Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

kopff may be heard speaking for himself in our present number. But surely was it the part of courtesy, at any rate, to take notice of such a change, if it even appeared to spring from a wish to retract what had been formerly asserted in the haste of an extemporaneous speech? Would not the retraction itself have been atonement sufficient, without a direct insult superadded from the party to whom the concession was made. "Hanc veniam petimus dabimusque vicissim." And when, as we may see hereafter, the alteration was comparatively trifling, and sprung from a mistake in the first reporter, most easily to be accounted for, can we do otherwise than refer our readers to what has been already said on "raising a cry" as explanatory of Dr. Marsh's generalizing insinuation upon this head? Indeed, in regard to this whole chapter of "Insinuations," the question must be asked, Did the Professor really think as ill of his opponents as he pretends to do? If not, what can justify, "in foro conscientiæ," his evident wish to leave that ill impression on the minds of his readers? If he did, on what proof does his ill opinion rest? Not surely, our enemies themselves being judges," on the poor FACTS quoted in the beginning of this review; and no other proof whatever has he adduced. On the other hand, we must warmly recommend to Dr. Marsh and his readers, Mr. Dealtry's third letter on the matter of fact.

[ocr errors]

"The Biblists have not neglected, both by their writings and public ministrations, to illustrate and defend the Liturgy, and to recommend it by all the powers of argument and eloquence. Mr. Biddulph's treatise is well known to you; and Mr. Biddulph is a warm friend to the Bible Society. But perhaps the Professor has his eye upon Cambridge. Among the most strenuous Biblists in this university, is the Rev. Charles Simeon, and how has he conducted himself?" p. 29.

To this question, as we have to give our own, we shall not give Mr. Dealtry's reply.

"A by-stander," Mr. Dealtry continues, "would naturally demand, How then does

it happen that Dr. Marsh has expended so much wit and argument, and eloquence, in • Indeed I proving what you never deny? know not,'-'Have you not objected then to Go ourselves disperse them.'--' Have you done the dispersion of Prayer-books? Never: we Nothing at all: we do ourselves recomnothing to bring the Liturgy into contempt?' med it as, next to the Bible, the most valuable composition which we can put into their hands. Have you not reproached' Dr. Marsh, and bitterly reproached' him, for advising you to give Prayer-books to the poor? Certainly not: for, as churchmen, we consider it to be our bounden duty so to distribute themt; and, when hypotheses and assumptions have done their worst, it is our constant practice.'”—pp. 30, 31.

Mr. Dealtry, in his sixth letter, proceeds to the arguments used by his opponent. And here, if we may be excused a little fastidiousness as claiming a humble place amongst the arguers of this case, we are inclined to express a wish that Mr. Dealtry had more fully drawn forth to view the real argument of Dr. Marsh's pamphlet, and that as quite distinct from the various assumptions, mistakes, &c. &c. which, with great vivacity as well as truth, he has charged upon the Professor. The five "Arguments," alleged and answered by Mr. Dealtry, are,

"See Mr. Simeon's four Sermons, preached before the University in October and November 1812."

"See Mr.Vansittart's Letters to Dr.Marsk

and Mr. Coker§; the Dean of Carlisle's Address on the formation of an Auxiliary So ciety at Cambridge; Mr. Dealtry's on a similar occasion at Hertford, &c. &c."

§ This Letter, the second in the work of Mr. Vansittart, placed at the head of this ar ticle, is addressed to John Coker, Esq. in answer to his letter to the Right Hon. N. Vansittart, in the Oxford paper, and, in Mr, Vansittart's usual tone of candour and conciliation, corrects Mr. Coker's mistake of his first letter, as if he had maintained the Dis senters to be not hostile to the Establishment, or the Bible not to need notes or comment

taries to elucidate it. His reply went to prové, only that the Bible Society puts no weapon is the hands of the Dissenters against the Establishment and on this point, he vindicates the Society in a way which might win the ap plauses, we think, of the severest critic.

:

1. That Dr. Marsh was accused of pleading for the Liturgy: therefore, the Bible Society is indifferent or hostile to the Liturgy. 2. There is an analogy between the Bible Society and Lancaster. 3. Generalized Protestantism, as held by Lancaster and the Bible Society, will lead to a renewal of the rebellion. 4. The Bible Society is supported by Calvinists. 5. The distribution of the Bible by this Society will lead to a repeal of the Test Act. Now these arguments, not being of -course intended to exhibit the main position or argument of the whole pamphlet, viz. the danger of distributing the Bible alone, cannot be considered as the whole of the reasonings by which that position is supported.

