Chapter II: Part 2

Now here, Sir, you throw out a challenge, which, with his Lordship’s permission, I am willing to accept. I will show you the history of such union as you indirectly deny: I will lay my finger on the page, and say, _when_, and _where_, and upon what _occasion_ the different tribes of Dissenters _did_ unite with the church for an important and righteous design. The _history_ then to which I refer is that portion of our country’s annals which commenced with the autumn of 1803, and which is not yet completed. The _page_ upon which I lay my finger is that which displays the voluntary creation of a national force; in which, if one feature was more illustrious than another, it was the magnanimity with which the subjects of the same government agreed “to put away all rancour of religious dissension,” and to unite in the prosecution of that _righteous_ and _important_ design in which they had embarked, “notwithstanding their differences upon points of doubtful opinion, and in the forms of external worship.” Let the Country Clergyman peruse this awful yet luminous page of our history; let him weigh well the danger which threatened the throne, the church, and the nation; let him read in those discourses, which gratitude will not allow us to forget, how that danger was proclaimed by preachers of every denomination; let him walk through the land, in the length of it and the breadth of it, and see how many myriads were added to the national force by those powerful and seasonable appeals to the feelings, the conscience, and the spirit of Britons; and he will want, I think, no other “example and precedent” to prove that an union of the various tribes of Dissenters WITH the church of England, for an important and righteous design, “is neither impossible nor improbable.”

With such a recent portion of history before your eyes, I cannot see, I confess, either the justice or the policy of your travelling back over a century and half of ground in order to find matter of accusation against those of our fellow-subjects, with whom a sense of common danger has united us, and with whom it is as important now as it was two years ago, that we should continue united. The politico-religious strife which subsisted between our ancestors and theirs is not a sacred inheritance. I trust the various denominations of Christians of the present day would think themselves as much disgraced by the events of “the grand rebellion,” {39a} as the modern members of the establishment would by the revenge with which it was followed. “The church” has, I know, “her sores and scars;” and so, I lament to say, have those who dissented from her. Let us own the truth—“the heavenly dove” {39b} has been sometimes encouraged to make a little too free with “the wings and feathers” of the smaller birds, and it must not therefore be wondered if her own have suffered. Let her but act up to the sweetness of her nature, and allow the other tenants of the air to have their note; she then may plume her golden breast without annoyance, and bear her grateful blessings on outstretched wings to every nation under heaven.

Your zeal for extending the boundaries of that church in which you minister, is both natural and just: I participate in it with all the feelings of my heart. It is an object which has my prayers, and shall, by God’s assistance, through life command my services. But I will not set her up as the entire and only spouse of Christ: for how can I then curse those whom God hath not cursed?—Away with those superannuated fears, that she must grow barren because her younger sisters are fruitful. I have no doubt but both she and they have “borne many an illustrious child of God” {40a} to their heavenly bridegroom, and will continue to bear many more. I lament with you, that they prefer their _Gerizim_ to our _Zion_: but I must not therefore refuse to have any dealings {40b} with them, or to entertain any charity for them. If they worship God in spirit and truth, if with the heart they believe on the Lord Jesus unto righteousness, if they “agree in the essentials of our most holy faith, and look for pardon through the merits and intercession of the Saviour,” I cannot, I dare not, I will not put them out of the covenant of grace and mercy and peace. Aliens from our external commonwealth, they are yet fellow-citizens with the saints: and though the earthly Jerusalem disclaim them, they will hereafter be acknowledged by the Jerusalem above—the mother of us all. {40c}

But the treason can no longer be dissembled; the eleventh article of the Society’s constitution proclaims it: that article purports, that “the committee (which is to conduct the business of the Society, appoint all officers except the treasurer, have power to call special meetings, and are charged with procuring for the Society suitable patronage) shall consist of thirty-six laymen; of whom, twenty-four, who shall have most frequently attended, shall be eligible for re-election for the ensuing year; six shall be foreigners resident in London or its vicinity; half the remainder shall be members of the church of England, and the other half members of other denominations of Christians!!!”

