taken to remedy the defect, of which I complained, by a supplementary Society. I mention this circumstance to the honour of those, who set it on foot, among whom Mr. Wilberforce himself, as I well know, took an active part."

P. 45: We have here [in the first paragraph of the Prospectus] an un- 5 equivocal admission that the circulation of the Prayer-Book was "hitherto only partially accomplished:" and the constitution of the Bible Society is assigned as a reason for it.' Pp. 51, 52: While the number of Bibles was very rapidly increasing in the period between the beginning of 1804 and the end of 1811, we have seen, first, that the number of Prayer-Books 10 printed by the two Universities, was an hundred and forty thousand less, than during the eight years which preceded 1804; secondly, that during the same period (1804-1811) the King's Printers, Messrs. Eyre and Strahan, printed no Prayer-Books whatever; and thirdly, that the Prayer-Books, printed for Mr. Reeves, if we except a single edition, were neither of that 15 description, which persons in general buy for gratuitous distribution, nor' etc.

'Chapter VII. On the tendency of the Bible Society to make the churchmembers of it inattentive to the distribution of the prayer-book' (pp. 5356).

'Chapter VIII. Effects produced by the Inquiry on the distribution of the prayer-book' (pp. 56-58). Alteration in the tone of the persons who had condemned the Address; institution of the Prayer-Book Society; increase in the number of prayer-books since the publication of the Inquiry.

20

'PART II. Defence of the Inquiry, in reference to particular points, 25 with remarks on various subjects connected with it. Chapter 1. Falsity of the assertion, that the Inquiry imputed a disregard of the Liturgy to churchmen in general, who were members of the Bible Society' (pp. 59—64).

'Chapter II. Absurdity and malice of the attempt to represent an opposition to the Bible Society, as implying an opposition to the Bible, with an 30 explanation of the challenge on this subject' (pp. 64—70).

Pp. 64, 65: A few days after the publication of my Address to the Senate, a handbill with a superscription alluding to that Address was very extensively circulated both in the University and in the Town of Cambridge, containing the following passage: "And yet to these Societies 35 there are they, who dare to object. I say dare, because circulated as the New Testament has been described to be, without...comment, they who oppose them, oppose the circulation of the word of God, as originally delivered forth, and would have probably opposed our Saviour Himself, had they lived in His time." I was totally ignorant of the persons, who were 40 concerned in the distribution of this handbill: but when it is considered that this handbill, containing so gross a charge against a Professor of Divinity, was delivered to almost every student in the University, every one must allow it to have been one of the most indecent measures, to which the promoters of the Bible Society ever had recourse. When I published 45 the Inquiry, I took notice of this handbill; and in order to repel the insinuation, that an opposition to the Bible Society implied an opposition to the Bible, I appealed to my unremitted exertions to promote the study of

the Bible. And, in reference to the authors and promoters of such unjust insinuations, I said at p. 9, "I challenge my opponents to declare, whether they have laboured harder, than I have done, to promote the study of it." In this challenge I boasted of nothing but my industry, of which a man 5 may boast without much vanity: but it was sufficient to repel the charge of my opponents.'

Milner declared his avowed object to be to lessen the weight of Dr. Marsh's authority.

P. 67: 'Whatever exertions may have been made in favour of the an10 cient Bible Society, the Society for promoting Christian Knowledge; whatever exertions may have been made to promote Diocesan Committees, in aid of the parent institution; whatever number of Bibles may have been distributed individually, yet unless they have been made to pass through the channel of the modern Society, the donor is represented as an enemy 15 to the distribution of the Bible. I do not pretend to inquire, how many Bibles Dr. Milner has distributed to the poor of Cambridge: but, if the number of Bibles, which have issued from my own house during the last five years, were compared with the number, which have issued from Queens' Lodge during the same period, I should not be afraid of the comparison. 20 Yet so successful have been the endeavours of my opponents to represent me as inimical to the distribution of the Bible, that I have been exposed to the grossest abuse, as if I really wished to prevent the poor being provided with Bibles.'

Pp. 67, 68. Extract from the Abingdon letter. [See below, p. 862]. 25 Pp. 69, 70: "This Letter is not only remarkable for its bigotry and in

tolerance, but is of so menacing a character, as to excite apprehensions even for personal safety. That the writer of it would tie the Margaret Professor to the stake, if he had the power to do so, can hardly admit a doubt; though Dr. Milner informs me in his strictures (p. 124) that I am 30 in no danger of martyrdom. I believe, that he himself would be satisfied with the sacrifice of my reputation, which it is the avowed object of his Strictures to effect. But when I consider the thousands, and tens of thou sands of bitter adversaries, which I have excited by contending for the distribution of both Bible and Prayer-Book, when I consider the torrents 35 of abuse which to this very day continue to be poured on me, when I consider the spirit of revenge, with which my adversaries are inflamed, and further contemplate the growing power of my adversaries, which grows with the growth of the Bible Society, I begin to doubt, whether the sacrifice of my character is the only sacrifice, which I shall be required to make. 40 [Footnote. On the same day, on which I wrote this Chapter, I received a Letter from a person who signs himself James Walhouse, dated Leamington Hotel, July 30, 1813, with a printed speech, which he had delivered at a meeting of the Bible Society of the county of Stafford, June 30, 1813. As there is nothing new in his abuse of the Margaret Professor, except 45 that he compares me with Margaret Nicholson attacking the King, I will merely quote his arguments against the distribution of the Prayer-Book with the Bible...] I must not however conclude this Chapter without adding, in justice to a very respectable and learned body of Protestant Dissenters, whose missionaries have contributed the greatest part of those

