Cunningham, p. 45:) and," with what shew of reason can it be maintained, or even intimated, that the Epistles relate wholly, or chiefly, or in any large measure, to controversies peculiar to the times and places in which they were written?" (ibid. p. 45.)

There is yet another position connected with this part of the subject, which is not unworthy of notice.

"There are," says Dr. Maltby, "no doubt, parts in the Epistles, wholly practical, and of great general use; but, perhaps, none differing in substance, either from the moral maxims of the Proverbs, or from the lessons

so beautifully and energetically delivered by our Saviour himself." p. 11.

The remarks of Mr. Cunningham upon this passage, appear to us particularly happy.

preciation of the Gospels to say, that, alone, they less perfectly exhibit the scheme of Christianity; to affirm of a part, that it does not accomplish the object of the whole." pp. 46-48.

After exposing the fallacy of the main position, Mr. Cunningham concludes by adverting to three points of minor importance, though, as he justly conceives, involving material errors.

"In the first place, then, it is no small error, I conceive, that one of the works Dr. Maltby proposes to substitute for the entire copy of the Scriptures, is a volume judi ciously selected from Cappe's Life of Christ;? or, in other words, from a Life of Christ written by a known Socinian. Now, of course it would be practicable for a disingenuous reasoner so to avail himself of the term 'ju diciously selected,' as to acquit himself of all intention to introduce the Gospels to the world with a Socinian commentary; but Dr. Maltby would shrink from any such evasion; because he is conscious that no selection,' however judicious, can render a Sociuian work strictly orthodox.' pp 49, 50.

"A second point, in which Dr. Maltby appears to me no less fundamentally to err, is in his wish, for what I conceive to mean an extensive change in the Liturgy and Articles of the Church of England.

"As to the Liturgy, if there be any expressions which offend the conscience of the wisely scrupulous, or even the taste of the justly refined, and these could be changed without risk to the whole, I should concur with Dr. Maltby in desiring the correction.” p. 51.

"Not to dwell upon the inaccurate assumption of equality between the practical lessons of the Gospels and the Proverbs, is it the fact that the Epistles did not enlarge the code of practical instruction presented to us by Christ himself? If even the word 'practical' be confined to morality (which possibly the author designs), many moral duties are distinctly treated in the Epistles alone; as, for instance, the duties of husbands and wives, of fathers and children, of masters and servants, of citizens and subjects, of the members of a church and their spiritual governors. And if the import of the word be extended, as it ought, to every branch of active duty, the Epistles may be considered as making still larger additions to our practical lessons; for what may be called the practical part of religion, is taught chiefly in the Epistles. Nor is this fuller developement of duties in the writings of the first followers of Christ, any disparagement of the Gospels. It was in religion as it is in nature; the sun did not reach its meridian at once, but adapted itself to the eye of the spectators. The Gospels, and the Gospels alone, probably were suited to the actual exigencies of the moment; and our Lord himself intimated, that in happier periods a fuller revelation would be granted: "I have many things to say unto you, but ye cannot "In fact, is there any solid ground for bear them now: When He, the Spirit of objection to our Articles? Can it be hoped truth, is come, he will guide you into all that any will be frained at once as scriptutruth: he shall teach you all things :'-ral and more comprehensive?" p. 33.

⚫ he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you.' Such being the fact, it is no de

"But, then, we should remember, both that there is a degree of refinement which is fastidiousness, and that much of the an cient scrupulosity about modes and expres sions in religion is laid in the grave with the puritans. Almost every change of the 'Liturgy, therefore, may be resisted upon these two grounds-that we shall never please the over-nice, and that the devoti are mostly pleased already." p. 51.

"In the revision' demanded by the atther for the Articles' of the church, I have the misfortune to differ as radically from him." p. 52.

The third and last error, which I shall venture to notice, in the work of Dr. Mally,

is, that he has throughout omitted to give sufficient importance to the safeguard which is, or ought to be, supplied in the Clergy of the Establishment to the free circulation of the whole Scriptures. When he paints, in such gloomy colours, the dangers of suffering the Bible to range abroad in the country, does he forget that the nation provides

eleven thousand clergy to watch over and regulate its course? Are they negligent at their post, or incompetent to their high function" pp. 55, 56,

"Or if, which is the fact, this church contain a large body of devout and learned ministers; if the country be at least sprinkled with men able and willing to publish the glad tidings' of salvation, to explain the difficulties, and press home the lessons of Scripture; ought Dr. Maltby to speak of the Scriptures as though they were to be tossed, a sort of tangled skein, among the multitude, to be unravelled by the mere clumsy hands of ploughmen or mechanics?" p. 56.

The extracts, which we have been tempted to select from this masterly Reply, will furnish the strongest recommendation of the work. It would have been easy to produce many other parts, which display a brilliant imagination, and which captivate no less by their reasoning than their eloquence: but our concern was with the argument: and of this, our readers will now be able to form a tolerable judgment for themselves.