“_We have here_ (say you) _a standing majority against the church_!” and then, after declaiming, with all the art of the buskin, upon this “death-warrant of the established church,” and with all the prescience of the seer upon the return of the “halcyon days of 1648,” you surround yourself with the imaginary ruins of “our” demolished “Zion,” and make your exit “weeping.” {41} I thought indeed when you played such awkward antics upon “his Lordship’s liberal basis,” that every thing was not right. I could not but regard the laugh in which you indulged, as a symptom of something very different from humour; and I have not been deceived. It was, I perceive, a _moody laugh_, and has ended, as all such hysterical affections do, in _a flood of tears_. As the fit is now over, we may examine this treasonable article, with a better chance of coming to a mutual understanding upon it.

I will then indulge you for a moment with the full benefit of your assertion, that there is in this committee “_a standing majority against the church_;” and what will you gain by such a concession? The object, you must now bear in mind, is specific—the circulation of the Scriptures; that object, you must also recollect, is limited, within the kingdom, to the _authorized_, versions in use among us. The same sort of limitation is not resorted to in case of foreign versions, for the best of all reasons; that it _cannot_ in the nature of things be applied. The different Protestant churches on the European continent have their authorized versions, and _there_ the line of proceeding is direct: but where the church of Rome, or, as she calls herself _the church_, prevails; _there_, the Country Clergyman would scarcely wish the rule for circulating the _authorized_ version to be observed. As for those languages into which translations remain to be made, they are for the most part so remote from the ordinary sphere of study and commerce, that the office of executing such translations, and judging of their merits, must generally be consigned to foreigners; who probably neither understand the distinctions to which we annex importance, nor could be made to understand them. No questions, therefore, can arise in this committee, which might bring into discussion the points of disagreement between the church of England and Dissenters: so that if there should be in such committee, a standing majority of members _out of_ the church, that will by no means constitute a Standing majority _against_ her.

But let us see whether your _hypothesis_ does not assume rather too much. The Society is denominated _British_ and _Foreign_. In the constitution of its committee, it was but just to pay respect to both parts of its designation: nor does it appear extravagant to have assigned a sixth part of that committee to the members of those foreign churches, with which the Society sought a friendly co-operation, and with which, I understand, she _is_ actually co-operating to a very considerable extent. Now these foreigners cannot be identified with the Dissenters from the established church, without as much violence to speech as makes a _solecism_, and to the rights of hospitality, as constitutes a _calumny_. Neither these men have sinned, nor their parents, in the way which the Country Clergyman _supposes_: they brought their religion with them, as they did their language; and they might as truly be said to have dissented from a language which they never spake, as from a mode of religious worship which neither they nor their fathers ever professed. They are, it should be observed, for the most part members of sister churches, from which the Society for promoting Christian Knowledge has obtained some of its most laborious missionaries, and the established church of this country has derived, and must continue to derive, her nursing mothers. {44} On many grounds, these foreigners would feel the ties which bind them to the established church; and she may therefore fairly reckon upon their _neutrality_, if she may not promise herself their _support_.

Let these _neutrals_ (for such _at least_ I am privileged to call them) be withdrawn, and there remain fifteen members to support the church’s interests, and fifteen, as it is supposed by the Country Clergyman, to impugn them. The former will naturally be links of the same chain; common interest, and pledges of a peculiar nature, dictate to them an uniformity of reciprocal support, from which they may not be expected to depart. They may therefore be reckoned upon to the extent of their number. But will you, Sir, who seem to know something of the world, will you allow yourself to believe, that the same uniformity of co-operation may be expected from the fifteen members who are to fight the battles of _dissent_? Some among them are advocates for _infant_ baptism, some for _adult_ baptism, and some for _no_ baptism at all. Some hold the tenets of Calvin, some of Arminius, and some of neither. Their sentiments upon church government are also scarcely less various, than their opinions upon matters of faith: so that, widely as they may seem to dissent from the church of England, many of them would be found, if controverted questions could arise, to differ still more widely from each other. Yet all these discordant members must harmonize together; and the foreigners, who probably differ from them all, must harmonize with them; or else _the standing majority against the church_ must remain a mere _standing_ bugbear, to scare the Country Clergyman, and terrify those who choose to participate his alarms.

