tian, by his presence, give countenance to such frivolities, and say to worldly persons of his acquaintance, "there is but little difference between you and me; our pursuits, our amusemants, our pleasures, are the same?" Would be not have a better prospect of success, were he to say to them by his conduct; "I have no relish for your vain amusements; I have pleasures of a much higher order, in the exercise of the social affections, in acts of benevolence towards my fellow-creatures, in communion with my God?" We forbear from all further quotations from the Cottage Sketches, because our author is distinguished rather by a perspicuous style, and by instructive and pious reflections, than by passages or sentiments which, separated from the context, are calculated to strike the reader either by their point or their novelty. His characters are not such as authors generally delight to draw, caricatures of the species which they are designed to represent: they are taken from common life; delineated with accuracy, rather than with brilliancy of couring; and wrought up with a multitude of minute touches, rather than marked by a few strong lines of discrimination. From this very circumstance arises much of the interest of the work it comes home to our own "business and bosoms:" while, at the same time, instruction is conveyed in a variety of remarks on religion, morals, and the general conduct of life; which, though not always new, or expressed in a new way, are recommended and enforced, either by the character and example of the persons who introduce them, or by the events from which they originate. There is also one species of instruction, which runs throughout the whole of the Cottage Sketches: in almost every page the author either urges upon us the duty, or illustrates the happiness, or points out the means, of employing, for the benefit of our fellow-creatures, the talents, whether great or small, which God has com mitted to us, and of which we must all render an account at the judgment-seat of Christ. On the whole, we do not hesitate to recommend this little work to the attention of our readers. To those who may have been accustomed to gloomy views of religion, it will exhibit piety as it is described by the Apostle, having the promise of the life that now is, and of that which is to come." To such as may be deceiving themselves with a barren orthodoxy, these volumes will exemplify that faith to which alone the promises are made, even "faith Those which worketh by love." who are ensnared in the vanities and dissipation of the world, will find among the Cottage Sketches one or more in which their folly is represented in its true colours, and may be led to choose "that good part which shall not be taken away from" them. To those, finally, who love their God and Saviour, and are sincerely desirous of glorifying him here on earth, our author suggests abundant encouragement, and much valuable advice, as to the manner in which, according to their several talents, and rank, and situation in life, they may accomplish their benevolent purposes, and imitate Him, who "left us an example, that we should follow his steps.' Thoughts on the Utility and Expediency of the Plans proposed by the British and Foreign Bible Society. By EDWARD MALTBY, D. D., Prebendary of Lincoln, &c. &c. 1812. 8vo. pp. 68. Observations, designed as a Reply to the "Thoughts" of Dr. Maltby, on the Dangers of circulating the Whole of the Scriptures among the Lower Orders. By J. W. CUNNINGHAM, A. M., Vicar of Harrow on the Hill, and late Fellow of St. John's College, Cambridge. London: Hatchard. 1812. Svo. pp. 67. THE publication of Dr. Maltby, which stands at the head of this ar ticle, is an unexpected phenomenon. There is something bold in the idea of his work there is something bold also in the execution of it. To the unbiassed mind, it must furnish matter of deep and serious reflection, that a clergyman of the established church, of acknowledged talent and character, eminent for his learning, and already known to his honour as a defender of the Christian revelation, should now come forward, in the face of the church and of the world, to deprecate the general circulation of that Bible which, as a minister of the Gospel, he must weekly recommend and explain; and to withhold from vulgar eyes a very great part of "those canonical books of the Old and New Testament, of whose authority was never any doubt in the church" (6th Article), and the constant and diligent reading of which IS most energetically inculcated by the church in her first Homily. To free and fair discussion on proper topics, no liberal mind will ever object; but there is something so awful in the bare idea of curtailing the revelation of God, of opposing our shallow and contracted notions to the mighty display of Uncreated Wisdom, that we shrink almost instinctively from the supposition of the case. We hardly think it possible that a Christian minister can tell a Christian people, that there are many things in the Divine revelation which "are liable to be misinterpreted, and more which MUST be grossly misunderstood;" that he can venture to keep back from ordinary readers fortyeight entire books of the Bible, as unnecessary, or as leading to error. Yet for such an enterprise of hazardous speculation must those be prepared, who examine the pages of Dr. Maltby. Of some publications which, have a mischievous tendency it is adviseable to take no notice. When opinions are advanced, against which the common sense of mankind immediately revolts, unless they are supported by the sanction of a name or the heretical activity of dangerous partisans, a dignified silence is perhaps the best reply. But when pernicious sentiments, however weak in themselves, are raised into consequence by adventitious aid; when learning and talent are employed to impel them in their bad career; when men who are unwilling to distinguish between the Bible and the Bible