against the consequences, which must inevitably flow from the position which he had then taken. 66 The danger says Mr. Van Sittart, of the perversion of scripture on which you so much insist, is the very argument used by the papists, in detence of the denial of the bible to the Laity: and indeed, to such a length do you carry your argument, that I do not know what answer you could give to a Catholic Doctor, who would justify the practice of his church by your authority."

Before the close of the year, Prof. Marsh's ingenuity was put to the test on this point. In the month of Dec. was published "A congratulatory letter to the Rev. H. Marsh, D. D. &c. on his judicious inquiry into the consequence of neglecting to give the prayer book with the bible: together with a sermon on the inadequacy of the bible to be an exclusive rule of faith, inscribed to the same, by the Rev. Peter Gandolphy, Priest of the Catholic Church."

Mr. Gandolphy's honest exultation shews itself very plainly as be hastens to address professor Marsh. "It is impossible for me to express to you the pleasant sensations I have experienced, while lately reading a little tract from your pen entitled "an enquiry into the consequences of neglecting to give the prayer book with the bible. The perusal of this little work induced me to purchase your correspondence with Mr. Van Sittart, on the same subject, together with your sermon at St. Paul's Church, London, on June 3, 1813. You may easily conceive, then with what real delight and satisfaction 1 observed, that, in these writings, you contend for this principle: True religion cannot be found by the bible alone. The soundness of this doctrine was originally contested by Luther: and, as you well know has been a subject of dispute between Catholics and Protestants, from that period to the present time. Allow me, then, to congratulate you and religion on the bold and manly man

ner in which you have given up this vital principle of Protestantism. To

err is the common accident of our nature: but to acknowledge error, is the act of the hero and the saint!" and quoting a sentence from the inquiry, in which professor Marsh had boldly asked "How, therefore, can we know, if we give the bible only, what sort of protestantism will be deduced from it?" Mr. Gandolphy goes on, "Indeed Sir, I cannot sufficiently admire the ingenuity and masterly manner in which you urge another rule of faith, besides the bible only. It is a coup de grace to the old principle of the Reformers; from which I think they can never recover. And it is given in the true Catholic style of boldness, which convinces me that you feel your own strength."

Professor Marsh was unwilling to acknowledge the alliance which had been thus strongly claimed, and replied to the unwelcome congratulation with considerable ingenuity. But the Catholic priest felt the advantage be had gained, and was not to be easily silenced. He again took up the subject; and while he admits that Professor Marsh had not said verbatim that "true religion cannot be found in the bible alone," yet he argues, and argues irresistibly, that the principle maintained by Professor Marsh, leads inevitably and legitimately to this conclusion. But as if disappointed, in a tone of sarcasm which was not undeserved he adds,

as it is a catholic weapon that you have seized, it is from a Catholic you should learn how to manage it."

With this extraordinary and embarrassing incident, Professor Marsh might have heen permitted to retire from the controversy, had it not been for the indiscreet zeal of his friends. Many of these continued to circulate his publications and to recommend them, as if they had been conclusive not only against the merits of the Bible Society, but also against the principles of its Episcopal members and patrons; until at length the venerable Dean of Carlisle determined on a publication which would still farther vindicate himself and his brethren. This appeared in the Spring of 1813, under the title of "Strictures on some of the publications of the Rev. Herbert Marsh, D.D. intended as a reply to his objections against the British and Foreign Bible Society." The Dean in this volume, has with much seriousness and some merited severity, remonstrated against the groundless imputations which professor Marsh had cast on some of the brightest ornaments of the church; and in a variety of instances, exposed his misrepresentations of facts and his illogical arguments, so as to show how little reliance can be placed on his writings when the Bible Society is the subject.

