« AnteriorContinuar »
with the Bible. By the Rev. the Senate from Dr. Herbert Marsh, CHARLES SIMEON, M. A. Fellow Margaret Professor of Divinity, of King's College Cambridge. dated Nov. 25, 1811; in which he London : Cadell. 1812.
respectfully submitted to the Uni. An old Fable, with a new Applica. Versiry, which of the two Bible
tion: The Dog in the Nianger, Societies” (for so he is pleased also Cambridge: Hodson. 1812. to entitle the Society in Bartlett's.
Buildings)" is most entitled to encouWe have now the controversy con. ragement on the part of a body tained in the above-named pamphlets whose peculiar duty is the support appearing before us in iis ulterior of the Established Church.” This stages. If we feel any backward. Address, writted with all Dr. Marsh's ness in redeeming our pledge to our characteristic acuteness and perspireaders upon this important subject, cuity of style, differs only in subit is from a fear lest, having already stance from his subsequent pamcommitted ourselves on the abstract phlet, by suggesting the want of merits of the question, we should be guarantee, that other objects inimi. deemed partial judges in the cause; cal to the church, will not in time and should be in fact 100 much in- be associated with the main object. terested in raising the weight and The experience of seven years" (all, credibility of witnesses who are lo by the bye, the society can have stand on our own side.
given) " is a poor ground of consolaOur discharge, then, of the deli- tion." This objection, as Mr. Vancate office of judge-advocate, we must sittart well observes, has been enleave to the decision of our readers: tirely relinquished in the pamphlet most of whom, we doubt not, will itself. And, indeed, so much uncome to us with an opinion already brage seems to have been offered by made up, upon a transaction not other parts of that Address, as to certainly done in a corner! The field make another short Address or of batile has been in this case an handbill necessary, dated the 10th “ Areopagus” of no mean distince of December, and stating, that tion. And if we may presume to "whereas it has been insinuated, that compare the members of our learn. they who object to the modern Bible ed university to those of old, “ who Society, object to the distribution spent their time in nothing else but of the Bible, it is necessary to reply either to tell or to hear some new that this objection is not to the disthing," we should be inclined to tribution of the Bible, but to the designate the present encounter as distribution of the Bible alone. Inone of philosophers; each of whom stead of requiring less, they require is wielding the weapons peculiar to more." And then it is proposed to his own order, and, in no trifling or add the distribution of the Liturgy ignoble contest, calling on the world to the new Bible Society. to award the prize of victory. The detail of the proceedings which
Our former pages have detailed took place on the memorable 12.b of the history of this sharp, but as we December, when the proposed meet. hope short
, controversy. We under. ing was held at the Town Hall (the stand the proposal for a Bible Socie- Senate House having been withheld ty at Cambridge originated amongst in consequence, we presume, of Dr. the under-graduates ; and amongst Marsh's Address), will be found in some in particular who, in their reli- our Appendix for 1811. gious opinions, were known to be We shall only now observe, in re. * nullius addicii jurare in verba ma- gard to that meeting, that it was an gistri.” This proposal, it seems, event above all others to have been soon came under the notice and die wished for, that the Professor should rection of some distinguished persons have honoured it with his presence, in the higher orders of the univer- and there have stated his sentiments sity, and was met by an Address to in an open and candid manner. By these means, we are persuaded, a the zeal and Protestant feelings of turn would have been given to the his antagonists. And what wonder, general tone and complexion of the therefore, if in the scene which enassembly, and a guard would have sued, the Professor found the occabeen introduced on the expressions sion which he sought for. Doctors of the persons present, which is Milner and Clarke, and Mr. Dealscarcely ever to be expected where try, men whose vivacity of wit is there is perfect unanimity, but no less conspicuous than the sound. which we fully believe would have ness. of their understandings, felt removed every plea for Dr. Warsh's too keenly what Dr. Marsh himself subsequent pamphlet. In that pam- seems to have felt in that Address, phlet, indeed, he complains, that “ he not to animadvert upon it will spiwas accused in his absence, and un- rit: and from their speeches, delider circumstances which would have vered with animation and freedom preveoted his being heard had he been enough, yet (we appeal to the present;" (p. 26.) an imputation, we readers of them) with decency and presume, on the character of the no- good nature, Dr. Marsh bas called bleman in the chair, and the other the matter, which we doubt not he noblemen, gentlemen, clergymen, so eagerly expected, for his threatand dignitaries of the university ened attack. These, with Mr. Vana present, which, in his cooler mo- sittart's first letter (in answer to Dr. ments, Dr. Marsh would have been Marsh's Address), which is given reluctant to cast. His attendance, in our number for Dec., p: 797, and Mr. Dealtry informs us, was expects which we hesitate not to call a mas. ed by all, was even earnestly re- terpiece of controversy, form indred quested by Dr. Clarke: to which almost the only objects of Dr. Marsh's request, Mr. Dealtry adds, Dr. attack. At length, on Jan. 27ih, at Marsh will recollect his own answer. 