"Before I finally close, I must trespass on your patience, while I indulge myself briefly in a train of thought for my own profit. A preacher should not forget, in his solicitude for the advantage of others, to consult his own. And surely it will be allowed that, while the present solemn event reads an interesting lecture to ali around me, it reads one of double importance to me and to my brethren in the ministry. While it speaks to all, it lifts up its voice like a trumpet and cries aloud to us:-Thou hast preached, O thou departed man of God, many an instructive sermon to my heart; but none so instructive as this. There is an emphasis in this, which all thy former discourses, however impressive, have wanted. I seem to hear thee say, 'Be ready. Lose no time, and spare no time in making thy calling and election sure. Leave nothing to a peradventure or to the morrow. Let thy heart, my surviving brother, be wholly given up to God. Look at that breathless monitor. Learn thence the vanity of the world; of all pursuits except that of the one thing needful; even of all literary attainments, except as they are consecrated at the foot of the cross. Take heed to thyself and to thy doctrines; continue in them, that in so doing thou mayest both save thyself, and God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the them that hear thee. I charge thee before elect angels, preach the word, be instant in season, out of season. Remember the worth of immortal souls; and, oh! labour to save them. The time of thy departure is also at hand; and thy continuance in the work uncertain. Up, then, and be doing. Seize the moment as it flies, for the only purpose that is worth a thought. Prosecute thy work with renewed fidelity and assiduity; assured that they who are wise, shall shine as the brightness of the firmament; and they that turn many to righteousness, as the stars for ever and ever.' Such are the exhortations and encouragements, thou beloved friend of my soul, with which thou seemest to address me. I obey the admonition; and, through grace, am resolved to gird up the loins of my mind, and to pursue, in thy track, the great object of my high vocation, pressing toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus. Shortly I hope to join thee in that circle with which thou art mingled, and in the high praises of our God and Saviour, for ever and ever. Amen." (pp. 30, 31.) REVIEW OF REVIEWS, &c. &c. To the Editors of the Christian Observer. phical work which mentioned such. GENTLEMEN, In your number for December 1803, you have been pleased to notice the three first volumes of the Bibliogragraphical Dictionary; for the favourable terms in which you speak concerning the general execution of that work, the Editor begs leave to return you his sincere thanks. For your endeavours to correct some inaccuracies you have perceived in the same work, you are also entitled to his gratitude. Of these you mention four, which the Editor begs you to reconsider. In the Bibliographical Dictionary the works of Arminius are said to have been printed at Francfort 1635; you think the date should be 1631. The Editor has only to say, that he never met with a copy bearing the latter date, nor any bibliogra It bears the former date only in the Bibliographic Instructive, No. 661; in the Catalogue DE GAIGNAT, No. 491; in the Dictionnaire Typographique, par OSMONT, Vol. I. p. 48; in the Dictionnaire Bibliographique, par CAILLEAU, Vol. I. p. 63; and in all the sale catalogues which have come under the Editor's notice. It is possible, however, that some copy or copies may bear the date you mention; and indeed your saying you have consulted such an one is sufficient proof; but in your copy it must be an error, as there is every reason to believe no edition ever existed, which exclusively bore this date. Perhaps the difficulty may be solved by supposing the impression was begun in 1631, and finished in 1635; and that some of the volumes, or even some copies, may have been issued with the former date. You say "in the account of the editions of Poole's Synopsis that which was published at Francfort in 5 vols. quarto is omitted." There was a quarto edition of this work printed at Francfort in 1694, 5 vols. and one in folio at the same place in 1712. But both are very indifferent editions, and of little or no value. However it was intended to notice even these, worthless as they are, under the author's name, when it should occur in the course of the work. But it never was the Editor's design to introduce every edition of the different works which enter into the composition of the Bibliographical Dictionary; though had he noticed it, the quarto edition of Cudworth's Intellectual System, by Dr. Mosheim (Lugd. Bat. 1773,) should not have been omitted. You say 66 in Vol. III. p. 203, (it should be 205), we are told that the Demonstratio Evangelica of Eusebius was edited a Franc. Vigero, Gr. and Lat. folio Rothom. 