Page images
PDF
EPUB
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

gotten, we presume, that they had Luther for an example. The Archbishop of Treves, at the conclusion of the diet of Worms, called in Spalatinus; and in his presence asked Luther, whether he himself could suggest any healing measures, that were likely to succeed. Nothing better," replied Luther instantly, "than the advice of Gamaliel, If this work be of men, it will come to nought; but if it be of God, ye cannot resist it.' The Emperor and the Princes may inform the Pope, (and we too can inform Mr. Norris) that this whole religious agitation and controversy will die away of itself in less than two years, unless God be actually on my side*."

14. A layman cannot give away Bibles without being hostile to public preaching:

"When our Saviour enjoined his disciples to go into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature,' it was evidently his intention that the gospel should be preached. Those men who attempt to propagate the gospel, without the intervention of a preaching ministry, by the mere circulation of the Scriptures, do not fulfil our Saviour's intentions; but forsake the way in which he ordained his own religion to be taught, and mark out a new way of their own." p. 155.

This passage is selected from the Counter-address at Hackney, written probably by Mr. Norris. See also pages 166, 168, 172, &c.

15. Mr. Norris believes (p. 159) that since the members of the Society give Bibles without note or comment, they are hostile to comments: surely not a very just conclusion! The Bartlett's Buildings' Society has for an entire century dispersed Bibles with the simple

text. Is Mr. Norris therefore hostile to comments?

16. Mr. Norris cannot distinguish the "exclusive object" of the Bible Society, viz. to circulate Bibles; and its contingent advantage, viz. to promote union. p. 175.

• See Milner's History of the Church.

17. Our author is exceedingly perplexed by the following occur rence. Mr. Dealtry having found certain positions in the writings of the Country Clergyman, which savoured not a little of Rome, declared his persuasion that they had a leaning to Popery: an anonymous Socinian, Mr. Norris says, also considered them as Popish : then comes Mr. Gandolphy, and declares that these are the very principles which he, as a Roman Catholic, has always maintained. A common reasoner would infer, that the writings in question were Popish. But what says Mr. Norris ?

"It is curious to observe the association

which is thus formed between Mr. Dealtry, Chaplain to a Protestant Bishop, the anonymous Socinian, whose papers are to follow, and Mr. Gandolphy, a real Romanist; the two former insiduously introducing vulnerable points into the English Reformation, and the latter taking advantage of the treachery, and then, in the haughty tone of a victorious assailant, boasting of his success in subverting the grand and fundamental principle of Protestantism: and glorying over 'the Reformers' indiscriminately, as having run mad with the Bible fever." p. 240.

Now, to our apprehension, there is nothing curious in three persons of different persuasions asserting of a Popish tenet that it is a Popish tenet. If they should all agree that the work under review is full of wonderful facts, and uncommon modes of argumentation, where would be the marvel? For its facts are wonderful, and its argumentation is rather unusual.-Indeed, we should not be much astonished if Mr. Gandolphy were to claim Mr. Norris as a brother and a friend.

18. It is brought as matter of charge against Mr. Owen, that he is registered in the Evangelical Diary as a reputed Gospel Preacher. Mr. Norris does not inform us who inserted his name, nor what conclusion he derives from it.

19. It is amusing to see what deference Mr. Norris and his friends pay to the conjectures of any enthusiast, who anticipates evil from

the Bible Society.-It must tend to ruin the Church and State; for some nameless person at Birmingham was heard to deliver this opinion in the presence of some other nameless person, in August, 1810. Is this logic? (See p. 363.) Are our intellects so degraded, that we shall fly to the ravings of a wild man in the West? Would Mr. Norris, or his anonymous correspondent, take any other opinion upon such testimony? If a person had come to the chapel on Clapton Terrace toward the close of 1812, he might have heard, we are told, many a sermon about the dangerous tendency of Bible Institutions. But would any reasonable man urge this as an argument against the Bible Society?