The fact is, the pamphlet itself 'is made up of nothing more than a single plausible and well-chosen bypothesis, supported, not by five or any definite number of logical arguments, but by an indefinite series of small and delusive, nay sometimes almost evanescent, but plausible and ingenious sophistries. And perhaps it might have been more conducive to the end which doubt less every true lover of his Bible, with Mr. Dealtry, must have at heart, if that hypothesis had been in the first instance prominently exhibited to view; then the professed "abstract reasoning" upon it examined; and finally a few only of the principal assumptions and graver peccadilloes in support of his "reasoning" adduced and confuted. It is an avowed rule, we believe, of Longinus, and amongst all great critics, to use the argument cumulative with great caution; and more generally to seek in the selection of topics the "modum" than the "copiam:" and this for the obvious reason, that the reader may not be led to suspect the strength of individual arguments from the use of their collective force; and also, that his attention may not be distracted by a multitude of objects, and thus disabled from looking steadily at any one. CHRIST. OBSERV. No. 125.

The shower, though greater in quantity, is not to be compared in force to the torrent. And when we know that Mr. Dealtry can be, if he pleases, "Isæo torrentior," we could wish the arrangement and plan of his "Examination" more frequently admitted of the use of his amplifying powers upon some important leading topics, leaving all the rest, without fear, to the judgment, or rather common sense, of mankind.

We have only time to observe particularly upon the five topics which Mr. Dealtry has in, this instance selected as specimens of Dr. Marsh's reasoning, that he has countermined the Professor with great ingenuity and conclusiveness of argument. We rejoice that he has set the unwarrantable attack upon Dr. Milner in its true light, and fully justified, as he has, the use of the word "corrective" as applied to Dr. Marsh's representation of the Liturgy. On this subject, he well observes; "Those who read the Dean's very admirable speeeh, will find a good reason for the wrath of the Doctor, not founded on bitter reproach. Bitterness of reproach is disgraceful only to its author, but confutation and defeat exasperate the vanquished." p. 45.

We recommend with peculiar pleasure to our readers, and (if this notice should ever come under such dignified inspection) to Dr. Marsh himself, Mr. Dealtry's remarks on Calvinism; in which it will be found, that Mr. Dealtry, no Calvinist himself, knows how to vindicate the choicest doctrines of Christianity from that crude imputation; and at the same time gives us full reason to believe, even if Calvinism were, which it is not, the basis of union in the Bible Society, that we should not have much to fear for that Liturgy which was defended by Usher, Hall, and Beveridge, and which ranks amongst its ablest commentators and advocates not only the suspected but the avowed Calvinists of the present day.

We are obliged to pass over many 2 Ꭱ

weighty and just observations on this and many other subjects referred to by Mr. Dealtry, in his extended view of the " Inquiry." His reply to the author's alarms for the safety of Bartlett's Buildings, by stating its increase in numbers, last year, to have been 869, whereas in no year preceding, since 1789, had it been more than 270, is, we think, well matched by the following fact from Mr.Vansittart. "The number of Prayer-books delivered by the Society for promoting Christian Knowledge, averaged for three years previous to the new Institution, was 13,546, and for the last three years 19,815, being an increase of nearly one half." 2d Letter to Dr. Marsh, p. 26.

Mr. Dealtry has also well observed, that this old society is equally, in practice, implicated in the charge of giving Bibles alone, with the Bible Society. He uses well also the argument drawn from the constitution of the Naval and Military Bible Society, which is precisely similar to that of the British and Foreign, except only that it boasts the Archbishop of Canterbury for its President. But bishops and archbishops, Dr. Marsh informs us, may err: so may, we presume also, the Society in Bartlett's Buildings. And doubtless it is the hard necessity of all aspirants to empire, whether in the political or the controversial world, for the accomplishment of their object to proscribe both friend and foe,-proscripturit, syllaturit, and perhaps before Dr. Marsh finally descends from this earthly stage, we may find him shaking hands in a corner with the renowned Theophilanthropist Anacharsis Cloots himself.

