Sivut kuvina

To return however to an Association of Churchmen and Dissenters, for the purpose of distributing Bibles abroad, I again declare,

presumption is heightened by the anthor's confidence in himself, and his contempt of his adversaries, I will take a cursory view of the passages relating to the present subject. Mr. Dealtry asks,“ Does the dispersion of the scriptures tend to ruin the Church ?" This question has been already answered to satiety.—He, observes, “ We have retained every syllable of our Liturgy, our Articles and Homilies.” It is true, 'that the Liturgy is still retained : but if Churchmen justify the omission of it wben they distribute Bibles to the poor, and even censure those, who complain of that omission, they are certainly on the road, which leads to the rejection of it.-Mr. Dealtry again exclaims, “ Ruin the church? Where then is the discretion of our Archbishops and Bishops, &c. &c. who have supported the Bible Society?" Now a man may be discreet, and yet mistaken. Even Bishops may sometimes err. And Mr. Dealtry, who is so anxious to be thought a genuine Protestant, must be careful not to push this argument too far : for whoever makes a Bishop infallible, adopts a tenet of Popery.—But he considers the distribution of the authorised version by this Society as an argument for the security of the Church ; and asks, in the event of Churchmen withdrawing from it,“ what secu. rity we should then have for the purity of the versions distributed throughout the United Kingdom?" Now Churchmen would have the same security, as they have always Trad, since the Legislature has forbidden the printing of the authorised version unaccompanied with a comment, except in the two Universities, and by the King's Printer : and the Bible Society itself can obtain their copies of it from no other than these three sources. And with respect to other versions, it is not in the power, either of this or of any Society, to prevent their being made and distributed. But the Dissenters in generul, it' we except only the Socinians (who in spite of the Bible Society have a new version in extensive circulation) have no inclination to alter the text of the authorized version. Nor had they in the time of Charles the First. They are fully satisfied with expounding the present text: and against false exposition (the danger of which the Society itself admits by the credit which they take for giving it without a comment) they neglect to provide, since they omit the Liturgy. They neglect therefore to provide for the real danger. But says Mr. Dealtry (who spake immediately after Dr. Milner, whose speech was a comment on my Address)• Let us never forget, that the Scriptures, for the distribution of which we ure THCS publicly arraigned, are the Word of the most High.” Now under the circumstances already described (and more might be added in corroboration) Mr. Dealtry himself will not pretend that he meant not to allade to me. I ehallenge him therefore, to produce the passage, in which I have arraigned, either him or any one, for the distribution of the Scriptures. If Mr. Dealtry examined my Address to the Senate, before he ventured to condemn it, he must have known, that at the very beginning of it I represented the distribuction of the Scriptures as a“ VERY LAUDABLE OBJECT;" he must have known that I objected solely to THE OMISSION OF THE LITURGY ; he must have known therefore, when he declared he was arraigned for the distribution of the Scriptures, that what he declared was contrary to fact. On the one hand, if he

that such an Association would be entitled to the approbation of every Churchman. On the one hand, the general cause of Christianity would be promoted, while, on the other hand, our own Church, which no consideration should induce us to neglect, would be left uninjured. Here then is the true line, which should guide the conduct of the Churchman. He may thus obtain the full benefit derived from the operations of the Society abroad, and obtain it without injury at home. Nay, this benefit would be increased, if the funds of the Society were wholly employed in the circulation of the Scriptures in foreign parts.

If then a regard for the distribution of the Scriptures is the sole motive, which induces men to partake of this Society, and it is their earnest wish to pursue that object in such a manner, as to secure the established church, why, it may be asked, should the Society refuse to change its constitution, in such a manner, as would answer both of those purposes, and render unnecessary the secession above proposed? Yet I hardly expect, that this change of constitution will be made. The Society, in its present form, has advantages, which not every meniber will abandon. Though its splendor is derived from the operations abroad, its influence depends on the operations at home. It there provides for temporal, as well as spiritual wants. It gives power to the dissenter, pupularity to the churchman, and interest to the politician, which is useful at all times, and especially at the approach of a general election.

had not read my Address to the Senate, he took the liberty of laying a very heavy charge to a Professor of Divinity, at a public meeting within the precincts of his own University, at a public meeting composed chjefly of young men of that Uni. versity, of young men who attend that Professor's Lectures, and of Jaying this heavy charge, with the consciousness of having no foundation for it.-If, instead of appealing to the Address or to the Sermon at St. Paul's, from which the senti. ments in the Address were borrowed, appeal is made to a printed paper, which Dr. Clarke produced at the public meeting, and of which I acknowledge inyself the author (see the second line of Note, p. 114, where I allude to it) that printed paper again contains the same sentiments, which had been advanced in the Sermon. The very first sentence is, “ Whereas it has been insinuated that they, who object to the modern Bible Society, object to the distribution of the Bible, it is necessary to reply, that their objection is NOT to the distribution of the Bible, BUT to the distribution of the Bible alone.And in order to explain what is meant by the objection to the distribution of the Bible alone, is added ; “ If to the distribution of the Bible, which the two Societies have in common, were added the distribution of the Liturgy, which distinguishes the ancient Bible Society, and distinguishes the Churchman, the chief ovjection to the modern Bible Society would be removed." This remark is perfectly consonant with all that has been said in the present Inquiry, and shows that I have been always consistent in objecting NOT to the distribution of the Bible, BUT solely to the omission of the Liturgy.



23 January, 1812.

[ocr errors]







[ocr errors]


DEAR SIR, I have at all periods of my life had a particular objection to newspaper controversies; but to a controversy so amicable as that to which I am invited by your letter--which not only breathes the spirit of a gentleman, but the kindness of a friend - I cannot object, whatever may be its form. I consider your letter as a public appeal to the University of Oxford, against the sentiments expressed in my letter to Dr. MARSH. That letter was, in the first instance, a mere private answer to his communication to me of his Address to the Senate of Cambridge. I expressed myself as a Churchman writing to a Churchman, and without a view to publication. I afterwards published my sentiments under the sanction of the highest authority in that University, and I have had the satisfaction of learning that many of the most distinguished members of both Universities approve of


« EdellinenJatka »