« AnteriorContinua »
pha, in Piaces where no other Versions will be generally received. By Henry Venn, M. A., Fellow of Queen's College, Cambridge. 3d.
A Letter to the Right Hon. Lord Teignmouth, President of the British and Foreign Bible Society, in Vindication of the Proceedings of that Society against the Statement of the Edinburgh Bible Society relative to the Circulation of the Apocry pha By C. Simeon, M. A., Fellow of King's College, Cambridge. 3d.
A Statement, submitted to the Members of the British and Foreign Bible Society, on the Impropriety of Circulating the Apocryphal Books indiscriminately intermingled with the Inspired Writings. By George Cornelius Gorham, B. D., Fellow of Queen's College, Cambridge. 18. 6d.
Twenty one Reasons for not Contributing to Circulate the Apocrypha among those Churches which receive it as Inspired, and Reject the Bible without this addition. 3d.
Anti-Apocryphal Observations upon the King's College Letter to Lord Teignmouth, of July, 1825, in favour of Printing the Apocrypha. By John Wickliffe. 1s.
Sermons. Sermons and Charges. By Thomas Fanshawe Middleton, D. D., late Bishop of Calcutta with Memoirs of his Life, by Henry Kaye Bonney, D. D. 8vo. Portraits. 14s.
By the late Rev. James Ross, D. D., Senior Minister of Aberdeen. and Portrait. Svo. 8s.
The Social Conduct of a Christian Considered, in Seven Sermons, addressed to an Individual. 12mo. 2s. 6d.
On Various Subjects. By John Hewlett, B. D. F. A. S., Rector of Hilgay. Vol. IV. 8vo. 10s. 6d. [The three former Volumes, now printed in two, 17. 18.]
The Scheme of Divine Revelation considered, principally in its Conuexion with the Progress and Improvement of Human Society in Eight Sermons, preached before the University of Oxford, in the Year 1825, at the Lecture founded by the late Rev. John Bampton, M. A., Canon of Salisbury. By George Chandler, LL.D., Rector of Southam, Warwickshire, &c. 8s.
The Predictions and Promises of God respecting Israel: preached June 22, 1825, in the Parish Church of St. Andrew's, Plymouth, on the Baptism of Mr Michael Solomon Alexander, late Reader in the Jewish Synagogue. By John Hatchard, A. M., Vicar. 1s. 6d.
The Connexion between Christian Benevolence and Spiritual Prosperity : preached at Basingstoke, April 21, 1825, before the Hampshire Association. By Thomas Eastman, B. A., Fareham. 1s.
Importance of Eminent Personal Holiness in the Christian Minister: preached at Broad Street, June 25, before the Patrons, &c., of Homerton College. By Henry March, of Bungay. 1s. 6d.
Farewell: preached at Salters' Hall, on resigning the Pastoral Charge, June 19, 1825. By W. B. Collyer, LL.D. F.A S.
Communications have been received from Dr. J. Jones: from Messrs. Rutt; W. Evans; and Latham: aud from T. F. B.; J. E. R.; E.; Clericus Cantabrigiensis; and Ben David.
The Crediton letter was too late for the proposed corrections.
The "Preses" of Union Cha Glasgow, is hereby assured that no injustice wa meditated to minister or people by withholding a communication relating to a late farewell dinner, but the contrary. Our Northern brethren must allow us to be better judges than themselves of the effect of their communications upon the people of the South, who constitute the mass of our readers. We have great pleasure, at the same time, in stating that a public dinner was given to the Rev. B. Mardon, on leaving the Unitarian congregation at Glasgow, in May last, and that "the congregation, willing to manifest their regard for Mr. Mardon by good works as well as good words, presented him with a very handsome silk purse containing twenty sovereigns."
On making up the present Number we find that we are obliged to omit several articles of Religious Intelligence (from Middleton, Lancashire, and other places) which shall, without fail, be inserted in the next.
P. 261, col. 1, line 45, for "by the Presbyterians," read by the Presbyterian. 359, col. 1, at line 1st from the top, read "interpretation."
col. 1, towards the end of the second paragraph from the top, place a comma after the word "identity."
- 361, col. 1, in the note, five lines from the bottom, read Fell's paraphrase.
An Examination of Warburton's Strictures on Neal's History of the
Birmingham, Sept. 2, 1825.
