Imágenes de páginas
PDF

Cunningham, p. 45:) and, “ with what shew of reason can it be maintained, or even intimated, that the Epistles relate wholly, or chiefly, or in any large measure, to controversies peculiar to the times and places in which they were written ?” (ibid. p. 45.)

There is yet another position connected with this part of the subject, which is not unworthy of notice.

“There are," says Dr. Maltby, “no doubt, parts in the Epistles, wholly practical, and of great general use; but, perhaps, none differing in substance, either from the moral maxiins of the Proverbs, or from the lessons so beautifully and energetically delivered by our Saviour himself.” p. 11.

The remarks of Mr. Cunningham upon this passage, appear to us particularly happy.

“Not to dwell upon the inaccurate assumption of equality between the practical lessons of the Gospels and the Proverbs, is it the fact that the Epistles did not enlarge the code of practical instruction presented to us by Christ himself? If even the word “practical’ be confined to morality (which possibly the author designs), many moral duties are distinctly treated in the Epistles alone; as, for instance, the duties of husbands and wives, of fathers and children, of masters and servants, of citizens and subjects, of the members of a church and their spiritual governors. And if the import of the word be extended, as it ought, to every branch of active duty, the Epistles may be considered as making still larger additions to our practical lessons; for what may be called the practical part of religion, is taught chiefly in the Epistles. Nor is this fuller developement of duties in the writings of the first followers of Christ, any disparagement of the Gospels. It was in religion as it is in nature; the sun did not reach its meridian at once, but adapted itself to the eye of the spectators. The Gospels, and the Gospels alone, probably were suited to the actual exigencies of the moment; and our Lord himself intimated, that in happier periods a fuller revelation would be granted: “I have many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them uow:’—‘When He, the Spirit of "ruth, is come, he will guide you into all truth:'-' be shall teach you all things : — ‘he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it "nto you.' Such being the fact, it is no de

preciation of the Gospels to say, that, alone, they less perfectly exhibit the scheme of Christianity; to affirm of a part, that it does not accomplish the object of the whole.” pp. 46–48.

After exposing the fallacy of the main sition, Mr. Cunningham ... by adverting to three points of minor importance, though, as he justly conceives, involving material errors.

“In the first place, then, it is no small error, I conceive, that one of the works Dr. Maltby proposes to substitute for the entis copy of the Scriptures, is a ‘volume judi. ciously selected from Cappe's Life of Christ;" or, in other words, from a Life of Christ written by a known Socinian. Now, of course it would be practicable for a disingenuou reasoner so to avail himself of the term 'Judiciously selected, as to acquit himself f* intention to introduce the Gospels to the world with a Socinian commentary; but Dr. Maltby would shrink from any such ero sion; because he is conscious that no “ lection, however judicious, can renders & cinian work strictly orthodox. pp. 49,50. “A second point, in which Dr. Malty of pears to me no less fundamentally to em." in his wish, for what I conceive to men an extensive change in the Liturgy and Articits of the Church of England. “As to the Liturgy, if there be any to pressions which offend the conscience oft” wisely scrupulous, or even the use to justly refined, and these could be chango without risk to the whole, I should * with Dr. Maltby in desiring the comed” p. 51. “But, then, we should remember, lo that there is a degree of refinement which is fastidiousness, and that much of the * cient scrupulosity about modes and o: sions in religion is laid in the grave o the puritans. Almost every change of the Liturgy, therefore, may be resisted upon these two grounds—that we shall news please the over-nice, and that he devout are unostly pleased already." p. 51: -• In the revision’ demanded by to “. thor for the Articles' of the church, have the misfortune to differ as radically from him.” p. 52. “ In .." is there any solid so. objection to our Articles? Can it * te #that any will be framed at once * script ral and more comprehensive?" P.”. , | “The third and last error, which o: venture to notice, in the work of Dr.”

is, that he has throughout omitted to give sufficient importance to the safeguard which it, or ought to be, supplied in the Clergy of the Establishment to the free circulation of the whole Scriptures. When he paints, in such gloomy colours, the dangers of suffering the Bible to range abroad in the country, does he forget that the nation provides eleven thousand clergy to watch over and regulate its course 2 Are they negligent at their post, or incompetent to their high funct tion * pp. 55, 56. “Or if, which is the fac., this church contain a large body of devout aud learned ministers; if the country be at least sprinkled with men able and willing to publish the 'glad tidings' of salvation, to explain the difficulties, and press home the lessons of Scripture; ought Dr. Maltby to speak of the Scriptures as though they were to be tossed, a sort of tangled skein, among the multitude, to be unravelled by the mere clumsy bands of ploughmen or mechanics?" p. 55.

