extreme circumspection, before he ventured to charge that opponent with asserting what must equally affect all the members of the Society, and equally excite the indignation of them all.

I

I did not

Having admitted in general terms, that the Society was animated by religious zeal, I did not conceal the opinion, that other objects were occasionally associated with that religious zeal. It provides, I said, "for temporal, as well as spiritual wants." But I did not exclude, as your position implies, the provision for spiritual wants. ascribe to any man, and much less to the whole body, the mercenary motive of seeking merely the promotion of private interest. If this were my opinion, I should hardly have explained the inattention to domestic danger, as arising from a zeal for religion. I therefore positively deny the position which you ascribe to me: I deny the having said, or the having meant, that the real objects of your Society were not of a religious nature. The question, whether motives of private interest do not sometimes operate as well as motives of religion, in inducing men to join your Society, is quite distinct from that general position, which excludes religious motives altogether; which excludes them not from one only, but from every member of the Society. I asserted nothing more, than a partial association of temporal objects, which you have thought proper to convert into a total exclusion of religious objects. And though you represent that assertion as a principal subject of the Inquiry, it was introduced only incidentally in the following manner. The principal subject, namely, the danger of neglecting the Prayer Book, was finished with the eighth section. The ninth and last section related to a change in the constitution of your Society, which would remove every

objection which I had made to it: but apprehending, that the temporal, as well as spiritual advantages, derived from the operations at home, would present an obstacle in the way of such a change, I stated what, in my opinion, those advantages were. You deny indeed, that the Society really has the advantages, which I ascribe to it, and accompany that denial with such strong indications of personal displeasure, that I cannot pass it over in silence.

I stated three ways, in which your Society provides for temporal wants, namely," it gives power to the Dissenter, popularity to the Churchman, and interest to the Politician." That the Dissenters should derive power from a Society, which brings them to act with Churchmen on such a principle, as sur renders what distinguishes the Church, is a matter too obvious to require illustration. No man surely can doubt, that there is such a thing as a dissenting interest, and that the more this interest is courted, the more powerful it will be. That Churchmen, who promote the Bible Society, thereby obtain popularity, while they who venture to oppose it are loaded with every species of abuse, can surely, after the late. events, require no demonstration. And that the politician promotes his interest by joining the Bible Society, must be likewise obvious to every man, who has the least knowledge of the world. But you are offended with this observation, as if I meant to apply it to yourself. Now the interest, of which I was speaking, is such as you cannot want. But if you were member for a county, in which a large proportion of the voters were Dissenters, your zeal for the Bible Society would certainly have insured you for the next general election, against any candidate who had opposed the Society. But though you would derive this temporal advantage, I should not therefore deny, that you were actuated by religious motives. Nor have I denied it of any man. I can casily see, when temporal advantages are

obtained: but I can never see, whether they are exclusively or conjointly the motives to action: and therefore, though I asserted the existence of those advantages, I never argued from them to motives, which must be left to every man's own conscience. Why therefore should you be so displeased? You even accompany the denial of those advantages, with the observation, "which, however, I am sorry to say is not the case." If you are sorry it is not the case, you must rejoice on finding that it is. Yet you are so angry as to say, that I have here had recourse, to "not only one of the most vulgar, but one of the most dangerous arts of controversy." Now the character of vulgarity is coarseness, which surely does not apply to my remark. It was rather keen, than blunt; and that it has touched a tender point, is clear from the irritation, which it has produced. The danger of my remark consists, I find, in its capability of being "retorted with effect." You say that "temporal, as well as spiritual wants, may be provided for by the profession of a distinguished zeal for the interest of the Church." But surely you must know, that in the present instance, it cannot be " retorted with effect." For if I had been then actuated by the desire of recommending myself to high ecclesiastical honors, I should have taken the side, which was chosen by my opponents. But I have obtained what depends on no man, the satisfaction of having acted from the suggestions of duty; whether I am mistaken or not, I have acted from my own conviction, which alone is the rule of an honest man; and I would not exchange this satisfaction for the reflections arising from a contrary conduct, though it were rewarded with rank, popularity, and power.

Let us now proceed to that, which constitutes the main subject of my Inquiry, the Consequences of neglecting to give the Prayer Book with the Bible. As we are still at

variance on this important subject, and there is no prospect of our coming to an agreement, while the preliminaries themselves remain unsettled, I must first examine, whether you have formed a correct opinion on the kind of importance which I attach to the Prayer Book. For if your premises are inaccurate, the same inaccuracy will attend your conclusions. I will quote therefore the following passage from the sixth page of your second letter (p. 162. No. I.) which contains a statement of the senti ments, which you ascribe to me, respecting the Bible and Prayer Book. "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 indeed is the very basis of the reformation; while the authority 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 know not what answer you could give to a Catholic doctor, who should justify the practice of his Church by your authority."

Now by process similar to that which you have here adopted, I would undertake to confute any proposition in Euclid. I have only to substitute the word equal for unequal, and the business is done. For instance, if I set out with the position, that the interior angle of a triangle is equal to, instead of less than, the opposite exterior angle, I shall deduce the inference, that the three angles of a triangle are more than two right angles. In like manner, you set off with the no less groundless position, that I put

in for the Prayer Book "a claim of equality with the Bible:" and in like manner you come to a conclusion similar to that, which relates to the triangle. It is no wonder, that you appear to have answered my objections, if you place them in a false light: for there is no argument whatever, which may not, by suitable alterations, be rendered capable of confutation. That I claim for the Prayer Book an equality with the Bible, is an assertion, made not only without authority, but in direct contradiction to repeated declarations in that very book, which you profess to answer. If "without the Bible the Liturgy has no support,” as I declared at p. 115; if the validity of its doctrines depends on their being "correctly derived from the Bible," and the Bible is "the only foundation of religious truth," as I declared at p. 126, have I not reason to complain, that you should represent me as claiming for the Prayer Book an equality with the Bible? I have called indeed the Prayer Book a proper companion for the Bible,' and have accordingly urged their joint distribution. But does this imply an equality between them? As well might a subject suppose himself equal to his sovereign, because he was admitted into company with his sovereign. Nor can I discover in the two pages, to which you refer, namely, p. 1,10 and 124, the smallest foundation for what you have been pleased to say of me in the passage above quoted. The latter of those two places contains the sentiments of Bishop Beveridge on the importance of the Liturgy, to which you must object, if you object at all. And in the former place, though I argued against Chillingworth's "notion of generalised Protestantism, which admits of no reference to any particular Creed," I argued not, as you contend, in the spirit of Popery, but on the very principles,

'Page 100. No. I.