to the Bible Society, nor members of it. He therefore conceived they had no claim to be heard on the present occasion. "Mr. N. Calvert followed, and said that he attended the meeting to support a religious object, and not to be present at a theological discussion; and if the meeting was to be converted into a debating club, he should take up his hat and retire. "Lord Grimston then rose, and informed Mr. E. G. Fordham and his brother that the sense of the meeting was obvious. They must either withdraw or remain in silence. No further attempt was made to disturb the harmony of the day." - Report, &c. pp. 15-17. The speeches of Mr. Clayton and Dr. Gregory follow. The observations of the Committee will be read with interest: "As no charge has been made against the remainder of the proceedings, the Committee do not think it necessary to detail them. "Those who attend a public meeting have no need to be apprized that the several speakers can alone be responsible for their own observations, unless sanctioned by the meeting; and it will readily be believed that the conduct of those who disturbed the harmony and good feeling on this occasion excited, in the minds of the Committee, the same sensations of regret which was felt by the whole assembly. "It will appear from the preced ing speeches, which the speakers themselves have been so kind as to furnish in consequence of an application made for that purpose, that the letter which professed to contain an account of these transactions is extremely incorrect in the following respects. 1. In the report of Mr. Townshend's speech, of which a copy as correct as possible is now before the public. "2. In representing Mr. E. G. Fordham as a friend to the Society. He avowed himself to be an enemy, and stated that he rose in that character on account of a challenge from Mr. Townshend. "3. In stating that some disapprobation was expressed; as if the disapprobation was only slight and partial, whereas the disgust was universal; and in suppressing the important facts that the objector was called to order by Messrs. Dealtry, Calvert, and King Fordham; that the sense of the meeting was decisively with them, and most unequivocally expressed; and that the ob jector was not suffered to proceed. 4. In the representation given of the speeches of Mr. Clayton and Dr. Gregory. It ought in candour to have been noticed, that the sentence attributed to Dr. Gregory as his own, was cited at the time as a quotation from one of the Fathers of the church. 5. In stating the words of Mr. N. Calvert. He did not use the expression, a dissenting debating club.' "The Committee are at a loss to discover by what means it was ascertained, that more than two thirds of the persons assembled were dissenters. They see the purpose for which the assertion was introduced, and they cannot but notice it with reprehension; especially as it does not appear from any expression in the letter itself that the writer was present. "The Committee conclude with recommending to the public extreme caution in receiving the statements of those who are determined, from whatever motive, to injure the Bible Society. It is important in the first instance to examine the facts, and next to inquire whether the speeches actually delivered have not been garbled or misconstrued. Nothing is more easy than to misrepresent the proceedings at any public meeting."-Report, &c. pp. 19-21. It does not appear who was the author of that curious letter which has led Mr. Norris so widely from the truth, and we shall indulge in no conjectures; but one thing does appear, viz. that Mr. Norris was in formed of its incorrectness before his volume was published. And what is his conduct? Why, to be sure, he cancels the several sheets in which the mis-statement is introduced; or, if that be too expensive, as the charge is often brought forward, he apologizes for it in a preface. Oh, no! he ventures upon a nobler flight. Cancel! apologize! Let him speak for himself. At the very commencement of his book he thus defends the story,, (believing it to be true); and he defends it by another statement, equally well founded, believing that also to be true : "Since the manuscript account of the meeting at Hertford has been in circulation, from which the Editor extracted the Statement which will be found p. 97, note, he has been informed thatthe words ' support' and patronized' have been construed imo a mis-statement, that the speaker is a Sub scriber to the Bible Society. By a reference to p. 90, note, the reader will see that the Bible Society does not consider a pecuniary contribution a necessary qualification for its Patrons. The speaker in question (as the Editor is just informed) is not a money patron, but merely patronizes the Institution. by his eloquence at its Auxiliary Meetings: and it is completely ascertained that he de livered the sentiments attributed to him, ex pressing his opinion of the Bible Society's tendency to overthrow the Church, in terms ⚫f approbation." Now the fact is, and Mr. Norris was apprised of it; not only that the speaker in question neither was nor is a subscriber to the Bible Society, or to any of its branches; but that he does not, nor did he aver, patronize the Institution by his eloquence at Auxiliary Meetings: on the contrary, that he openly avowed himself an enemy, a decided enemy, to its design. We conclude these observations with a passage which, by some fatality, Mr. Norris has cited from Lesle: "Never to matter truth or falsehood, he tells us, was the constant rule from forty-ones downward. But his countryman objects: 1. "The giving countenance to it (the Bible Society) militates against an ordination vow." p. viii. "The public judgment of the Church of England is cancelled." p. ix. "The integrity of our holy mother is impeached." p. ix. And all this because a Society patronised by a majority of the whole band of Bishops gives nothing but the Bible to the poor! 2. In all the ramifications of the Bible Society one system prevails." p..xviii. "Its characteristic principle is, that it should be ONE AND INDIVISIBLE."p. xix.