1628;" and add, that "the author mistook this work for the Preparatio Evangelica." The author begs leave to say, he made no auch mistake. The Demonstratio Evang. WAS printed As mentioned in the Bibliographical Dictionary; so also was the Preparatio Evang. in the same year, under the direction of the same editor. See the Bibliotheca Portatile, by the Abbe Boné, Vol. I. p. 284. But you say, "your chief complaint is directed against the opinions which this writer has thought it expedient to interweave with his critical compilations;" and then the editor of the Bibliographical Dictionary is charged with Socmianism, and several inferences drawn from particular passages to substantiate the charge. This, Gentlemen, is a strange proceeding! You need not be told that it is as disingenuous as it is unchristian to throw out such inuendoes, to the prejudice of a man's character, on such exceptionable surmises. The Editor, however, does not think that to be a Socinian necessarily implies the being a bad man; he has the honour of being acquainted with several who profess this doctrine, and yet are men of amiable manners and irreproachable conduct: in such cases, should heterodoxy be imputed as a crime? "Parcits ista viais tamen objicienda memento." CHRIST. OBSERY. No. 26. But what are the proofs that the Editor of the Eibliographical Dictionary is a Socinian? of which you say you "have no obscure intimations in various passages of the work." Why, he says, Vol. I. p. 204, " that Plaitin's Bibles were all printed from Pope Clement's first reform of the text; and were all designed (by certain alterations made) to confirm what the Papists call the catholic doctrine; witness that celebrated passage of St. Jo'm, tres sunt." This paragraph (the whole of which I forbear to tran scribe) you know to be a quotation from the Encyclopædia Bannica, which in the DICTIONARY is cited in that very place, and the article Bible referred to. But supposing the whole passage had originated with the Editor of the Bibliographical Dictionary, what luminous intimation does it give of his Sociniunism? Not a little.-It might as well have been produced to prove his Mahommedanism. Another intimation of the Editor's Socinianism you find in the assertion, Vol. II. p. 16. "That the Socinian Expositors (contained in the Bibliotheca Fratrum Polonorum) contain a treasure of sacred criticism, and that the work is become dear since the late revival and progress of Socinianism in England." Both these assertions are true. Every scholar must allow, that there is a vast mass of sound criticism in the above work; and every bookseller knows that it is increased in price. Had the Editor said, "this Socinian work contains a treasury of sound doctrine," the intimation of his Socinianism would have been luminous enough. But he has not said so, nor intended to say so. He well knows a man may be a good critic, and yet not a sound divine. He believes the Fratres Poloni are, in many respects, good critics, and he held himself bound in honour and conscience, when speaking of their works, to give them that praise which he believed to be their due. The last passage which you produce in illustration of what you term "the author's Socinian partialities," is found in his asserting, that " Eusebius was an Arian, and that the proofs of it are evident enough." The Editor believes so still. But if the asserting a man to be an Arian proves the as sertor to be an Arian himself, does it not follow, that asserting a man to be a Socinian proves that the assertors P We are more disposed to commend the general candour of the letter with which the Editor of the Bibliographi to expatiate upon or retort some expressions of rather a contrary description, and for which a considerable degree of apology will readily suggest itself. We shall proceed, therefore, to pay the respect to it which it deserves. We pointed out an edition of the works of Arminius, bearing date 1631, and printed at Francfort. This edition we have now before us, and we see that we were correct. The lower part of the title page is as follows: Prostant apud Gulielmum Fitzerum Anglum, Bibliopolam Francofurtanum. Anno M.DC.XXXI. The work is printed upon bad paper, and contains 788 pages, are Socinians; and that the Christian Observers are all Socinians, for they assert that the Editor of the Bibliographical Dictionary is a Socinian?—cal Dictionary has favoured us, than Truly, Gentlemen, this is not worse logic in the last instance than it is in the first. In the case of Eusebius, the Editor (and multitudes besides) thinks there are the clearest evidences of his Arianism; yet he did not wish to be credited on his own assertion; and in order that his readers might be furnished with all that has been best said on the opposite side of the question, he refers them in the very place from which you have taken your extract to Dr. Cave's Dissertation against Le Clerc, concerning the Arianism of Lusebius, where all that can be well said in favour of Eusebius's orthodoxy is produced. This, Gentlemen, you should have noticed in your review; and probably it might have appeared to you and your readers as some proof, if not of the Editor's orthodoxy, yet of his candour. On any branch of polemic divinity the Editor does not think the authority of any of the fathers of great moment. See what he has said on the article Daillé: he has been long accustomed to take his creed not from fathers or councils, but from the infallible and eternal WORD of GOD. And though he does not feel himself obliged to give an account of his faith in such cases to any man, yet if he be even indirectly asked the reason of the hope that is in him, he feels himself disposed to give an answer in that meekness and fear which the spirit of God requires. He