We now take our leave of Mr. Dealtry, with many thanks for the large fund both of instruction and entertainment which he has afforded us, in his ingenious reply to the Inquiry. And we are only sorry our limits prevent us from giving any further specimens either of his wit or bis eloquence; both of which

strikingly illuminate his reasonings on this" profound subject, and so difficult to explain." Perhaps we should designate his powers of illumination on this occasion, rather as the cheering and diffusive glow of meridian light, than the denser and more compact focus of rays, which at once exposes and consumes the object presented to its influence.

In mentioning the name of Mr. Vansittart, whose second letter to Dr. Marsh, answers his share in the general attack, we feel, as controversialists, a somewhat extraordinary sensation. "Venti posuere, omnisque repente resedit flatus." Mr. Vansittart's whole conduct in this discussion has had the singular felicity of uniting the greatest talent, with the utmost moderation; a moderation such as to make "even his enemies to be at peace with him;" and the most honourable eulogium, by far, which we are capable of bestowing upon him, is one extracted from Dr. Marsh's own pages. "Though I have the misfortune to view the British and Foreign Bible Society in a different light from Mr. Vansittart, I must express my acknowledgments for the candour and liberality which prevades (pervade) the whole letter. It is written in all the amiable spirit of a sincere and benevolent Christian."-Inquiry, p. 13.

The letter here alluded to is the first, in answer to Dr. Marsh's Address. And as that letter is already to be found in our pages (No. for December last), we shall only remind our readers of that part of it to which Dr. M's attention is particularly directed, viz. the following dilemma. "Should all churchmen withdraw themselves from the Society ......... one of two consequences must inevitably follow: either the Society, being deprived of the hope of further support, and crippled by the loss of its pecuniary means, and of many of its most valuable members, would wholly expire, or sink into insignificance; or else the dissenting interest, making

[ocr errors]

up for these losses, by more extensive sacrifices, and an increase of zeal and activity, &c., would carry on the institution nearly as before.' Both of these consequences are then drawn forth into discussion. And surely Dr. Marsh never took a fiercer dilemma by the horns, nor one, we must say, which more stamps his courage and fairness as an answerer, than this one. He replies to it at length, in his 8th section; 1st, By an allusion to the universal philanthropy of the French Revolutionists, with Anacharsis Cloots at their head: 2d, By not a very courtly contradiction of Mr. Vansittart's statement, as to the Bible Society having promoted the printing of the Bible in 54 languages: 3d, By setting the tried security as a counterpoise to the comparatively sluggish energy of the Bartlett's Buildings' operations, were even churchmen to transfer thither all their interest: 4th, By an elaborate proof that the Bible Society must be so crippled, &c., by the withdrawment of churchmen, as to render the dangers proposed in the second part of the dilemma entirely rrugatory. To which are added, some hints of a political nature, one of which, we presume as a sting, is placed in the tail of the Inquiry. "It" (the Bible Society) "provides at home for temporal as well as spiritual wants. It gives power to the dissenter, popularity to the churchman, and interest to the politician, which is useful at all times, and especially at the approach of a general election." Inquiry, p. 80. We cannot help anticipating Mr. Vansittart's dignified reply to this insinuation.

"You must be sensible, that the imputation of unavowed intentions to an opponent is not only one of the most vulgar, but one of the most dangerous arts of controversy. Such imputations are easy to be made, difficult to be refuted, but almost always may be retorted with effect. If, as you allege, the Bible Society can provide for temporal, as well as spiritual wants (which, however, I am sorry to say, is not the case), temporal as well as spiritual wants may be provided for, by the profession of a distinguished zeal for the in

terests of the church. If the Bible Society can give popularity to the churchman, and interest to the politician, the cry that the church is in danger, can equally answer both those purposes; and nothing has more frequently been found useful at the approach of a general election.

་་

I beg, however, to disclaim the use of all such imputations,otherwise than as specimens of your own mode of reasoning. I feel their injustice in my own case-I willingly admit it in yours. I know that I could find readier ways to distinction and advancement than by crying up the Bible Society-I with pleasure allow to you far stronger and more honourable claims than that of crying it down." pp. 48, 49.

