complexion:"* and this merely because I had published "An Inquiry into the consequences of neglecting to give the Prayer-Book with the Bible." But his Lordship should have been thankful for a publication, which greatly contributed to promote the distribution of the Prayer-Book, at a period when there was imminent danger of its being neglected, from the false-application of the maxim, that the Bible, and the Bible only, is the religion of the Protestant. That insinuations of popery were urged in the heat of controversy, or in the vehemence of auxiliary declamations, affords less matter of surprise. But that a grave and learned Bishop should deliberately inform his Clergy, that a Professor of Divinity in the University of Cambridge entertained principles of an "anti-Protestant complexion," because he argued for the distribution of that book, which distinguishes the Churchman, must really excite astonishment. Do we cease to be Protestants because we are Churchmen? And can we distinguish Protestant Churchmen from Protestant Dissenters by any other means, than by using and distributing both Bible and Prayer-Book? Shall we confound the authority of the Bible with the distribution of the Bible, and argue, that because the Bible is the sole authority in matters of faith, the Bible only shall be used and distributed by the faithful? I understand that his Lordship himself has published a pamphlet entitled, "The Bible, and nothing but the Bible, the religion of the Church of England." I have never seen the pamphlet, and therefore do not pretend to judge of it: but the title is certainly a very injudicious one. For it contains a proposition, which is not only false in one sense, though true in another, but is false in that sense, in which it is most likely to be understood and applied. The proposition is true in reference to the authority of the Bible: for the Church of England founds its Articles of Faith on the "Bible, and nothing but the Bible," whereas the Church of Rome founds its Articles of Faith on the Bible and Tradition. But the

* See p. 23. In this page he does not mention me by name, though no one could doubt whom he meant. But lest a doubt should remain he took care to introduce my name in a subsequent note.

proposition is not true, when it is understood with reference to the use and distribution of the Bible. The religion of the Church of England is promoted by the use and distribution of both Bible and Prayer-Book. Take away the PrayerBook, and, though we remain Protestants, we become Dissenters. Surely a Bishop should not forget, that the rejection of the Prayer-Book in the time of Charles I, was the very thing, which overturned the Church. But the proposition is very useful for the advocates of the British and Foreign Bible Society, a subject, which his Lordship could not refrain from introducing in his Letter to the Bishop of Durham on the Pelasgi and Æolic Digamma. I have long ceased to argue about that Society; but his Lordship's remark is so deserving of attention, that I cannot disregard it. He speaks in p. 3. of "the Bible Society, for whose general "principle of universally distributing the Scriptures, and the general measure of uniting all denominations of Christians,

66

or not Christians, in this Christian-like duty, I am an "humble advocate." The words here printed in Italics are so printed by his Lordship; he must therefore intend to limit his approbation of the Society to its general principle of distributing the Scriptures. But the excellence of this general principle no one has ever disputed. It is a principle which this Bible Society has in common with the other Bible Society, or the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge; and therefore the objection to the former applies not to the principle itself, but to things, which are connected with that principle in the former Society, but not in the latter. And from the stress, which his Lordship lays on the term general principle, it is evident that he does not undertake to defend every thing in the detail of the Society. And if his Lordship really has discovered any thing wrong in the detail of the Society, if he has discovered any thing suspicious in the views of any of its members, it is a pity that his Lordship did not make the discovery, before the Methodists and Dissenters had acquired such power, and acquired it by the aid of that Society. The true policy of Churchmen would have been a general association of Churchmen with Churchmen, for the purpose of promoting the use and distribution of both Bible

and Prayer-Book. Such an association would have been a protection for the Church, and consequently a protection for the purest form of Christianity. At the same time, it might haye abstained from interfering in the faith and worship of other Christians; it might have abstained from all bitterness and evil-speaking against those, whose religious opinions are different from our own. Yet, notwithstanding this exercise of Christian charity, it would have given no encouragement to those who dissent from us; it would not have increased the power of those, whose views, in their very nature, are and must be, hostile to the Establishment. Unfortunately for the Church of England, a contrary policy has been adopted: and it is now, I fear, too late to retrace our steps. It is at all events too late to repair the evil already done. But I will not pursue any further a subject already exhausted. I will only observe, that though I could easily have confuted his Lordship's accusation, I purposely abstained from it, as I thought that there was already dissension enough in the Church. The Bishop of St. David's may argue as much as he pleases about the Pelasgi and the Æolic Digamma. Our controversies on that subject can do no harm to the Church. But it is not a matter of indifference to the Church, when two writers who are equally attached to it, and equally zealous for its welfare, are opposed to each other in the concerns of the Church. I wished therefore to avoid a controversy with the Bishop of St. David's on theological subjects. But forbearance has been mistaken by his Lordship for imbecility; and he has renewed his accusation, because it was not answered at first. With respect however to the charge of popery, as applied to the explanation of the passage in question, I am contented to share it in company with the most distinguished among the English Divines who have commented on this passage. For, if it is popery to explain of St. Peter the rock, on which our Saviour declared that he would build his Church, the charge of popery attaches to Bishop Pearson, to Bishop Beveridge, to Bishop Pearce, to Bishop Hurd, and to Bishop Horsley it attaches to Dr. Hammond, to Dr. Whitby, to Dr. Clarke, and to Dr. Wells: it attaches to Dr. Doddridge, Dr. Campbell, and Dr. Macknight.

:

I will now close this Appendix with the earnest request, that Churchmen would seriously attend, not to one only, but to all the dangers, which threaten the Established Church. It is necessary to guard against the encroachments of the Church of Rome: and for that reason I wrote the Comparative View. But while we guard against encroachments from the Church of Rome, let us not overlook the consequences of encroachments from other quarters.

Cambridge: Printed at the University Press.