begs leave, therefore, to assure you, Gentlemen, that far from being a Socinian he is not even an Arian; but, on the contrary, a firm, conscientious, orthodox believer in the ETERNAL DIVINITY, and INFINITELY meritorious SACRIFICE of the ever GLORIOUS SAVIOUR of mankind; from whom he has learned to esteem every man as his brother, whatever his religious tenets may be, who fears God and works righteousness! He now leaves it to your conscience to reflect with what propriety, and on what evidence, you have publicly preferred against him the charge of Socinianism; and wishing you all prosperity in your good work, begs leave to subscribe himself, GENTLEMEN, Your's respectfully, THE EDITOR OF THE BIBLIOGRA- With respect to the quarto edition of Poole's Synopsis, printed at Francfort in 5 vols. 1694, we can only say, that it does not appear to us so "worthless" as it is represented by the Editor of the Bibliographical Dictionary. It is printed upon bad paper, and in a type not, perhaps, sufficiently legible to some eyes. But we believe it to be accurate; it has a valuable preface wanting in former editions; and, what constitutes its chief advantage, it is more portable and far more convenient for use, than the ponderous folios in which that useful work is presented by every other edition. The authority to which we referred for our observation concerning the Demonstratio Evangelica of Eusebius, is an author of the last appeal on such subjects, the extensively learned and laborious Fabricius, in his principal work, the Bibliotheca Græca, lib. vi. p. 37. ed. 1708, &c. In p. 58, he professes to enumerate the editions of the Dem. Ev.; but makes no mention of that described in the Bibliographical Dictionary. The omission of a supposed edition of a work, in a professed enumeration of all the editions, by such a writer as Fabricius, appeared to us to be almost positive evidence of its non-existence. But if the Abbe Bone asserts the contrary (as we have no reason to doubt,) the evidence upon the case must be examined afresh to determine which of the two authors is in the right, We now come to more serious matters. We endeavoured, in the few observations which we made upon the Bibliographical Dictionary, as far as published, (for of such works we do not pretend to give a complete review) to justify our suspicions, that the Author or Editor was a Socinian; and that these suspicions might have no more weight with our readers than was due to them, we extracted and laid before, them the passages upon which our inference was founded. The learned Editor, however, with whom we would be understood as holding rather an amicable conference than a controversy, considerably underrates our charity, if he imagines that we cannot go at least as far as himself in our opinion of Socinians, and allow that "several" of that sect are "men of amiable manners and irreproachable conduct." This is little, if any thing, more than we voluntarily admitted concerning Dr. Lardner, an acknowledged Socinian. There are some other points upon which we do not think it would answer any good purpose to enlarge: we only add, that what we said concerning the Socinianism of the Editor of the Bibliographical Dictionary should have been represented, not as a "charge," but as our suspicions. Having premised so much, we are ready to admit, and we admit with sincere gratification, upon the assurance made to us--an assurance which we cannot question, that our suspicions were without any foundation in the reality of the case; and, in this respect, we here formally surrender them. But having done this piece of justice to the learned Editor, we think another due to ourselves. It is unnecessary to inform those who have any acquaintance with the state of modern literature, that the most insidious attempts are made to propagate he resy, immorality, and impiety; and that the most promising method to effect this purpose has generally been deemed to insinuate the noxious principles in works most remote from the subject, and therefore least suspected. The consequence is, that there is hardly any department of literature which is not contaminated with this poison. But to detect the poison, while it is the object and labour of the author to conceal it, is a difficult un dertaking; and those who are engaged in it are peculiarly liable to error. The nature of the case does not ad mit of broad, palpable, and decisive evidence; and of consequence the innocent are in danger of being sometimes confounded with the guilty. But this circumstance, however to be lamented, is to be ascribed to the present infelicity of human affairs; and ought, by no means, to deter us from a duty which the times imperiously demand of the conscientious and religious part of society. It is likewise worthy of remark, that an author may easily exempt himself from suspicion by an open and explicit declaration of his sentiments, or even by abstaining from dubious expressions; and this should be considered as a very moderate tax by those who reflect upon the importance of the object which requires it. The passages which we transcribed from the Bibliographical Dictionary seemed to us, as they do now, to indicate, not only an inattention to this precaution but something of a more decisive nature. While, therefore, we admit that our suspicions were without any foundation in the