The lectures, which I propofe to deliver," fays Dr. Marth' will relate to every branch of theology. Such is their con nexion, that without fome knowledge of the whole it is hardly poffible to form a due eftimate of any part. Indeed, whatever be the business of our ftudy, we fhould previoufly ask what are the objects of inquiry; for till this queftion has been answered, we know not its real meaning. In the first place therefore the feveral parts of Theology must be described.

"In the next place, they must be properly arranged. A Course of Lectures may contain all the divifions and fubdivifions, into which theology is capable of being refolved; but unless it contains them in a luminous order, it can never produce conviction; it can never lead to that which is the ultimate object of all theological study, the establishment of the great truths of Chrif tianity. To effect this purpose, the feveral parts must be fo arranged, that the one may be deduced from the other in regular fucceffion. P. 4.

"Nor is it fufficient merely to defcribe and to arrange the feveral parts of theology. The grounds of arrangement, the mode of connection, muft alfo be diftinctly stated. For hence only can be deduced those general principles, without which the ftudent in Divinity will never be able to judge of the proofs, which are laid before him.

"When we have proceeded thus far, our next object must be to learn where we may obtain information on the manifold fubjects, which will gradually come under difcuffion; that is, we must obtain a knowledge of the beft authors, who have written on thefe fubjects. But for this purpose it is not fufficient to have a mere catalogue of theological books, arranged alphabe tically, or even arranged under heads, unless the heads themselves are reduced to a proper fyftem. Nor is it fufficient to inform the hearer of the titles only of thofe books which it may be proper for him to read: he should be informed, at least to a certain degree, of their contents: he fhould be informed alfo of the different modes, in which the fame fubject has been treated by different authors, and of the particular objects, which each of them had in view.

"Laftly, with [to] this knowledge of authors, if it be properly difpofed, may be added a knowledge equally inftructive and entertaining, a knowledge of the advancement or decline of theological learning, a knowledge of how much or how little has been performed in the different ages of Chriftianity." P. 6.

Adverting to the length of time which a courfe of lectures fo comprehenfive may be fuppofed to occupy, the learned profeffor obferves, that

"It would be foreign to the very plan of these lectures [we add

114

of

of any lectures calculated to be ufeful] to deliver copious differta. tions on fingle points of Divinity, in which cafe they might never be brought to a conclufion. They relate indeed to all the branches of Divinity, however minute; they defcribe as well the fruits which have been gathered, as the ftorehouses in which the fruits are preferved; but they do not contain the fruits themfelves; or they may be compared with a map and a book of directions, from which the traveller may learn the road which he muft take, the ftages which he must go, and the places where he muft ftop, in order to arrive with the greatest cafe and safety at his journey's end. Defcriptions of this kind are no lefs ufeful in travelling through the paths of knowledge, then in travelling over diftant lands. And it is a defcription of this kind which will be attempted in these lectures." P. 8.

A courfe of lectures formed on a more judicious or useful plan has never fallen under our review, nor would it be ealy, we think, to conceive a course better calculated, to teach the young ftudent how to become his own inftructor by the proper exercife of his own faculties. But, continues the profeffor,

"Here it may be afked, What is the end of the journey, to which thefe Lectures are intended to lead? Is it the object of elements, thus general and comprehenfive, to generalize Chrif tianity itself, to reprefent it in the form of a general theorem, from which individual creeds are to be deduced as fo many corollaries? Or is it their object to maintain one particular creed to the exclufion of all others? The latter may appear to be less liberal than the former, but it is fo only in appearance; while the advantages afcribed to the former, are as imaginary, as thofe poffeffed by the latter are fubftantial. It is difficult to conceive any thing more painful or more injurious to the ftudent in Divinity, than to be left in a state of uncertainty, what he is at laft to believe or disbelieve. Where no particular fyftem of faith is inculcated, where a variety of objects is reprefented without difcrimination, the minds of the hearers must become fo un. fettled, they muft become fo bewildered in regard to the choice of their creed, as to be in danger of choofing none at all. The attempt to generalize Chriftianity, in order to embrace a variety of creeds, will ultimately lead to the exclufion of all creeds; it will have a funilar effect with Spinoza's doctrine of Pantheifm; it will produce the very oppofite to that, which the name itself imports. And as Pantheim, though nominally the reverfe, is in reality but another term for Atheism, fo Chriftianity, when generalized, is no Chriftianity at all. The very essentials of Christianity must be omitted, before we can obtain a form fo general, as not to militate against any of the numerous fyfiems,

which, in various ages, have been denominated Chriftian. Some particular fyftem therefore must be adopted, as the object and end of our theological ftudy. What particular fyften: mnft be the. object and end of our theological ftudy, cannot be a question in, this place it cannot be a queftion with men who are ftudying with the very view, of filling confpicuous ftations in the Church of England. That fyftem then, which was established at the reformation, and is contained in our liturgy, our articles, and our homilies, is that fyftem, to which all our labours must be ultimately directed." P. 8.