-Is not this a characteristic of Dr. Bell's schools? Of the Church of England? Nay of Christianity itself? Let us appeal to a testimony which our author will respect the testimony of Mr. Norris. himself. "He" (the Editor)" does mean to affirm, that the Scriptures promulgate one faith to be kept, and one mode of worship to be observed, and further to avow his deliberate conviction to be, that the Church of Eng land in both these respects sets forth the revealed way of Salvation." p. xxvi. And why then should the Bible Society adopt one system at Hackney and another at York? 3. Whoever presumes to give away Bibles to the poor without permission from the curate of his parish, intrudes upon the office of the ministry: "You become a volunteer," says Mr. Norris, " in the work of that ministry in which I hold subordinate appointment." p. 10. The same doctrine is enforced in a very edifying lecture, p. 12, which proves that Mr. Freshfield had not been separated by the Holy, Ghost to the very responsible office of overseeing the flock of Christ, and watching for their souls." Mr. Norris makes no distinction between the simple act of giving a Bible to a poor man, and discharging all the duties of the Christian ministry. Is this the doctrine of the Society, in Bartlett's Buildings, when it recommends establishments in the Country? 4. Mr. Freshfield having inadvertently stated that he had "earnestly and seriously referred himself to God in prayer, that he might be guided and directed in the affair, according to his holy mind and will," p. 5. is not a litle rebuked by the divine for his presumption in approaching a Throne of Grace : God's holy mind and will," as Mr. Norris very gravely states by way of information, " is not now communicated by illapses from Heaven." see pp. 11, 52, 53, 114, 115. What is the meaning of this Fecture? Is it prohibited to a laychurchman to pray for the direction of God's holy will? Is the Collect for the 19th Sunday after Trinity expunged from the Prayer-books at Hackney? 5. It is often said by the friends of the Bible Society that its tendency is to promote harmony and peace. No, says Mr. Norris, I dislike it; I will oppose it in my curacy with all my might:-and then he thinks it consistent with good reasoning to adduce this sort of opposition as an evidence of the strife and animosity which it engenders! He quarrels with the Society, and says, See how litigious it is! He reviles it, and cries, Do you hear how it abuses me? He attributes to it the most base and execrable motives, and exclaims, What an uncharitable institution! The value of his reasoning will be obvious from the following illustration: 1 On the appearance of the Messiah, the angelssang, "Glory to God in the highest; on earth, peace, good-will towards men." Might not a good sturdy lover of demonstration have contended that he taught not peace, but a sword? Did not bonds and imprisonment accompany the Apostles of this new religion wherever they went? Was there a single worshipper of Diana at Ephe. sus, who would not have charged his own violence upon the Gospel of Christ? And is it a proof of the delinquency of the Bible Society, that Mr. Norris is angry? He returns to this charge at p. 160. 6. Mr. Freshfield, p. 23, has the following observation: "I may however be allowed to say, for those who are desirous to establish the proposed society, that they are not unnecessarily forward in suggesting the measure, inasmuch as the societies of a similar description, already formed, and others forming entirely surround the district; and would tion in the midst of an enlightened and reprobably, in a few days, leave it an excep spectable neighbourhood,” pp. 23, 24. To a plain man the meaning of this passage is obvious. Mr. Freshfield does not represent the two parishes of Newington and Hackney as containing less of light and respectability than the parishes around them; but speaking of them and the others conjunctly, as an enlightened and respectable neighbourhood, he states, that this district would probably soon be an exception-not as to light and respectability, but as being the only district, in a very extensive neighbourhood, which had not such a society established within it. Now what says Mr. Norris? He reasons thus : "It" (the Bible Society)" so completely entrances the understanding, that a person in himself kindly-affectioned, doing justice, loving mercy, and walking humbly with his God, once fascinated to drink of its incan tatious, from that time forth becomes blind to all religious excellence, and to every commendable quality belonging to those who resist the importunity used to bring them within the magic circle of the fraternity, and can so far forget himself, as to hold up a neighbourhood to contempt as, an exeeption to surrounding light and respectabi lity." p. 49. He first quotes the passage falsely, and then proceeds to demonstrate upon that false quotation.-We do not accuse him of dishonest intention. We really believe that he was persuaded alike of the accuracy of his quotation and the sound: ness of his reasoning. He even de fends it, after Mr. Freshfield has told him what he meant? p. 140. 7. The establishment of Auxiliary Bible Societies according to our author is a proof that, in the minds of those who support them, the method of salvation by Jesus Christ was incomplete, and that it was now to be improved upon and rendered perfect by man's device, p. 56. What does Mr. Norris think of the establishment of the Society for promoting Christian Knowledge, with all it attendant satellites of Diocesan and District,in other words, Auxiliary Committees? Were these expressly enjoined by our Saviour? 