reality of the case, we contend, that they had sufficient foundation in the evidence which lay before us, and which we presented to our readers. The extract concerning Plantin's Bibles, where we are referred to the Encyclopædia Britannica, has, unintentionally as we now believe, an aspect more obviously directed to the doctrine of the Trinity than the original. In the Encyclopædia Britannica some new texts are mentioned as added, and many old ones as altered to confirm what the Papists call the Catholic doctrine; and it is added, according to the quotation of the Editor of the Bibliographical Dictionary, "witness that celebrated passage of St. John, tres sunt." But in the Encyclopædia there is added an "&c.", not in the italic character, and there fore not a continuation of the verse, but indicating in a general way the other passages which were altered. This is omitted by the Editor of the Bibliographical Dictionary. But independently of this omission, upon which we lay no considerable stress, we think that any one reading the passage in question, as it stands detached in the Bibliographical Dictio nary, and as it is connected with its context in the Encyclopædia Britan→ nica, would form a very different think it right to observe, that there is opinion of what is to be understood, when the text tres sunt is represented as an instance of an alteration intended to confirm the Catholic doctrine of the Papists. The eulogium upon the Bibliotheca Fratrum Polonorum we consider as more powerfully calculated to mislead. "A treasure of sacred criticism" is a strong expression, although undoubtedly stronger may be used; and, even now, we can hardly reconcile such unqualified praise with the professions of the letter to which we are replying. The elder Socinians were, doubtless, very different persons from their present descendants; but we have many reasons for not entertaining a very high opinion of them as biblical critics, even upon points not concerned in controversy. The late revival and progress of Socinianism in England, is spoken of exactly in the manner in which a Socinian, exuting in the event, might be supposed to speak. The last passage which we produced, as betraying, in our view, an anxiety to promote the cause of Socinianism, is that in which Eusebius appeared to be rather hastily claimed as an Arian. This decision we conceived to be the more symptomatic, because the celebrity of Dr. Lardner's works and the candid hesitation of that critic on the subject of dispute, led us to suppose that no other than a Socinian, pretty sanguine in the cause, could pronounce a peremptory and definitive sentence, where such a judge was doubtful; and doubt ful even in opposition to previous pre judices Cave is, indeed, referred to, and he is well known to be the best champion for Eusebius's orthodoxy; but in trut a bare reference has little effect with most readers, especially when the opposite and positive assertion of an able writer has almost precluded in ther enquiry. Men are often most enslaved to authority when they mot persuade themselves that they despise it. We do not perceive ourselves reduced to such a dilemma with respect to our logic, as the writer, who addresses us, seems to himself to discover. There is, in our apprehension, an evident difference in the two cases, which destroys the parallelism of the inference. As the fathers are alluded to, we a medium between placing them upon a level with the sacred oracles, and overwhelming them with reproach and contempt. This latter is an extreme into which Protestants were in danger of falling, and have fallen; and we lament that the time has not yet arrived, in which justice can be said to be done to those much injured, though not faultless, worthies. But it little becomes an age of so much laxity, both of principle and conduct, as the present, to sit in judg ment upon and condemn persons, who, notwithstanding their failings, are so fully entitled to the respect and veneration of all true Christians. There are some good and seasonable observations upon this subject in the preface of Bishop Warburton's Julian. We have only to add, that we are sorry for the offence which our critique has given to so respectable a writer as the Editor of the Bibliographical Dictionary; we readily allow, that our suspicions were unfounded in fact; but, in justice to ourselves, we must insist that they were not wholly unfounded, in the only means of judging which the volumes before us supplied. The writer has our best wishes for the successful prosecution of his work; we are by no means insensible of the difficulty of his undertaking, nor, we may add, of its utility; and we trust it will meet with all the encouragement to which its merits, and the want of any similar publication in our language, entitle it. To the Editor of the Christian Observer. "A SINCERE Friend to the Doctrine and Discipline of the Church of England," who has written on the omis sion of a passage in the service for the fast day (last number, p. 46), has been guilty of a mistake which I must beg you to rectify. Mr. Spry is there stated to be Mr. Daubeny's curate. But this is not the case: Mr. Spry is Mr. Daubeny's colleague not his curate. Being in the habit of regularly attending the Free Church at Bath, I can have no difficulty in vouching for this fact. MP Bath, Feb. 8, 1804. |