Thefe are the reflections of a man thoroughly acquainted with human nature; but they are fuch as cannot fail to give offence to the bigotted advocates for modern liberality, as well. as to the four and intolerant Calvinift. Yet if the e men would reflect coolly, they might foon difcover, that it is impoffible to lecture on a fubject fo highly important as theology, without a prepoffeffion in favour of fome particular fyftem, or parts of a fyftem. Even thofe who declaim moft ve-, hemently against all eftablished fyftems of faith, and all par-. ticular forms of ecclefiaftical polity, are as much under the influence of prepoffeffion as the most zealous advocates for. the national faith or the national establishment. Of this we had lately before us a remarkable instance, in Dr. Mitchell's Prefbyterian Letters; and fomething of the fame spirit appeared in the lectures of his Mafter; though we have reafon to believe that Dr. Campbell introduced his courfe by exhorting his youthful audience to diveft themselves of partiality to every fyftem. He who is not partial to fome fy flem, is neceffarily partial to his own private opinions; and there is furely as little danger of young men being mifled by him who treats with refpect the accumulated wifdom of ages, as by him who thinks fo highly of his own perfpicacity and judgment, as to exalt them with confidence above the wifdom of ages, with the vain ambition of becoming the founder of a new fect, whether of Dogmatifts or of Sceptics. The utmoft that can be expected from the impartiality of a profeffor in either of the Univerfities, is, that he firft collect with care and state with candour the doctrine of fcripture respecting every article of faith; then how the agreement of the doctrine of our own church with that statement; and then compare the doctrines of other churches with both. This Dr. Maifh promifes to do, and the manly freedom, with which he writes on every fubject that has engaged his attention, furnifhes the beft pledge for the fulfilment of his promife. It appears, however, that by fuch upright conduct

he

he has given offence both to the fons of latitude and to the rigid Calvinifts; though he is the advocate for that toleration, which, neither of thofe fects, if we may infer from their language what fpirit they are of, would grant to the Church, were the deprived of her legal establishment, and either of them incorporated with the ftate. Hence he says, in his preface,

"Though I am myfelf convinced, that the doctrines of the Church are agreeable to Scripture; though I am likewife convincedthat there is nothing in the difcipline of our church, which is inconfiftent with fcripture, I fhould be very forry that any man, who quietly and confcientiously diffented (diffents) from either, fhould be interrupted in the exercife of his own worship, or his own opinions. But if a profeffor of Divinity in an English Univerfity, ftanding in the Univerfity pulpit, and addreffing himself im mediately to the members of that University, all of whom are educated in the Church, and moft of them as minifters of the Church, cannot declare, that the doctrines of the Church are agreeable to Scripture, and confequently, that there is no real caufe to diffent from them, if under fuch circumftances, and before fuch an audienee, he cannot make this declaration, without giving offence to thofe, who are of a different perfuafion, the perfons fo offended must expect fomething more than the free exercife of their own opinions; they must be unwilling to grant to the Establishment the fame toleration of religious fentiment, which they claim and enjoy themfelves." P. x.

In proof of this inference he quotes a paffage from an anonymous letter which he received before the publication of the Lectures, and which therefore must have been written by fome diffenter or man of liberality, who had found his way into the Univerfity church. Among other ftrange things the letter writer fays, with manifeft reference to the Church of England, that Antichrift must fall: the late events on the Continent prove, that the blood of the faints must be avenged!" The fame writer extols the prefent ftate of religious toleration in France, "which," fays Dr. Marth with great propriety, "I am fure no English Diffenter, who has read the Articles Organiques des Cultes Proteftans in the late French Concordat, would wifh to fee adopted in this country;" and he affirms, that every perfon who has read, knows that the authors of the thirty-nine articles were Calvinifts! The learned profeffor hopes that there are not many, who with the fame fentiments, unite equal zeal with his nameless correfpondent; but had he had the fame experience with reviewers, he could hardly have cherifhed fuch a hope. It

is long fince Johnson faid that "the loudeft yelps for liberty were heard among the drivers of Negroes;" and it is long fince we have experienced that the loudeft yelps for freedom of enquiry are heard among those, who treat with the utmost opprobrium all who prefume to controvert the truth of their daring novelties, or to advance a fingle argument in defence of our civil or ecclefiaftical conftitution.

Although we have already quoted fo liberally from the first Lecture as to leave but little room for quotations from the other five, yet the following extract exprelles fo exactly fen. timents for which we have often contended, that we cannot deny ourselves the pleasure of laying it before our readers. After fhowing the neceffity of theological learning to a Clergyman of the Church of England, the author truly obferves, that

"There is no ground for that diftinction" fo often made by parties "between science and religion, that the one is an object of reafon, the other an object of faith. Religion is an object of both it is this very circumstance, which diftinguishes the unlearned from the learned in Divinity; while the former has faith only, the latter has the fame faith accompanied with reafon. The former believes the miracles and doctrines of Christianity, as being recorded in the New Teftament; the latter alfo believes the miracles and doctrines recorded in the New Testament, and he believes them, because by the help of his reafon he knows, what the other does not, that the record is true.

"But is not religion, it may be faid, a matter of general importance? Does it not concern all men; the unlearned, as well as the learned? Can it be true then, that fuch a literary appara. tus is neceffary for the purpose of religion? And would not at leaft nine-tenths of mankind be in that cafe excluded from its benefits? Certainly not from its practical benefits, which alone are wanted, as they are alone attainable by the generality of mankind. Men whofe education and habits have not prepared them for profound inquiry, whofe attention is wholly directed to the procuring of the neceffaries of life, depend, and must depend, for the truth of the doctrines which are taught to them, on the au thority of their teachers and preachers, of whom it is taken for granted, that they have investigated, and really know the truth. But is this any reafon why men, who are fet apart for the miniftry, should likewife be fatisfied with taking things upon truft?" Ought we not rather to conclude, that in proportion to the inability of the hearers to investigate for themfelves, in proportion therefore to the confidence which they must place in their instructor, their inftructor should endeavour to con

vince