matter of approbation, till at length the apology must be made by those, who contend for its union with the Liturgy. Such is the consequence of this boasted union between Churchmen and Dissenters. When men of different religious principles are accustomed to act in concert, and to act on the principle of one party, that principle not only becomes the leading principle of the whole body, but gradually approves itself to the whole body. When Churchmen, who have a Liturgy, and Dissenters who have none, agree in forming a Society, which by its constitution excludes the distribution of the Liturgy, the whole Society conforms to the principle of the DissenFor, though there is a principle, which is common to them all as Christians, namely, the distribution of the Bible, yet the principle, which is peculiar to the Churchman, 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 never belonged to this Bible Society, they would probably have condemned.

ters.

In the preceding paragraph I have estimated the tendency of this Bible Society to produce an indifference to the Liturgy, among Churchmen in general: and I have shown that the bare connexion with it is sufficient to produce the effect, even when unassisted by the operation of other causes. I have taken nothing for granted, in respect to any peculiar doctrines, which 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 Society. I have not argued from the practice (whether real or imaginary) of Churchmen supplying the place of the Liturgy with Calvinistic Tracts: though, if it be true, that, such Tracts (or even verbal Expositions) are communicated with the Bible, the omission of the Liturgy may be more easily explained. I have left this consideration to those, whose connexions may afford them the means of more accurate information. I have here appealed to no fact whatever: I have deduced an inference by the sole aid of abstract reasoning.

But facts may be produced, and facts incontrovertible, which put the truth of the inference beyond a doubt. The speeches and writings, which have been lately given to the public, contain decisive evidence 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 explanation on this subject. The tendency of their Society is now apparent. And the means of averting the danger of it will be the more readily applied, in proportion as that danger is more distinctly perceived. 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 has 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 their reproof. The FACT therefore, that the practice of neglecting to give the Prayer Book with the Bible, is now justified, and justified by Churchmen themselves, 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, produces that effect? If Churchmen, by becoming members of it, learn to justify the omission of the Liturgy, it cannot be supposed that they will correct that omission, by supplying, individually, what the Society in its corporate capacity withholds. If they learn to censure the position, that Churchmen should not content themselves with giving the Bible alone, it would 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 would be a poor consolation to produce examples of churchmen, who, though members of this Society, are sensible of its defects, and endeavour

to supply them by their individual exertions. For such examples would not only be exceptions to the general rule, but exceptions to the vindication of that rule. We must argue, not from single instances, but from the general character of the Society, and its general effects.

And what are those general effects, but to bring into neglect the bulwark of the established church? When Churchmen and Dissenters unite in a society for the distribution of the Bible alone, even where the Church of England is established, and Churchme conform to this regulation, because the Dissenters could not otherwise join with them, they sacrifice their own principles to those of the Dissenters.-If the 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 altogether. When Churchmen and Dissenters therefore agree to act on a principle, which excludes that criterion and test, and excludes it where the Church of England is established, an union of such parties on such a principle, must ultimately lead to THE RUIN OF THAT PARTY, WHICH MAKES THE SACRIFICE.

When Dissenters distribute the Bible alone, they do all that is requisite on their part. They have no Liturgy to distribute; and consequently omit nothing, which either their duty or their interest requires. But, when Churchmen, who have a Liturgy, neglect

As far as I can judge, the very reason which is assigned for not giving the Prayer Book with the Bible, is a reason why Churchmen should be careful to abstain from that neglect. The more desirous the Dissenters may be, that the Prayer Book should be omitted, the more desirous should Churchmen be to distribute it. But if I understand Dr. Milner rightly, he considers the objection of the Dissenters to the Liturgy, as a reason not only why Churchmen may omit the Liturgy, when they give the Bible, but why they may omit it with safety. For he says, as the adoption of the Liturgy "is not to be expected while Dissenters of several denominations adhere to their present system of ceremonies and church government, I would not represent the distribution of the Bible alone, as a thing that cannot be done with sufety, unless accompanied with the Corrective of a Prayer Book of the Church of England."

to distribute it with the Bible, both duty and interest are neglected on their part. They neglect the distribution of the book, which constitutes the Churchman. They make approaches therefore 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 discover 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 England Society, the Society for promoting Christian Knowledge."

VIII.

I know, indeed, that Mr. Vansittart has prepared against this proposal so redoubtable a dilemma, that the advocates of the modern Society regard it as impregnable. 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

'I will here take the opportunity, in reference to the preceding Note, of exposing one of the many misrepresentations, to which my Defence of the Church has exposed me on every side. One 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 has been said already. But as the Orator has here ascribed to me a term, which I have never used, and I have the charity to suppose that he did it by mistake, misled perhaps 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 warrant 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, p. 126, where I recommend the Liturgy on the ground that “ the doctrines of the Liturgy are correctly derived from the Bible.”

future by Dissenters alone. premises, one of these two consequences must follow, and therefore 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 first part of the alternative.

Now I readily admit that from those

would have crushed diffusion of Chris

"In the first case (says Mr. Vansittart) you an establishment, which has done more for the tianity, than has 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 fifty-four languages. This would indeed be putting out one of the eyes of Britain."-Now even were it true, 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 produce the mischief, which I have been endeavouring to show, that mischief will not be compensated by a translation of the Bible into fifty-four, nor ten-times fifty-four foreign languages. That system of universal philanthropy, whether political or religious, which carries men so far in their 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 Mr. Vansittart himself possesses, lead ultimately to the destruction, both of church and of state. I know, indeed, that Anacharsis Cloots, one of the instruments of the French Revolution, used to style himself the Orator of the human race, and to assert that a true philosopher should divest himself of the prejudices contracted by the accidents of birth and education; that he should love all countries alike; and be ready therefore to sacrifice his own good to the good of mankind. Nor is it long, since a universal philanthropist in this country asserted, that a father of a family should love other families as much as his own; and in consequence of this extensive benevolence, he left his own family without food or raiment, and when conducted before a magisrate, persisted in refusing them relief. But I am not ashamed to acknowledge that I would rather possess the narrowness of paternal and patriotic affection, than the boasted universality, which extinguishes that affection. I would not starve my own children to feed the children of the stranger, though I give to the stranger what I can spare from my own. Nor would I endanger the Church,

1