company with their parents, with very few exceptions. A fact of the same nature occurred in a school, conducted upon similar principles, by a most respectable lady of Blackheath, near London. We have also heard of a similar instance in a village near Uxbridge, where a great proportion of the parishioners are quakers. We intreat Professor Marsh to ruminate a little on these FACTS, before he next contends that the association of churchmen with dissenters, upon principles congenial with the religious freedom of the latter, has a tendency to draw the church to the conventicle, rather than the conventicle to the church. We intreat him also to reflect, that there is no more certain method of making men enemies, than by calling them such. If dissenters are to be placed under an indiscriminate ban and anathema; if the hand of fellowship is to be denied them by churchmen, and they are to be kept at a distance from all co-operation in works of piety and charity, as carrying contagion with them, (we beg Dr. Marsh's pardon for using the word) they will inevitably be forced into enmity. Whereas the Bible Society, and the principles upon which it is founded, have done more to smooth sectarian asperities than all the devices ever adopted for that purpose. As Mr. Dealtry exclaimed in his eloquent and animated speech at Hertford on the 24th of last January, the substance of which, embodied in a pamphlet at the request of the committee, has just reached us;" By the united co-operation of Christians of all denominations in a cause where all can safely unite, asperity is subdued, Christian charity is promoted, and, above all, resources are called into existence, which descend in blessings, not merely upon this land and people, but upon every nation, to which the liberality of Britain can direct them." (P. 11.) Or, as Mr. Vansittart wrote in his excellent letter of the 12th of February, 1812, "It is not simply to the diffusion of the Bible, but to the co-operation of all Christians to diffuse it, and to the effect of such a co-operation on our own hearts, that I look, not only for the establishment of Christian faith, but the extension of Christian charity." For ourselves, we will yield to none in our love and attachment to the church of England, and we are convinced, that every unprejudiced man, who has perused our several disquisitions on religious subjects, will give us full credit for this assertion; although its truth may not be so obvious to those who think that flattery is the best test of friendship. In the same spirit we will say with Mr. Dealtry, "God forbid that we should seek to deprive our church of the distinguished honour of assisting and co-operating with good men, though not of our own communion, in the diffusion of universal -blessing."

VOL. III. NO. V.

L

We shall now proceed in conclusion to notice an objection, which from the pen of Dr. Marsh has a preeminent claim to attention, we mean the analogy drawn by him between the principles of the Bible Society, and those of Mr. Lancaster's system of education. "Mr. Lancaster," says he (p. 24.) "adopts the Bible, and the Bible alone." So does the Bible Society. Let us then "draw a parallel between the religious instruction afforded by Mr. Lancaster, and the religious instruction afforded by the modern Bible Society." "The former confines religious instruction to the children of the poor, the latter extends it to adults, who are frequently in equal want of it. Both agree in providing a Bible; both agree in leaving that Bible, unaccompanied with the liturgy." This reasoning of the learned profes-, sor's strongly reminds us of the arguments by which Fluellen in Henry V. endeavours to prove the identity of Macedon and Monmouth. "There is a river in Macedon, there is moreover a river in Monmouth. It is called Wye, at Monmouth, but it is out of my prains what is the name of the other river; but it is all one, it is as like as my fingers is to my fingers, and there is salmons in both." But as we cannot expect the professor to taste this analogy, and as we should be very glad to convert him to our opinion, we will briefly observe, that to his ingenious comparison there appear to us to be two objections, besides the obvious one of identifying the minds of adults with those of children. 1st. The positions on which it is founded are not entirely true in point of fact; and 2dly. to the extent in which they are true the analogy does not apply.

1st. It is not true that Mr. Lancaster in the religious instruction afforded by him, imparts the knowledge of the whole Bible, as the society does, but only of such parts of it as are consistent with the religious opinions of the various denominations of Christians. All the peculiar doctrines are carefully excluded, and the system is exactly that system of "generalized protestantism," which Professor Marsh so justly deprecates as applied to members of the church. But, 2dly, if Mr. Lancaster did impart the knowledge of the whole Bible, a broad and decided line of distinction would still separate him from the Bible Society. He absolutely excludes the liturgy from his schools. If a churchman, therefore, sends his child to such a school, he cannot be brought up in the tenets of the church. If such schools were universally established in all the purity of the system, the people in general, and the children of churchmen in particular, would be debarred from imbibing with the first rudiments of their instruction, that attachment to the tenets of the established church, with which it is morally and politically ex

pedient that they should be imbued. The church, in short, would be eventually delivered up into the hands of the dissenters; for the affection, the gratitude, the instruction of the people, would all be enlisted on their side. This is evidently the true and rational objection to Mr. Lancaster's system, contemplated with a view to its general adoption, and not to its confined and laudable operation on the children of dissenters. It is on this, at least, that all the arguments in the late controversy were founded.

