« AnteriorContinuar »
kopff may be heard speaking for it happen that Dr. Marslı has expended sa himself in our present number. But much wit and argument, and eloquence, in surely was it ibe part of courtesy, proving what you never deny ? Indeed I at any rate, to take notice of such a
know not.' - Have you not objected then to change, if it even appeared to spring Co ourselves disperse them. -Have you done
the dispersion of Prayer-books?' • Never: we from a wish to retract what had been nothing to bring the Liturgy into contempt?" formerly asserted in the haste of an
• Nothing at all: we do ourselves recomextemporaneous speech? Would not med it as, next to the Bible, the most valuthe retraction itself have been atone- able composition which we can put into their ment sufficient, without a direct insult lands: Have you not reproached Dre superadded from the party to whom Darslı, and bitterly reproached him, for the concession was made. “ Hanc advising you to give Prayer-books to the veniam petimus dabimusque vi. poor? Certainly not: for, as churchmen, cissim.” And when, as we may soe
we consider it to be our bounden duty so to hereafter, the alteration was com
distribute theint; and, when bypotheses paratively trifling, and sprung
and assumptions have done their worst, it is a niistake in the first reporter, most
our constant practice.' "- pp. 30, 31. easily lo be accounted for, can we do
Mr. Dealtry, in his sixth letter, otherwise than refer our readers to proceeds to the arguments used by what has been already said on " rais- his opponent. And here, if we may ing a cry” as explanatory of Dr. be excused a little fastidiousness as Marsh's generalizing insinuation up-claiming a humble place amongst on this head? Jodeed, in regard to the arguers of this case, we are in. this wholechapter of Insinuations," clined to express a wish that Mr. the question must be asked, Did the Dealtry had more fully drawn forth Professor really think as ill of his to view the real argument of Dr. opponents as he pretends to do? If Marsh's pamphlet, and that
as not, what can justify, “in foro con- quite distinct from the various asscientiæ," his evident wish to leave sumptions, mistakes, &c. &c. which, that ill impression on the minds of his with great vivacity as well as truth, readers? 'if he did, on what proof he has charged upon the Professor. does his ill opinion rest? Not surely, The five “Arguments," alleged “ our enemies themselves being and answered by Mr. Dealtry, are, judges," on the poor FACTS quoted « * See Mr. Simeon's four Serinops, preachin the beginning of this review; and ed before the University in October and Nono other proof whatever has he ad- vember 1812.” duced. On the other hand, we must
« + See Mr. Vansiltart's Letters to Dr.Marsk warmly recommend to Dr. Marsh and Mr. Cokerộ; the Dean of Carlisle's Ad. and his readers, Mr. Dealtry's third dress on the formation of an Auxiliary Som letter on the matter of fact.
ciety at Cambridge ; Mr. Dealtry's on a
similar occasion at Hertford, &c. &c." “ The Biblists have not neglected, both by theit writings and public ministrations, to This Letter, the second in the work of illustrate and delend the Liturgy, and to re- Mr. Vansittart, placed at the head of this are commend it by all the powers of argument ticle, is addressed to Jolin Coker, Esq. in and eloquence. Mr. Biddulph's treatise is answer to his letter to the Right Hon. N. well known to you ; and Mr. Biddulph is a Vansittart, in the Oxford paper, and, in Mr. warin friend to the Bible Society. But perhaps Vansittart's usual tone of candoor and conthe Professor has his eye upon Cambridge. ciliation, corrects Mr. Coker's mistake of his Among the most strenuous Biblists in this first letter, as if he had maintained the Disuniversity, is the Rev. Charles Simeon, and senters to be not hostile to the Establishment, how has be conducted himself?" p. 29.
or the Bible not to need notes or commen To this question, as we have to laries to elucidate it. His reply went to prove, give our own, we shall not give Mr. only that the Bible Society puts no weapon is Dealtry's reply.
the hands of the Dissenters agaiøst the Estab
lishment : and on this point, he vindicates the " A by-stander," Mr. Deality continues, Society in a way which might win the ap W would naturally demand, How then does plauses, we think, of the severest critic.