I am, however, no enemy to strong improbabilities where a pleasant argument is concerned. The fifteen members of all denominations of British Christians _shall_ unite together; the six members of foreign churches shall do the same: and then, like the miraculous pieces of St. Peter’s chain {45} (of which _the church_ makes such notable mention), these two parties shall form a junction; _a majority_ shall thus be created _against_ the church. What then? Are not the presidents, vice-presidents, and treasurer, by virtue of their respective offices, members of the committee? Suppose then for a moment, that the committee should entertain so foul a proposition as that for “blowing up the establishment, clergy and all;” suppose, that the Quakers should consent to renounce, _pro hâc vice_, their objections to the employment of gunpowder; suppose further that the foreigners should concur, nobody knows why, in voting for such a measure; the terrified minority would not be without a remedy. It would still be in their power, by the accession of these honorary members, to outnumber their dissenting adversaries at the ensuing meeting; and, by objecting to the confirmation of the minutes, prevent the explosion of this nefarious plot. But indeed there is no end of remedies. Every clergyman subscribing a guinea a year, is a _member of the committee_. (Art. 12.) Every subscriber of five guineas a year, is a _member of the committee_. (Art. 5 and 7.) Every subscriber of 50_l._ at one time, is a _member of the committee_. (Art. 6.) And lastly, every executor paying a bequest of 100_l._ is a _member of the committee_. (Art. 8 and 7.) Now, Sir, supposing the members of the church of England to be (upon your own estimate) to those of other denominations as four to one, _whose_ fault do you think it will be, if the balance of influence in the committee of the Bible Society should be against her? Will _you_ be wholly innocent?—“Oh, Sir, how could you join in such a plot? What could induce you to lend your” professional “name to such a business as this? And why should you think so basely of the clergy as to tempt them by your example,” and the presumption of your fair reputation, to believe, that, in strengthening the hands of their ecclesiastical brethren, they would “sign the death-warrant of the established church, and the instrument of their own ruin?” {47a} Do, Sir, lose no time in writing your palinodia. I will not ask you to alter your opinion of the Society, or to part with one of your suspicions of its mischievous designs. You shall still be at liberty to talk, as freely as ever, of “preaching blacksmiths and fanatical ranters in holy orders;” and of such “doves,” as you and your friends, becoming “a luscious and inviting morsel to all the several hungry denominations of Christians;” provided you do but seek to multiply the number of our ecclesiastical subscribers, as much as you have hitherto laboured to diminish it. I will not promise, in return, that your “liberality will be sounded forth by every gospel-preacher in the church, and every twanging teacher in the conventicle;” {47b} but I may then venture to promise you, what I should think would afford you quite as much pleasure—the satisfaction of having converted a standing majority _against_ the church into a standing majority _in her favor_.

I will not dispute with you, whether the established church will be a gainer by this new connexion on the score of _dignity_ and fashion. I am told, indeed, that there are among the nonconformists those who can wear as gay a coat, play as good a hand at whist, and give as modish an account of an opera or a play, as “those men of the world” among us, who “think it more creditable to be accounted members of our venerable church, than a subscriber to the meeting-house:” but I cannot say how many there may be of this description among the subscribers to the Bible Society. However, though “few men of opulence, and fewer still of rank, frequent the meeting-house or conventicle,” there is “influence and consideration” {48a} enough among the members of our communion to give respectability to both. I grant, indeed, that “the presence of _a nobleman_ cannot make the company which he honours with his presence either creditable or polite,” yet surely the presence of a _number_ will go a great way towards doing it: but then I admit with you, that they must not be “wandering stars,” {48b} which shed a momentary lustre, but luminaries which keep a _fixed_ position, and dispense a _certain_ light.

You expect, as the result of this new association, that all will become unity, and charity, and Christian benevolence, and that you shall see “realized the pretty hand-in-hand frontispiece to the Christian Ladies Pocket-Book 1803.” {48c} Now though I am not so sanguine in my expectations as you are, yet I trust you will not be wholly disappointed. And, in my opinion, a Protestant clergy will be not acting less out of their character by promoting “unity, charity, and Christian benevolence,” than by disturbing them: nor can Christian prelates be quite so much disgraced by shaking the hands of Dissenting ministers in the frontispiece of a pocket-book, {49} as they would be if represented as drawing those hands through the holes of a pillory.