There is one argument, in opposition to Dr. Maltby's reasoning, which Mr. Cunningham has omitted; we mean that which may be drawn from his peculiar obligations as a minister of the Church of England. We have already referred to the Articles subscribed by Dr. Maltby, which assert the undoubted authority of the whole of the Scriptures as they now stand. The Homilies go still farther: they assert, in direct opposition to Dr. Maltby, that, "Unto a Christian man, there can be nothing either more necessary or profitable, than the knowledge of Holy Scripture."- Therefore, as many as be desirous to enter into the right and perfect way unto God, must apply their minds to know CHRIST. ORSERV. No. 131.

Holy Scripture; without which, they can neither sufficiently know God and his will, neither their office and duty."-" Therefore, forsaking the corrupt judgment of fleshly men, let us reverently hear and read Holy Scripture, which is the food of the soul; let us diligently search for the well of life, in the books of the New and Old Testament." "These books ought to be much in our eyes, in our ears, in our mouths, but most of all in our hearts."

We might go on quoting whole pages to the same effect; and be it remembered, that to the soundness and wholesomeness of this

doctrine, Dr. Maltby has solemnly subscribed his name. Nor is the practice of the Church at variance with her professions. The first work of the Reformation, when, shaking herself from the dust of popery, she resumed her primitive purity and beauty, was to expose the entire volume of Scripture in the most accessible places, and to invite all, of every rank, and sex, and age, to read it, or hear it read. She has incorporated into her service the whole of the New Testament, and the greatest part of the Old, including the entire Psalms; and this error, if it be one, Dr. Maltby has sanctioned, not only by declaring his assent to the Book of Common Prayer, which prescribes the order in which the Scriptures are to be read, but by continuing himself to follow this prescribed order for a series of years. Thus, according to his view of the matter, has he been accessary to misleading the people committed to his charge, by reading to them what is likely to be perverted, and what must be misunderstood. For our own parts, we do not comprehend how it is that a conscientious man, as we believe Dr. Maltby to be, has contrived, with his sentiments, to reconcile it to his conscience to continue to officiate as a minister of the Church of England. The reasoning which Dr. Maltby employs to 5 A

circulation. The following short extract will serve to explain his views.

"It may perhaps be asserted, without the smallest perversion of truth, that each of the Gospels contains every thing necessary to salvation; and if a Christian truly believes and faithfully obeys what he finds in any one of them, such an one is not far from the kingdom of God.' But without limiting so very strictly the bounds, within which the knowledge essential to a Christian may be attained, it will be seen from a foregoing enumeration, that out of sixty-six books which form the contents of the Old and New Testament, not above seven in the Old, nor above eleven in the New, appear to be calculated for the study or comprehension of the unlearned. Let us suppose, for the sake of argument, that none of the under-mentioned books contain any passages likely to produce material error or objection to one who has not deeply studied the subject of religion, and is wholly unacquainted with the Hebrew and Greek languages. Genesis, Exodus, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Isaiah; Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, 1 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, Epistle of James,

1 Peter, 1 John.

"In these books, unquestionably, all par

ties will allow that every truth or doctrine essential to the belief or conduct of a Christian, is contained." pp. 12, 13.

Mr. Cunningham shall now be heard in reply and as he always cites the argument with fairness, the objection and the answer shall go together.

"The objections brought by Dr. Maltby against the circulation of the whole Scriptures, may chiefly be ranged under two heads-first, that they are not intended, and secondly, that they are not calculated, for general circulation. These points deserve to be examined distinctly.

1. As to the question, whether the Scriptures are intended for general circulation, it is obvious that this can be known only from some revelation of the will of God upon the subject. The boundaries for the confinement of the Bible must be sought for in the Bible itself.

As, however, no restrictions of this kind are to be discovered in the Sacred Writings, this position stands merely a naked affirmation in the pages of Dr. Maltby. He says, indeed, of a part of the Scriptures fp. 9), that they are not designed, because they are not calculated, for general diffusion.' This assertion, however, evidently assumes a

point to be proved. Independent of this, no proof of the position is attempted. Let us see, then, what positive proof, that they are designed to be circulated, is to be set against this bare affirmation that they are not.

First, It may be inferred that the Scrip. tures were designed for general circulation from this fact that God himself gave these Scriptures to us without any restriction upon their general use." pp. 8, 9.

Secondly, That the Scriptures were designed by God for general circulation, may be inferred from the manner of using them in the Jewish church.” pp. 11, 12,

Thirdly, The design of God, as to the universal diffusion of the Scriptures, may be inferred from the use made of them by Christ himself." p. 13.

“But finally, That the Scriptures were to go forth in their integrity to the people, is established by the express declaration of God." p. 14.