Society, in order to injure the institution venture even to attack the book, it is high time for the lovers of truth, and the guardians of Christianity, to interpose and avert the evil. The Reply of Mr. Cunningham is therefore by no means superfluous: and we have great pleasure in recommending it as perfectly decisive of the matter in debate. The whole question is here so fairly stated, and so conclusively argued, that we shall offer very few additional remarks: we shall do little more than present our readers with a short outline of the pamphlets. Dr. Maltby begins with a few temperate observations upon the plans of those who support the Bible Society; but "does not think that. he should aid the cause of religion or humanity, by sharing their labours and assisting their undertaking." He guards against the supposition, that he "objects in toto to the views of the society, as directed towards the dillusion of religion among the poor;" and certainly those, who recollect his name among the stewards of the Lancasteriau dinner in the last spring, will hardly suspect him of intentions hostile to general instruction. His objections may be divided into two classes: some are general, and some specific. He objects generally to the conduct of the Bible Society, that "the whole of the Bible" is neither "necessary" nor "could be intended for the use of all classes of mankind." The specific objections bear upon certain books both of the Old and New Testament, which he would expunge from the list of those intended for general circulation. The following short extract will serve to explain his views. "It may perhaps be asserted, without the smallest perversion of truth, that each of the Gospels contains every thing necessary to salvation; and if a Christian truly believes and faithfully obeys what he finds in any one of them, such an one is not far from the kingdom of God.' But without limiting so very strictly the bounds, within which the knowledge essential to a Christian may be attained, it will be seen from a foregoing enumeration, that out of sixty-six books which form the contents of the Old and New Testament, not above seven in the Old, nor above eleven in the New, appear to be calculated for the study or comprehension of the unlearned. Let us suppose, for the sake of argument, that none of the under-mentioned books contain any passages likely to produce material error or objection to one who has not deeply studied the subject of religion, and is wholly unacquainted with the Hebrew and Greek languages. Genesis, Exodus, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Isaiah; Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, 1 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, Epistle of James, 1 Peter, 1 John. “In these books, unquestionably, all par ties will allow that every truth or doctrine essential to the belief or conduct of a Christian, is contained." pp. 12, 13. Mr. Cunningham shall now be heard in reply and as he always cites the argument with fairness, the objection and the answer shall go together. "The objections brought by Dr. Maltby against the circulation of the whole Scriptures, may chiefly be ranged under two heads-first, that they are not intended, and secondly, that they are not calculated, for general circulation. These points deserve to be examined distinctly. 1.As to the question, whether the Scriptures are intended for general circulation, it is obvious that this can be known only from some revelation of the will of God upon the subject. The boundaries for the confinement of the Bible must be sought for in the Bible itself. As, however, no restrictions of this kind are to he discovered in the Sacred Writings, this position stands merely a naked affirmation in the pages of Dr. Maltby. He says, indeed, of a part of the Scriptures fp. 9), that they are not designed, because they are not calculated, for general diffusion.' This assertion, however, evidently assumes a point to be proved. Independent of this, bo proof of the position is attempted. Let us see, then, what positive proof, that they are designed to be circulated, is to be set against this bare affirmation that they are not. "First, It may be inferred that the Scriptures were designed for general circulation from this fact that God himself gave these Scriptures to us without any restriction upon their general use." pp. 8, 9. "Secondly, That the Scriptures were designed by God for general circulation, may be inferred from the manner of using them in the Jewish church." pp. 11, 12, Thirdly, The design of God, as to the universal diffusion of the Scriptures, may be inferred from the use made of them by Christ himself." p. 15. "But finally, That the Scriptures were to go forth in their integrity to the people, is established by the express declaration of God." p. 14. We regret that our limits will not permit us to copy the pages, in which these positions are vindicated and explained. They are established by reasoning perfectly conclusive; and if they have failed to carry conviction to the mind even of Dr. Maltby himself, we may at least venture to offer him our condolence. "Thus far, then," proceeds Mr. Cunningham, "I think it is plain that the Scriptures themselves, the precedent of Christ, the analogy of one dispensation, and the genius and tion of an universal diffusion of the word practice of the other, all befriend the noof God. Unless, therefore, the contrary be proved, we may conclude that this general circulation was designed.' "II. But, secondly, it is affirmed that the whole Scriptures are not calculated for universal distribution. And here two classes of objections are urged; first, some of a more general nature; and, secondly, against particular books; both of which must be examined. One objection of a general nature is, that many parts of Scripture are unintelligible to the poor.