The extracts, which we have been tempted to select from this masterly Reply, will furnish the strongest recommendation of the work. It would have been easy to produce many other parts, which display a brilliant imagination, and which captivate no less by their reasoning than their eloquence: but our concern was with the argument: and of this, our readers will now be able to form a tolerable judgment for themselves.

There is one argument, in opposition to Dr. Maltby's reasoning, which Mr. Cunningham has omitted; we mean that which may be drawn from his peculiar obligations as a minister of the Church of England. We have already referred to the Articles subscribed by Dr. Maltby, which assert the undoubted authority of the whole of the Scriptures as they now stand. The Homilies go still farther: they assert, in direct opposition to Dr. Maltby, that, “Unto a Christian man, there can be nothing either more necessary or profitable, than the knowledge of Holy Scripture.”—“Therefore, as many as be desirous to enter into the right and perfect way unto God, must apply their minds to know

CHRIST. Observ, No. 131.

Holy Scripture; without which, they can neither sufficiently know God and his will, neither their office and duty.”—“Therefore, forsaking the corrupt judgment of fleshly men, let us reverently hear and read Holy Scripture, which is the food of the soul; let us diligently search for the well of life, in the books of the New and Old Testament.” “These books ought to be much in our eyes, in our ears, in our mouths, but most

of all in oar hearts.” We might go on quoting whole pages to the same ...'. and be it remembered, that to the soundness and wholesomeness of this doctrine, Dr. Maltby has solemnly subscribed his name. Nor is the practice of the Church at variance with her professions. The first work of the Reformation, when, shaking herself from the dust of popery, she resumed her primitive purity and beauty, was to expose the entire volume of Scripture in the most accessible places, and to invite all, of every rank, and sex, and age, to read it, or hear it read. She has incorporated into her service the whole of the New Testament, and the greatest part of the Old, including the entire Psalms; and this error, if it be one, Dr. Maltby has sanctioned, not only by declaring his assent to the Book of Common Prayer, which prescribes the order in which the Scriptures are to be read, but by continuing himself to follow this prescribed order for a series of years. Thus, according to his view of the matter, has he been accessary to misleading the people committed to his charge, by reading to them what is likely to be perverted, and what must be misunderstood. For our own parts, we do not comprehend how it is that a conscientious man, as we believe Dr. Maltby to be, has contrived, with his sentiments, to reconcile it to his conscience to continue to officiate as a minister of the Church of England. The reasoning o Dr. Maltby employs to 5 Cunningham, p. 45:) and, “ with what shew of reason can it be maintained, or even intimated, that the Epistles relate wholly, or chiefly, or in any large measure, to controversies peculiar to the times and places in which they were written ?” (ibid. p. 45.)

There is yet another position connected with this part of the subject, which is not unworthy of notice.

“There are," says Dr. Maltby, “no doubt, parts in the Epistles, wholly practical, and of great general use; but, perhaps, none differing in substance, either from the moral maxiins of the Proverbs, or from the lessons so beautifully and energetically delivered by our Saviour himself." p. 11.

The remarks of Mr. Cunningham upon this passage, appear to us particularly happy.

“Not to dwell upon the inaccurate assumption of equality between the practical lessons of the Gospels and the Proverbs, is it the fact that the Epistles did not enlarge the code of practical instruction presented to us by Christ himself? If even the word “practical’ be confined to morality (which possibly the author designs), many moral duties are distinctly treated in the Epistles alone; as, for instance, the duties of husbands and wives, of fathers and children, of masters and servants, of citizens and subjects, of the members of a church and their spiritual governors. And if the import of the word be extended, as it ought, to every branch of active duty, the Epistles may be considered as making still larger additions to our practical lessons; for what may be called the practical part of religion, is taught chiefly in the Epistles. Nor is this fuller developement of duties in the writings of the first followers of Christ, any disparagement of the Gospels. It was in religion as it is in nature; the sun did not reach its meridian at once, but adapted itself to the eye of the spectators. The Gospels, and the Gospels alone, probably were suited to the actual exigencies of the moment; and our Lord himself intimated, that in happier periods a fuller revelation would be granted: “I have onany things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them uow:’—“When He, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth; -- he shall teach you all things : — “he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it *o you.' Such being the fact, it is no de

preciation of the Gospels to say, that, alone, they less perfectly exhibit the scheme of Christianity; to affirm of a part, that it does not accomplish the object of the whole." pp. 46–48.