biblical translations, which parade in the list of the Bible Society, that this respectable and learned body, so far from being offended at my publications on the Bible Society, has presented me with a very valuable token of their esteem, for the publication of that very book, which Dr. Milner has chosen to pass over in silence, I mean the History of Scripture Transla- 5 tions, in which justice is rendered to the biblical labours of the Baptist Missionaries at Serampore.'

'Chapter III. Imputation of Popery' (pp. 70—73).

Pp. 70-72: 'It is well known, that the speeches and writings, which followed the Address to the Senate, teemed with accusations of Popery 10 against the author of it....Instructed and prompted by these accusations, Mr. Gandolphy, a Clergyman of the Church of Rome, and who would probably not object to have the Margaret Professor for his coadjutor, has publicly claimed me, as an advocate of the Church of Rome. I have therefore explained to him, that our Liturgy, notwithstanding Dr. Mil- 15 ner's comparison, has not a shadow of similarity with Romish Tradition.... I understand, however, that Mr. Gandolphy has published another Letter, in which he still claims me as his own: and therefore, as I have nothing to add, yet cannot prevent the claim, if he chooses to make it, I must content myself with the reflexion, that no man can intend to give offence by 20 considering others like himself. But the Protestant Dr. Milner certainly does mean to give offence, when he imputes Popery to a Protestant Professor....But I have the consolation to add, that, if I am a Papist, I am a Papist in company with Dr. Milner. "I predict (says he) what may perhaps surprise Dr. Marsh, that nothing will more endanger our ecclesias- 25 tical establishment, than the neglect of our invaluable Liturgy." Now, as Dr. Milner himself expects, that this declaration will surprise me, I ac knowledge, when I compare it with his Speech on the 12th of December 1811, that it really does surprise me. For it contains the same popish doctrine, which I advanced in the Address, and in the Inquiry.' 'Chapter IV. On Calvinism, as connected with the Inquiry' (pp. 74—

99).

30

P. 75: 'Now the prejudices, of which Dr. Milner complains, I am so far from wishing to conceal, that I own I possess them to the utmost possible extent; my opinions are as decidedly anti-calvinistic, on the subject 35 of predestination and grace, as it is possible for opinions to be. But though I have "strong prejudices against Calvinistic tenets," I am not conscious of any hostile feelings to the persons, who maintain them...A mere difference of opinion, however great that difference might be, would never have the slightest effect in diminishing my regard for another, if he were other- 40 wise entitled to my regard. We cannot command our opinions; they are the result of reflexion; and, if any man should inform me, that after mature deliberation he felt himself compelled to adopt the doctrine of absolute election and reprobation, I should have no less respect for him than before, though I should lament his decision, on account of its dreadful conse- 45 quences.' Pp. 76–96. The liturgy opposed to Calvinism. Pp. 96-99. Laud not responsible for the Scotch Communion Service. Let it not be inferred, that because I defend Archbishop Laud against this unjust imputation, I therefore approve of the prosecutions, which he carried on in the

5

ΙΟ

High Commission and Star Chamber. Intolerance, whether in a Calvinist or in [an] Anti-calvinist, is equally reprehensible. But it was Laud's misfortune to live in an age, when the royal prerogative went as far into one extreme, as the licentious fanaticism of the Puritans into the other.'

'Chapter v. The same subject continued; with reference to the Society for promoting Christian Knowledge; to Anti-Calvinistic tracts; and to the author's Anti-Calvinistic Sermons' (pp. 100—120). The S.P.C.K. a Church of England society; the B. and F.B.S. not. Some of the S.P.C.K. tracts offend Calvinists. On Marsh's sermons see pp. 776-778.

honour of

'Chapter VI. Reply to Dr Milner's remarks on the National Society' (pp. 121-125). The S.P.C.K. and National Society church societies; 'the Lancasterian Institution and the Bible Society are both of them founded on the same levelling principle.' Milner's subscription to the National Society, and vote for the grace for a grant of £500 in aid of its funds. 'He need 15 not have declared, that “Dr. Milner has no pretensions to the Dr. Marsh's friendship:" for Dr. Marsh has never claimed it. that "he never visited Dr. Marsh so much as once in his life." mistaken. He called at my house about two years ago, when we had a long conversation, not on religion, a subject on which we have never con20 versed, but on the subject of the Cambridge Canal.' Sp. Perceval, though he lamented Marsh's opposition to the Bible Society, gave credit to the excellence of his motives.

