1 I should distribute both Bible and Prayer Book. In your first letter, which was published as an answer to that Address, you quoted Chillingworth for the position, that the Bible only is the religion of the Protestant. But did I deny this position in that "Inquiry," which your second letter is intended to confute? Certainly not. On the contrary, I said explicitly, "Equally true is the general proposition, that the Bible only is the religion of the Protestant." 1 You quote therefore from the Homilies to prove what was previously admitted. It was the application of that position, not the position itself, which I contested. argued against the conclusion deduced from that position; I denied, that, because the Bible only was the religion of the Protestant, it was a necessary consequence, that the Bible only should be distributed by the Protestant. And if this conclusion was not intended to be deduced, for what purpose did you appeal to Chillingworth? If my argument for the joint distribution of Bible and Prayer Book is to be confuted by his position, that the Bible only is the religion of the Protestant, that position must be extended to the act of distribution, or it is no contradiction of what I asserted. Either therefore you quoted Chillingworth without any meaning, which I cannot suppose, or you must have quoted him for the purpose of defending the practice of your Society, the distribution of the Bible alone. And that this was really your object is manifest from the question which you have again asked in the passage last quoted, whether our Reformers could "have foreseen that in the Church, which they founded, it would be considered as an offence "to distribute the Bible unaccompanied with any human work?" Now to say nothing of the word offence, which ' Page 106, No. I. serves only to place my argument in an odious light,' the question itself, which is asked in opposition to my argu ment, is sufficient evidence, that you meant to vindicate the distribution of the Bible alone. You endeavour indeed to justify your opposition by repeating what I have already confuted, that when I contend for the joint distribution of Bible and Prayer Book, I place them on a footing of equality, and you add, that "this claim of equality, is all, which the members of the Bible Society, who belong to the Church of England, deny." Now if this is all that you deny, what reason was there for your two letters to me? What occasion was there for all the declamation against me, which has been made at your auxiliary meetings? Both in the Address and in the Inquiry, the equality which you deny, was not only never asserted, but openly and explicitly disavowed. Under such circumstances, I think that common justice requires an acknowledgment on the part of my adversaries, that they have been guilty of a wanton attack. The plea of equality, which is urged in vindication of it, is so obviously devoid of foundation, that no man could have resorted to it, except in a case of desperation. But I perceive, that the advocates for the Bible Society, when they are driven from a post, which they regarded as impregnable, take refuge in a position which they had represented as untenable. They conjure up the spirit of our Reformers to bear testimony to the offence of urging the distribution of the Bible in company with a human work, and then 'I asserted that Churchmen did not do their duty, if they neglected to give the Prayer Book with the Bible. The offence which was taken, was taken by the advocates of your Society, in consequence of my urging the just distribution. appeal to experience, to prove that they do not impede the Now if it is Popery to Protestant must regard it as an excellence in your Society, that it promotes the distribution of the Bible alone. He must value it for this very reason, that it has no tendency to associate "divine perfection with human frailty." With what consistency therefore can any man, who had condemned me for urging the distribution of the Prayer Book in company with the Bible, now vindicate the Society on the ground, that its tendency is the reverse of that which I ascribed to it? But I will not quarrel with my adversaries on the score of consistency, if they at length admit, that I was right in contending for the joint distribution of Bible and Prayer Book. And this they must admit, if they now assert, in defence of the Society, that it has not a tendency to produce a neglect of the Liturgy. On the other hand, you will say, if I was right in the principle, I was wrong in the application of it. You contend, and my other adversaries at present do the same, that experience is against me; that the practical effects are at variance with my speculative conclusions. If such is really the case, I must admit, that my principal objection to your Society will be removed. I objected to it on the very ground of its having a tendency to bring the Liturgy into neglect; and for this very reason I instituted an inquiry into the consequences of such neglect. When I applied the principle to your Society, I not only thought that the arguments which I used would warrant the application, but that those arguments were corroborated by matter of fact. Nor do I perceive, that you have attempted to invalidate either my reasoning on this subject, or the examples, to which I appealed in confirmation of it. It is true that you have likewise appealed to a fact, which you consi VOL. I. No. II. 2 B der as alone sufficient to disprove the tendency, which I ascribe to your Society; and that I may do justice to your statement, I will give it in your own words. But I must previously observe, that in combating my position respecting the tendency of your Society, you have exhibited another instance of that unfairness, of which I have had occasion to complain more than once already. Whoever undertakes to confute a proposition should strictly adhere to the terms of the proposition; for if he substitutes other terms, which have a different import, it ceases to be the proposition which he professes to confute. In the seventh section of the Inquiry, which was devoted to this subject, I particularly used the word neglect. I said, p. 137. No. I. "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." Again in the same page I said, "And what are those general effects but to bring into neglect the bulwark of the established church?" In what manner this neglect operated I had previously explained in p. 135. No. I. "as diminishing the frequency of its distribution." And the very title of the pamphlet was an Inquiry into the consequences of neglecting to give the Prayer Book with the Bible. But for the word neglect you have substituted the word "disregard:" and hence the leading proposition, which you propose to confute, and which is the first of the three above stated, runs thus, "That the Bible Society produces a disregard of the Liturgy." Now a man may neglect the distribution of the Liturgy, without having an absolute disregard for it: he may neglect that distribution for want of knowing the consequences of that neglect. To such persons, and to such persons only, could I be supposed to address myself, when I explained those consequences: for men who have an absolute disregard for the Liturgy, would be induced by a consideration of those consequences to persevere in the neglect, of which I complained. Requesting, therefore, that your words may be properly corrected, I will now state your fact, as you have given it in p. 161. No. I. "Of 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 13,426; the average of the last three years was 19,815, being an increase of nearly one half." As this fact has not only been copied by another of my adversaries, who produces it with the triumph of a victor already trampling on his foe, but has really made some impression on the minds of men, who have discernment as well as zeal, it is intitled to particular attention. The question to be examined is, not whether the fact itself be true, but whether it disproves the tendency, which I ascribe to your Society. I will take for granted that your average is correct; that the distribution of the Prayer Book at Bartlett's Buildings has increased, and increased in that proportion which you have stated. But the increase of distribution by one Society is perfectly compatible with the tendency to its diminution by another Society. I will illustrate this by an example with which you are well acquainted. The Exports from this country to the Continent of Europe, during the three years which followed the Berlin and Milan Decrees, amounted to more than sixty-five millions, |