Your fears are awakened for the _purity_ of the church:—I am certainly more tender of her _purity_ than I am of her _dignity_; and that because I have been taught to regard her _white raiment_ as her truest _glory_. But what defilement has she to apprehend from a co-operation with persons differing from her, in an object upon which they are agreed? If Socinians are to be feared, if Calvinists are to be shunned, I question whether the Bible Society will furnish dangers nearly so great as those which the established church incurs from members of her own communion. Socinians are not remarkable for their zeal in promoting the circulation of the Scriptures; and I question whether half a dozen of them have subscribed their names as members of the Bible Society. As for the Calvinists, they constitute, it must be remembered, only a proportion of those denominations which are represented in the committee. The Wesleian Methodists are not _Calvinists_; many of the Presbyterians are not _Calvinists_; the Quakers are not _Calvinists_; the Lutherans are not _Calvinists_; and individuals of other persuasions, which might be named, are not _Calvinists_. Besides, though “scratchings and fightings” may be “usual with the parties when on the outside of the tavern walls,” {50} that is not a reason for there being theological wranglings within. The line of business is, with few exceptions, as direct at the Bible Committee as it is at Lloyd’s; and there is as little reason to expect the peculiar tenets of Calvin or Socinus to enter into a debate for dispersing an edition of the Scriptures, as there would be if the same men were met to underwrite a policy of insurance. But why may it not be hoped that churchmen will not be the only losers by this connexion? What if some of _us_ should grow less proud and phlegmatic, may not some of _them_ become less snarlish and fanatical? The friction which takes off our asperities will assuredly do the same by theirs. It is therefore highly probable, that we may severally bring away with us our faith, our hope, and our charity, which are all we wish to save; and leave nothing behind us but that “bitterness, and wrath, and anger, and clamour, and evil-speaking, and malice,” {51a} which can very well be spared.

You ask, “what concord hath a mitre with a meeting-house?” The Pharisees of old were fond of asking questions of the same sort—“Why eateth your Master with publicans and sinners?” The Pharisees were very little satisfied with the answer they received; and, I dare say, any answer that could be given to the Country Clergyman would satisfy him as little. I must therefore leave him to doubt whether _any concord_ can subsist between kindred souls, pursuing the same object under different forms, and in unequal stations, till he shall see how near the spirits of an Usher and a Baxter, of a Taylor and a Henry, of a Tillotson and a Watts, of a Seeker and a Doddridge, will _venture_ to approach each other, in the new heaven and new earth wherein dwelleth _righteousness_.

And pray what are we to understand by your merry question about the _unequal yoke_? “Why (you ask) should a clergyman of the church of England be unequally yoked with a lovely sister of the conventicle?” And then you desire “a certain officer of the Society” {51b} to be consulted. What sort of an answer that “officer” might think proper to give, it belongs to himself to determine; but I confess I see nothing in the question which I should be afraid to meet. I am at a loss to see what harm “a lovely sister of the conventicle” can do to any man. I am sure there is every probability that such an “unequal yoke” would do the Country Clergyman’s temper a great deal of good. But I cannot give him any great encouragement, if he should _venture himself_ upon such a speculation, _into the company of those of whom he has always hitherto been horribly afraid_. The sectaries, on whom he has laid such heavy blows, will keep (I fear) their “lovely sisters” for priests of a gentler nature and better breeding; and leave the Country Clergyman to whisper his tale of love into some high-church ear, and to be as “equally yoked” as Richard Hooker, {52} or any other country clergyman ever was before him.

But though I can pardon in this “certain officer of the Society,” his _hymeneal_ error (for matches, you know, Sir, are made in heaven), yet I have no such allowance to make for those other transgressions, in which he is, or ought to be, a freer agent. “Perhaps (you say) he can resolve us, how a clergyman of the church can attend the meeting-house, without danger to his principles, or gross indecorum towards the church and its spiritual superior. He perhaps can show us too, how a clergyman of the church can securely, and without breach of trust, take his pupils to hear the harangues of those who daily revile her. This, to common understandings, does not appear to be the likely way ‘to banish and drive away all erroneous and strange doctrines, contrary to God’s word,’ which every clergyman at his ordination solemnly promises to do. It wants some clearing up.” {53}