8. Mr. Norris having, in his usual style, insulted the Dean of Carlisle and the other distinguished Professors and Members of the University of Cambridge, who attended the Town-ball on the formation of the Cambridge Society, by stating his persuasion, that there is not one of them whose opinions upon theolocial points are held there in much consideration, appeals afterwards to this magnanimous assertion as to a fact. "In reply to your charge against me of disrespect towards those concerned in the Cambridge proceedings I have only to observe, that I delivered no opinion, but mere. ly stated a fact; a fact moreover which I confirmed by the most irrefragable testimony." p. 62. - Mr. Norris gave no testimony: there is nothing but his own assertion, the value of which on this point we leave to the judgment of every man who knows the University. Mr. Norris thought he was reasoning when he was only affirming; CHRIST. ORSErv. No. 145. then re-asserts his former assertion, p. 122, and again calls that assertion a fact. We are convinced that Mr. Norris knows nothing about the University of Cambridge; and we will not hurt the delicacy of the living by defending them from a charge which no man believes. Had he been resident when Dr. Jowett died, he would have witnessed the universal respect and affection with which the memory of that good man was every where regarded. He would have seen that his opinion on theological subjects was held in high consideration ;-and then he would have demonstrated after his manner, that the sentiments of the University were just the contrary, 9. Mr. Norris is unable to distinguish--and he has great authority for his want of discrimination -between the operation of the Bible Society in its corporate capacity, and the acts of individuals in their individual capacity. The Bible So. ciety gives Bibles alone; and for this single purpose are all its funds employed. Some of the individuals who support it disperse little papers, to detail its nature and object, and to recommend its labours. Now Mr. Norris charges all this upon the Society: as if these papers were issued by the authority of the Committee, and paid for from the funds of the Institution, which is altogether untrue. "Pledging itself only to distribute Bibles, it circulates, together with them, that vast farrago of adulation to itself, and calumnies apon those who discountenance its proceedings, together with that variety of vain conceits and mischievous imaginations which those numerous papers contain." p. 65. At the same time we are of opinion that the Society might circulate many of these papers without any violation of its principle. I 10. "I beg of you to recollect that am not the aggressor. For here am I, placed in a post of responsi bility, not only to maintain the faith once delivered to the saints, but to prevent, to the utmost of my power, H 1 the bond of Christian unity from being broken," p. 65. (Mr. Norris to Mr. Freshfield). That is, I began this controversy first, it is true: but I did not begin first. For here am I in my own curacy; and you attacked me, inasmuch as you want ed to give Bibles in this district without my concurrence, who am specially careful not to cheapen their value by too large a distribution. 11. Mr. Freshfield." After generally premising you wrote merely to correct the many erroneuus conclusions and misapprehensions' which my letter contained, you state, thas you could not see how the circumstance of the parish in which you officiate being only a part of the district for which the Auxiliary Bible Society is proposed to be established, affected in the least the weight of your objection.' therefore answer, that the district described has no necessary connection with any pa rish, as a parish; it includes the entire of two parishes and part of one other, (I believe of two others) it is therefore clear of any ecclesiastical head, and if rightly considered, cannot intitle the parochial clergy in any one parish to deprecate the proceeding' because in opposition to their opinion; nor would all the clergy within the district be so intitled, though it is not yet ascertained that all concur in doing so: however, it is enough for my original proposition that the objec tion founded upon the opinion of the parochial clergy at Hackney is materially weak. ened thereby." Mr. Norris. "This is speaking out plainly the only boon which those, who view with lively apprehension the proceedings of the Bible Society, have to ask of its advocates. Let the reader treasure up this declaration in his mind, that one part of the reformation to be wrought by that Society is to 'clear' all the parishes in the kingdom of their ecclepiastical heads."" pp. 73, 74. What did Mr. F. do? He gavei away Bibles himself, and wished to induce others to do the same. 12. Mr. Norris has discovered that the princes are not royal; and that the patronage of prelacy and nobility must mean, of the whole prelacy and of all the nobility! "It has received the sanction of Royalty, the support of Prelacy, the patro. nage of Nobility. (Vide Address to Pa rishioners of Hackney, App. No. 6.) The first absolutely false, for neither the King, nor the Regent, have given their sanction to the Bible Society: and the term Royalty applies only to them. The second partially false, for Pielacy is a comprehensive term, describing the whole bench of Bishops, se ven of whom only in this kingdom out of twenty-six have lent to the Society their names; and the latter, for the same reason, completely hyperbolical, but to what extent, the Editor has not time to ascertain." p. 92. Rare discoveries for the lovers of demonstration! See also page 147, and his note, charging those who speak of the support of Royalty, as wanting in modesty and veracity! Are we then to abandon the title of Royal Highness? 13. Mr. Freshfield, p. 127, cites the following passage:-" If this counsel or this work be of men, įt will come to nought. But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye he found even to fight against God." Mr. Norris meets it by the following sneer;→ "The most grateful acknowledgments are due Mr. Freshfield for offering to the Editor's adoption' his valedictory citation, (from Acts v. 38, 39.) and as the best return he can make, he begs to direct his correspondents' attention to v. 34 of the same chapter, which will temper his zeal with a little useful knowledge by instructing him that what he offers' as authority, is but the opinion of a Pharisee of the Pharisees." pp. 127, 128. Here Mr. Norris evidently as sumes that the passage was adduced on account of its authority, whereas it was cited merely for its good sense. When Mr. Norris attacked the Dean of Carlisle and Mr. Deal try for citing this text, he had for |