After exposing the fallacy of the main sition, Mr. Cunningham ... by adverting to three points of minor importance, though, as he justly conceives, involving material errors.

“In the first place, then, it is no small error, I conceive, that one of the works Dr. Maltby proposes to substitute for the entis copy of the Scriptures, is a ‘volume judi. ciously selected from Cappe's Life of Christ;" or, in other words, from a Life of Christ written by a known Socinian. Now, of cours it would be practicable for a disingenwu reasoner so to avail himself of the term "Judiciously selected, as to acquit himself of a intention to introduce the Gospels to the world with a Socinian commentary; but Dr. Maltby would shrink from any such era. sion; because he is conscious that no ‘o lection, however judicious, can render a So. cinian work strictly orthodox.' pp. 49.30.

“A second point, in which Dr. Maltby •p. pears to me no less sundamentally to err, " in his wish, for what I conceive to mean an extensive change in the Liturgy and Artic” of the Church of England.

“As to the Liturgy, if there be any or pressions which offend the conscience of to wisely scrupulous, or even the laste 1: justly refined, and these could be dams without risk to the whole, I should co" with Dr. Maltby in desiring the cotton". p. 51.

“But, then, we should remember, wo that there is a degree of reinement * is fastidiousness, and that much of the * cient scrupulosity about modes and o: sions in religion is laid in the go” * the puritans. Almost every change of the

Liturgy, therefore, may be resisted upo

these two grounds—that we shall nover please the over-nice, and that he devout are mostly pleased already." p. 51:

• In the revision' demanded by tho". thor for the Articles' of the duo. have the misfortune to differ as to from him." p. 52.

* [in o is there any solid o: objection to our Articles: Can it be le that any will be framed at once * scripts: ral and more comprehensive?” P. 53. l

“The third and last error, which * venture to notice, in the work of Dr. Mallo

is, that he has throughout omitted to give sufficient importance to the safeguard which it, or ought to be, supplied in the Clergy of the Establishment to the flee circulation of the whole Scriptures. When he paints, in such gloomy colours, the dangers of suffering the Bible to range abroad in the country, does he forget that the nation provides eleven thousand clergy to watch over and regulate its course 2 Are they negligent at their post, or incompetent to their high function :" pp. 55, 56. “Or if, which is the fac., this church contain a large body of devout and learned ministers; if the country be at least sprinkled with men able and willing to publish the 'glad udings' of salvation, to explain the difficulties, and press home the lessons of Scripture; ought Dr. Maluby to speak of the Scriptures as though they were to be tossed, a sort of tangled skein, among the multitude, to be unravelled by the mere clumsy lands of ploughmen or mechauics?" p. 55.

The extracts, which we have been tempted to select from this masterly Reply, will furnish the strongest reCommendation of the work. It would have been easy to produce many other parts, which display a brilliant imagination, and which captivate no less by their reasoning than their eloquence: but our concern was with the argument: and of this, our readers will now be able to form a tolerable judgment for themselves.

There is one argument, in opposition to Dr. Maltby's reasoning, which Mr. Cunningham has omitled; we mean that which may be drawn from his peculiar obligations as a minister of the Church of England. We have already referred to the Articles subscribed by Dr. Maltby, which assert the undoubted authority of the whole of the Scriptures as they now stand. The Homilies go still farther: they assert, in direct opposition to Dr. Maltby, that, “Unto a Christian man, there can be nothing either more necessary or profitable, than the knowledge of Holy Scripture.”—“Therefore, as many as be desirous to enter into the right and perfect way unto God, must apply their minds to know

CHRist. Onselov, No. 131.

