reads Mr. Dealtry's speech on that
occasion, why he has been selected
in the "Inquiry," as the object of
a peculiarly ingenious attack. Dr.
Marsh, who knows enough of con-
troversy to put every thing in its
proper place, has put Mr. Dealtry
into a note: where, besides the ad-
vantageous contrast afforded by the
natural claims of the dignified per-
son in question, with bis situation at
the bottom of the page, Dr. Marsh
has also been pleased to add certain
insinuations of a personal nature,
and oue especially, of a very grave
Under
import to a lover of truth.
such a provocation (it is to the shame
of Dr. Marsh that we use that word),
Mr. Dealtry has been called to the
unpleasant task of replying to a Pro-
fessor of Divinity. And if, in pro-
secuting the investigation, he has
been occasionally carried forward
with a zeal and a vehemence some-
what different from the measured
calmness of Dr. Marsh's style, per-
haps we might undertake his defence
so much the more readily on that
account. We see, under the sub-
dued exacerbation of the "Inquirer,"
something, or rather much, "more
meant than meets the ear:" where
as, under the honest ebullition of
feeling, on the part of the "Exa-
miner," we perceive a solid prin-
ciple of benevolence, easily recon-
cileable with the expressions of
momentary, and even of severe dis-
pleasure.

Neither is it our place to decide on the apology, or the penance, doubtless due from Dr. Marsh for the "gross and palpable" charge mentioned above, and which "the reverend and learned the Margaret Professor,forgetting," as Mr. Dealtry observes; what was due to himself as well as to me, has thought it right to advance." p. 115 et seq. The charge and the defence are both before the public, which has nothing to do, so clearly has Mr. Dealtry proved his innocence, but to pass sentence on his accuser.

To proceed to the main contents of this able reply, written in the form

of letters to his friend and partner
in defence, Dr. Clarke :-These let-
ters form so many chapters, which
treat respectively of the false as-
sumptions, wrong conclusions as to
matters of fact, general mistakes, in-
sinuations against the Biblists, argu-
ments, remedies, with the charge
of generalised Protestantism, all
brought forward, or implied, in the
pages of the Inquiry. Under these
several heads, Mr. Dealtry has lite-
rally shaken his adversary to pieces;
and having fairly executed him, if
we may be excused the figure, has
delivered him over to dissection.
Amid almost an infinite number of
severe wounds so inflicted, it is
scarcely possible to designate the
coup de grace: but we shall select a
few from which our readers may
very confidently judge of the rest.
And we think those few will clearly
convict Dr. Marsh of very unguard-
ed positions, the most unjustifiable in-
sinuations, and, to say the least of
them, very unsound arguments. As
far as we can separate these several
charges in Mr. Dealtry's rather de-
sultory statement of them, we shall
But we cannot help
attempt it.
saying a few words before we begin,
upon the nature and the guilt of
raising a cry.

When Dr. Marsh lays down a position very plausible, and, if properly guarded, very true; when we gather from his insinuations that his opponents deny that position in principle or practice; and when, to support these hints, he has recourse to arguments almost evidently irrelevant to the actual occasion--we certainly are justified in warning him of the existence of the aforementioned crime in the statute book of morality. There is a homely but expressive proverb, that if you throw dirt enough, some will be sure to stick," Such is the nature of men's minds, that statements of this kind must and will entrap the unwary, the shallow, the timid, the prejudiced, the indifferent, nay even the orthodox, if uninformed, or indolent. Above all, they "afford occasion to those

who desire occasion:" they admirably adapt themselves to any existing principle of hostility in the mind; and the argument however weak, the assertion however unfounded, the calumny however gross, "recipitur ad modum recipientis." The adversary is too often entirely indifferent to truth, and hails the calumny almost as such; at least as a bon mot, a good joke, a bright association of incongruous ideas. He is prepared with his hearty burst and vigorous clap at every sentence: and so nearly allied are insincerity and enthusiasm of every kind, that statements so circumstanced will come to be at length assumed as truths, and acted upon in the determinations of life.

These considerations have made the most conscientious writers of all ages peculiarly careful in their use of arguments for the instruction of mankind. Those addressed to the weakness, not to the strength, of human reason, have been felt as libels on the sanctity, whether of instruction or even of controversy. And persons detected in the use of such weapons have been condemned as guilty of a breach of trust in the most sacred office ever committed to man; that of guarding the principles, directing the opinions, and governing the practice of his fellow

men.

tion been at variance," says Dr.
Marsh," on the question what doc-
trines are contained in the Bible?

How can we know, if we give
the Bible alone, what sort of Protes-
tantism will be deduced from it?"
And in p. 5,
Inquiry pp. 14, 15.
without reserve, Dr. Marsh speaks
of leaving the poor who, without
assistance, cannot understand the
Scriptures, &c.

Now to this Mr. Dealtry replies,

"There is an authority which states, that if any man will do the will of God, he shall know of the doctrine whether it be of God;' and the controversialist who shall directly affirm, that Infinite Wisdom has not furnished us with the most perfect means of instruction, possesses boldness at least equal to his penetration. That the Scriptures are sometimes perverted to very unwarrantable purposes, no person will venture to deny; and even the Prayer-book itself, though next to the Bible, the best book in the world, is

not exempted from similar abuse." pp. 7, 8.

