lemma, in the opening of his remarks, is liable to some of those exceptions which usually lie against that mode of reasoning, when applied to subjects standing on the complicated considerations of moral evidence. He begins by making his adversary ask, "Where is the harm of giving away a Bible?" to which he categorically replies, "None whatever." Now it unfortunately happens, that his whole pamphlet is written to prove, that, under certain circumstances, harm may accrue, even to the annihilation of the Church of England, by such a gift. But upon this answer is to be triumphantly grounded another question, as addressed to Churchmen; "Where is the harm of giving away also a Prayer-Book?" And if "None whatever" be the reply, then comes his dilemma, "how can the real Churchanan consistently object to those who recommend their joint distribution?" Now, the answer but too easily occurring to this question, and suggested by his own principles, is, that under certain circumstances, this harmless gift might become very harmful. Should it be the overthrow of the Bible Society, is it not then a "petitio principii," to ask the subscribing Churchman, "where is the harm of giving away a Prayer-Book?" Should the constant union of the two so enhance the expense (we are only putting supposable cases), as to discourage, in certain circumstances, the distribution of either, would the Professor still ask, "where is the harm, &c.?" The same line of argument exactly furnishes an answer to Dr. Marsh's dilemma, "Is it not useful to give away a Prayer-Book with the Bible?" and if so, can the Churchman consistently "complain of those who object to the withholding of this usefulness, i. e. to the omission of giving the Liturgy?" Undoubtedly, as an abstract question, he might, if he could only prove a greater usefulness another way, or a specific mischief resulting from this act, counterbalancing its utility. The empiric, by associating with

every prescription his favourite drug, often misplaces its utility, and destroys the patient. Nothing, how

ever, can be more remote from our intention, than to connect such a character with the hame of Dr. Marsh: nothing, in truth, more remote, than to deny the absolute necessity of associating, in some way or other, the Bible and Prayer-Book together, when given away by Churchmen to members of the Church. And this necessity may be considered as conceded to Dr. Marsh without a struggle. Indeed, so necessary, so indispensable to the very existence of a liturgical establishment, do we believe the distribution of its Liturgy to be, that we could almost think a Professor wastes his time in proving what can never be seriously denied. At least, his insisting upon that point so very largely, seems to have rendered quite superfluous his previous arguments for its harmlessness and its utility: arguments only so far indisputable, as they are coincident and identical with those for its necessity.

To come, then, to the main points at issue in the Lady Margaret Professor's mind. 1. Whether it be absolutely necessary for Churchmen to give away the Bible and PrayerBook actually bound up together in the same volume. Some little obscurity on this point, which of all others ought to have been most thoroughly clear and explicit, is observable in this pamphlet; where, in truth, the author sometimes seems to contend for the Liturgy in the abstract, then merely as accompanying the Bible, and then as actually wedded to it in the same binding. Now, every thing averred by the Professor in behalf of the Liturgy in the abstract, is not so much to be conceded as to be commended; to be most strongly maintained, and carried, as it were, by acclamation, by all true lovers of our ecclesiastical constitution. We shall wait till our attachment, and even devotion to the Liturgy of the Established Church is in the least degree

Bibles and Prayer-Books in separate volumes on our shelves, in order to give a Prayer-Book, wherever we shall find none possessed, to elucidate the Bible; and a Bible, on the contrary, in case of that important want, to confirm and warrant the Prayer-Book.

2. But we willingly hasten to the second, and far more important and conclusive inquiry, "whether the actual distribution of the PrayerBook be hindered by the institution of a British Bible Society."-This, indeed, as a question of FACT, embracing an inquiry into the number of Prayer-Books actually printed, sold, and distributed in charity, or otherwise, since the institution of this Society, in comparison with an equal period of time before that event, we shall, for the present, wave: not, indeed, through fear; but through a kind of hardy confidence in our own independent speculations, and through a conviction that those, whose arguments it most nearly concerns, would have proved, if they could, that any diminution whatever has taken place; or, at least, that the dreaded disrespect and neglect of the Liturgy had not issued in any increased sale or distribution of that incomparable manual which distinguishes us as churchmen. Of the dreaded disrespect, we are to speak under the 3d head: the present confines us to the inquiry, whether there be any tendency to be apprehended, in this dangerous institution, towards the neglect or hindrance of the actual distribution of the Prayer-Book. The Professor, "appealing to no facts whatever, deduces an inference by the sole aid of abstract reasoning"....." that the very circumstance of churchmen joining this Society, though it does not actually prevent their procuring PrayerBooks elsewhere, has a natural and necessary tendency to diminish, in the opinion of churchmen themselves, both the importance of the Liturgy and the consequent frequency of its distribution." (pp. 56

