of original sin, justification by faith, and the necessity of spiritual regeneration, are classed together, whether they belong to the established church, the methodists, or the dissenters; whether they lived in this century or the last. In this mixed mass some individuals are discovered who have promulged very exceptionable opinions, or done very exceptionable things. These are selected as fair specimens of the opinions and conduct of the whole body, which, on this kind of evidence, is at once condemned as sharing in the guilt of the specified individuals. In this way the violence and the regieide principles of the Cromwellians, the antinomian dotages of Dr. Crisp, the irregularities and occasional enthusiasm of the founders of methodism, the disgusting coarsenesses of one living character, the wildnesses of another, and the buffooneries of a third, are all heaped on the heads of those whom, whether properly or not, it is the custom of the day to designate as evangelical clergymen. But is there any fairness in this? Is it not just as unfair as it would be to confound the whole of the opponents of this body together, as men marked with the same general character? How, for example, would the Bishops of London and Lincoln, Dr. Gaskin, Dr. Wordsworth, and many other active distributors of the Holy Scriptures, like to be confounded with Dr. Maltby in his hostility to the general circulation of these writings; or with Mr. Fellowes and the Barrister in their Socinian principles; merely because they happened to view certain subjects, such as the Bible Society and the evangelical clergy, in the same light? But is it more fair to make such men as Mr. Scott, or Mr. Basil Woodd, or Mr. Venn, or Mr. Cunningham, or Mr. Cooper, responsible for all that Dr. Crisp, or Mr. Whitfield, or Mr. Wesley, or Dr. Hawker, may have said or written? "As ye would, then, that men should do unto you, even so do ye unto them, for this is the law and the prophets." In general, Dr. Maltby is very perspicuous: his grand principle is intelligible enough; but there is one passage occurring (p. 49), of which we find it difficult to comprehend the drift. The passage we mean is that in which he tells us, that the Bible Society "was originally planned, not for the benefit of churchmen as such-not for the benefit of dissenters as such-but for the ultimate, and what practically would be the separate, interests of an heterogeneous sect, who belong to both or to neither; but who would gladly employ the agency of churchmen, and of dissenters too, in promoting their own favourite views,and disseminating their peculiar doctrines." What is this heterogeneous mixture? Is it a new name for Unitarians? No: they would prefer Cappe's Life of Christ. Does it consist of a class of Frenchified philosophers, who dis believe the Mosaic account of the Creation? No: they would not circulate the Book of Genesis. Is it composed of persons, who disbe lieve the doctrine of an ever-ruling Providence? They surely would re ject the writings of the Apostles, and the Prophets. Does it comprehend that non-descript race, which fancies death to be an eternal sleep? These men disbelieve the doctrine of the resurrection, and would therefore expunge from their Bibles the Epistle to the Corinthians, if it were of fensive on no other account, yet for its assertion of that doctrine. We have entered with some care upon the inquiry, but are utterly at a loss to discover this " heterogeneous mixture;" and the early accounts of the Society, which have been loog before the world, afford us no help in this intricate research. We wish that Dr. Maltby had throughout the whole of his publi cation maintained more decisively those claims to candour and fairness which we believe he might generally urge with justice. But what is the purport of the declaration, that he "by no means presumes to question the motives of the greater part of those, who step forward to patronize the rising institution?" What reason has he to question the motives of the rest? We think also that Dr. Malthy would have consulted his reputation for candour and fairness, by extending some of his remarks to the opponents of the Bible Society, as well as to its defenders. We mean not to vindicate harshness, from whatever quarter it may proceed: but when Dr. Maltby next adverts to the subject of invective, we earnestly advise him to begin with those who first set the example; who gave currency to accusations, which nothing but extreme ignorance, united to extreme irritation, could induce any man to advance; and who stigmatised the friends of the Society, as if they were influenced by some of the worst motives which can operate upon the human mind. We will not pollute our pages by supplying him with specimens; but when he next fancies himself to be "assailed with acrimonious rebuke," we would request him to examine, whether these imaginary assailants are not in truth acting on the defensive; whether the darts, which are flung from the camp of those who are friendly to the rising institution," are not partly in return for the poisoned arrows which have been shot against themselves. " It is time that the weapons of hostility should be laid aside. No wish has ever been shewn by the advocates of the Bible Society to injure the Society for promoting Christian Knowledge; and it would have spared much pain to the friends of both, if the same spirit of forbearance and respect had been shewn by their opponents. But as these have in every instance been the aggressors, we cannot but rejoice that in every instance they have been defeated; and that they have unwittingly built up the cause, which it was their hearty intention to destroy. We would earnestly lift our "voice to both for peace and co-operation. In the ac Sixth Report of the Directors of the African Institution, read at the Annual General Meeting on the 25th March, 1812. To which are added, an Appendix and a List of Subscribers. London, Hatchard. 1812. Price 2s. 8vo. pp. 183. In our review of the preceding Report of this excellent Institution (vol. for 1811, p. 428), we entered so largely into the discussion of some important questions connected with the progress of its grand design of ameliorating the condition of the African race, that we shall have little more to do on the present occasion, than to make our readers acquainted with the main facts which have been brought to light by the publication now before us. The first fact which meets us, is one of the most melancholy description. The Slave Trade, under the protection of the Portuguese and Spanish flags, is said to have revived to a most enormous extent; and it is calculated, on data which have the appearance of being correct, that in the year 1810, no less than from seventy to eighty thousand Africans were carried from the coast of Afri ca into a state of bondage on the American continent. The actors in this tragedy, it is true, are many of them the subjects of Great Britain and America, and neither Spaniards nor Portuguese; but then it is the flag of Portugal, or of Spain, which screens them from detection and punishment, and which frustrates the benevolent intentions of our legisla 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 maxims 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 now: 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 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 position, Mr. Cunningham concludes 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 jadi. 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 disingenuous reasoner so to avail himself of the term 'ju diciously 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 evasion; because he is conscious that noiselection,' however judicious, can render a Sơciuian work strictly orthodox.' pp. 49, 50. "A second point, in which Dr. Maltby ap pears to me no less fundamentally 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 asther 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 lapped that any will be framed at once as scriptsral and more comprehensive?" p. 33. "The third and last error, which I shall unto you. Such being the fact, it is no de- venture to notice, in the work of Dr. Maltby, is, that he has throughout omitted to give sufficient importance to the safeguard which is, 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? Are they negligent at their post, or incompetent to their high function?" pp. 55, 56. "Or if, which is the face, 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 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 hands of ploughimen or mechanics?" p. 56. 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 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 maxims 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. 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 position, Mr. Cunningham concludes 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 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 disingenuous reasoner so to avail himself of the term 'ju diciously 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 evasion; because he is conscious that no se lection,' however judicious, can render a Sociuian work strictly orthodox.' pp. 49, 50. "A second point, in which Dr. Maltby appears to me no less fundamentally 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. "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 "In fact, is there any solid ground for bear them now: When He, the Spirit of objection to our Articles? Can it be hoped truth, is come, he will guide you into all that any will be frained at once as scriptetruth: '—' be shall teach you all things :'—ral and more comprehensive?" p. 53. ⚫ he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you.' Such being the fact, it is no de "But, then, we should remember, both that there is a degree of refinement which is fastidiousness, and that much of the atcient 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 ab ther for the Articles' of the church, I have the misfortune to differ as radically from him." p. 52. The third and last error, which I shall venture to notice, in the work of Dr. Maltby, |