being so convinced, I should feel, that to give less than my utmost assistance to the formation of the intended Auxiliary Society, would subject me to the awful consequence of being ashamed of the name of Christ; and while I should blush for myself, if I should so conduct myself, I should tremble under the consideration, that souls might be passing to eternal perdition, who, with the blessing of God, might be turned from the error of their way but for a prejudice that paralyzed my exertions." P. 5, 6, Lett. 2.

It is impossible to read this passage without being carried back, with the Editor, to the recollection" of those fearful times, when domineering fanaticism (professedly for the glory of God) had overturned in this kingdom both the altar and the throne" (p. 11.) When, to use the energetic language of South, the worst evils were "done with the pretences of conscience, and the protestations of religion; with eyes lift up to heaven and expostulations with God, pleas of providence, and inward instigations; till at length with much labours, and many groans, they were delivered of their conceived mischief." South, vol. 5. Serm. 2.

To these times, and to the concluding incidents in the Life of Lord Herbert, of Cherbury, the Editor very properly.referred Mr. Freshfield for proof that he might be under delusion upon this important subject; and the temperate but sound and seasonable remarks, which are to be found upon it in the third and fifth letters, and in a note appended to page 113, are well worthy the attention of our readers.

It appears, from the course of the correspondence, that the Editor's admonitory caution was not well received by Mr. Freshfield. When he speaks of it as conveying " a charge of fanaticism, in hard words, and severe applications," (p. 29.) it is evident that he has mistaken its object; and that he is more indignant at it, than, but for this mistake, he would have felt, is clear from the tenour of his remarks in Letters 4 and 6. Thinking, however, as we do, that the Editor was perfectly justified in his observation, and that he has not improperly termed it" an eminent act of Christian benevolence, as laying Mr. F. under considerable obligation," (p. 52,) we do inost earnestly beseech our readers to bear it in mind. It is in fact one of the signs of these awful times in which we live, that men are every day more deeply entangled in the worship of imaginations; that the same infatuation now prevails which formerly plunged this country into so many calamities; that not only weak, ignorant, or ill-educated men, but persous whose rank in society, whose habits of life, whose mental attainments, might be supposed safeguards against such temptations, are daily fall

ing under them; and that without seeing the necessary effects of that yoke of bondage to which they are submitting, they allow themselves to be led away by the ignis fatuus of enthusiasm; which, while it deludes them with a shew of light, and a prospect of conferring some vague unmeasured spiritual benefits upon the world at large, is inducing them, not only to overlook their own particular duty, but to pursue a course in decided hostility to the peace and welfare of that Church to which they belong.

Of this the correspondence under consideration affords an eminent and lamentable proof; for it presents to us a Churchman, professing the most ardent affection for the Establishment, at the same time that he is setting all ecclesiastical discipline at nought; opposing his own opinions to those of the Clergy of a whole district, upon the best means of promoting the spiritual edification of their respective flocks; and deceiving himself into a belief that, unless he gave his utmost assistance to the formation of an Auxiliary Society in their parishes, contrary to their most conscientious and maturely weighed objections, he should subject himself " to the awful consequence of being ashamed of the name of Christ," and should" tremble under the consideration that souls might be passing to eternal perdition, who, with the blessing of God, might be turned from the error of their way, but for a prejudice that paralyzed his exertions.”

"Here, Sir," says the Editor very properly, " had it occurred to you who those are to whom you have opposed yourself, conscientious indefatigable Clergymen, you would have thought it possible that their judgment, upon the efficacy of any measure

to save souls from perdition,' was preferable to yours; and doing them the justice to believe, that they resisted the establishment of the projected Institution, not merely because they were satisfied of its neutrality in this respect, but that in this very respect it was baneful in its operation; you would have suspected the correctness of your own persuasions, rather than have confidently promulgated that, which by necessary implication, traduces them as either criminally ignorant, or most traiterously unfaithful." Lett. 5, p. 55.

We fear that the conduct here imputed, by the courtesy of the Editor, to the inconsideration of his correspondent, must not be so palliated. Deference to the opinions, or respect for the characters of the Clergy as a body, is certainly not the characteristic of the Bible Society. Of this the volume before us affords abundant evidence; and it is not to be wondered that so、、 zealous an advocate of its cause, as Mr. Freshfield, should “ imperceptibly have caught its spirit, and adopted its language." (P. 110, note.) We find, indeed, too many instances, throughout this correspondence, of the very trifling estimation in which

their authority and their judgment are held, when opposed to the fiat of his favourite Institution. In his second Letter he says, "I cannot think you will consider that the opposition of the Clergy ought to determine the question; these are points upon which every man of independent mind will naturally think for himself." P. 17.

In his third letter, his language becomes still more decided. The opinion of the Clergy, as to the best means of promoting edification, is represented as a matter comparatively immaterial;" and the attempt to assert their right, by virtue of their office, to determine upon the proper mode of promulgating the word of God to his people, is alluded to with a levity which borders upon contempt.

