because the main things are profitable for all," that therefore no farther instruction is needful? In what part of Scripture has Mr. O'C. discovered, that he, who has imbibed a portion of the wisdom which is from above, acquires thereby a disrelish for receiving farther instruction from his appointed teachers? That a slender proficiency in religious knowledge is calculated to make us turn a deaf ear to those deeper mysteries of the Gospel, or those practical lessons of holiness and obedience, which it is the duty of the clergy to enforce, and of the flocks committed to their charge to receive. Surely, good sense and truth are all on the side of those who'admit, with Archbishop Leighton, that "the Scriptures are a depth that few can wade far into, and none can wade through; but yet all may come to the brook, and refresh themselves with drinking of the streams of its living water, and go in a little way, according to their strength and stature." Vol. i. p. 338.

But let us now turn to the view, which is taken of the difficulties of Scripture by the Society for promoting Christian Knowledge, and see how far it accords with Mr. O'C.'s doctrine. In the tract before cited, are to be found the following passages: The Scriptures must be read with submission, and obedience of faith. Since it is God who speaks in them, we have nothing to do but to be well assured that we rightly understand their meaning, which is never difficult in things necessary to salvation." (p. 31.) Again; "When we read the commands and precepts, which God has given us in his word to be the rule of our actions, it is our duty to believe that obedience and conformity to them is absolutely and indispensably necessary. And as the sense of Scripture is never obscure in this respect, and it is impossible we should be de

ceived, unless we wilfully shut our eyes against the truth, all we have to do is with humility and an honest heart to submit to whatever God is pleased to command." p. 33.

Thus then it is plain, that the opinions, sanctioned by the Society for promoting Christian Knowledge, not only go the length of contravening the character of difficulty in many parts of Scripture not purely historical, but are explicit to show, that error in these cases can only arise from "wilfully shutting our eyes against the truth." Is it possible that Mr. O'C. should deserve such reproof? If he does, and I see no means of eluding its direct and palpable application to him,-who is bold enough to confide in such a leader?

It would be easy to multiply quotations from other divines of established authority, if that were necessary. I shall, however, content myself with extracting two passages; one from the justly celebrated Charge of Bishop Horsley, delivered to the clergy of his diocess in 1790; the other from a sermon of that judicious and learned prelate. "We have (says the Bishop) experimental proof, that there is nothing in the great mystery of godliness, which the vulgar, more than the learned, want capacity to apprehend: since upon the first preaching of the Gospel, the illi terate, the scorn of pharisaical pride, who knew not the law, and were therefore deemed accursed, were the first to understand and embrace the Christian doctrine. Nor will this seem strange, if it be considered that religion and science are very different things, and the object of different faculties. Science is the object of natural reason; religious truth of faith." (pp. 13, 14.) This opinion of Bishop Horsley has a two-fold application to the subject before us: it c completely rebuts (as far as weight, and authority, and talent can do it) the principle,

upon which Mr. O'C. has raised so imposing a fabric; and it furnishes a ready answer to all such observations as the following: It would be highly desirable (says Mr. O'C.) that the peasantry of Ireland understood and respected the laws of their country more than they do at present; yet no society has yet started up, with the avowed object of dispersing among them cheap editions of Blackstone, or Coke upon Littleton, without note or comment. A competent knowledge of natural philosophy, astronomy, metaphysics, and political economy, could not fail to humanize their minds, lessen their taste for nocturnal depredations, and quench their thirst for blood; yet no sagacious reformer has yet come forward with a proposal for circulating among them Newton, Laplace, Locke, Smith, or Stewart, without note or comment. Why? Because " religion and science are very different things and the object of different faculties. Science is the object of natural reason; religious truth of faith." Well may we apply to

Mr. O'C. the words of our Saviour to Nicodemus: "Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?"