He then strongly applies to the Professor the argumentum ad hominem in the instance of "justification by faith," to prove uniformity not deducible from the Liturgy itself: and concludes, "who does not see that the argument against the dispersion of the Scriptures without a Prayer-book is in a considerable degree applicable to the dispersion of a Prayer-book without explanatory notes." p. 12.

To the second position, Mr. Dealtry replies, from a Bartlett's Buildings Tract against Popery, "The Scriptures being the word of God cannot but be a sufficient and perfect rule, and able to make us wise unto salvation. As to whatever is necessary to salvation, they are plain and easy to those who read them with due care and suitable disposi

Of this guilt we distinctly disavow any intention of accusing Dr. Marsh. We are only sorry that so much ground should have been laid, as we think Mr. Dealtry has justly laid, for others to do so. Mr. Dealtry has very fairly appealed to the Margaret Professor's own words, which he places, as he proceeds, at the bottom of the page. And in his second Letter, under the head of " Assumptions," &c. &c. To the suggestion, tions," seems clearly to have proved upon Dr. Marsh the following unguarded positions. "1. That the Bible is not a sure guide to necessary truth, and in fact is no standard at all. 2. That the poor cannot understand the Scriptures." "Have not Christians of every age and na

that these are sentiments against Popery, Mr. Dealtry plainly replies,

They are in themselves either true or false: if false, let them be disproved; if true, you cannot choose but admit them.

What, then, Mr. Dealtry, do you pretend to say, that human learning is of no value?" I pretend to say no such thing: my life

has been devoted to study. Do you mean to affirm, Sir, that neither sermons nor litur gy are useful for the instruction of the peo ple? I mean to affirm nothing of the kind. I know, too well, the contrary?— The whole of this assumption involves a fallacy, to which I will next advert." p. 13.

Assumption 3. That we have no established priesthood and no reguJar parochial service."......i. e. “ To furnish that very instruction, the want of which is so pathetically deplored by the Margaret Professor." p. 14.

In truth, where is the point, as to these positions, at issue between Dr. Marsh on one side, and Mr. Dealtry, and, we must add also, ourselves on the other? We have all strongly asserted the obligation on church men to accompany the Bible with the Prayer-book, and with liturgical instruction. But the point is here, that in proving this obligation Dr. Marsh has gone too far. His general position is chiefly faulty in its want of guard, He has attributed to Scripture itself all that uncertainty and versatility, which he ought to have attributed only to the perverseness of those sects, some of them the wildest possible, to which he has referred. This we could wish to have seen more fully drawn out and distinctly brought to view as the grand line of demarcation between the Professer's positions and the faith of Protestants. It is not that the poor man may be misled; not that the Bible may be preverted; not that the Bible itself may be made to mislead and pervert the poor man; but that the Bible itself may mis lead and pervert the man who sits down calmly and dispassionately to read it; and that it is necessary to give a Prayer-book" to correct the evil" (we use Dr. Marsh's own words) which would result from giving and therefore reading the Bible alone: or, to speak more closely yet, that a man so viciously and heretically given, as of his own accord to put a perverse or heretical gloss upon the sacred text studied alone, would have the deficient wisdom of that inspired oracle made up, the insuffi

cient grace of God sustained and corroborated within him, by the presence of his prayer-book. This we dare not say; and to say it, we maintain, is to close with the worst heresies and lowest arguments of Popery itself. Sectaries, indeed, are are laid beyond the verge of scriptunumerous enough, and traps enough ral ground for the unwary and the ignorant, and, let us add also, for" the wise, the scribe, and the disputer of this world," to render the Prayerbook a needful companion to the churchman's Bible: but never, never shall the Editor of Michaelis persuade us, that error and truth are equally deducible from the fountain of truth, or that it requires the wit as well as the honesty of Fathers and Reformers to deduce the principles of our Liturgy from those of the Bible.

This mischievous overstatement, or rather false principle, seems to us to run through the whole of the Professor's reasoning. We cannot think Mr. Dealtry's statement of his argument respecting Lancaster's principle of instruction is at all unfair, whilst it serves to illustrate our notion of the Professor's general want of guard on this head. "1. Mr. Lancaster adopts the Bible alone. 2. He advances to the temBible is no clue. ple without a clue: therefore, the 3. Merely by using the Bible, he has been bewildered in his way. 4. By using the Bible alone, Christianity has been lost from his view." p. 47. Whatever may be the objections to Mr. Lancaster, yet can any Protestant agree to this statement? Again, Dr. Marsh quotes from a certain Unitarian report, an opinion, on which he founds a conclusion," that Lancaster's system appears more favourable to Unitarianism than to any other form of religion." Vide Sermon at St Paul's, p. 31. On this again, Mr. Dealtry fairly puts the following dilemma: Dr. Marsh either believes this fact to be true or he does not. If he do believe it, he be lieves, of course, that the reading of