anxious to distribute it." He says simply, "Although I love both Bible and Prayer-book, and am anxious to distribute both; yet, since thousands of my own countrymen, and millions of other Christians, will consent only to distribute one, I will gladly borrow their assistance, as far as they are willing to lend it, and determine to do the rest alone." Put the case as to other points. Does every man who subscribes to St. Luke's hospital, proclaim thereby any indifference to the diseases cured at St. George's? Do those who subscribe to the national school intimate thereby any contempt for preaching? Does the Archbishop of Canterbury, by kindly sanctioning the Naval and Military Bible Society-a Society distributing Bibles alone-thereby shew his contempt for the Church Formularies? Do those who contribute to coal societies thereby evince their low estimation of clothing? Do the contributors of soup societies merge in the vats of the institution all their veneration for bread and cheese? If, indeed, it were required of every member of the Bible Society to sign a declaration, that " he did not value the Liturgy;" that "he would not disperse the Prayer-book," that "he did not think this the first of uninspired volumes," then, it might be fair to say that he "rejected" the Prayer-book. But, as the matter now stands, he simply consents to circulate the one Book with those whom he cannot persuade to circulate both. To call the act of union with the Society a " rejection" of the Prayer-book, is therefore to charge the contributors with an offence to which they will by no means plead guilty.

t

But the expression of the Bishop is still stronger: it is not simply a "rejection" of the Prayer-book, of which the members of the Bible Society is guilty-it is a "systematic" rejection; that is, a rejection upon "system,"-a rejection planned, organized-not a mere momen

tary contempt, but a "rejection" pertinaciously and regularly pursued. But can this be fairly affirmed of those members of the Bible Society who, his lordship himself admits, distribute the Formularies largely in their individual capacity? Can he be said "systematically" to " reject" the donation of the Liturgy who, though he gives a Bible to-day, gives a Prayer-book to-morrow-who, though he gives a Bible in one character, gives a Prayerbook in another who gives a Bible in one street and a Prayer-book in the next?"

But, secondly, it is intimated by his lordship, that certain undefined, though disastrous conse quences, would arise from the general adoption of the principles of the Bible Society.-Now, till he is good enough to state the nature of these consequences, it is impossible to speculate upon their probability. If his lordship refers to the universal adoption of this principle by all the nations of the world, there is so little prospect of its accomplishment, that we will leave the question to be discussed in the Millennium. If he refers to its general adoption in our own coun→ try, we are disposed to think, that, even admitting the hostility of the Society to the Church of England, its hostility would be far less formidable in that case, than under existing circumstances. For doubtless, if any thing can be conceived to have a tendeney to enlist the Society under the banner of Dissent, and turn its artillery against the Establishment, it must be the universal preponderance of Dissenters over Churchmen in the unfixed part of the committees. But is such a result more likely to arise when, by the "general adoption" of its principle, the church shall be to the dissenting members in proportion of a thousand to one, instead of in the proportion of which it perhaps now is, about ten to one? But, as his lordship has not thought it necessary to state the

nature of the consequences which may be anticipated from the general prevalence of the principle of the Society, we will take the liberty of endeavouring to supply this deficit.

The fundamental principle, then, of the Bible Society, be it remembered, is this-that "we are to merge for a time our subordinate differences in order to co-operate for a great paramount end." Now let us look to history, and observe the universally beneficial influence of this very principle. And, first, let us apply the rule to politics.This nation, then, at one period of its history was bleeding under the despotism of King John. The barons & the people, who had hitherto been violently opposed to each other, at length rouzed, and, instructed by the magnitude of their sufferings, consented to merge for a time their points of difference, and to pursue jointly the great common object of national independence and liberty. Thus allied, they approached the throne of the despot, and at once wrested from his hand that Magna Charta, which has, through the subsequent periods of our constitution, secured both the majesty of the crown and the happiness of the people. Again: This nation, at au after period, was threatened with the reestablishment of Popery, and the dissensions of Churchmen and Dissenters had long been paving a way for its approach. At length, both parties discovered their danger; they merged their differences for a season; they combined for the safety both of their liberties and their conscience. In this character they sought and won that second charter of our greatness and happiness, that death-warrant of tyranny and superstition, the "Bill of Rights."-So much for the result of this principle in politics. If, therefore, it be asked, what would be the influence of a general adoption" of this principle upon the political welfare of a nation, we bid the inquirer search for his

answer in the illustrious annals of our happy country.