1. That Dr. Marsh was accused of The shower, though greater in quanpleading for the Liturgy: therefore, tity, is not to be compared in force the Bible Society is indifferent or to the torrent. And when we know hostile to the Liturgy. 2. There is that Mr. Dealtry can be, if he pleaan analogy between the Bible So- ses, Isæo torrentior,' we could ciety and Lancaster. 3. General- wish the arrangement and plan of ized Protestantism, as held by Lan- his "Examination" more frequently caster and the Bible Society, will admitted of the use of his amplifylead to a renewal of the rebellion. ing powers upon some important 4. The Bible Society is supported leading topics, leaving all the rest, by Calvinists. 5. The distribution without fear, to the judgment, or raof the Bible by this Society will lead ther common sense, of mankind. to a repeal of the Test Act. Now We have only time to observe these arguments, not being of particularly upon the five topics course intended to exhibit the main which Mr. Dealtry has in this inposition or argument of the whole stance selected as specimens of Dr. pamphlet, viz. the danger of distri- Marsh's reasoning, that he has counbuting the Bible alone, cannot be termined the Professor with great inconsidered as the whole of the rea- genuity and conclusiveness of argusonings by which that position is ment. We rejoice that he has set supported.
the unwarrantable attack upon Dr. The fact is, the pamphlet itself Milner in its true light, and fully jus'is made up of nothing more than a lified, as he has, the use of the word single plausible and well-chosen hy- corrective” as applied to Dr. pothesis, supported, not by five or Marsh's representation of the Liturany definite number of logical ar- gy. On this subject, he well obguments, but by an indefinite series serves; “ Those who read the Dean's of small and delusive, nay some- very admirable speeeh, will find a times almost evanescent, but plausi- good reason for the wrath of the ble and ingenious sophistries. And Doctor, not founded on bilter reperhaps it might have been more proach. Bitterness of reproach is conducive to the end which doubt. disgraceful only to its author, but less erery true lover of bis Bible, confutation and defeat exasperate with Mr. Dealtry, must have at the vanquished.” p. 45. heart, if that hypothesis had been We recommend with peculiar in the first instance prominently ex- pleasure to our readers, and (if this hibited to view; then the professed notice should ever come under such "abstract reasoning" upon it exam. dignified inspection) 10 Dr. Marsh ined; and finally a few only of the himself, Mr. Dealtry's remarks on principal assumptions and graver Calvinism; in which it will be found, peccadilloes in support of his “ rea- that Mr. Dealtry, no Calvinist himsoning" adduced and confuted. It self, knows how to vindicate the is an avowed rule, we believe, of choicest doctrines of Christianity Longinus, and amongst all great from that crude imputation; and critics, to use the argument cumu- at the same time gives us full reason Jative with great caution; and more to believe, even if Calvinism were, generally to seek in the selection of which it is not, the basis of union in topics the “modum” than the “co- the Bible Society, that we should piam :” and this for the obvious not have much to fear for that Lireason, that the reader may not be turgy which was defended by Usher, led to suspect the strength of indivi- Hall, and Beveridge, and which dual arguments from the use of their ranks amongst its ablest commencollective force; and also, that his tators and advocates not only the attention may not be distracted by suspected but the arowed Calvinists a multitude of objects, and thus disa of the present day. bled from looking steadily at any one. We are obliged to pass over many CARIST. ORSERY. No. 125.
weighty and just observations on strikingly illuminate bis reasonings this and many other subjects refer- on this “ profound subject, and so red to by Mr. Dealtry, in his ex- difficult to explain.” Perhaps we tended view of the “ Inquiry." His should designate his powers of illureply to the author's alarms for the mination on this occasion, rather as safety of Bartlett's Buildings, by the cheering and diffusive glow of stating its increase in numbers, last meridian light, than the denser and year, to have been 869, whereas in more compact focus of rays, which no year preceding, since 1789, had at once exposes and consumes the it been more than 270, is, we think, object presented to its influence. well matched by the following fact In mentioning the name of Mr. from Mr. Vansiliart. “ The number Vansittart, whose second letter to of Prayer-books delivered by the Dr. Marsh, answers his share in the Society for promoting Christian general attack, we feel, as controKnowledge, averaged for three years versialists, a somewhat extraordiprevious to the new Institution, was nary sensation. .“ Venti posuere, 13,546, and for the last three years omnisque repente resedit flatus." 19,815, being an increase of nearly Mr. Vansittart's whole conduct in one half.” 2d Letter to Dr. Marsh, this discussion has had the singular