25

He adds Here he is

'Chapter VII. On Dr. Milner's representation of himself and his adversary' (pp. 126-132).

Pp. 126-129: 'While Dr. Milner represents his adversary as a person of restless disposition and fond of controversy, he represents himself as "one who is averse to controversy," and "of peaceable habits." Only once in his life, the present excepted, has Dr. Milner, according to his own account, been engaged in controversy: and then he was engaged with a Calvinist. 30 What a wicked Calvinist it must have been to engage Dr. Milner! But does Dr. Milner really imagine, that we have forgotten his attack on two celebrated Anti-Calvinists, William and Thomas Ludlam? His vanity, if nothing else, might have induced him to suppose, that we had read his "Biographical Preface to his brother Joseph's Posthumous Sermons." 35 And whoever has read this Biographical Preface must know, that it contains a very violent and unjustifiable attack on the Ludlams. Does Dr. Milner further imagine that no one has ever seen the Reply entitled, “Remarks upon the scurrilous reflexions cast upon Mr. W. and T. Ludlam by Dr. Milner"?... it has obtained a permanent place in the second 40 volume of the "Essays, scriptural, moral, and logical, by W. and T. I am likewise in possession of some minor controversial

Ludlam."

....

writings of Dr. Milner published within these four years, with his own name to them. It is true, that they are not on theological subjects: but they contain very highly wrought controversy, indeed so much so, that 45 unless Dr. Milner himself had informed us of his "peaceable habits,” no man on earth would have believed that he had them. Nor is his renewal of the controversy on the Bible Society, a year after I had publicly withdrawn from it, and at a time when the Society had acquired such vigour as not to need support, a very convincing proof of his "peaceable habits." ... How

ever he has done the business so effectually at last; he has given his adversary such a coup de grâce; that he has formally announced his intention of not writing against me any more. "If Dr. Marsh, as is said, has really a passion for controversy, he has before him, I suppose, a prospect of considerable gratification. I think proper however to warn him, not to expect 5 from me any further contribution toward his enjoyments of this kind." But will not Dr. Milner indulge me with a few remarks on this Reply, either in the British Review, or in the Christian Observer?'

Pp. 130, 131: 'Nor was I actuated in the present controversy by any other motive, than a desire to promote the welfare of the Church. .. ΙΟ Dr. Milner indeed can discover nothing but interested motives; in his opinion, I have manifested a spirit, which is "perfectly consistent with worldly views:" and he thinks, that these "worldly views" have had greater influence, than a love for the Bible and Prayer-Book. Now there is nothing but a union of malice and folly, which could enable a man 15 to discover an interested motive, when I oppose what is patronised by those, who dispense the honours and emoluments of the Church.'

'Chapter VIII.

Mischiefs at Cambridge' (pp. 133-141).

Pp. 133-135. "This is the title of one of Dr. Milner's Chapters, in which his object is manifestly to make mischief, and to excite personal 20 enmity between those, who had better be friends. But, as the evil would only be increased by an analysis of this Chapter, I shall substitute an inquiry of a different kind. And since Dr. Milner has informed the public of the mischief done at Cambridge by the Margaret Professor, I may without reproach inquire into the mischief, which has been done by the Dean of 25 Carlisle. But the inquiry shall be conducted only on public grounds.

to me.

'In the first place then, I ask Dr. Milner, whether every party does not receive an accession of strength, as often as that party is embodied. Now to call a County Meeting for the purpose of forming an Auxiliary Bible Society is to embody the Dissenters; for the Dissenters are universally mem- 30 bers of it. I beg to be understood, that I have no feelings of hostility to the Dissenters; and that for many of them whom I know, I have the greatest personal respect. Nor do I believe, that the Dissenters in general, though I have been violently attacked by some, have any feelings of hostility They have sufficient good sense, and sufficient candour, to distin- 35 guish between an honest defence of the established church, unaccompanied with enmity towards those who dissent from it, and the exercise of intolerance and persecution. They know, that I am doing my duty, when I defend the church; and they do not respect me the less for it. That they are better pleased with Dr. Milner's measures, I have no doubt: for all 40 men must rejoice at the promotion of their own interest. But I have reason to think that, in general, they have not more respect for the person of Dr. Milner, than they have for the person of the Margaret Professor. This is not mere conjecture: I speak from actual intercourse with some of the most distinguished among the Dissenters: and Dr. Milner perhaps will be 45 surprised to hear, that I was the first person in Cambridge, to whom intelligence was sent of the dreadful fire at Serampore. I was the first person in Cambridge, who received, last summer, a copy of Dr. Marshman's Letter to Dr. Ryland; and I communicated it to Mr. Fuller. It was sent,