But let us again attend to the writings of the same prelate. "It is incredible (says he) to any one, who has not in some degree made the experiment, what a proficiency may be made in that knowledge, which maketh wise unto salvation, by studying the Scriptures in this manner, (i. e. by comparing parallel passages,) without any other commentary or exposition than what the different parts of the sacred volume mutually furnish for each other. I will not scruple to assert, that the most illiterate Christian, if he can but read his English Bible, and will take the pains to read it in this manner, will not only attain all that practical knowledge which is necessary to his salvation, but, by God's bless

ing, he will become learned in every thing relating to his religion, in such degree, that he will not be liable to be misled, either by the refined arguments or by the false assertions of those who endeavour to ingraft their own opinion upon the oracles of God. He may safely be ignorant of all philosophy, except what is to be learned from the sacred books; which indeed contain the highest philosophy adapted to the lowest apprehensions. He may safely remain ignorant of all history, except so much of the history of the first ages of the Jewish, and of the Christian Church as is to be gathered from the canonical books of the Old and New Testament. Let him study these in the manner I recommend, and let him never cease to pray for the illumination of that Spirit by which these books were dictated; and the whole compass of abstruse philosophy and recondite history shall furnish no argument with which the perverse will of man shall be able to shake this learned Christian's faith. The Bible thus studied will indeed prove to be what we Protestants esteem it, a certain and sufficient rule of faith and practice, a helmet of salvation, which alone may quench the fiery darts of the wicked."-Nine Sermons, &c. pp. 226, 7, 8.

"We are not told, that the ig norant man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God, while the literate man does receive them: but we are told, that the natural man, whether ignorant or literate, receiveth them not; and the reason assigned is, that they are foolishness unto him, neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." These extracts require no comment; they are plain, and go directly to the point at issue, and may, I think, be safely left to work their own way against the sophistries of Mr. O'C., heightened and embellished as they are with

various entertaining episodes of Puritans, and Methodists, and Gospel Preachers; episodes, made up of a strange admixture of truth and misrepresentation, unworthy of the cause which he has undertaken to advocate, and discreditable to the temper and spirit of a Christian minister.

I am, Sir, &c.

PAULINUS.

To the Editor of the Christian Observer. THE attestation respecting the author of The Whole Duty of Man, together with my accompanying query, (inserted in Christian Observer, Vol. XV. p. 435.,) not having produced any other notice from your correspondents than the laconic observations of R. W, D. (Vol. XV. p. 643.) allow me to claim a place in your columns for a slight attempt to solve my own problem. It is with some reluctance that I Occupy your valuable pages with discussion purely bibliographical; but the subject being at present imperfectly noticed in your work, I shall, as briefly as possible, communicate the information which I have derived, and the ideas which have suggested themselves to my mind, by looking more closely into the question.

a

It is not difficult to ascertain the period in which The Whole Duty of Man appeared before the public, although your correspondent expresses some doubt even on that point. R. W. D. mentions the edition of 1677, as the earliest which he has seen. I have seen an edition of eighteen years earlier date, which is undoubtedly the first. Ballard states, that the work appeared in 1657; but it is clear that he was misled by the date of Dr. Hammond's prefatory letter written in that year. It was published at the beginning of the year 1659; for Dr. Hammond, in a letter to Mr. Peter Stainenough, dated March 16, 1659, among other notices of CHRIST. OBSERV. No. 183.

new publications, observes: "Two excellent pieces there are from an unknown hand, The Whole Duty of Man, and the Gentleman's Calling.'

A more knotty question arises in the inquiry respecting the author of this work; and Junius himself has scarcely called forth more improbable conjectures than this writer. The concealment, so successfully studied, appears to be alluded to, in the frontispiece to the older editions, which represents Moses veiled holding the tables of the Law in his hands: this motto being subscribed," And till Moses had done speaking to them, he put a veil on his face." From this some have concluded, (I think incorrectly,) that Bishop Fell himself was not made acquainted with the name, till the last work of the author had been produced.