There is really, Sir, no accounting for the fancies of some of our order. Dean Swift was fond of vulgar manners, and therefore he would take his dinner in a cellar; some clergymen love the sports of the field, and therefore join the hounds at a fox-chase: I suppose this “certain officer of the Society” has a sort of ear for public speaking, and has sometimes stepped a little out of his way in order to gratify it. But then (as you might naturally say) are not the _theatres_ open for him, as well as for his brethren; and if he wants a slice of good oratory, cannot he give six shillings to a box-keeper, and take it like a gentleman? _He_ may perhaps have a doubt (for he seems to hold opinions of his own) “how a clergyman of the church can attend” _the theatre_, “without danger to his principles, or gross indecorum towards the church and its spiritual superior.” Perhaps also he may entertain a doubt “how a clergyman of the church can, securely, and without breach of trust, take his pupils to hear the harangues of those” dramatic characters, “which,” as Archbishop Tillotson says, “do most notoriously minister to infidelity and vice.” {54a} Possibly “this,” to his understanding, may “not appear to be the likely way ‘to frame and fashion himself and his family according to the doctrine of Christ, and to make both himself and them, as much as in him lieth, wholesome examples and patterns to the flock of Christ,’ {54b} which every clergyman at his ordination solemnly promises to do.” But I think with you, that the whole of this matter “wants clearing up.” I have, I confess, some difficulty about conceiving how this priest can execute either such, or so many duties as he is said to do, of a parochial and domestic nature; and yet find either time to conduct his pupils to hear the church reviled, or pupils tractable enough to be conducted by him. But, as I said before, the whole matter “wants clearing up;” and if you should be found to have aimed a blow at his professional character, which he has not quite deserved, you have nothing to do but to say, as the Roman assassins are reported to do when they stab the wrong man in the dark, “_Padrone è un sbaglio_,”—“I beg your pardon, it was _a mistake_.”

Your last objection respects “the purity of the Holy Scriptures,” which, you think, will be endangered “if the translation and edition of the Sacred Book are to be intrusted to all the different denominations of Christians.” {55} The greater part of this objection has been anticipated. It has been already stated that the Society is restrained to editing and distributing the versions, _printed by authority_, throughout the united kingdom. In supplying the different parts of the European continent, the Society will find the versions already in circulation among the Protestant churches; and its proceedings in these cases will be chiefly directed by those Lutheran prelates and ministers, with whom a confidential communication has, I understand, been already opened, through the medium of its foreign secretary. Nor can there be any danger of the Bible Society intrusting “either the translating or the editing the Holy Scriptures to the care of that denomination of Christians called Papists;” {56a} for, besides the _improbability_ of “that denomination of Christians” joining the Bible Society, there is the absolute _certainty_, that there would always be in the committee a _standing majority against them_. With regard to _new_ translations, they relate, as has been already observed, to languages, over which the jurisdiction of the church of England would be as nugatory as that of any other denomination of Christians. The manner of conducting these must be almost, if not entirely, matter of discretion; and such a committee as the Bible Society has been shown to possess, affords the best security that such discretion will never be wanted. So far as the influence of the church in these cases is of importance, she has it, by the natural constitution of the committee; and if a preponderating influence be desirable, the doors are opened for obtaining it by proportional subscription. Should she adopt this measure, as I trust she will, “you see the consequences as well as I can.” The Society will then contain, beyond all question, _a standing majority in favor of the church_; and there will be no room for apprehending that “our present pure English Bible will be thrust aside to make way for others:” but while “every different party has its doctrine and its interpretation,” all parties will have but ONE BIBLE. {56b}