felicity of uniting the greatest taMr. Dealtry has also well ob- lent, with the utmost moderation; a served, that this old society is moderation such as to make “even equally, in practice, implicated in the his enemies to be at peace with charge of giving Bibles alone, with him;" and the most honourable the Bible Society. He uses well also eulogium, by far, which we are cathe argument drawn from the con- pable of bestowing upon him, is stitution of the Naval and Military one extracted from Dr. Marsh's Bible Society, which is precisely own pages. “ Though I have the similar to that of the British and misfortune to view the British and Foreign, except only that it boasts Foreign Bible Society in a different the Archbishop of Canterbury for light from Mr. Vansittart, I must its President. But bishops and express my acknowledgments for archbishops, Dr. Marsh informs the candour and liberality which us, may err: so may, we presume prevades (pervade) the whole letter. also, the Society in Bartlett's Build- It is written in all the amiable spirit ings. And doubtless it is the hard of a sincere and benevolent Chrisa necessity of all aspirants to empire, tian.”—Inquiry, p. 13. whether in the political or the con- The letter here alluded to is the troversial world, for the accom- first, in answer to Dr. Marsh's Adplishment of their object to pro- dress. And as that letter is already scribe both friend and foe,-pro- to be found in our pages (No. for scripturit, syllaturit,—and perhaps December last), we shall only rebefore Dr. Marsh finally descends mind our readers of that part of it from this eartbly stage, we may to which Dr. M's attention is parfind him shaking hands in a corner ticularly directed, viz. the following with the renowned Theophilanthro- dilemma. “ Should all churchmen pist Anacharsis Cloots himself. withdraw themselves from the So
We now take our leave of Mr. ciety one of two conseDealtry, with many thanks for the quences must inevitably follow : large fund both of instruction and either the Society, being deprived entertainment which he has afforded of the hope of further support
, and us, in his ingenious reply to the In- crippled by the loss of its pecuniary quiry. And we are only sorry our means, and of many of its most valimits prevent us from giving any luable members, would wholly exfurther specimens either of his wit pire, or sink into insignificance ; or or bis eloquence; both of which else the dissenting interest, making
up for these losses, by more exten- terests of the church. If the Bible Society sive sacrifices, and an increase of can give popularity to the churchman, and zeal and activity, &c., would carry interest to the politician, the cry that the on the institution nearly as before.”
church is in danger, can equally answer both Both of these consequences are then those purposes ; and nothing has more fredrawn forth into discussion. And quently been found useful at the approach of surely Dr. Marsh never took a
a general election. fiercer dilemma by the horns, nor
“ I beg, however, to disclaim the use of all
such imputations otherwise than as specimens one, we must say, which more of your own mode of reasoning. I feel their stamps his courage and fairness as injustice in my own case I willingly admit an answerer, than this one.
it in yours. I know that I could find readier plies to it at length, in his 8th sec- ways to distinction and advancement than tion; Ist, By an allusion to the uni- by crying up the Bible Society-- I with pleaversal philanthropy of the French sure allow to you far stronger and more Revolutionists, with Anacharsis honourable claims than that of crying it Cloots at their head : 2d, By not a
down.” pp. 48, 49. very courtly contradiction of Mr. Mr. Vansittart, in this second letVansittart's statement, as
to the ter to Dr. Marsh, considers his obBible Society having promoted the jections under three heads. 1. That printing of the Bible in 54 lan- the Bible Society produces a guages: 3d, By setting the tried se- gard of the Liturgy. 2. That its focurity as a counterpoise to the con- reign operations have been mistated paratively sluggish energy of the and exaggerated. 3. That its real Bartlett's Buildings'operations, were objects are of a political nature. Of even churcbmen to transfer thither his able observations under these seall their interest: 4th, By an elabo- veral heads, we can only give very Tate proof that the Bible Society short and unconnected specimens, must be so crippled, &c., by the which we shall endeavour to confine withdrawment of churchmen, as to as much as possible to his own render the dangers proposed in the words. “ You have totally changed second part of the dilemma entirely your ground of objection,” says Mr. mugatory To which are added, Vansittart very ably in his opening, some hints of a political nature, one “ which was in the Address, that of which, we presume as a sting, is other objects might be associated, placed in the tail of the Inquiry. hostile to the church, with the main “It”(the Bible Society)“ provides at object. Now your objection is to home for temporal as well as spiritual the main and avowed object itself, wants. It gives power to the dis-, viz. the distribution of the Scripsenter, popularity to the churchman, tures unaccompanied by the Liturgy and interest to the politician, which or by any other exposition or comis useful at all times, and especially ment whatever, &c.” p. 24. Mr. at the approach of a general election.” Gisborne has well stated the same Inquiry, p. 80. We cannot help an- argument at a late respectable meetticipating Mr. Vansittart's dignified ing in Staffordshire. Once the obreply to this insinuation.
