trivial or important. With the Bible in their mouths, they overturned both the altar and the throne. But they had the Bible alone, or unaccompanied with the Liturgy: they expounded, 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.

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 by 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 warm,
About the sacred viands, buz and swarm.
The fly-blown text creates a crawling brood,

And turns to maggots what was meant for food.

A thousand daily sects 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.'

1

1 Dryden's Religio Laici. V. 405-424.-By way of contrast, not only with Bishop Beveridge, but even with the Calvinistic Divines above quoted, I will add a passage from Dr. Milner's Speech, which he introduced almost immediately after his censure of my position, that the Liturgy should accompany the Bible. "It is my firm belief, that if Dissenters of all denominations, by no means excluding Roman Catholics, or the members of our own communion, did but read and study their Bibles more constantly, and with more devout care and application, and with more of a direct view to improve the heart and correct the practice, Christians of every denomination, without exception, would approach much nearer to one another than they now do, would actually coincide, or nearly so, in most essentials, &c." Surely, Dr. Milner, with his knowledge of ecclesiastical history, a knowledge, which he himself proclaimed in his own speech, could not be ignorant, that even in the essentials of Christianity, very different conclusions have been drawn from the Bible, and by men, of whom it would be very unjust to say that they had not studied it devoutly. There is, however, one method of producing uniformity of sentiment among those, to whom Bibles are distributed, even if they receive not the Prayer Book, and that is, by the addition of Tracts.

VI.

I have thus shown, as well from history as from argument, that the Liturgy is essential to the welfare of the established church; and that in proportion, as the former is disregarded, in the same proportion 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

If for instance, they, who withhold the Liturgy, accompany the Bible with Calvinistic Tracts, the Bible in such company, will be uniform in the production of Calvinism.

The passage in my Sermon at St. Paul's, relative to this subject, has been already quoted in the fourth section of this pamphlet, and the address to the Senate contains precisely the same sentiments. Having stated the time of foundation and other circumstances relative as well to the ancient as to the modern Bible Society, I proceeded as follows:

"The two Societies agree in the very laudable object of distributing Bibles 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 are 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 Bible Society, but likewise (what the other is not) a Church-of-England Society. With 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 Chistianity, not under any form, but under that particular form, which, above every other, they are 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 ancient Bible Society) distributes, in its home circulation, as well the Liturgy as the Bible for though in the spirit of true Protestantism it acknowledges the Bible as the only fountain of religious truth, yet it knows, from 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 believe (though without reproach to those whose belief is different) that the doctrines of the Liturgy are correctly derived from the Bible, they consider it as

read again what was written by the two principal combatants, Dr. Wordsworth and Mr. Dealtry, and I do not find any allusion to this danger, though the more I consider it, the more I am convinced of its magnitude. It is true, that the question was agitated whether religious tracts should accompany the Bible. But this is a question, of very inferior moment to the question, whether the Liturgy 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 churchmanship is tried. Whoever rejects the Liturgy, ceases to be a Churchman. But in respect to tracts, every man may exercise his own judgment, not only in respect to the choice of them, but in respect to the question, whether he shall omit them altogether. The primary duty of a Churchman is to provide the poor with Bibles and Prayer Books: the providing them with Tracts is only a secondary consideration. No harm can be done by giving the Prayer Book with the Bible: much harm may be done by giving Tracts with the Bible. On the other hand,

their indispensable duty, to unite the one with the other. Indeed uniformity of doctrine can never be produced without an adherence to this rule: for every Christian party either finds, or supposes that it finds, its peculiar doctrines in the Bible. But this salutary rule, so necessary 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 head 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 Address, of which it is here called a confutation, recommends the circulation of the Bible: for it describes that circulation as a (6 very laudable object." The very Address, therefore, which is thus represented by the Christian Observer, and indeed by other advocates of the modern Society, as inimical to the circulation of the Scriptures, is itself a proof of its being friendly to that circulation. I 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 extensive circulation of the Bible can possibly injure the Church of England." The point, on which I am at issue with them is, whether the Church of England may not possibly be injured by an EXTENSIVE OMISSION OF THE LI TURGY,

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.'

But let us return to the Liturgy, and take a review of the several very interesting facts recorded in the preceding section, which deserve the more attention, 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 generalised Protestantism, of Protestantism in the abstract, or of Protestantism abstracted from all

This Collection is arranged under the following heads; Tracts on the Holy Scriptures, on public and private Devotion, 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 that particular Tract. By Enthusiasm is not meant a welltempered religious zeal, without which no Clergyman can be extensively useful. In religion we should have zeal, and also moderation: we must only endeavour (said Sir Richard Steele) to keep fire out of the one and frost out of the other. The advocates of the Bible Society, who certainly avoid the extreme of frost, prefer the Tracts against Popery, which are very excellent, and very useful, though not the only Tracts, of which we stand in need. But there is a peculiar advantage in quoting the Tracts against Popery, an advantage indeed of a two-fold nature. 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 Catholic, 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 passages in abundance; where mention is made of the Bible alone, and no mention is made of the Liturgy. Hence the practice of the modern Bible Society is apparently justified by such distinguished names as Tillotson, and Secker. But would Tillotson and Secker in a controversy with Dissenters, have approved the distribution of the Bible alone? Would they, would especially the latter, who wrote Lectures on the Church Catechism, have justified the neglect of giving the Prayer Book with the Bible? We have already seen what Bishop Beveridge, who was a contemporary of Tillotson, thought on this subject. And Tillotson himself, though bred among the Puritans, must from his own knowledge of the mischiefs which arose from the neglect of the Liturgy, have been induced to abstain from recommending that neglect. He well knew, that the grand distinction between Protestant Churchmen 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.

peculiar creeds. This soon became the favorite system of the Independents. And we know that it is a favorite 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 generalising 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 favor of the Liturgy, the former, though using the same words, 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 Liturgy. When the Assembly of Divines was instituted for the express purpose of advancing the cause of religion, it was honored with the names of three Bishops, and two Heads of Houses in Cambridge.' These things are worthy of notice, because it has been said, that the modern Society can never be injurious to the Church, because several Bishops and Heads of Houses have joined it. Further, the Assembly of Divines, when they had formed the resolution of abolishing the Liturgy, presented a petition to Parliament, to abolish "the 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 Reformers, of whom they speak in terms of the greatest respect. In like manner, the advocates of the modern Society profess enthusiastic regard for our Reformers, though they think it unnecessary to distribute the work, which those Reformers composed. The Assembly 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 inquiry. But there was another feature in the Assembly of Divines, which we may distinctly perceive in the modern Society. It consisted chiefly of

I must not, however, neglect to mention, that the Margaret Professor was a member of this Assembly.-The names of the members are all given in the Ordinance for its appointment, printed in Scobel's Collection, p. 42. It is remarkable, that no Heads of Houses, and no Professors at Oxford, were enrolled in this. Assembly of Divines.

VOL. I.

No. I.

I