former Letter, I shall say nothing at present. With respect to the latter, I must first observe, that you do the members of the Church of England, who belong to the Bible Society, great injustice, if you suspect them of any want of regard to the Liturgy. We acknowledge its lawful authority, we venerate its piety, we admire its beauty, we recommend its use by our example, our influence, and distribution; we all adhere to its forms in the public service of the Church, and many of us in our own families.

On this point it is easy to have satisfactory proof. Many, of us are also members of the Society for promoting Christian Knowledge. Let it be examined, whether, in our application to that Society for books, there is a smaller proportion of Prayer-books than in those of its other members, who do not belong to the Bible Society. To the disregard to the Liturgy, which you suppose to have been produced by the Bible Society, if real, the Reports of the Society for promoting Christian Knowledge must bear conclusive evidence. We shall, in that case, find that during the growth of the Bible Society, the demand for Prayer-books for distribution has been gradually lessening. But what is the fact? The number of Prayer-books delivered by the Society for promoting Christian Knowledge, to its members on an average of the three years immediately previous to the institution of the Bible Society (viz. 1802-3-4), was 13,546; the average of the last three years was 19,815, being an increase of more than one half. I am informed also, that the ordinary sale of Prayer-books has greatly increased in the same period. So much for the disregard of the Liturgy, produced by the Bible Society.

But we do not refuse to associate with those who may object to the Liturgy, for the purpose of diffusing the knowledge of those Scriptures, which they, as well as we, acknowledge to be the sole fountains of religious truth.

VOL. I.

No. I.

L

We venerate the Liturgy, as one of the most valuable and important of human compositions; but when attempts are made to place it on a level with the Bible-to assert that the Bible cannot safely be circulated without it, we are obliged to confess, that the difference is no less than between divine perfection, and human frailty.

Such a claim of equality with the Bible, the venerable and holy men who compiled our Liturgy would have disclaimed with horror. There is no point on which they more firmly insist than upon the complete and absolute sufficiency of the Scriptures, in matters of faith: this is indeed the very basis of the Reformation; while the au-thority of the Church in points of doctrine is no less avowedly the foundation of Popery.

The danger of the perversion of Scripture, on, which you so much insist, is the very argument used by the Papists in defence of the denial of the Bible to the laity. And indeed, to such a length do you carry your argument,' that I do not know what answer you could give to a Catholic Doctor who should justify the practice of his church by your authority.

But should we, by adopting the Liturgy as an infallible exposition of Scripture, gain the point of uniformity of doctrine? By no means-You contend that it is impossible to reconcile the language of the Liturgy with CALVIN's doctrine. But other men, whose sincerity, piety, and learning are indisputable, contend that the Liturgy and the Articles cannot be understood in any other than a Calvinistic sense. My opinion would be of no weight in deciding such a question between you; but I should be sorry not to embrace, as faithful and genuine sons of the Church

1 Page 104 and 110.

2

* Page 124, note.

to which I belong, many who hold each of these contradictory opinions.

With reference to this point of the sufficiency of Scripture, I cited the words of Chillingworth, as one of the ablest advocates of the Protestant cause; but to Chillingworth you think fit to object: and it seems to me unnecessary to examine the validity of your objections, because I can support my argument by an authority from which you cannot appeal, namely that of the Church of England itself, speaking in the Homilies.

"There is no truth nor doctrine," says the first Homily (on reading the Scriptures,) "necessary for our justification and everlasting salvation, but that is, or may be, drawn out of that fountain and well of truth."

"If it shall require to teach any truth, or reprove false doctrine; to rebuke any vice, to commend any virtue, to give good counsel, to comfort, or exhort, or to do any thing requisite for our salvation; all these things (saith St. Chrysostom) we may learn plentifully of the Scripture."

"If to know God aright," says the twenty-second Homily, "be an occasion of evil, then we must needs grant that the learning and reading of the Holy Scriptures is the cause of heresy, carnal liberty, and the subversion of good orders. But the knowledge of God and of ourselves, is so far from being an occasion of evil, that it is the readiest, yea, the only means to bridle carnal liberty, and to kill all our fleshly affections. And the ordinary way to attain this knowledge, is with diligence to hear and read the Holy Scriptures. For the whole Scriptures, saith St. Paul, were given by the inspiration of God. And shall we Christian men think to learn the knowledge of God and of ourselves in any earthly man's work or writing, sooner or better than in the Holy Scriptures written by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost? If we desire the knowledge of heavenly

wisdom, why had we rather learn the same of man than of God himself, who, as St. James saith, is the Giver of wisdom? Yet why will we not learn it at Christ's own mouth, who promising to be present with the Church to the world's end, doth perform his promise; in that he is not only with us by his grace and tender pity, but also in this, that he speaketh presently unto us in the Holy Scriptures, to the great and endless comfort of all them that have any feeling of God at all in them."

Could the men by whom such passages as these were written have foreseen, that in the Church which they founded it would be considered as an offence to distribute the Bible unaccompanied by any human work?

Could they, humble as they were pious, have been supposed to claim on behalf of their own writings an equality with those Scriptures by which they were guided, and for which some of them laid down their lives?

Yet this claim of equality is all which the members of the Bible Society, who belong to the Church of England, deny. They stand on the line of demarcation which separates the Papist from the Protestant. They assert the wide distinction between the authority of an infallible and of a fallible church-but do they forsake the Church where the Liturgy is used? Do they countenance the disregard of it in others? The very contrary is the fact; and on this point they are willing to stake the issue of the question.

Nor can it be doubted that the association of a large proportion of Churchmen in the Bible Society, must tend to render the Dissenters less adverse to the Liturgy. They must learn to respect what they know to be held in veneration by men whom they esteem.

But in proportion as their good-will to the Liturgy is now conciliated by the habit of acting in co-operation with

Churchmen, must any prejudices they may entertain respecting it be inflamed by such a secession of the Churchmen from the Society as you recommend.

Nor can I think it clear, that the Society, by such a secession, would be so reduced in numbers and influence as to become inconsiderable. The union has been formed, the machine is organized, and it might continue to work.

The Dissenters, by being left in the sole possession of the Society, might obtain a large accession of influence and reputation. The Foreign Societies would, as I have observed, naturally adhere to them. The efforts of these Societies you value at a very low rate upon this sole ground, that they have received pecuniary assistance from the British Society, instead of contributing to it. Supposing this to be the case with respect to all the Foreign Societies, it would only follow, that you estimate the strength of a Society by no other criterion than its pecuniary means. You count for nothing the zeal and activity of these Societies, though you usually represent the zeal and activity of the Dissenters as sufficiently formidable. You overlook the gratitude and attachment of so many individuals, many of whom are in distinguished stations; and the approbation and countenance of several sovereigns. The Emperor of Russia, the late and the present King of Sweden, and the King of Prussia, have distinctly expressed their approbation of the proceedings of the Society. Would you, with the views you entertain of the spirit and designs of the Dissenters, think it wise or safe to leave such a correspondence entirely in their hands? And what opinion do you think would be formed abroad of the liberality and judgment of the Church of England in rejecting and renouncing such an instrument of general