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

20. "Dr. Milner, at p. 142, laments (says Professor Marsh) that a Bible Society was not formed in the time of Charles I. Now there was a Bible Society formed in the reign of Charles I. (rejoins the Professor) and it comprised all the Puritans in the kingdom. I have got a print of it, of which I gave an account in a preceding chapter. Referring to this chapter, the account will be found as follows: The print consists of three figures; the figure of a. Puritan with a Bible in his hand; the figure of an English Bishop with the Prayer Book in his hand; and the figure of a Romish Bishop with the Mass Book in his hand. The two last figures are in all respects alike, they have the same height, the same dress, the same look, the same every thing. Over them is written, "Every plant which my Heavenly Father hath not planted, should be rooted up." Here we have a true specimen of the Bible only to be distributed by the Protestant; and we know that in four years from that time the Prayer-book was formally abolished." pp. 384, 385.

The analogy is this: The Bible Society in the reign of Charles (if indeed it ever existed) comprised all the Dissenters, and excluded all the Church-it was just such a Bible Society as Dr. Marsh and Mr. Norris are labouring to establish. The existing Society includes the Church, and is patronized by a majority of the bench of Bishops.Of Mr.

Norris's talents as a reasoner, these specimens alone are decisive.

It may, perhaps, be said. that Mr. Norris has professed different views from some of those which have been assigned to him. The position is true. His assertions are not " one and indivisible" his system is subject to variations: and we should do him injustice if we did not admit that one part of his volume stands frequently in direct opposition to another. For example: He has no hesitation in attributing the most excellent motives to Mr. Freshfield (p. 2); and in the general dissemina. tion of the authorised version of the Scriptures among the poor, he goes with him heart and hand. Now read pp. 84, 85:

"Does Mr. Freshfield mean that no de ference is due to the judgment of the parochial clergy upon questions of principle; but only upon those of form, compliment, and etiquette? If so, how necessary and useful must the divinely constituted order of the priesthood appear in that gentleman's estimation? But uo sooner has he taken the question out of their cognizance, and driven them out of court, than he brings them back again to wage amongst themselves a war of unavailing words, and proceeds to balance. one against the other, their contending opinions. To what purpose is this, except it be to cast scorn upon a eonscientious pastor of a parish by a triumphant display of that compleat prostration of ecclesiastical authority, which the auxiliary system has been for several years most insidiously labouring to accomplish, and which Mr. F. considers so nearly effected that he speaks of it in the beginning of his letter as if it were now established by law? But Mr. F. should know that the church, though its enemies are 'compassing it on every side,' is not yet disfranchised of that system of discipline, by. which the limits of its several ministries are defined."

"When the kingdom is re-organised, and the Bible Society's new District Map published by authority, then its Managing Committee may form a new ordinal to correspond with this new order of things, and may make to themselves priests of whom they please. But at present the confusion which Mr. F. would introduce is premature. and we trust that, through the quiet good

sense of Englishmen, under the superinten dance of the good providence of God, it will never take effect,"

Again:-We have seen with what care Mr. Norris would guard against the interference of the laity in distributing the Scriptures: but he also declares he wishes for their assistance. "So far from discou. raging this valuable co-operation, I beg to assure you that I am most tenderly alive to its incalculable importance!" p. 57. The distinction which he purposes is to this effect:-I have no objection to your giving a Bible, if I permit you to give one: but unconsecrated persons incur a fearful responsibility, if they attempt to do good without my consent. These are not the words of Mr. Norris, but they convey the exact meaning of pp. 58, 59, 60.

Mr. Norris, as our readers have perceived, is solicitous to check a too general diffusion of the Bible. What then are we to understand by this passage?" It is unnecessary to say that both he and his curates (the clergy of Hackney) had been endeavouring to inculcate and promote the duty and benefit of a private perusal of the Scriptures, long before the Bible Society had exist ence." We could produce much of the same sort, but this may suffice.

Under the idea that these observations will convey a pretty clear view of the statements which our author has made, we will now attend to some cases of OMISSION, relating chiefly to the formation of the Hackney Society.