Holy Scripture; without which, they can neither sufficiently know God and his will, neither their office and duty.”—“Therefore, forsaking the corrupt judgment of fleshly men, let us reverently hear and read Holy Scripture, which is the food of the soul; let us diligently search for the well of life, in the books of the New and Old Testament.” “These books ought to be much in our eyes, in our ears, in our mouths, but most of all in our hearts.” We might go on quoting whole pages to the same effect; and be it remembered, that to the soundness and wholesomeness of this doctrine, Dr. Maltby has solemnly subscribed his name. Nor is the practice of the Church at variance with her professions. The first work of the Reformation, when, shaking herself from the dust of popery, she resumed her primitive purity and beauty, was to expose the entire volume of Scripture in the most accessible places, and to invite all, of every rank, and sex, and age, to read it, or hear it read. She has incorporated into her service the whole of the New Testament, and the greatest part of the Old, including the entire Psalms; and this error, if it be one, Dr. Maltby has sanctioned, not only by declaring his assent to the Book of Common Prayer, which prescribes the order in which the Scriptures are to be read, but by continuing himself to follow this prescribed order for a series of years. Thus, according to his view of the matter, has he been accessary to misleading the people committed to his charge, by reading to them what is likely to be perverted, and what must be misunderstood. For our own parts, we do not comprehend how it is that a conscientious man, as we believe Dr. Maltby to be, has contrived, with his sentiments, to reconcile it to his conscience to continue to officiate as a minister of the Church of England. The reasoning which Dr. Maltby employs to 5 A Cunningham, p. 45:) and, “ with what shew of reason can it be maintained, or even intimated, that the Epistles relate wholly, or chiefly, or in any large measure, to controversies peculiar to the times and places in which they were written ?” (ibid. p. 45.)

There is yet another position connected with this part of the subject, which is not unworthy of notice.

“There are," says Dr. Maltby, “no doubt, parts in the Epistles, wholly practical, and of great general use; but, perhaps, none differing in substance, either from the moral maxiins of the Proverbs, or from the lessons so beautifully and energetically delivered by our Saviour himself.” p. 11.

The remarks of Mr. Cunningham upon this passage, appear to us particularly happy.

“Not to dwell upon the inaccurate assumption of equality between the practical lessons of the Gospels and the Proverbs, is it the fact that the Epistles did not enlarge the code of practical instruction presented to us by Christ himself? If even the word “practical’ be confined to morality (which possibly the author designs), many moral duties are distinctly treated in the Epistles alone; as, for instance, the duties of husbands and wives, of fathers and children, of masters and servants, of citizens and subjects, of the members of a church and their spiritual governors. And if the import of the word be extended, as it ought, to every branch of active duty, the Epistles may be considered as making still larger additions to our practical lessons; for what may be called the practical part of religion, is taught chiefly in the Epistles. Nor is this fuller developement of duties in the writings of the first followers of Christ, any disparagement of the Gospels. It was in religion as it is in nature; the sun did not reach its meridian at once, but adapted itself to the eye of the spectators. The Gospels, and the Gospels alone, probably were suited to the actual exigencies of the moment; and our Lord himself intimated, that in happier periods a fuller revelation would be granted: “I have onany things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them uow:’—‘When He, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth:'— he shall teach you all things : — “he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you.' Such being the fact, it is no de

preciation of the Gospels to say, that, alone, they less perfectly exhibit the scheme of Christianity; to affirm of a part, that it does not accomplish the object of the whole.” pp. 46–48.

After exposing the fallacy of the main sition, Mr. Cunningham ... by adverting to three points of minor importance, though, as he justly conceives, involving material errors.

“In the first place, then, it is no small error, I conceive, that one of the works Dr. Maltby proposes to substitute for the entire copy of the Scriptures, is a “volume judiciously selected from Cappe's Life of Christ;" or, in other words, from a Life of Christ written by a known Socinian. Now, of course it would be practicable for a disingenuous reasoner so to avail himself of the term 'judiciously selected, as to acquit himself of all intention to introduce the Gospels to the world with a Socinian commentary ; but Dr. Maltby would shrink from any such evaision; because he is conscious that no “selection, however judicious, can render a Socinian work strictly orthodox.' pp. 49, 50. “A second point, in which Dr. Maltby appears to me no less sundamentally to err, is in his wish, for what I conceive to mean an extensive change in the Liturgy and Articles of the Church of England. “As to the Liturgy, if there be any expressions which offend the conscience of the wisely scrupulous, or even the taste of the justly refined, and these could be changed without risk to the whole, I should concur with Dr. Maltby in desiring the correction." p. 51. “But, then, we should remember, both that there is a degree of refinement which is fastidiousness, and that much of the ancient scrupulosity about modes and expres: sions in religion is laid in the grave with the puritans. Almost every change of the ‘Liturgy, therefore, may be resisted upon these two grounds—that we shall never please the over-nice, and that the devout are mostly pleased already.” p. 51. “In the revision’ demanded by the author for the Articles' of the church, I have the misfortune to differ as radically from him." p. 52. “ In fact, is there any solid ground for objection to our Articles? Can it be hoped that any will be framed at once as scriptural and more comprehensive?” p. 53. “The third and last error, which I shall venture to notice, in the work of Dr. Maltby,

« AnteriorContinuar »