4 o'clock, P. M. as Dr. Clarke in. (Examination, p. 34.) We fully forins us, after a promise of nearly close with Mr. Dealtry, that " Dř. two months, and many a change of Marsh would most assuredly have title in different advertisements, apbeen heard with all the respect and peared this formidable pamphlet. attention due to his situation and ta. In speaking more particularly lent;" whilst, on the other hand, we than we have done to i he contents cannot but express our opinion, that of this singular publication, in conhe ought to have been treated cract- junction with the replies to it, we ly as if he had been present. can never admire too highly the sin
Whatever roughness of handling gular dexterity, not to say felicity, the Professor had to complain of, with which Dr. Marsh has convert. was, nevertheless, of his own seek- ed a most simple hypothesis, coming. He was clearly the aggressor: bined with a very few facts, into and, having thrown down the gaunt- the most considerable attack that let, he should not wonder there we think has yet been made upon were knights of spirit to accept the the Bible Society. The hypothesis challenge. He himself erected the is, that it is harmless, useful, nay conductor which brought the light- even becessary, for churchmeo to nings of eloquence and zeal on his give away Prayer-books with their own head. We will go further; Bibles ; an hypothesis of which in. we will believe he had a motive in deed no common man would doubt erecting it. By putting forth his the truth, nor greatly prize the inAddress in manifest defiance of the ventor, though Dr. Marsh is at the whole society, by speaking both trouble of claiming the first discoof the Bible and Liturgy in language very of it, in the following words : which, 'as we may see hereafter, he “ I do not perceive that any one exhad good reason to suppress, hecept myself has pointed out the seems to have almost laid a trap for danger......of neglecting to give the Prayer-book with the Bible. I have of which acts, however, Dr. Marsh read again...... Dr. Wordsworth and pointedly disclaims);--thatMr.VanMr. Dealtry, and I do not find any sittart had asserted from Chillingallusion to this danger.” (Inq. pp. worth, that “the Bible only is the re42–44.) On the contrary, Mr.Deal. ligion of Protestants;"--and, binally, try is at the further trouble of shew- that Mr. Dealtry had supposed him. ing, that Dr. Wordsworth did actu- self to be publicly arraigned by Dr. ally originate this hypothesis, and, Marsh for distributing the Word of by several quotations from his for- God. These are the very few facts, mer antagonist, proses him to have upon which, aided by the aboveonly abstained from pressing it, like mentioned hypothesis, Dr. Marsh an honest man, because nocharge, he has been able to found, we cannot was conscious, lay against the Bi- belp saying, a very plausible attack blists* on that score. We should be on this society. By these facts, sorry to see another controversy to combined with this hypothesis, Dr. set this matter right; and cannot still, Marsh has felt himself warranted in in the worst event, think Dr.Words- asserting (for this fact is entirely of worth as unfortunate as Columbus his own creation) that “the omis. in his discovery of America. sion of the Liturgy, in the distribu
The few facts by which this hy- tion of the Bible, is justified by pbothesis has been brought to bear Churchmen,” (Inquiry, p. 8.);-in against the Bible Society, are, in Dr, assuming from thence that the LiMarsb's words, that he bas been“ bit- turgy is actually held in contempt terly reproached” for asserting that by the Biblists (p. 60.) ;-in proving churchmen should not content them- upon that assumption the great dans selves with distributing only Bibles ger to which such a contempt must lo the poor ;-that Dr. Clarke, in bring us, and this by, illustrations answer to certain questionable f from Puritan times, as well as by statements of Dr. Marsh, had asked apprehensions for the safety of the at a public meeting, “ Is the distii- test act;-and, finally, in maintains bution of the Bible alone detrimental ing that this contempt of the Liturgy to the interests of the Establish- assimilates them 10 Joseph Lancaswent ?"-that an anonymous writer ter, who teaches children only the had asked in a similar strain, What! Bible. The scene concludes with a the Bible knock down the church?- proof from abstract reasoning, that that Dr. Milner had spoken against the contempt for the Liturgy must
trying the Scriptures at the bar of be what he asserts it is, in the friends the traditions of fallible men,” and of a society for giving the Bible had imputed to Dr. Marsh the say- alone; and that the Dissenters are îng that Prayer-books were needed the only gainers both in honour as a “corrective to the Bible,”(both and profit by this boasted union.* We beg leave to use Biblists, as Mr.