1. With respect to the nature of his publication,

"It commences with a letter from the

Rev. Dr. Watson, conveying to a respectable parishioner his reasons for disapproving of the projected Institution which, at the joint request of that gentleman, and several of his neighbours, was printed and circulated through the parish for general information. This is followed by the unanimous resolutions of three successive meetings of vestry, passed in consequence of the Vicar's letter,

and circulated through the parish: together with another letter from him, occasioned by the vote of thanks expressive of the high sense entertained by the vestry of the valus of his pastoral exertions.” p. xxi.

The omission in this paragraph is not unimportant, if what we have, been told be true (and this Mr. Norris knows), viz. that the whole of this letter-writing between the Vicar and his Parishioner, the entreaty to allow a publication of the letters, and the concession, to which Mr. Norris evidently appeals as detached and independent testimony, were matters planned and executed, by Mr. Norris himself.

2. Why has our author omitted the date of his own letter, No. 5, and of Mr. Freshfield's, No. 6? Was it to convey an impression that each of those compositions was drawn up with such care as to be ready for the public eye? Was is to deprive Mr. Freshfield of his claim to the reader's indulgence, on account of the haste in which his letter was written?

3. Mr. Norris talks much about the proceedings of the vestry, and repeatedly assumes, that they were unanimous. But we would ask whether he could not have recorded a protest on the part of many more vestrymen than those who attended the meeting? We would also ask Mr. Norris, whether the vestry meetings, convened for the purpose of opposing the Bible Society, were not, in truth, so small, that, upon one occasion, they adjourned for want of a quorum; and that, upon another, they sat an hour, and then only obtained a sufficient number by entreating the attendance of a gentleman known to be adverse to their proceedings?

the indiscriminate circulation of 4. After affirming (p. 194), that the Scriptures in all languages and countries, is unnecessary and ineffectual*, our author proceeds thus:

* We recommend to Mr. Norris, and all persons who deny the possibility of religious

"But there is nothing either in the constitution or the object of the Society for promoting Christian Knowledge, which prevents its members from circulating them in any way, or to any extent they may think proper." p. 195.

He ought to have added, that the Society for promoting Christian Knowledge is not in possession of any edition of the Scriptures in foreign languages, except the Arabic; and, therefore, that the foreign circulation at least cannot be effected by it. And is it not true that, for some reason not yet assigned, many even of the Arabic Testaments, printed by that Society in 1720, became, by the mere process of damp and delay in the course of eighty years, but little calculated for use?

5. "It is important to observe," says Mr. N. that in this lowest link of the chain of Association which exceeds in compass all the rest, the Bible Society is to all intents and purposes

a secret confederation, as the Editor has taken the utmost pains to obtain a copy of the muster roll! and co-collectors have refused copies of their lists to one of their own body whom they suspected not to be hearty in the cause; and it is literally true, that in the two districts most remote from the church, where the measure has succeeded, the only Kists which the Editor has been able to procure

instruction being conveyed by the Scriptures alone, to consider the following statement, which has recently been received from India, and which has been furnished by the same Dr. Carey of whom Dr. Marsh thinks and has written so highly.

There is a general spirit of inquiry about the Gospel all over the country; and this inquiry increases more and more. Five natives of high caste, not far from Se rampore, have lately been baptized, who have been brought to a knowledge of the truth, without any communication with us. They met with Bibles and tracts, and God wrought by them. These men had begun to sanctify the Sabbath, and meet for Christian worship, before we knew them. They have boldly owned the Saviour, and meet the persecutious of their idolatrous relations like Chris

tians. They say there are nearly a hundred who are only detained from publicly ac knowledging Christ by family opposition, and who, it is hoped, will be enabled to make a profession in due time." Missionary Register, vol. i. p. 424,

are the lists of those who have become alive to the mischief, and in these are the names of several receiving parochial relief, and who are thus made to pay out of the paro chial rates their penny contribution." p. 350.

The omissions in this passage are of the following sort:-1. He does not tell us whether the Committee ing parochial relief is a subscriber. were aware, that any person receiv2. The Curate of Hackney should also have told us, with whom rests the responsibility, if the parish poor are destitute of the Holy Scriptures. 3. Was, or was not, the co-collector, alluded to in the above extract, an enemy in disguise? And did he not wish to procure information, in order to defeat the benevolent objects of the Society?

