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 things, 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 doctrine should be received as an article of Faith, which is not contained in the Bible. But have not Christians of every age and nation been at variance on the question, what doctrines are contained in the Bible? If you ask a Trinitarian why he receives the doctrine of the Trinity, he will answer, Because it is contained in the Bible. If you ask a Unitarian, why he rejects that doctrine, he will answer that it is not contained in the Bible. On the authority of the Bible, the Church of England admits only two Sacraments in opposition to the Church of Rome, while the Quakers, in opposition to the Church of England, 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 reverence due from every Christian to the institutor of that holy rite, at whose name, it is declared in scripture that "every knee should bow." If you ask a Presbyterian, he will answer with the same authority before him, that kneeling at the sacrament is an act of idolatry.

Put then a Bible alone into the hands of the illiterate, and leave them to their own judgment, without 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 consistently 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-minded Churchman really believe, that by putting the Bible, under the circumstances above described, into the hands of the illiterate, they will secure them from the seductions of false interpretation, and the consequent defection from the established church? I 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, I should hope that it would produce a more general acknowledgment 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 only, is the religion of the Protestant: it is the sole basis of the Church of England, 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 for which I contend, notwithstanding some late insinuations to the contrary. Equally true is the general 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 Augsburgh? Have we not both Arminian and Calvinistic Protestants? Are not the Moravians, the Methodists, the Baptists, the Quakers, and even the Jumpers, the Dunkers, and Swedenborgians, all Protestants?

This is part of a Letter, which was originally a private communication to me from the Right Hon. N. Vansittart, containing 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 additional 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 acknowledgments for the candor and liberality, which pervades 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.

Since, therefore, Protestantism assumes so many different forms, men speak quite indefinitively, if they speak of it without explaining the particular kind, which they mean. When I hear of a Swedish or a Danish Protestant (namely, one who belongs to the church established in those countries) 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 England, is a person whose religion is the Bible only, but the Bible as expounded in the Liturgy and Articles. How, therefore, can we know, if we give 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 we withhold that formulary, and thus expose men to the danger of coming to conclusions, which we must consistently believe to be false? I should be as sorry, as Mr. Vansittart to think that the study of the Scriptures should lead to a disregard of our Liturgy. And I should

' Hence it is, that, by the laws of this country, a Churchman never qualifies, by declaring his assent only to the Bible. This general assent is admitted only from Protestant Dissenters, when they apply for a licence to preach. All that is necessary to be ascertained in respect of them, is, that they are Protestants, but not of the Church of England. What kind of Protestants, in other respects, they may be, the legislature does not inquire, and is therefore satisfied with the general declaration of their assent to the Bible. But when a Churchman qualifies, he qualifies as a Protestant of a particular 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 Churchman. The Clergy are 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, whether in orders or not, is bound, 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 reasons, every Schoolmaster is required to make the same declaration. And even they who qualify for civil offices, are required, under a similar penalty, not only to attend the public service of the Church, 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 prescribed in the Book of Common Prayer.

equally rejoice, if that study led all men to the same conclusions, as it led our English Reformers. But where is the use of rejoicing at an expectation which we know can never be realized? If the devout study of the Bible necessarily led to an approbation of the Liturgy, why is it still rejected by the Dissenters? And how are men to know what the excellences of the Liturgy 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 were true, that the study of the Bible, unaccompanied by the Liturgy, would lead all men to the same conclusions as it led our English Reformers, there can surely be no objection to put into their hauds, at the same time with the Bible, a book which will lead them to those conclusions at once.' But since we know by experience, that the study of the Bible does not lead all men to the same conclusions, or there would not be so many Protestants who differ from the established church, may it not be said without reproach, that Churchmen should not content themselves with the distribution of the Bible alone?

III.

But, says Dr. 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 “Latimer, and Ridley, and Chillingworth, have thought or said, had

they lived unto this day to bear testimony to such a declaration ?” What Chillingworth would have said shall be examined hereafter.

"The "Member of the established Church" already quoted in Note 1, p. 103, asks, indeed, whether uniformity of doctrine really is promoted by accompanying the Bible with the Liturgy? Perhaps not so completely as might be wished. But is this a reason for omitting the Liturgy when we give a Bible? Because it fails in some cases to do the good intended, shall we neglect it in all? If, even with the Liturgy, the effect is incomplete, what must be the case without it? I take the present opportunity of informing this anonymous writer, who plainly shews to what party he belongs, when he speaks of the Bishop of Lincoln contradicting the doctrines of the Church, that though he had full liberty to examine my 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 honor either to himself or to the Society which he defends. When the argumentum ad contumeliam is wanted, one may always suspect a deficiency of the argumentum ad judicium.

But it requires no examination to discover, what Latimer and Ridley, what Cranmer 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 distribution of a Book, which they composed, and which contains the doctrines for which they died? It is not the distribution of the Bible to the poor and illiterate, (the only objects of gratuitous distribution) which exposes men to the danger of being seduced from the established faith, and is consequently injurious to the welfare of the Church; the danger arises from the neglect to give them also the Liturgy. And it is a gross perversion of my meaning, to ascribe to the presence of the former, what I ascribe only to the absence of the latter.' But the objection would be less popular, if they directly denied the utility of the Prayer Book. I can make great allowance for the effervescence produced by an ardent desire to become a genuine Protestant. But let not men suppose that they become better Protestants by becoming worse Churchmen. Let them not suppose that, because the Bible contains all things which are necessary for salvation, they do all things which are wanted on their parts, if they give not the Liturgy in aid of religious instruction. Men who entertain this notion, entertain it not in conformity, as they suppose, with the conduct of our Reformers, but in direct opposition to their conduct.

When our Reformers contended, and properly contended, for the Bible alone, they contended in opposition to those other sources of

In a similar strain, the anonymous writer above quoted from the Shrewsbury Chronicle exclaims, "What, the Bible knock down the Church!"-No. It is not the Bible, that (in the elegant language of this writer) will knock down the Church; but the Church will be undermined if we neglect the Liturgy. Without the Liturgy, we cease to be Churchmen, and become Dissenters. We give up the very book which makes us Churchmen. If, by the term "Church," men understand the universal Church, or the whole body of Christians dispersed throughout the world, it is true that our Liturgy is not necessary for its support. Whatever be the form, under which Christianity is professed, it still belongs to the universal church. But when we speak of a particular church, as the church of England, that particular church must have something to distinguish it, beside that which is common to all churches. That our legislators are of this opinion is evident from Note p. 107. 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 overtura the latter, they forbad the use of the former even in private.