Mr. Vansittart, in this second letter to Dr. Marsh, considers his objections under three heads. 1. That the Bible Society produces a disregard of the Liturgy. 2. That its foreign operations have been mistated and exaggerated. 3. That its real objects are of a political nature. Of his able observations under these several heads, we can only give very short and unconnected specimens, which we shall endeavour to confine as much as possible to his own words. "You have totally changed your ground of objection," says Mr. Vansittart very ably in his opening, "which was in the Address, that other objects might be associated, hostile to the church, with the main object. Now your objection is to the main and avowed object itself, viz. the distribution of the Scriptures unaccompanied by the Liturgy or by any other exposition or comment whatever, &c." p. 24. Gisborne has well stated the same argument at a late respectable meeting in Staffordshire. Once the objection was, You will accompany your Bibles hereafter with notes and comments." The answer was, " No: our very constitution forbids it." Then comes the rejoinder," But why do you not accompany them with notes and comments, i. e. The Liturgy ?" This we conceive to be the first use, in form, of the " argumentum a digitali lately established * Vide Quarterly Review of Mr. Fox's Life.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

Mr.

[ocr errors][merged small]

not?"

Mr. Vansittart justifies the church members of the Bible Society from the suspicion of any want of regard to the Liturgy in the following manly terms: "We acknowledge its lawful authority, we venerate its piety, we admire its beauty, we recommend its use by our example, our influence and distribution: we all adhere to its forms in the public service of the church, and many of us in our own families.' p. 25. Which is followed by a challenge, as to the matter of fact in regard to those who subscribe both to the Bible Society and to Bartlett's Buildings. And here we find the fact, before alluded to, of the immensely increased distribution of the Prayerbook.

[ocr errors]

He then draws the line of common sense between the "divine perfection and human frailty," as respectively distinguishing the Bible and the Prayer-book: not in the least detracting from the necessity of giving the Prayer-book, but reproaching Dr. Marsh with his overstatements (to use no invidious epithet) which we conceive to be as completely proved upon the Margaret Professor as any charge ever averred in controversy. Mr. Vansittart, in reply to Dr. Marsh's at tack upon Chillingworth, adduces quotations from the Homilies of the Church of England, to the same effect as those given by Mr. Dealtry from Church-of- England Tracts, asking, Shall we Christian men think to learn the knowledge of God and of ourselves in any earthly man's work, or writing, sooner or better than in the holy Scriptures written by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost?" p. 29.

We recognise with pleasure, at p.32, an argument which the respectable Dr. Wordsworth urged against Mr. Dealtry, and with reason, had he been really guilty of that in regard to the Society for promoting

Christian Knowledge, which Mr. Vansittart proves on Dr. Marsh, in regard to his reasonings on the strength of the British and Foreign Bible Society. "Supposing this to be the case with respect to all the Foreign Societies" (i. e. that they receive pecuniary assistance from us instead of contributing to us), "it would only follow that you estimate the strength of a society by no other criterion than its pecuniary means. You count for nothing the zeal and activity of these societies, &c. You overlook the gratitude and attachment of so many individuals, many of whom are in distinguished stations, and the approbation and countenance of several sovereigns."

We cannot refrain from giving entire Mr. Vansittart's most able reply to the insinuations of the Inquiry, as to a resemblance between the features of the present times and those of Charles the First.

"Nothing can be more dissimilar to the state of government, and the political constitution of the country in the reign of Charles the First, than their actual situation. Nor have the ecclesiastical arrangements and the public opinions on religious subjects any greater resemblance. Compare the civil and military establishments, and all the means of influence possessed by the govern-, ment at that time, and at the present. Compare the violent exertions of unsettled prerogative on the one hand, and the cager claim of undefined privileges and rights on the other, with the orderly and regular system which has been established since the Revolu tion. Compare the harsh exertions of ecclesiastical authority in the former period; of authority often striving, by means unjustified by the forms of English law, and still more repugnant to its spirit, to repress the

turbulence and ferment of a recent and un

settled reformation of religion; with the calm and mild exercise we have seen, for a century past, of the clerical jurisdiction, always directed by law, and guided by moderation; and then say whether there is now any reason to apprehend the renewal of that

collision and conflict of passions and opi

nious in which the constitution of the Church

and that of the State alike were overthrown,” Pp. 34, 35.

We give this observation with the as proceeding more satisfaction,

« AnteriorContinuar »