This passage opens a very curious field of inquiry. We have seen with what remarkable aptness a county newspaper, or a raving enthusiast,in some remote part of the kingdom, is alwaysready to supply materials to the enemies of the Bible Society, for any charge which they think it expedient to adopt; and we are much deceived if this system will not hereafter be carried to a far greater extent. If the person who condemned the circulation of the Scriptures at the Hertford meeting had declared himself not an enemy, but a friend to the Society, what a delightful argument would it have afforded to the Curate of Hackney! It was so much ble utility, that the author of the to the purpose, and of such admiracircular letter had no scruple to call him a friend at once; and when Mr. Norris found that this statement was incorrect, he prefixes an advertisement, intended for the lovers of demonstration, to prove that he was at least an oratorical patron. We confess, that, after reading the last extract of Mr. Norris, we have given way to something of suspicious conjecture-but we will wait for future information.

The suspicions thus excited naturally lead our thoughts to the letter of that pretended Quaker, which has excited so much of personal appre

hension in the mind of Dr. Marsh. It is probable that most, who have taken any public share in this controversy, have been troubled with letters, not always in the highest style of compliment and civility. On perusing the document published by the Margaret Professor, we were strongly of opinion, and we are now confirmed in the belief, that the letter was written by an enemy of the Bible Society, under the character of a friend. We will tell the tale, and our readers shall judge.

First let us hear Dr. Marsh."Though I was ready to give every opportunity to the Quakers, of ascertaining whether the Letterwriter had only assumed the Quaker, or was a Quaker himself, in order to remove the imputation from their own Society, the question to what class of persons he belongs is to me a matter of perfect indifference. Whoever was the writer, it shews the intolerance and the malice with which I have been assailed. This inference is so obvious, that my correspondent (who cannot doubt, that I have received the letter, and with the Abingdon post-mark) has endeavoured to obviate it by the most improbable conjecture, that man ever made. He conjectures, that the letter was written not by an adversary, but by a friend; that the object of it was to serve my cause, by furnishing me with a document to bring the (Bible) Society into contempt.' Now let any man coolly and impartially read that letter, and say, whether the bitterness, expressed in that letter, could have been so expressed by any man, who had not the feelings of bitterness; whether the bigotry and intolerance displayed in it, was only fictitious bigotry and intolerance, the result of cold calculation exercised in the commission of a base and malicious fraud. Whoever wrote it, he was a real bigot: and bigots are too impetuous to enter into distant calculations. A bigot indeed might have the cunning to

[ocr errors]

conceal himself by assuming a cha racter which did not belong to him, though he would then probably write in a fictitious hand, as almost all the other abusive letters, addressed to me, have been written.

"If his object had been publicity, he would not have trusted to the chances of my publishing the letter to the chance of not effecting his purpose; he would have given publicity to the letter himself. The conjecture therefore is equally ungrounded and uncharitable.

"After all, though my Chelmsford correspondent has been unable to discover any Quaker in the neighbourhood of Abingdon, who bears the name affixed to the letter in question, I can inform him, that a gentleman of the highest respectability, a gentleman of his own profession, and who would do honour to any profession, has been more successful in his inquiries. I hope that I have now said enough to obviate the charge, which under the present circumstances might not improbably be made.”

We now request a hearing for ourselves. A most diligent inquiry was made by the Quakers, both in Oxfordshire and Berkshire: no person of the name subjoined to Dr. Marsh's letter was to be found in their societies; and it is believed, that there is no such Quaker in England. What, then, becomes of Dr. Marsh's assertion, that a gentleman of the highest respectability, &c. has been more successful in his inquiries? Has he found the writer? No. Has he discovered any individual of the name? No. There is in the Retreat at York, an unhappy person, who has been confined in that place for the last two years, the letters of whose surname bear some resemblance to those of Dr. Marsh's correspondent, but the spelling is different; and as to the Christian names, they are no more like each other than James is like Joseph. This poor man was taken to the Retreat in 1811, and did not come from the neighbourhood of

« PreviousContinue »