But how does this apply to the Bible Society? There is no principle of exclusion with them; but they offer with a liberal hand the pure and unvitiated word of God (to be used according to their several wants and systems,) to the churchman and the various sects of dissenters; leaving it to the grace of God, and the zeal of each body, to produce its due effects on the minds of their disciples. Insofar as Mr. Lancaster attempts to do the same by imparting the mechanical principles of his system to church of England schools, which we believe he is willing to do when he can do no more, the practical part of the question between him and Dr. Bell is (in that instance) reduced to the comparative merits of the mechanism and practices of the two systems, which is not very great, though in some respect important; and to the difference between the characters of the two men, which, as our readers know, is very great indeed *.

But contemplating the objections to Mr. Lancaster's peculiar system in the light in which Dr. Marsh sees them, and in which we are fully disposed to concur, it is evident, that they have no more analogy with the general principles and conduct of the Bible Society, than exists between a principle of exclusion, and one of universal admission.

We trust that enough has now been said to convince every unprejudiced member of the Bible Society, that the church is in no danger from his assistance towards the charitable distribution of the Bible alone in his own country; and that in following Dr. Marsh's advice, by withdrawing from the society, or endeavouring, to confine its operation to foreign countries, he would help to prostrate one of the most glorious fabrics that ever was raised among a Christian people; and to ruin an institution, in which (to use the words of a benevolent American) " the friends of Christianity have at last met on common ground, and combined their efforts to promote the best of causes, by means about which it is impossible to dispute." These were the objects of the preceding pages. But in our next number we shall have

*See first number of the British Review, article X.

another and a more pleasing duty to perform; namely, to recommend the society to the patronage of those who are not yet subscribers, but who are disposed at a small expence to confer extensive benefit on mankind. We have lately read over its reports and inquired into their authenticity; and we must declare that on a candid and dispassionate perusal, we cannot find in them any of those "violations of truth and candour," which Dr. Marsh says he has discovered. There are many marks of zeal, and a slight tincture of enthusiasm in some parts of the foreign correspondence. But we are not among those who are disposed to quarrel with the religious sentiments of a foreigner, because they are not ground down and polished to suit exactly the fastidious taste of our cool and undisturbed society. We are willing to make allowance for the different impressions, which different states of society, of happiness, of prosperity, and of government, inevitably make upon the minds of men;-and it adds very much to the pleasure which the curious and interesting information in the society's foreign correspondence imparts, that it also exhibits a no less curious and affecting portrait of the human heart, under the violent political changes, and the individual oppression and misery, which the events of the last seven years have produced.

The matter and arguments of the work before us have hitherto been the principal objects of our attention.

If, as critics, we are bound to give an opinion as to the style of the composition, we must observe that there is a coarseness about it, which we cannot but very much lament to see employed in controversy on any subject, particularly on one so nearly connected with religion and the charities of life. It also occurs to us, that Dr. Clarke, in a jocose answer to the professor's" inquiry," written on the evening of its publication, points out many instances of false grammar. We do not think it worth our while to verify them. It would, to be sure, have been more creditable, had the laboured performance of a Cambridge professor not been open to such an imputation. But since, had we been pleased with his argument, we should certainly as individuals have overlooked his language, so we shall not in our corporate capacity revenge our individual disappointment by visiting his grammatical errors with severity.

Upon the whole, and in conclusion, we cannot help observing of this pamphlet, that in every page it too plainly betrays that it had its origin in little else than a pure and abstract love of controversy. A more lamentable waste of real and otherwise respectable talent, in propping up theorems constructed upon a rotten foundation, we have not witnessed during the short period

of our critical labours. That a clergyman of the church of England, of acknowledged abilities and superior learning, should deliberately undertake to annihilate a society, which has for its sole object the diffusion of the pure and unadulterated word of God, and that too in the nineteenth century, would be inconceivable, if the truth were not before our eyes. It is enough to raise the ghosts of Cranmer and of Luther. And we can scarcely bring our minds to believe, that the learned professor had seriously any other object in view, than to give the world a specimen of the extent to which the powers of ratiocination can smother the plain dictates of 'common sense. Because men circulate Bibles alone, they are therefore hostile to the liturgy! Because they associate with dissenters in a pious and charitable work, they therefore undermine our religious establishment! As well might it be said, because the society for promoting christian knowledge does not print and circulate the homilies, it is therefore hostile to them; or, what is as good as this logic, because we wear boots, therefore we dislike shoes. Most sorry should we be to possess Dr. Marsh's talents and learning, were we capable of abusing them in support of such an argument. But he is evidently fond of controversy; we profess to hate it. Perhaps our opposite tastes may be ascribed to the same cause; -the perversity of mankind in entertaining a bias directly towards that course which is rather opposed to, than consistent with, their professional character. We sincerely hope, however, when the explosion is over, and the professor has had his amusement, that he will make the "amende honorable," and finish by subscribing his guinea to the Bible Society.

ART. IX. Chronological Retrospect; or, Memoirs of the Principal Events of the Mahommedan History, from the Death of the Arabian Legislator, to the Accession of the Emperor Akbar, and the Establishment of the Moghul Empire in Hindustan. From original Persian Authorities. By Major David Price, of the East India Company's Service. In three Volumes 4to. Vol. I. London, 1811. Booth, &c.

It has been the usage of the more recently established periodical vehicles of criticism, of which we have frequently availed ourselves, to consider subjects rather than works: using the latter, or even their titles only, as a convenience