Professor Marsh, as was to be expected, made a Reply, but it only proved that his locks were shorn, and that his strength had departed from him. It was but the show of defence; and evidently discouraged himself as to his cause, he relinquishes it with the confession "I have long since abandoned the thought of opposing the Bible Society. When an Institution is supported with all the fervour of religious enthusiasm, and is aided by the weight of such powerful additional causes, an attempt to oppose it, is like attempting to oppose a torrent of burning lava, that issues from Etna or Vesuvi

During the protracted warfare, which professor Marsh carried on against the Society, another opponent arose, who showed how little its enemies were agreed among themselves. Professor Marsh's great objection to it was, that it gave too little, by giving the Bible alone. The Rev. Dr. E. Maltby condemned it, because by giving the Bible, it gave too much."Out of sixty-six books," this intrepid, and unrestrained disputant contends, "which form the contents of the Old and New Testaments, not above seven in the Old, nor above eleven in the New, appear to be calculated for the study or comprehension of the unlearned." And therefore Dr. Maltby concludes, the Bible Society wastes its means, because it gives them the whole of a book, only a small part of which can be of service to them, and was designed for their use. But at whatever point the Society was assailed, it always found some prompt and able defenders. In the present instance, this office fell to the lot of the Rev. J. W. Cunningham, vicar of Harrow, who not only refuted, but chastised in a very masterly style, the arrogant pretensions which had thus poured reproach on the book of God.

We have passed over in silence the names of several who took part in this debate respecting the word. of Life, in the different stages of its progress. But the length to which this article has already extended, requires us to be still more select than we have been. We shall barely notice the opposition from the Rev. A. O. Callaghan, who in the wildness of his hostility, describes the friends of the Society whose sole object is to circulate the word of God, as "Spiritual Jacobins ;" and as worse than the illuminati of Germany-;" than "the conspirators of the Masonic Lodges in France," and "the Irish Executive Directory," and who at length determines that "if even the interests of christianity were evidently promoted by the Bible Society, it would still be the duty of the

State to dissolve the dangerous confederation." As brief shall be our notice of the Rev. Mr Phelan, who, not so overpowered by his fears as Mr. O. Callaghan, yet evinces a more insidious hostility, by denominating the supporters of the Society "Universalists ;" and under cover of that term, endeavours to confound them with sceptics and fanatics, and thus make them sharers in the crimes

and extravagancies of both. We pass on to mention the name of the Rev. H. H. Norris.

The notice which we take of this writer, does not proceed from the importance of his productions, or from any extraordinary injury which they have effected on the Bible Cause. Mr. Norris may find some to read his statements; but if he finds any to believe them, it can be only for this reason, that fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt. We refer to him particularly, because of the pains which have been taken to bring his writings on the subject before the religious public in this country. His last attack is the only publication of the kind which to our knowledge has been re-published on this side of the Atlantic; and we must confess our surprize at the selection. Mr. Norris may be a man of wealth and of liberality with his means; and let him have all the praise which such claims can afford him. We have to do with him only as a writer in controversy with Bible Societies; and we do indeed feel a sincere regret that there should be found in our country any christian or christians, which would patronize, or even countenance publications like those of Mr. Norris. It is now about ten years since he first appeared in the lists, when he published a volume entitled "A practical exposition of the tendency and proceedings of the British and Foreign Bible Society," and of late, he has given to the world the work which has been republished here, entitled "A Letter to the Earl of Liverpool, &c. occasioned by the speech imputed to his

Lordship at the Thanet Bible Society meeting.'

