Page images
PDF
EPUB

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 it, 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. OBSERV, No. 131.

[blocks in formation]

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

Nor is the

doctrine, Dr. Maltby has solemnly subscribed his name. 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

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. Maltby believe that the Christian world will consent to put the sceptre into any single hand; into his own, for example; and constitute 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.

[ocr errors]

"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 systematic 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 connecting link of the great chain of doctrines which constitute the national creed? Would it be safe to transier 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 misinterpretation' 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 bigny imsuperintend portant doctrine of religion, a ing Providence." pp. 34, 35.

[ocr errors]

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 reli gion. They teach the doctrine of providence, as it were, by signs that cannot be mis taken. They unveil the Deity, and jet 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 wulingly surrender them to the over-anxious spe culations of the author.

"The next objection is to the propheticol books, whose very object, that of predic ing future events by dark hints and obscura

allusions,' he thinks precludes them from being indiscriminately offered to the public.' But unless it can be proved, that prophecy before the event is clear to the learned, or that after the event it is obscure to the unlearned, this objection must either have too little or too much weight for the author's purpose. It must either leave the Bible with the multitude, or take it from the student." pp. 36, 37.

[ocr errors]

"On the subject of the Book of Psalms, the author is sufficiently explicit. It is objected to them, that many of them were not written by David, or even in his age that many are in direct contradiction to the more pure and elevated precepts of the Christian Lawgiver-that many exult in the calamities, and even imprecate calamities upon the head, of the writer's enemies.' (p. 9.)

"Now here, in the first place, does the author mean to assert, that those Psalms acknowledged not to be the work of David, ought on that account to enjoy less authority in the church? Does he not know, that the Psalms from various hands, were all classed by the Jews among the Hagiographa; and that, although they divided them, possibly in reference to the Pentateuch, into five books, or parts, those of David were not distinguished from the rest? Does he not also know, that if what he calls imprecations, are so in fact, and that, as sach, they constitute an objection to the Psalms; the Psalms of David are not less guilty than the rest?

"But, in the next place, what is to be said of the declaration of Dr. Maltby, that many of the Psalms are in direct contradiction to the more pure and elevated precepts of the Christian Lawgiver?-The question is: are they inspired, or are they not? If they are, can the spirit of the Divine precepts at one period, be directly contradictory to their spirit at another?" pp. 57, 58.

"But, thirdly, as the author does not announce the parts thus subversive of Christian morality, and as the supposed imprecatory passages are those alone at which any objections have been levelled, let us for a moment touch upon them.—It is then, I conceive, next to impossible that Dr. Maltby should not have known, that the words now rendered from the Hebrew in the imperative, might be rendered in the future; so that the passages now translated let them perish, may be translated, they shall perish.' But, kuowing this, and knowing also, that the best interpreters have acquiesced in this change, should he not rather have inti

mated this error of the translation, than impugned the Psalms themselves? If, however, he is determined, with some Hebraists, upon retaining the imprecatory form; is not every objection sufficiently obviated by receiving these passages simply as solemn ratifications of the holy judgments of God against his impenitent enemies?'

"But I would ask, finally, upon this poiut, whether these Psalms, thus directly contradictory' to the precepts of Christ, have, in fact, already exerted any influence in the smallest degree malignant upon the morals of the people? Or if, from amidst the successive millions in the church of God, who from age to age have slaked their thirst, refreshed their piety, imbibed their consolation, at this great fountain of sacred truth, the author should chance to detect some solitary zealot who has managed there to sharpen or poison the arrows of his vindictive passions, shall his single error be set against the general good? Ought we to starve the church of God, because one man has wasted or abused the wholesome food provided for it? Was the manna withdrawn when a few collected it improperly?" pp. 39, 40.

Mr. Cunningham next proceeds to examine the reasons of Dr. Malt

by, for rejecting so large a portion of the New Testament. It is the opinion of Dr. Maltby, that the Epistles were not "designed, because they are evidently not calculated, for general diffusion." p. 9.

"

"Valuable indeed," he tells us, they are, when considered as mere matters of record, connected with the introduction of our

religion. But by far the greater part of the Apostolical Epistles relate to controversies, agitated at the time, about the partial or total rejection of the Jews, the introduction of Gentiles into the church, the necessity of circumcision, the permanence of the Mosaic law, with allusions to the situation of particular congregations, or the conduct of individuals some the useful teachers, and others the mischievous disturbers of the church." P. 10.

In reply to some of the assertions contained in this passage, it might, perhaps, be sufficient to make asser"Where is tions exactly contrary.

the record of facts, for instance, in the Epistles to the Romans, Ephesians, Galatians, Hebrews, &c." (Mr.

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.

"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 bear them now: When He, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: he shall teach you all things:⚫ he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you. Such being the fact, it is no de

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 judiciously 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.

"But, then, we should remember, both that there is a degree of refinement which is fastidiousness, and that much of the ancient 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 upɑt these two grounds-that we shall never please the over-nice, and that the devout are mostly pleased already." p.51.

[ocr errors]

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.

"In fact, is there any solid ground for objection to our Articles? Can it be hoped that any will be framed at once as scriptaral and more comprehensive?" p. 33.

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

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 it, 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."

pages to the same effect; and be We might go on quoting whole 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. 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

For our

[ocr errors]
« PreviousContinue »