that Dr. Milner, while ho held in his hand my Address to the Senate, took the liberty of declaring “The principles of the learned author, I say agaifi seem to me to have nothing to do with Dissenters in any concern, which is connected with religion.'' I am aware also, that he almost imme- diately added in commendation of himself, that he did not “ dread the Dissenters, as if they were in- fected with a CONTAGION.” I am aware also, that Mr. Dealtry has the same insinuation with Dr. jVIilner. For though he neither produced my Ad- dress to the Senate, nor named the Author of it, yet he so clearly alluded both to the one and to the other, that no one of the whole audience could be mistaken, in applying his remarks to we, especially, as among the persons who disapprove of the So- ciety, 1 was the only one, who was mentioned on that day, and my Address was the subject of re- mark from the xcry opening of their proceed- ings. Now, says Mr. Dealtry, “The counsel of “ those gentlemen who are hostile to the Bible So- “ ciety, and who recommend us to desert it, appear “ to me not a little extraordinary. They advise the “ Dissenters to have their own institution upon a ** Dr. Miln«r had 'previously said, “ There appears to me in “ their minds, a corner, in which resides o. rooted aversion io o.\\y “ connexion in religious concerns with Christians of any deno- “ minatioD, if they dissent from the established church.” 76 ** similar basis, but would keep us from the COX- “TAGIOX.” — Here let me appeal to the public, to determine, whether the respectful manner, in which I spake of the Dissenters, as well in the Ser- mon at St. Paul’s, as in the Address to the Senate, whether the sentiments of religious liberty, which I have proclaimed in both, ought not to have secured me from a term of reproach, which though appa- rently indirect in its application, could uot fail to be applied to me, could not fail therefore to excite the indignation of every Dissenter who heard it, and the indignation of every Dissenter who reads it, as if I regarded their intercourse as contagious. I leave the public to determine, whether I have deserved such treatment from Churchmen and Clergymen^ w'ho derive both their consequence and their support from that very establishment, wliich, whether mis- takenly or not, I was labouring to defend. 1 will leave the public to judge of ihechristian spirit, which animates my opponents, while they are professing a regard for the propagation of the Gospel. But I w'ill declare for myself, and declare it both to Dr. Milner and IMr. Dealtry, that I fear no contagion from the Dissenters. Indeed I know of none. There are many, and very many among them, for whom, as individuals, I have the highest respect. I would as- sociate w ith them even for religious purposes, as far as ray duty allowed me : and if I went beyond that line, I am sure the Dissenters themselves would not applaud me. And were it necessary, I could appeal to dissenting families in this town, who themselves would bear witness, that, so far from dreading a contagion from their intercourse, I freely communicate the con- 77 tributiohs which 1 can spare, without tlie smallest re-^ gard to religious distinctioji. I hope the reader will pardon this digression on a subject, which is merely personal : but as my adversaries have gone out of tlieir way to asperse my character, I may take the same liberty, in order to defend it.'^' Having once digressed, I will take the opportunity of no- ticing some other passages in Wr. Dealtry’s Speech, which I at first intended to pass over, because his allusions to my Address had been, for the 7«0A'f part, anticipated by other Speakers and Writers. But as the very circumstance, that an argument has been used by ilr. Dealtry, is regarded by many as a presumption in its favour, and this presumption is heightened by the author’s confidence in himself, and his contempt of his adversaries, I will take a cursory view of the passages relating to the present sub- ject. Mr. Dealtry asks, “ Does the dispersion of the Scriptures “ tend to ruin the Church r” This question has been already an- swered to satiety. — He observes, “ We have retained every syl- lable of our Liturgy, our Articles and Homilies,” It is true, that the Liturgy is still retained: but if Churchmen justify the. omission of it Avhen they distribute Bibles to the poor, and even censure those, who complain of that omission, they are certainly on the road, which leads to the rejection of it. — Mr. Dealtry again exclaims, “ Ruin the church ? Where then is the discretion of our Archbishops and Bishops, &c. &c. who have supported the Bible Society?” Now a man may be discrete, and yet mistaken. Even Bishops may sometimes err. And Mr. Dealtry, who is so anxious to bethought a genuine Protestant, must be careful not to push this argument ?ooy«/' : for whoever makes a Bishop in- fallible, adopts a tenet of Popery. — But he considers the distri- bution of xho authorised version by this Society as an argument for the security of the Church ; and asks, in the event ofChurchmen withdrawing from it, “ luhat security we should then have for the purity of the versions distributed throughout the United King- dom ?” Now Churchmen would have the same .security, as they have had, since the Legislature has forbidden the printing 78 To return however to an Association of Church-* men and Dissenters, for the purpose of