-58.) We are inclined, we confess, to regard this position as wholly unfounded; and, certainly, the arguments by which it is supported, are far more sophistical than solid. To his reasonings on this head, we presume to oppose what seem to us the plain conclusions of common sense, founded on the observation of the world around us.

We here take some credit to ourselves, in the eyes of Dr. Marsh, for dividing the world between the subscribers and the non-subscribers to the Society in Bartlett's Buildings. The alleged discouragement, therefore, of the distribution of PrayerBooks, must be felt in one or both of those two classes. Now, of the subscribers to that venerable society, if Dr. Marsh entertains the opinion which he ought, he will allow that they are actuated, in subscribing, by a sound principle of attachment to our Establishment, and by a sense of the importance of that society, as a pillar of the Establishment. Suppose a person so actuated, to hear of the Bible Society, of its principles, and of its success. Suppose, for we will put the worst case, that, caught with the fire of enthusiasm, and ravished with the well-founded idea of flying, like the angel, through the midst of heaven, with the everlasting Gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, kindred, tongue, and people, he actually writes his name in the fatal list, and furnishes his guinea to the plan.

Is it, we ask, not "the natural and necessary," but the actual and practical tendency of this act, either to withdraw such a man from his original society, or to limit the conscientious efforts we suppose he has hitherto made, in connection with her, for the simple and ob viously necessary distribution of his Church Prayer-Book? We repeat it, we have no such opinion of the unsteadiness, we should say the weakness, of any one of our fellow members in Bartlett's Buildings, even to suspect that such could be the result. We should, in fact, expect

his relations with that society to remain unaltered. We should not wonder (we speak the FACT in regard to ourselves) if he never drew a book for his own neighbourhood, but as before from Bartlett's Buildings. We think it incredible, that the man should now begin to feel it as a matter of indifference, whether his poor neighbours carried a PrayerBook to their church or not. On the contrary, we should be much surprised if his care, on this head, were not even quickened; and if (lest he might appear to slight an old friend, by making acquaintance with a new) his zeal were not reanimated, and fresh exertions added, were it but to maintain his consistency, and to justify his old attachments. If otherwise, we would, at least, go farther in our suspicions, and suggest, that could a man be cooled in his attachment to such a cause, he would withdraw himself altogether, and transfer his name, at once, from Bartlett's Buildings to the British and Foreign Bible Society. If such a transfer has been made; if an individual instance can be named, let it be so, and we will name a dozen for each one, where the Bible Society has acted as the channel to convey subscribers to its venerable neighbour. Indeed, we honestly believe that Dr. Marsh intends no such imputation on the members of his own Church, and Church-Society. We doubt if he does not, in his sleeve, shrewdly suspect, perhaps know, that the members common to both societies, are about the most useful and active members of both. To take a name at random, though familiar to us all, would Dr. Marsh willingly enter into a comparison of the number of Prayer-Books yearly distributed by himself, and by Mr. Simeon of King's College? Will he hazard the question? Will he encounter the reply?