But, it seems, you have got possession of a fact which strengthens all your fears: you have been “credibly informed that the British and Foreign Bible Society are at this time preparing an edition of the Holy Scriptures in the Welsh language, in which such liberties are taken in the translation as are by no means warrantable.” You are right in saying you give this “merely as a _report_;” however, I cannot help suspecting that, where the Bible Society, or any of its _officers_, are likely to suffer by it, you have no particular objection to publishing what are “merely _reports_.” Others before you have charged upon the Society the nefarious crime of taking “unwarrantable liberties with the _translation_” and they had just as good authority for saying so as you have. The fact is, that _the original informer_ never imputed to the Society the guilt of altering the _translation_, but the _orthography_ of the text; and he, it must be observed, had never seen any portion of the corrected copy. But before your pamphlet left the press—perhaps before it went there; the parties, to whom the information had been originally conveyed, were in possession of another sort of _report_—a Report from the Committee of the British and Foreign Bible Society; in which the corrections that had occasioned this alarm, were shown to have been made (whether right or wrong, _judicent periti_), upon a collation of the orthographical variations, in the several _authorized editions only_. However, the question between the parties is in a train of arbitration, under the direction of the syndics of the Cambridge University-press; _who_, and _not the Committee of the Bible Society_, are to be the printers of the Welsh impression.

But lest the Welsh rumour should subside before the Society is overthrown, you have another little story to keep up the public prejudice against it. “The author (you say) has likewise been _told_, that the distribution of tracts as well as Bibles, was in the original plan of some of the first projectors of this scheme, one of whom is known to be a zealous adversary of the establishment.” {58a} Now, Sir, it is very possible that the original projector of this Society, and his project too, may have been very exceptionable, and yet the present institution be entitled to a very honorable character. I have never thought the worse of the Reformation, because I could not for the life of me think well of Henry the Eighth and his “original plan.” The “Philanthropic Society” is founded upon a supposition, which I think a very just one, that something may be made of the _offspring_, when nothing can be made of the _parent_; {58b} and I suppose the Country Clergyman would rather have his pamphlet judged from the _fair copy_ which he sent to the press, than from any one of those “original plans” of it, which were projected by his busy and inquisitive _reporters_. The question is, whether the _actual_ plan of the Society comprehends or excludes the distribution of _tracts_. The answer to this is, that the _first article_ of the constitution peremptorily _excludes_ them. After such a declaration, it is as unreasonable to dispute the _present_ object of the Bible Society, by a reference to any _antecedent_ designs; as it would be to question whether the Paradise Lost be an _epic poem_, merely because it stood as a _drama_ in Milton’s “original plan.”

But I have done.—My business was not to proclaim the _excellence_ of the Bible Society; but only to rescue it from _reproach_. I have therefore confined my remarks to those specific objections with which you have opposed it.

What _further_ objections you could have produced (and, it seems, you have nine times as many in reserve) {59} I shall not concern myself to inquire: if they resemble those, which have been already considered, I rejoice that you have had the grace to conceal them. You have already condescended enough “to do the enemy’s work:” and deserved sufficiently well of those who seek the church’s degradation. If this be _really_ the object of the several denominations of Christians, they are abundantly more indebted to the hostility of the _cassock_ than to the friendship of the _mitre_. _Yours_, Sir, is the description of services upon which they will set the most value: and, if they do you justice, “not a single nonconformist, Papist, Socinian, or Quaker, will be silent in your praise.”—“Ungrateful wretches would they be, were they to pass by unnoticed and un-eulogized so great a friend to their cause.” {60a} But I trust you have mistaken _them_, as much as you have dishonored _us_: _they_ will hope to get to heaven, though they should not have pulled down the church in their way; and _we_ shall hope to get there too, though we should not have _compelled_ them “to be like-minded,” nor refused them the free use of Bibles, and the offices of brotherly love.

And now, Sir, before I take my leave (a ceremony to which we are hastening with mutual impatience), let me challenge your acknowledgment of that courteousness and suavity with which I have treated you. It was natural for you to expect revilings and reproaches; you esteem them an “honor;” you “have enjoyed them before;” {60b} and I must do you the justice to say, that you take some pains to deserve them. However, in the present instance, you have been disappointed. I have neither reviled nor reproached you: I have not once called you “Beelzebub,” through the whole of my letter: I have never once insinuated that you were a wolf in sheep’s clothing: I have never once pried into the table of your alliances, nor dodged you from your house to your favorite places of amusement, nor pretended to know any more of your private history, than was strictly consistent with “a gentleman and a Christian.”

I owe this self-government to “those liberal-basis’d and broad-bottomed principles,” to which you appear so profound a stranger: and I trust, this consideration will do a great deal towards recommending them to your favor. They are, Sir, be assured, the genuine principles of Christianity, as well as those of the British constitution. They are calculated to reflect honor on the church, and to promote harmony through the nation. On them the British and Foreign Bible Society has been erected; and from such an institution, resting upon such “a basis,” the happiest events may, under God, be expected, to the country—to Europe—and to the habitable world.