distributing Ihbles abroad, I again declare, that such an Asso- ciation would be entitled to the approbation of every Churchman. On the one hand, the general cause of Christianity would be promoted, while, on the of the authorised xersion unaccompanied witli a comment, except in the two Universities, and by the King's Printer: and the Bible Society itself can obtain their copies of it from no other than these three sources. And with respect to other versions, it is not in tlie ;wzrer, either of tliis or of ««// Society, to prevent their being made and distributed. But the Dissenters in general, if we ex- •Cejit only the Socinians (who in spite of the Bible Society have a »ca; version in extensive, circulation) have no fnc/i«af/oa to alter the text of the authorized version. Nor had they in the time of Charles the First. They are fully satisfied with expounding the present text; and against fake exposition (the danger of which the Society itself admits by the credit which they take for giving it uithout a comment) they neglect to provide, since they omit the Liturgy. They neglect therefore to provide for the real danger^ But says Mr. Dealtry, (who spake immediately after Dr. Milner, whose speech was a comment on ray Address) “ Let us never “ forget, that the Scriptures, ybr the distribution of which we are r-THUS publicly arraigned, are the Word of the Most High." Now under the circumstances already described (and more might be added in corroboration) Mr. Dealtry himself will not pretend, that he meant not to allude to me. I challenge him therefore, to produce the passage, in which 1 have arraigned, either him or any one, for the distribution of the Scriptures. If Mr. Dealtry examined my Address to the Senate, before he ventured to con- detnn it, he must have known, that at the very beginning of it I re|)resented the distribution of the Scriptures as a “ VERY LAUDABLE OBJECT he must have known, that I objected solely to THE OMISSION OF THE LITURGY ; he must have known therefore, when he declared he was arraigned for the distribution of the Scriptures, that what he declared was contrerf 8 79 other hand, our own Church, wiiich no consideration should induce us to neglect, would he left ufiuyured. Here then is the true line, which should guide the conduct of the Churchman. He may thus obtain tiie full benefit derived from the operations of the Society abroudi and obtain it ivithout injury at home. Na3^ this benefit would be increased, if the funds of the Society, were employed in the circulation of the Scriptures \\\ foreign parts. to fact. Oil the one haiui, if he had not read my Address to the Senate, he took tiie liberty of laying a very heavy charge to a Professor of Divinity, at a public meeting witlitn the precincts of his own University, at a public meeting composed chiefly of j/oung men of that University, of young men who attend that Professsor’s Lectures, and of laying this heavy charge, with the consciousness of having no foundation for it. — If, instead of appealing to the Address, or to the Sermon at St. Paul’s, from which the senti- ments in the Address were borrowed, appeal is made to a printed paper, which Dr. Clarke produced at the public meet*' ing, and of which I acknowledge myself the author, (see the second line of Note 11, where I allude to it) that printed paper again contains the same sentiments, which had been advanced in the Sermon. The very first sentence is, “ Whereas it has been “ insinuated, that they, who object to the modern Bible Society, “ object to the distribution of the Bible, it is necessaiy to reply, “ that their objection is NOT to the distribution of the Bible, “ BUT to the distribution of the Bible alone.” And in order to explain what is meant by the objection to the distribution of the Bible alone, is added ; “ If to the distribution of the Bible, “ which the two Societies have in common, were added the dis- “ tribution of the Liturgy, which distinguishes the ancient Bible “ Society, and distinguishes the Churchman, the chief objection “ to the modern Bible Society would be removed." This remark is perfectly consonant with all that has been said in the present Inquiry, and shews, that I have been always consistent in ob- jecting NOT to the distribution of the Bible, BUT solely to the •mission of thi Liturgy. 80 If then a regard for the distribution of the Scriptures is the sole motive, which induces men to partake of this Society, and it is their earnest wish to pursue that object in such a manner, as to secure the esta- blished churchy why, it may be asked, should the Society refuse to change its constitution, in such a manner, as would answer both of those purposes, and render unnecessary the secession above proposed ? Yet I hardly expect, that this change of constitu- tion will be made. The Society, in its present form,* has advantages, which not every member will aban- don. Though its splendour is derived from the operations abroad, its influence depends on the ope- i rations at home. It there provides for temporal^ as well as spiritual wants. It gives power to* the dis- senter, popularity to the churchman, and interest to the politician, which is useful at all times, and espe- cially at the approach of a general election. Cambridge f 23 January, 1812. The iatendfcd Appeadix, relative to the Society’s foreign department, will be published separately. l.m%t and Cilbert, Printen, St, John's S