What proportion this gigantic suDealtry has done, for the friends of the Bi- perstructure bears to the simple ble Society; Anti-biblists, for its enemies. base of hypothesis and fact on
+ It is certainly very questionable, though which it rests, others may as well in a certain sense explicable, to say that the determine as ourselves. For ourdistribution of the Bible alone can be in- selves we utterly disclaim all intenjurious to any Christian church. Much tion, or even thought, of not accommore is it questionable to say, we " may so panying our Bible with a Prayerfar correct the evil by adding Prayer-books, book where it is wanted, and not &c. and that this correction will be made already possessed. We heartily hope, easy by belonging to the other society: that Dr. Marsh's pamphlet will be a words, which those who read Dr. Marsh's attack on Dr. Milner, will find it hard to warning to those churchmen who believe that the former actually did ever
ever did separate, or wish to sepa. use. Vide “ Address to the Senate." rate them; and we are ourselves Sve the last note,
fully convinced of all the mischief which Dr. Marsh anticipates from to, prevented the writer of this letter such a neglect, or contempt, of the from making any mention of him." Liturgy as he states. But our busi. Dr. Clarke, in fact, studiously did ness is not now to state our own sentis not allude to the " Address;', bements: We have already stated, and cause it bore the Professor's name, endeavoured to justify, our beliet, but simply to the anonymous handthat such a neglect or contempt, on bill, which (p. r.) Dr. Marshi only the part of churchmen, is likely, subsequently claimed as his own. neither in reason nor according to The same introduction contains a fact, to result from their union with curious fact, in opposition to Dr. the new Bible Society. But we are Alarsh's assertion of the disrespect now to give lo our readers some idea in which the Liturgy is held by the of the feelings expressed by the se- Biblists. An address was made to veral writers at the head of this the Bible Society by a Bible and article, in answer to the charge in Common Prayer-book Society in which, personally or by implication, New York. This address, printed they are so intimately concerned. in the Seventh Report of the Bible
First appeared at a very early Society, contains the following eu : period, having been literally penned logy on the Liturgy: "What betrbe sanie evening on which Dr. ter method then can be adopted Marsli's pamphlet came forth, the to disseminate the truths of the answer of Dr. Clarke, contained in Bible than by dispersing a book, a short letter to the Margaret Pro- which, exhibiting these truths in fessor, and prefaced by an intro- the affecting language of devotion, duction. Written as it literally was, impresses them on the beart as "currente calamo," we should rather well as the understanding." This have considered it as a good hu- address was printed in the Report, moured refusal to enter the lists of and a supply voted to the New York controversy, had it not contained Society, at the instance of a Dissensome few expressions and retorts of ter, pp. vii. viii. a more serious 'nature. Compared Dr. Clarke begins his “Letter" to the vigorous staud of Leonidas, with a vindication of himself from with bis three hundred, in the very the charge of misrepresentation, for gates of Greece, we certainly con- having quoted an entire sentence il.. sider it as a specimen of valour on deed, but alone, from the handbill the part of Dr. Clarke, and an mentioned already, and since clain. earnest of what Dr. Marsh was ed by Dr. Marsh. The sentence obhereafter to expect. Perhaps, how. jecting "to the distribution of the ever, the discretion of the other Bible alone,” we have already given, combatants, like the elder Grecians, (p. 290), with the one which fo!Coryn MEVEL TVEIOYTWv” is more to be lows it; and it really seems to us, commended by us phlegmatic re- that its tendency would have been viewers. But to give our readers exactly what it is, if a hunureii some idea of this jeu d'esprit, which sucb had followed. Not so does ia Dr. Clarke's pamphlet has certainly seem to Dr. Marsh:-" If my oba fair title to be called :
jectiou had been fairly stated at the In the first place, we think this Town Hall, it would have been writer perfectly justified in the fole simply this; that I objected (ou lowing note upon the use of his the part of churchmen) to ihe: name at all by the Professor. “This distribution of the Bible alone, use of the Author's name, with. without the Liturgy.... But by stops out his permission, was the more ping at the words of the Bible alone', uowarrantable on the part of Dr. Dr. Clarke was enabled to give i Marsh, as the most studied forbear, 'new turn !o the expression, &c." ance, upon the occasion he alludes Inquiry, p.20. To which Dr. Clarke CHRIST, OBSERV, No. 125.