The ingenious method by which Bishop Fell would lead us to the author is not, it must be confessed, very agreeable in its process, or satisfactory in its result. "Let the pious reader live a whole age of great austerities, and maintain an undisturbed serenity in the midst of them, and he will himself become a lively picture of our author."

Neither this work, nor the other pieces confessedly produced by the same hand, afford us any positive data by which we can ascertain the name of the writer. At the same time, there are some circumstances sufficiently marked to exclude certain pretensions; and others which, though more ambiguous, may serve as tolerable tests of the degree of probability which attaches to the contested claims of authorship..

I. The most decisive of these is, the period of the author's death. In the preface to the folio edition of the whole works, (Oxford, 1684,) which has been ascribed without controversy to the pen of Bishop Fell, the author is stated to be dead. Consequently, we may safely

Y

versity College, Oxford. Mr. W., however, did not die till 1699, and his claim is consequently excluded by observation I.

A

8. None of the preceding names rely upon probable evidence; and some of them, it will be observed, are decidedly inadmissible. greater degree of plausibility attaches to the opinion that Bishop Fell (who wrote the general preface) was himself the author of the minor pieces, if not of The Whole Duty of Man.

Sir William Morice heard Bishop Fell preach a sermon at the King's Chapel, which so pleased him that he requested a copy. Some years afterwards, "The Decay of Christian Piety" came out, in which he found the matter of the sermon in the same words.

Prideaux partly confirms the conclusion drawn from this statement. He is said (by his biographer*) to have declared, that he was attending the press at Oxford, when another of the works ascribed to the author of The Whole Duty of Man was reprinting, and that he saw whole lines blotted out and interpolated in Bishop Fell's handwriting. Prideaux adopted the opinion that the author of The Whole Duty of Man was unknown; but that the other pieces ascribed to this anonymous writer were composed partly by Dr. Fell, and partly by Dr. Allestry.

So far as this evidence is adduced to prove that Bishop Fell assisted the author by his corrections, and possibly by contributions of detached parts, it appears sufficiently conclusive. But the assertion that the Bishop is the writer of the smaller pieces ascribed by himself (in bis preface to the works) to an author already dead, is to insinuate a charge which charity forbids us to prefer without some more direct proof. It might answer the purpose for which, it has been imagined, such a step was adopted, of "better concealing * Life of Prideaux, p. 17.

the name;" but it could not, by any explanation, be reconciled to the integrity of the Bishop's cha

racter.

9. I shall now briefly sketch the evidence by which Lady Pakington's may probably be established.

Dorothy Lady Pakington was wife of Sir John Pakington, of Westwood-house, Worcestershire, and daughter of Thomas Lord Coventry, Lord Keeper of the Great Seal of England. She was a lady of considerable talents, and of such exemplary conduct that she was proverbially called "the good Lady Pakington." Her residence afforded an asylum, during the stormy period of Charles I., to Bishop Morley, Bishop Fell, and Dr. Hammond, who died there in 1660. Dr. H. she considered as her preceptor, her adviser, and her spiritual guide; and with Bishop Fell she long enjoyed a close friendship, and an uninterrupted correspondence: thus she was intimately acquainted with two learned prelates, the latter of whom, in all probability, corrected and improved her work, while the former introduced it to the public. She died in 1679, a date which accords with the preliminary observations in this paper.

Thus far the evidence is merely consistent with the facts connected with the publication of this work. Some other circumstances must be mentioned which bear more immediately upon the question of her being the probable author.

(1.) In an anonymous pamphlet, published in 1702, entitled, "A Letter vindicating the Bill for the Prevention of the Translation of Bishops," it is asserted that Archbishop Dolben, Bishop Fell, and Dr. Allestry, declared, that Lady Pakington was the authoress of "the most masculine religious book in the English tongue, (the Bible excepted,) called The Whole Duty of Man." I quote this by no means as evidence, but merely to