H disregarded by Warburton and Whether Fuller did peruse the records
[ONOUR justice have
by Dr. Southey, in their accusation of Neal, as an historian. No blush appears to have spread itself over the Prelate's cheek, when he brought a gainst this valuable author the sweeping charge of a want of probity and a neglect of truth; while by the Laureate the indictment has been shamelessly echoed, without investigation and without proof. Warburton, during his official residence at Durham, was supplied with the volumes of the History of the Puritans: these, as he informs Hurd, he read at "breakfasttime," and, in the course of his meal, committed his animadversions to the margin, where they may still be seen. Unhappily for his own reputation, but most auspiciously for the credit of Neal, the strictures are published in Warburton's collective works; § so that we have opportunities of appreciating the merit of these notes. I shall examine them distinctly and separately: the employment is tedious; yet the result, I am persuaded, will not be the less satisfactory. The edition of Neal's History, &c., before me, was published, 1793, &c., by Dr. Joshua Toulmin: to the pages of this as well as to those of the edition used by Warburton I shall carefully refer.
(1) Vol. I. 89. [83. T.] Let Toulmin's note be consulted: it is pertinent and decisive. Neal does that from which some modern writers shrink he cites his authorities; and this not in general terms, but specifically and clearly. Unless Burnet can in the present instance be convicted of incorrectness, the charge against Neal falls directly to the ground.
In the chapter-library.
§ Vol. I. , pp. 891, &c.
of convocation? That he did, may well be presumed from his character and undertakings. At any rate, the question does not affect either the judgment or the veracity of Neal, who has not recorded more than his documents warranted.
(3) 186. [166. T.] The note of Neal's editor, should not be overlooked for it marks his desire of doing justice to Warburton.
It is commonly supposed that Fox, the martyrologist, had little or no church preferment, until he became a prebendary of Sarum. According to Bishop Warburton, whose local situation would particularly enable him to ascertain the fact, "he was also installed in the third prebend of Durham, Oct. 14, 1572," but did not hold it long. It is barely possible that the prelate may have mistaken the individual, and been deceived by the identity of a name, which is far from being rare. Warburton, I cannot well donbt, is correct; the rather, as Fox and Bishop Pilkington, who then filled the see of Durham, were intimate with each other. Yet, as Fox's son and Thomas Fuller+ do not mention the circumstance in their respective lives of the martyrologist, Neal's silence concerning it, cannot in justice or candour be made a subject of blame.t
(4) 191. [171. T.] Here we have a flippant and tasteless and indefensible
The younger son [Dr. Simeon Fox] of the martyrologist, is said to have been one of the two last presidents of the Col
+ Feb. 26, 1765.
* Book of the Church, Vol. II. p. 309. lege of Physicians, who used to ride on horseback in London to visit their pa tients. Ward's Lives of the Gresham Professors, p. 266,
* See the Acts and Monuments, &c., Vol. II. Life prefixed
+ In Abel Redivivus, &c.
(6) 194. [173. T.] In this instance, again, as in numerous other instances, they are opinions and sayings, which Neal honestly relates, that call down the prelate's animadversions: the good faith of the historian he can with no plausibility arraign; and in the vast majority of his strictures it is not even attempted to be brought in question.
(7) 194. [174. T.] The editor's note is most satisfactory. It vindicates Neal's accuracy, and proves that the point in dispute was not indifferent or immaterial. The decency of ecclesiastical vestments, cannot justify the imposition of them.
(8) 231. [205. T.] With the exception of one clause, Warburton's remark is fair and liberal. But, though his judgment may differ from what Neal expresses or implies, the historian's fidelity is not therefore to be denied.
resembles the far larger proportion of the prelate's strictures. Even were Neal's opinions and arguments as extravagant as many of Warburton's— instead of being, for the most part, eminently judicious-still, his probity remains unimpaired.
(12) 365. [319. T.]" The Bishop of London," [Aylmer,] says the historian, came not behind the chief of his brethren the bishops in his persecuting zeal against the Puritans:" this zeal he manifested by enforcing ministerial conformity. Upon which accusation Warburton observes, that "it is an unfair charge which runs through the history." He adds, "The exacting conformity of the ministry of any church by the governors of that church is not persecution." I transcribe Dr. Toulmin's note, in reply:
"This is a strange sentiment to come from the pen of a Protestant prelate. There was no persecution then in the reign of Queen Mary. It was no persecution, when the Jewish Sanhedrim agreed, that if any man did confess that Jesus was the Christ, he should be put out of the synagogue.' It was no persecution, when the Parliament imposed the Scots' covenant."
clusively. What the prelate says of the measure, is just in the abstract, yet has no bearing on the historian.