fairly asks, " Where should we stop, indignation," merely for advocating but at the end of a sentence?" And the cause of the Liturgy; so that not only accuses Dr. Marsh, in bis even “ friendship was sacrificed, that turn, of a" cunning comma," instead the author of the Address might be of a full stop, after the words " Bible crushed." All this, we say, looks alone;” but also of perverting a pas- very much like an attempt at what sage of his owo, so as to make Dr. we may call the " argumentum ad Clarke use the word "priests” re- misericordiam:" an argument, we proachfully, and yet synonimously should think, at all times below the with the « Reformers*.' But the dignity of a Margaret Professor; peculiarity of this whole affair is certainly of one so well able to supstill to be noted. Dr.Marsh says, "they port that dignity as Dr. Marsh ; and objection;" and evidently gives a more particularly unseasonable vn. turn,” to his expressions, as if Dr. der the circumstances in which Dr. Clarke had pointedly misrepre. Marsh had placed himself. Before septed him, which he had as point. We extend to the Professor the dole edly avoided, by quoting only the of commiseration usually due to ophaadbill
, not ibe'n recognized as Dr. pressed and deserted innocence, we Marsh's. Now we are sorry to sus- mjust certainly inquire who first pect this turn to be the effect of de provoked these supposed, these imasign. Coupled with Dr. Marsh's ginary insults? Who published the further complaints of being “ repre- bandbill, now said by Dr. Clarke hended in his own university,” of to be as rare (Dr. Marsh knows being “ reproached and bitterly re- why) as a certain famous old typoproached," nay " held out to public graphical relique? Who began un• Dr. Clarke has not here seemed to oba provoked, and in cold blood, by an
address, containing at least very inserve how entirely his antagonist has mistaken what Mr. Dealtry calls
, with truth, and tending, in the most direct man
vidious and galling representations, his “ fine image :" and that our readers leave the opportunity of imputing some ner, to create hostility between the other more important mistakes of the Pro- Bartlett's Buildings and the Bible sessor to inadvertency rather than design, Society? Who knowingly 'overwe shall give Dr. Clarke's image, with Dr. reached Dr. Milner into a disapMarsh's use of it. " It is really as if, while probation of the principle of the the light of Revelation, no longer concealed Bible Society, under cover of Larwithin the ark of a particular sanctuary, is caster's Schools ? Who, in short, permitted to irradiate the nations of the bad threatened still more than be sarth, a question should arise, whether it has yet been able to accomplish shall be conveyed through the public portals and had then left and still leaves of the temple
, or by the gate belonging his opponents under the painful anonly to the priests." " Those priests,” rejoins Dr. Marsh, who composed the Liturgy and ticipatiou of being detected by Articles, would tell him, that their office Professor of Divinity in a series o was only ministerial..that they desired dot misrepresentations and violations o to stop the pilgrim at the threshold of the truth and candour? It is no other temple: that they were ready to admit we are sorry to say, than this sam him to its innermost recesses; but since bee misrepresented, traduced, and abus tween the portal and the altar were dark ed Dr. Marsh. Like his purita and intricate passages, where many a pils representative in Swift, (will be for grim had lost dus way, they requested give the allusion?) he has asside only permission to present him with a ously canvassed for a slap in th clue, &c. Mr. Laneaster disdainas, with our present advocates , the gate of the priests, fills the air with his outcries, an
but before he has received. and approaches the portals of the temple." with his own hand deals a hundre The consequence, concludes Dr. Marsh, of his adopting the Bible alone, is, that blows to avenge the insult. Und “ Christimny itself das bern lost to his such circumstances, who can des view."
that a claim on the commiseratio