"Your Letter proceeds upon an assertion, and which you endeavour to prove, that "the best means of promoting edification, is a question of Theology," and belongs to the Clergy as "accredited Practitioners" in Divinity. I own, considering the great importance of the real object in view (the circulation of the Bible, your argument appears comparatively immaterial, and, to use the language of Dr. Clarke," it is really as if, while the light of Revelation, no longer concealed within the ark of a particular sanctuary, is permitted to irradiate the nations of the earth, a question should arise, whether it shall be conveyed through the public portals of the Temple, or by the Gate belonging only to the Priests." However it is my task to answer your Letter, and therefore even this fringe, so respectfully distant from the true question, must receive some, though but brief consideration.'" P. 69. Lett. 6.

We wish that our limits would allow us to insert the valuable note, which the Editor has subjoined to this passage; in which, while he ably refutes this erroneous and strange doctrine of the comparative immateriality of that priesthood, to which St. Paul did not scruple to assert, that "God had committed the Ministry of reconciliation," and the, sacred office of" Ambassadors for Christ," (2 Cor. v. 18, 20); he does not neglect to sift the glowing imagery," and metaphorical verbiage of Dr. Clarke; and to place his fallacies, and perversions of Scriptural symbols, in their true light. But much interesting matter presses upon our attention; and this, and many other important passages, which we had originally marked for insertion, must be left to the private consideration of our readers.

But it must not be said, that Mr. Freshfield entirely deprives the Clergy of all right of judgment or decision in the parishes entrusted to their spiritual superintendance. Respecting matters of principle indeed, or of moral obligation, he sees no necessity for submitting to their opinion; but upon questions of form, compliment

compliment or etiquette he allows it to have some weight. (Leti. Or pp. 83, 84.) We are not conscious of having misrepresented him; we are not willing to do so. It is with concern and regret that we contemplate the delusions of a respectable and amiable man; and most assuredly we should spare ourselves the unpleasant task of bringing them before the public, was it not that we feel it incumbent upon us to shew the real character and tendencies of the Bible Society, through the medium of the sentiments and language adopted by those who write of speak under the influence of its spirit.

The same total forgetfulness or disregard of the character and functions of a Parochial Clergyman, of which we have already given instances, must have dictated the following passage. "The parochial Clergy were solicited to take the lead; they declined doing so, and therefore other Clergymen, in conjunction with the laity, are doing what you have refused." Lett. 6. p. 120.

Mr. Freshfield must surely be aware, that every beneficed Clergyman is " charged in the Lord with the cure of the souls of the parishioners of his benefice, and with the government of his Church," (Instrument of Iust.); that no other Clergyman has the shadow of a right to interfere with him in his sacred office, much less to oppose the measures he sees fit to adopt for the discharge of it. That a self-appointed, Secret Committee should call in Clergy of their own chusing, to take the lead in a measure for spiritual edification, which the parochial Minister has decidedly objected to; and that any Clergy should be found ready to obey the summons, are lamentable proofs, that the

66

prostration of Ecclesiastical Authority, which," as the Editor most truly observes (note k. p. 84)," the auxiliary system has been for several years most insidiously labouring to accomplish," is much farther advanced towards its completion than even those, who have been most alive to the dangerous influence of the So ciety, have conceived.

:

Mr. Freshfield, however, has his reasons for thus refusing to yield to the opinions and intreaties of the Parochial Clergy and as these reasons very plainly state the real end and object of all the Auxiliary Societies, and the consequence of suffering them to spring up in every quarter of the land, we recommend them to the serious consideration of all those who value the security and welfare of the Established Church.

"that you

"You state," says Mr. F. to his correspondent, 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.' I therefore answer, that the district

described

་

described has no necessary connection with any parish, as a parish; it includes the intire of two parishes, and part of one other (I be heve 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." (Lett. 6. pp. 73.). "This," says the Editor, in a note upon the passage, "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 Ecclesiastical Heads: it is to save souls from eternal perdition, (To refer again to Mr. Freshfield's Statement. Vide Appendix, No. 9.) in a new method, which DOES NOT COME WITHIN EITHER PAROCHIAL, PASTORAL, OR EPISCOPAL JURISDICTION.' This considerate men have perceived and laid to its charge long ago; but we have now got a distinct avowal of it from one of the founders of the confederacy; who does not hesitate to tell a Parochial Clergyman that, in consequence of the formation of a new auxiliary district of the Bible Society, in which his parish is included, he is no longer entitled' even to deprecate proceedings' which in his conscience he believes to be most prejudicial, in their effects, to the spiritual welfare of his parishioners; and which moreover he conceives himself to be bound, by his Ordination Vows, not merely to protest against, but, if possible, to banish and drive away.' What an arrogation of supremacy is here!!! A handful of private individuals convene a meeting, erect themselves into what they are pleased to call a Provisional Committee,' and without further ceremony, proceed to obliterate ancient land-marks, to dissolve constituted authorities, and, according to their own caprice, to circumscribe a tract of country as a territory for themselves; and then, having given it the denomination of a District," in the plenitude of their usurped sovereignty, proclaim that no necessary connection' subsists between it and any parish as a parish,' which lies within its boundary, in any of those concerns which they have thought proper to take under their superintendance and contrcul.' Note d, p. 74.

6

To this striking representation we add the following observa tions extracted from note k, p. 84.

"When the kingdom is reorganized, 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 make to themselves Priests of whom they please. But at present the confusion which Mr. F. would introduce is prema ture, and we trust that, through the quiet good sense of Englishmen, under the superintendance of the good providence of God, it will never take place.""

VOL. 11. JULY, 1814.

C

We