-But are not many parts also unintelligible to the learned; and, therefore, would not the same law that withheld them from the cottage, expel them from the library?" pp. 14, 15. "That parts of the Scripture, then, are unintelligible, is no ground for their exclusion from the houses of the poor. Religion never proclaimed itself to be free from mys teries." p. 16. "There is added, in Dr. Maltby's work, a succession of reasonings, to prove that the poor have no more right to expect to under. stand certain parts of Scripture, than the plays of Eschylus, or the letters of Pliny. But, of course, no argument can establish this point, which falls short of a proof that these Heathen plays and letters were, like the Scriptures, of universal authority and obligation; that Eschylus and Pliny also were delegated to preach their gospels to all people,'-Indeed, there is no part of this work which is more painful than the attempt running through it to place a wide interval between the religious attainments of the higher and lower orders of society; to assign knowledge to the high, and mere practice to the low. Such a system, appears to me utterly discordant with the genius of Christianity." p. 16. "Under the Christian scheme, all distinctions are merged in the consideration that men are all immortal, are all children of the same family, lost by the same offences, and redeemed by the same blood. To shut up the Bible from any, then, is to quench a ray of heavenly light designed for all. It is to destroy the general element of our spiritual existence." p. 17. "Another general objection, brought by Dr. Maltby, to the circulation of the whole Scriptures is, that they are liable to abuse.Now it may be asked, as betore, are the interdicted parts of the Bible liable to abuse only in the hands of the unlearned? Have Scripture and orthodoxy been stretched upon no learned rack? Were not many of the early heretics the philosophical teachers of those days?" p. 20. "Not only would the reasoning of Dr. Maltby curtail the man of science of as large a portion of his Bible, as the illiterate: the fact is, that no single verse could, upon his principle, be safely entrusted to either; for there is no verse which either has not been, or which is not liable to torture and perversion in the hands of weak and wicked men." p. 21. "What, then, is to be done? Dr. Maltby's scheme, which, though it banishes some whole books, retains others in their integrity, meets a very small part of the evil; because no whole book can be expected to supply no materials for burlesque or perversion. But were he to extend his amputating process to the few chosen books, and to call in a select committee to decide upon every passage within the possibility of abuse, could he hope for success? Does he not know, that where men of sense saw no avenue for perversion to enter, fools would find one; just as the man in a fever conjures up a thousand images which escape the eye of the healthy. If, then, we are to pare down the Bible till the chance or fear of abuse is destroyed, Dr. Maltby is still far too prodigal of the Sacred Volume. The alternative to which he ap pears to be reduced is this,-either he must burn the Bible, and consign the enthusiast to the vagrancies of his own fancy; or, instead of touching the books, he must endeavour to mend the man. As to the side of the alternative he should embrace, two things are to be remembered; that, in trying to mend the enthusiast, we prefer a known to at least a doubtful duty; and that, in depriving him of his Bible, we remove the real antidote as well as the alleged cause of his disorder. "A third general objection, brought against the plan of circulating the whole Scriptures, is, that all which it is indispensable for man to know is contained in a very small part of the Bible.'-Like the books of the Sybils, burn what we will, it seems the value of the whole is not diminished. Now, in the first place, is there no presumption in venturing upon this affirmativein pronouncing that a part will accomplish that for which God appears to have appointed the whole?" pp. 22, 23. "Is it for creatures sprung yesterday from the earth, and to-morrow returning to it; lighted, as it were, and quenched in an instant; confined to a mere point in space; to scan the proceedings of God? Is not the indispensable importance of the Scriptures best established by the single fact, that God has promulgated them? Can any other circumstance add or take from authority thus conferred? But, secondly, all observations which are designed to simplify the dispensations or interferences of God, are on this account doubly objectionable, that God, in a variety of known instances, does not work by the sim ple means we might anticipate.-If this extreme simplicity was intended, why, it may be asked, was Christianity introduced by the circuitous and intricate route of Judaism? Why was Judaism encumbered with the machinery of its ceremonies? Why did Christ anoint the eyes of the blind with clay and spittle? Why was the Bible given at all, when a Divine afflatus might have at once conveyed the will of God to man?" pp. 23, 24. “But, thirdly, there is this objection to the narrowing or disparagement of the value of any single passage of Scripture, that the work 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. "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 disbe- "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 mischievous 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 highly important doctrine of religion, a superintending Providence." pp. 34, 35. "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 religion. They teach the doctrine of providence, as it were, by signs that cannot be mistaken. They unveil the Deity, and let 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 willingly surrender them to the over-anxious speculations of the author. "The next objection is to the propheticus books, whose very object, that of predicting future events by dark hints and obscure |