jection was, “ You will accompany " You must be sensible, that the impuia. your Bibles hereafter with notes and tion of unavowed intentions to an opponent is comments." The answer was, “ No: not only one of the most vulgar, but one of our very constitution forbids it." the most dangerous arts of controversy. Such Then comes the rejoinder, “But why imputations are easy to be made, difficult to do you not accompany them with be refuted, but almost always may be retort
notes and comments, i. e. The Litured with effect. If, as you allege, the Bible gy?” This we conceive to be the Society can provide for temporal, as well as spiritual wants (which, however, I am sorry tum a digitali * " lately established
first use, in form, of the “ argumento say, is not the case), temporal as well as spiritual wants may be provided for, by the * Vide Quarterly Review of Mr. Fox's profession of a distinguished zeal for the in. Life.
on a well known occasion. “You Christian Knowledge, which Mr. gave digitalis' to Mr. Fox.” No, Vansittart proves on Dr. Marsh, in we did not." "Then why did you regard to his reasonings on the not?”
strength of the British and Foreign Mr. Vansittart justifies the church Bible Society. “ Supposing this to members of the Bible Society from be the case with respect to all the the suspicion of any want of regard Foreign Societies" (i.e. that they to the Liturgy in the following receive pecuniary assistance from us manly terms: "We acknowledge instead of contributing to us, "it' its lawful authority, we venerate its would only follow that you
estimate piety, we admire its beauty, we re- the strength of a society by no other commend its use by our example, our criterion than its pecuniary means. influence and distribution : we all You count for nothing the zeal and adhere to its forms in the public activity of these societies, &c. You service of the church, and many of overlook the gratitude and attachus in our own families.” p: 25. ment of so many individuals, many' Which is followed by a challenge, of whom are in distinguished staas to the matter of fact in regard to tions, and the approbation and counthose who subscribe both to the Bi- tenance of several sovereigns." ble Society and to Bartlett's Build- We cannot refrain from giving ings. And here we find the fact, be- entire Mr. Vansittart's most able fore alluded to, of the immensely reply to the insinuations of the Inincreased distribution of the Prayer- quiry, as to a resemblance between book.
the features of the present times and He then draws the line of com- those of Charles the First. mon sense between the o divine
Nothing can be more dissimilar to the perfection and human frailty,” as
state of government, and the political constirespectively distinguishing the Bible tution of the country in the reign of Charles and the Prayer-book: not in the the First, thau their actual situation. Nor least detracting from the necessity have the ecclesiastical arrangements and the of giving the Prayer-book, but republic opinions on religious subjects any proaching Dr. Marsh with his over- greater resemblance. Compare the civil statements (to use no invidious epic and military establishments, and all the thet) which we conceive to be as
means of influence possessed by the governcompletely proved upon the Marga
ment at that time, and at the present. Comret Professor as any charge ever gative on the one hand, and the cager claim
pare the violent exertions of unsettled preroaverred in controversy. Mr. Van- of undefined privileges and rights on the sittart, in reply to Dr. Marsh's at- other, with the orderly and regular system tack upon Chillingworth, adduces which has been established since the Revoluquotations from the Honiilies of the tion. Compare the harsh exertions of ecChurch of England, to the same ef- clesiastical authority in the former period; of fect as those given by Mr. Dealtry authority often striving, by means unjustifrom Church -of- England Tracts, fied by the forms of English law, and still asking, “ Shall we Christian men
more repugnant to its spirit, 10 repress the think to learn the knowledge of turbulence and fernent of a recent and unGod and of ourselves in any earthly calm and mild exercise we have seen, for'a
setiled reformation of religion; with the man's work, or writing, sooner or
century past, of the clerical jurisdiction, albetter than in the holy Scriptures ways directed by law, and guided by modewritten by the inspiration of the ration; and then say whether there is now Holy Ghost ?" p. 29.
any reason to apprehend the renewal of that We recognise with pleasure, at collision and conflict of passions and opip.32, an argument which the respec- nions in which the constitution of the Church table Dr. Wordsworth urged against and that of the State alike were overthrown," Mr. Dealtry, and with reason, had Pp. 34, 35. he been really guilty of that in re- We give this observation with the gard to the Society for promoting more satisfaction, as proceeding