I am, Rev. Sir,

Your humble Servant.

* * * * *

* * * * *

THE END.

* * * * *

* * * * *

* * * * *

S. GOSNELL, Printer, Little Queen Street.

FOOTNOTES.

{1} Address, p. 1.

{2} Address, p. 1 and 2.

{3a} Address, p. 16.

{3b} This resolution was occasioned by the combination of the journeymen printers, &c. against their masters.

{6a} Address, p. 28.

{6b} Ibid.

{6c} P. 21.

{6d} “History proves that none but _the church_ have enjoyed the _splendour and favour of princes_.” Address, p. 27.

{8} Address, p. 5.

{9a} Address, p. 32.

{9b} P. 5.

{9c} P. 6.

{10a} Address, p.8.

{10b} P. 9.

{10c} P. 8.

{11a} Address, p. 5.

{11b} P. 7.

{12} Address, p. 5.

{14a} Address, p. 7.

{14b} P. 10.

{15} Address, p. 8.

{16} Address, p. 8.

{17} Address, p. 8, 9.

{19} Address, p. 9.

{20} Address, p. 16.

{21a} Address, p. 11.

{21b} P. 26.

{24a} Address, p. 21.

{24b} P. 12.

{26} Address, p. 18.

{27} Address, p. 13.

{31} Address, p. 32.

{34} Address, p. 11.

{35a} Address, p. 16.

{35b} P. 2.

{35c} P. 16.

{35d} Ibid.

{36} It struck me suddenly at last, that your Lordship must intend by these classical words, only what the vulgar would call “broad bottom.” Address, p. 16.

{37a} Address, p. 17.

{37b} Ibid.

{37c} P. 18.

{39a} Address, p. 21.

{39b} “Whose delight,” speaking of the Dissenters, “has always been to clip the silver wings of the heavenly dove, and to pluck her golden feathers from her breast.” Address, p. 20.

{40a} Address, p. 21.

{40b} John, iv. 9.

{40c} Gal. iv. 26.

{41} Address, p. 25.

{44} It need scarcely be observed, that our virtuous Queen, and the wives of her royal sons, were of the Lutheran church.

{45} A church at Rome, called _San Pietro in Vincolis_, is said to have been built in consequence of such a miraculous event.

{47a} Address, p. 23.

{47b} P. 24.

{48a} Address, p. 28.

{48b} P. 27.

{48c} Ibid.

{49} The reader, who is not acquainted with this part of ecclesiastical history, must be told, that a bookseller, desirous, it is presumed, of reconciling all “denominations of Christians” to the purchase of his Christian “Ladies’ Pocket-book, for 1803,” took the liberty of representing three ministers, respectively of the Presbyterian, Baptist, and Independent denominations of Protestant Dissenters, and a prelate of the established church, together with an union of hands, in the frontispiece of his work.

{50} Address, p. 22.

{51a} Ephes. iv. 3.

{51b} Address, p. 32.

{52} Richard Hooker was prevailed upon by Mrs. _Churchman_, the wife of “a draper of good note,” as honest Isaac Walton calls him, to let her choose a wife for him. “Now,” continues the pleasant biographer, “the wife provided for him was her daughter Joan, who brought him neither beauty nor portion; and for her conditions, they were too like that wife’s, which is by Solomon compared to a dripping house: so that he had no reason to _rejoice in the wife of his youth_, but rather to say with the holy prophet, ‘_Wo is me_, _that I am constrained to have my habitation in the tents of Kedar_’.” Walton’s Life of Hooker.

{53} Address, p. 32.

{54a} Vide Archbishop Tillotson on the Stage (as quoted by Law).

{54b} Vide Ordination Service.

{55} Address, p. 32.

{56a} Address, p. 33.

{56b} P. 34.

{58a} Address, p. 36.

{58b} This Society provides for educating the _children of felons_.

{59} “I have mentioned not a tenth part.” Address, p. 35.

{60a} Address, p. 24.

{60b} P. 4.