Of the first, the Bishop of St. Davids has declared, that “it is so destitute of the demonstration which it professes to give, so defective in its premises, so inconclusive in its inferences, and so reprehensible in its calumnies respecting the Church members of the Society, that it might be left to its own refutation.” Lest its misrepresentations and soph isms might however, do injury among the unwary, they were exposed in an answer by the Rev. Mr. Dealtry, who again showed that he was destined to reap fresh honours in every new ef fort which he made in behalf of his noble cause. But notwithstanding all that has been proved upon the first publication of Mr. Norris, it certainly is less exceptionable than the last. The castigation which his "Practical Exposition" brought down upon him, must have been severely felt; and whether it arose from mortification at finding himself not only defeated, but exposed; or from hostility, that became more bitter as he saw the Bible Society “going on from strength to strength" we will not say. But comparing his labours in 1816 with those in 1822, the last state of the man is worse than the first. There is in his "Letter" such an utter relinquishment, even of the decorum which should be maintained towards age and sex, as we have never seen equalled in any publication which pretended to take part in a controversy on religious subjects. To those who would see him pursued through all his labyrinths rinths of misrepresentations and abuse, we recommend the perusal of "A Second Letter to the Rt. Hon. the Earl of Liverpool, in reply to that from the Rev. H. H. Norris, by the Rev. James Scholefield, Cambridge."* But as many of our read

* Since writing the above, we have met with a letter to the Rev. H. H. Norris &c. by the Rev. John Paterson, D. D. in which the charge of falsehood especially is most undeniably fixed on Mr. Norris.

confidence of every christian of every name; and which, at the very time Mr. Norris wrote, had circulated 3,500,000 copies of those "scriptures which are able to make wise unto salvation."

We confess that while we have been copying these expressions of Mr. Norris's we have involuntarily been led to ask-are these the ravings of insanity? Or are they rather the offspring of an unsound heart than of an insane head? But putting the most charitable construction on them, and believing that they are frightful dreams which the man has really dreamed; it seems a most singular infatuation to think that the christian public were to be influenced by such wild extravagancies as those of Mr. Norris.

For ourselves we declare that if such a champion should appear in our ranks, we should account it the worst omen that could overtake us ; and we would be inclined to cry out in the language of a wise and a good man save me from my friends, and I will save myself from my enemies."

Such has been the controversy respecting Bible societies; as it has been conducted with immediate reference to that first of Bible Institutions, the British and Foreign Bible Society. Other writers indeed frequently touched the question incidently. Among others was the notorious W. Cobbett, who almost in the language of some men who would be very unwilling to acknowledge such an auxilliary-declares,

"Reading the scriptures, if universal, can lead to nothing but schism, which at present is prevented only by the want of what is called study in reading them. Is it possible for those who can hardly read words, to derive real benefit from the perusal of such a book? No, it is from the exposition and applications of the tents of the bible by learned men or by others who used their expositions and applications, that the people are to profit.'

con

A Mr. Wix, in a publication designed to shew the desirableness of union between the church of Eng land and the church of Rome, found

au insurmountable obstacle in the Bible Society, and of course wished to demolish it. While on the other hand, a later publication entitled "Letters on Prejudice" written with admirable talent and feeling, has produced a most able recommendation of the Society to the confidence of christians. A few, though a very few of the bishops in their charges to their clergy, gave their opinions against the Society: while others not only in their charges to their clergy, but in speeches uttered and letters written on the most public occasions recommended the Society to both Clergy and laity for their united support. As might be expected the periodical publications of the day, did not fail to take part in the question. Some of them, as the British Critic,* decided against the Society. On the other hand the Christian Observer, in itself a host, watched the controversy from its commencement, and employed its great weight of talent and piety,-sometimes in exposing the opponents of the Society to merited ridicule, at other times in putting them down by irresistible demonstration.

But whether in the works protessedly of controversy on the subject, or in other publications; in whatever way, or by whatever hands the topic has been taken up: the result of all discussions in England and Ireland, in relation to the British and

* Our readers may judge to how much credit the British Critic is entitled on subjects connected with the Bible from the following circumstance. In a review of a Sermon by the Rev. Mr. Gurney which appeared in that work, the Reviewer, and with quite a disdainful manner, criticises the express language of scripture, no doubt supposing it to be the language of Mr. Gurney. The passage which was so offensive to the Critic's taste is the beautiful and expressive words of Paul in Heb. vi. 19, which hope &c.

66

The British Critic was once in favour of the Bible Society: and its change of sentiment was accomplished in a way not much to its credit. We are far from feel

ing the cause to have suffered much by the apostacy.