Let us, next, endeavour to trace the operation of the great principle on which the Bible Society is. founded, in religion. We are disposed to think that most great reformatious in national morals or religion will be found to be more or less marked with this feature.

The greatest example, then, of religious reform upon record, is evidently the introduction of the Gospel. Now, let us not be mistaken. We have no intention of assigning the establishment of the Gospel to the simple operation of this or any other principle or movement of man. It was the great and glorious work of God. But, still, we contend that the change was marked by the distinct operation of the principle in question. The grand obstacle to the propagation of the Gospel was the mutual prejudice and hostility of the Jews and Gentiles. Whilst this survived in full force and action, neither of these bodies sought to promote the interests of truth, but those of party; and, acting in this spirit, they neither found the truth, nor obtained the blessing of God. But, when each gave way, when each merged for a time their peculiar distinctions, and sought truth upon the common ground of Divine Revelation; when the wall of partition was thrown down; then, hand in hand, they sought the truth, and they found it; and the citadels of Juda, ism and Heathenism fell before their united strength. The sheet which descended upon Peter, may be considered as a sort of emblem of the principle in question: and that voice may be said to have instructed men in this principle, which said, "What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common."-In like manner, it appears to us that the second great epoch of religion-the Reformation -is marked by somewhat similar features. It was the exclusive and

could not even have been suspected till it was tried-a principle which has already bound together remote nations; incorporated, for the grandest purposes, and without the smallest risk, the most opposite systems of faith; disarmed contending sects; called out the sweet songs of harmony and love amidst the din and discord of war; and is by degrees lowering the petty flags of party and intolerance, and exalting the universal banner of the Cross. Under this view of the Bible Society, his lordship will, we trust, pardon our refusal to acquiese in his judgment. We cannot consent to lock up again this flood-gate of mercy. We cannot possibly be satisfied to endeavour to quench that sun, which has arisen so unexpectedly and gloriously to illuminate the dark horizon of a fallen world.

The Bishop, next, as he proposed, turns to the subject of schools; and here also we shall allow him to speak for himself.

"II. The next important point to which I would solicit your attention, is the establishment of schools, for the religious education of the poor. I say religious, because this is the essence of the Madras system, the main point in which it most recommends itself, to our countenance and adoption. Education, indeed, under almost any circumstances, cannot but be a blessing. It opens and expands the human faculties. It prepares the ground, and sows the seed; but still, the ultimate object is the fruit produced. With this view, the children educated on the Madras system, have no books put into their hands, but those which are on the list of our venerable society; they also regularly attend Divine service, at their parish church, on the Lord's day. And herein consists the great superiority over its rival system. Concerning their respective mechanical modes of teaching, I do not stop to make any observations whatever. They both of them are good-both may be equally good. But the Madras plan instils sound religious principles into the tender minds of the rising generation. It makes them good men, and good

citizens, whilst the other teaches them indeed to read and write, but in one particular, and that of all the most important, it is, for the most part, very lamentably deficient: It leaves them any where or no where. For this to pick up their religion as they can, reason, I most decidedly prefer, and as strongly recommend to your support, the Madras system of education. The good which it has already wrought is most abundant; that which it promises to produce in a course of years, is incalculable.

To the furtherance of this great end, the Clergy have it in their power, to contribute a most important and effectual aid. Their situation enables them, their duty, I think, calls upon them, to promote plans and subscriptions in their respective neighbourhoods, for this most laudable purpose. The superintendance also of the schools, when established, devolves

principally upon them. For these reasons, sure am I, that the Clergy of this diocese will gladly avail themselves of so glorious an opportunity to do good, and will evince their readiness to support a measure, which has for its object, the moral improvement of mankind. If, however, which I trust will not often be the case, the means of the parishioners be altogether inadequate to the establishment of such a school, yet still, the same great end, the religious instruction of the infant poor, may be greatly promoted by the individual exertions and labour of the officiating minister. He may collect together the children of the parish, before the time of Divine service-he may familiarly instruct them in our excellent catechism-he may display to them the goodness of the Father in the creation of man, the mercy of his Son in the redemption of the world—and all this in a manner, which children will be more likely to understand, and less likely to forget, than when it is expounded to them more formally and argumentatively from the pulpit. They should afterwards accompany him to the House of God; and thus, by the Divine blessing, an impression will be made on the infant mind, which may become indelible. There is no clergygyman, however confined his income, who is precluded from the adoption of such a plan. It requires little time, and no expense. The advantages, however, believe me, will be most abundant, I have tried and witnessed them myself.