But, perhaps, the non-subscribers to Bartlett's Buildings are those from whom the Professor expects indif ference to the Liturgy, and the neglect of its distribution. And so should we too, provided they knew of the society, which many members of the Church of England certainly did not till after the institu tion of the Bible Society; and provided they had no reason to apprehend that the black-ball which marked the application of some of their brethren might not have been extended to them. We speak, of course, of Churchmen who could spare a guinea, and, for argument's sake, before the erection of the Bible Society. Now if a Churchman, be fore that period, hearing of the elder association, yet refused his guinea to its funds, and altogether declined its assistance, even the "profound thought" of Lady Margaret's Professor would never have imputed that man's indifference to the Litur gy or to its patrons, supposing this to have been the cause of his conduct, to the ex post facto institution of a Bible Society. But, perhaps, the Society in Bartlett's Buildings had never been heard of by the man. The Bible Society is in the mean time instituted: and we own it to be highly probable, that he may have heard of and subscribed to this. Surely Dr. Marsh will allow that this is better than actually nothing. To give away Bibles by subscription, and Prayer-Books, as he might have done before from his own fund, is not a state of things having a natural and necessary tendency to ruin his principles in regard to his church. And a benefit, on the other hand, accruing to that church may be this: that such a person now, for the first time, hears of Bartlett's Buildings. By the Bible Society, this older one has in a thousand different ways been brought into notice. And the person, though made no enemy to the church, we must assert, by having first distributed the Bible, yet is now in the utmost likelihood of becoming its more active friend, by hearing of

a society where he can also procure Prayer-books. The debate, now tak ing place in his mind, to which he shall continue his support, would be likely, in a great majority of cases, to terminate in his subscribing to both and we are persuaded he who dates, from that period, any indifference whatever to the distribution of the liturgy of his established church, was such a friend' to it before as Dr. Marsh himself would have accounted, and wished rather to see, openly belonging to its enemies.

Such then, we are vain enough to think, is the common sense upon this subject. The sum of which, in one word, we believe to be thisthat, of subscribers to the Bartlett's Buildings, not one will have less distributed the Liturgy for having joined himself to the Bible Society; and of non-subscribers to the former, many will, by the operation of the latter, have been led to distribute more. This inference, be it observ. ed also, is "deduced by the sole aid of abstract reasoning, without any appeal to facts.". ......" But facts may be produced, and facts incontrovertible, which put the truth of the inference beyond a doubt." (p. 59.) The FACT is, and, as we wish Dr. Marsh to be put into entire posses sion of the fact, we shall print it in very large letters; SINCE THE INSTITUTION OF THE BIBLE SOCIETY, THE SALE AND DISTRIBUTION OF PRAYERBOOKS HAS INCREASED PRODIGIOUSLY; and this independently of an increased circulation of Prayer-books by the Bart lett's Buildings Society. Should Dr. Marsh, after this assertion, call upon us in private, not to prove its truth, for that he can easily ascertain, but to rejoice with us upon it, and for a short moment talk over the reason, we should humbly argue, with all due submission to the Professor's contrary opinion, that the Bible leads men to church;-that no one ever went to church who was not ambitious, and did not actually take the CHRIST. OBRERV. No. 123.

means to possess himself, of a Prayerbook;-and that consequently the immensely increased circulation of the Bible has also led to a proportionate circulation of the Liturgy.

3. But here, it is true, the ground. begins to shake beneath our feet: the scene shifts, and a new prospect strewed with new arms of controversy opens before us, whilst we turn to the third and very different question of difficulty in the Professor's mind, "whether at least the respect for the Liturgy be not diminished by the institution and operations of a Bible Society." Having fairly, as we think, succeeded, hitherto, in divorcing, only as it respects their necessary union in one volume or one gift, these truly congenial companions; and having prov ed, as we hope, that the distribution of the Liturgy is at least not lessened by that of the Bible; we are ready still to allow it to be a very different question whether this partial disunion of the two, and a society for giving the Bible alone, may not gradually create a disrespect in the minds of men at large, if not a distaste, towards the Liturgy. And here we should have no objection to grant that Dr. Marsh had in different places set forth this apprehension in a manner likely to be of service to the cause of the Liturgy, were it possible for us to admit for a moment that the apprehension itself had the least ground of solidity or justice to rest upon. But unfortunately the Professor of Divinity seems to us to have made an assumption, throughout the whole of this argument, at once contrary to the fact, and most inconsistent with those steady principles of churchmanship for which it is at once his duty and bis profession to plead. We stand corrected if we say untruly, that the Professor speaks of our church as containing a system of faith which borrows all its peculiar force from the authority connected with it, and which has no more intrinsic strength or evidence for its truth than whe 2 B