We regret that our limits will not permit us to copy the pages, in which these positions are vindicated and explained. They are established by reasoning perfectly conclusive; and if they have failed to

carry conviction to the mind even of

Dr. Maltby himself, we may at least

venture to offer him our condolence.

"Thus far, then," proceeds Mr. Cunningham, "I think it is plain that the Scriptures themselves, the precedent of Christ, the analogy of one dispensation, and the genius and practice of the other, all befriend the notion of an universal diffusion of the word of God. Unless, therefore, the contrary be proved, we may conclude that this general circulation was 'designed.'

"II. But, secondly, it is affirmed that the whole Scriptures are not calculated for universal distribution. And here two classes of objections are urged; first, some of a more general nature; and, secondly, against porticular books; both of which must be examined.

One objection of a generol nature is, that many parts of Scripture are unintelligible t the poor.-But are not many parts also unin telligible to the learned; and, therefore, would not the same law that withheld them from the cottage, expel them from the brary" pp. 14, 15.

"That parts of the Scripture, then, are unintelligible, is no ground for their exsion from the houses of the poor. Religion never proclaimed itself to be free from mys teries." p. 16.

once begun, it is impossible to say where it will finish. For who is to determine what are the parts of the Bible exclusively necessary to salvation? The Antinomian will say the doctrinal parts; the Socinian, the practical: each of these, however, lopping away doctrines and precepts unfavourable to his own creed and practice. If, then, bodies of men are not to be trusted, can Dr. Maitby believe that the Christian world will consent to put the sceptre into any single hand; into his own, for example; and constitate him sole religious autrocrat for all ages and people? Will they stake the national salvation upon the turn of his solitary hand? Will they invest him with that authority to decree what is essential in religion, which his project would go near, however unintentionally, to deny to God himself? And if they would, has Dr. Maltby that confidence in his own judgment, that he would venture to seat himself on the throne, and arbitrate for the eternal interests of millions yet unborn? If not, is there any other single individual, or any college of apostles, to whom he would transfer the office" pp. 25, 26.

Having thus disposed of the more general argument, Mr. Cunningham proceeds in the next place to notice the specific objections to particular parts of the Bible. The reader will find here many just and weighty observations, which will amply repay the labour of perusal. Of the nature of the argument, on both sides, some estimate may be formed by the following extracts.

"With regard to the Book of Genesis, little more is to be found than a question, Whether it can be circulated without some chance of a misconception among the illiterate of our own creed?' (p. 6). To this I would reply by two other questions: in the first place, can any other book be circulated without the same risk? And, secondly, does any general or formidable misconception, with regard to any part of this book, prevail among those with whom it already has free circulation ?" p. 27.

"The Book of Genesis, then, be it remembered, contains the only distinct and systeanatic history of the fall of man by the sin of Adam; of a fact, that is, upon which, as a basis, every orthodox Christian agrees in thinking that the whole of Christianity rests. The fall of man, and his consequent corruption, create the importance and necessity of the death of Christ. This last event will

never be duly valued by those who disbelieve the first. Would there, then, be no risk in removing from the sight of the poor the very basis of their religion; in taking from their hands the first and the connect ing link of the great chain of doctrines which constitute the national creed? Would it be safe to transter the conveyance of so fundamental a doctrine, from the channel of Scripture, to the chance vehicle of popular instruction?" p. 28. "Another objection of Dr. Maltby is to the historical books,' in which, though he allows there are many things desirable to read, there are many also which are liable to be misinterpreted, and more which must be grossly misunderstood.' (p. 7). The objection founded upon a liability to mismterpretation' has been already noticed. What the parts are which must be grossly misunderstood,' the author has not told us; and whether it is that I myself have the misfortune so to misunderstand them, I certainly am not able to divine these mischierous parts. But I would simply ask Dr. Maltby, as to this point, whether it is no disparagement to the Divine Author of these books, to affirm, that he has exposed to the bare risk of general circulation, books that must be grossly misunderstood? I would also ask, whether he is prepared to quote many instances of these gross errors, among the multitudes already possessing the Scriptures? If his theory is not gained by any large induction of facts, I shall beg permission to state one fact, with regard to the historical books, which may at least be set against a naked assertion. It is this-The historical books are the grand instrument of maintaining and illustrating that highly inportant doctrine of religion, a superintend. ing Providence." pp. 34, 35.

"Here, then, is the chief value of the historical books, as a work for the people, They are to be considered as a connected history of the providential dealings of God with a particular people. They constitute what may be called the sensible part of religion. They teach the doctrine of providence, as it were, by signs that cannot be mistaken. They unveil the Deity, and let us see and hear the terrors of his violated law. In this point of view, then, they are of the highest importance; and on this account, amongst others, thinking men will not willingly surrender them to the over-anxious spe culations of the author.

"The next objection is to the prophetical books, whose very object, that of predicting future events by dark hints and obscure