(15) 372. [326. T.] Neal is blamed by the annotator for not applying far severer terms to such pamphlets as Martin Mar-Prelate, &c., &c. Dr. Toulmin, in answer, says of Warburton, "He should have adverted to our author's grave censure of them in chap. viii., and have recollected that the writers on the church side came not behind their adversaries in buffoonery and ridicule. These were the weapons of the age."*
(16) 374. [328. T.] Here Neal's editor administers deserved reproof to the captious annotator. "To act upon principle," remarks Dr. Toulmin, "is highly virtuous and praiseworthy. It is the suport of integrity, and constitutes excellence of character. Yet in this instance [the case of the Brownists] Bishop Warburton could allow himself to degrade and make a jest of it. It is just the same,' says he, with men who act upon passion and prejudice, for the poet says truly,
and pertinent, as far as it applies to the religious principles of each. But certainly the spirit and views of these parties were very different; the former were engaged once and again in plots against the life and government of the Queen, the loyalty of the other was, notwithstanding all their sufferings, unimpeached."
* See Granger's Biog. Hist., &c., 3d ed. I. 205, Note; and, on the other side, Ward's Gresham Professors, p. 55.
(19) 386. [338. T.] I do not enter upon the questions respecting Presbytery and the consistency of the Puritans of Elizabeth's reign. It is sufficient for me to observe that the laws of history called upon Neal to give a faithful narrative of facts; that he has fulfilled the obligation; and that Warburton does not here oppugn either his veracity or his candour. Toulmin's note on the passage, may be perused with satisfaction and advantage.
(20) 389. [342. T.] Bishop Warburton places it to the account of Neal's spirit of party and prejudice that he complains of two of Brown's followers having been hanged for circulating a seditious book, when Brown, the author of the book, was, on his repentance, pardoned.
Now Dr. Toulmin has clearly shown that the Prelate was ignorant of the Brown did not repent, did not retrue state of the case; inasmuch as nounce his principles, until seven years after he was committed to prison, from which he was released, not on his contrition, but at the intercession of the Lord Treasurer.
servation of Dr. Toulmin's, shews (21) 405. [355. T.] A sensible obWarburton to be a willing and an unjust censor. The historian relates that the ministers of Kent in their supplication to the Lords of the Council professed their reverence for the Established Church. This language the annotator considers as inconsistent with calling the Established Church an hierarchy that never obtained till the approach of Antichrist. "But," remarks Neal's Editor, "the charge of inconsistency does not lie against the Kentish ministers who speak above, unless it be proved that they were the authors of the pamphlet entitled 'The Practice of Prelates,' which contained the other sentiments.”
I will now, for a few moments, dismiss Warburton, and entreat my readers to accompany me in an examination of a famous state-paper, of which
a copy is preserved in Toulmin's edition of Neal's History, &c., [pp. 360 -362]: I mean the High Commission issued by Queen Elizabeth in 1583-4. Of this commission Neal says, that "it empowers the commissioners to inquire into all misdemeanours not only by the oaths of twelve men and witnesses, but by all other means and ways they could devise; that is by the inquisition, by the rack, by torture, or by any ways and means that fortyfour sovereign judges should devise." Hume, speaking of the same document, employs Neal's language respecting it: while Brodie, actuated by political views, feelings and principles the very opposite of the panegyrist of the Stuarts, attempts to controvert the statement of Neal and Hume. That statement is, however, correct. The proof of its correctness will be found in an analysis of the commission, and in an abstract of its several paragraphs.
In the first of them power is given to the commissioners to inquire as well by the oaths of twelve good and lawful men, as also by witnesses, and all other means and ways you can devise, &c. This paragraph, the reader should know, is confined to the subject of inquiry: not a word occurs here about the restraint or punishment of persons held to be offenders.
The second paragraph, while it gives full power of censuring and punishing, restricts the punishment to lawful ways and means: it speaks of penalties and forfeitures, yet of these according to the forms prescribed in the said act [of uniformity, in the first year of Queen Elizabeth]. In this paragraph, be it considered, we have not a word about inquiry.
Punishment is exclusively the topic of the third paragraph, which is also silent as to inquiry, and most studiously directs the punishment to be what is limited and appointed by the
The fourth paragraph has no bearing on the present question, but regards the deprivation, under certain circumstances, of such individuals as have ecclesiastical livings.
History, &c., V. 262 [of the ed. of 1792].
+ History of the British Empire, &c., J. 196, 197.
In like manner, the fifth paragraph respects offences strictly ecclesiastical: lawful ways and means are to be devised for the searching out the premises, and the offenders are to be punished by fine, imprisonment, censures of the church, or all or any of the said ways at the discretion of the commissioners.
Nothing can well be more illegal than the letter, spirit and tenor of the next, the sixth paragraph, which empowers the commissioners to examine suspected persons on their corporal oaths, for the better trial and opening of the truth, and to punish them, if contumacious, by excommunication, or other censures ecclesiastical, or by fine, according to your discretions, &c.
Of the seventh paragraph one clause gives power for the arrest and safe custody of accused or suspected persons: the other contains some instructions in respect of receivers, &c.
In the three remaining paragraphs authority is granted to visit and reform colleges, cathedrals, &c., so far as their statutes are concerned, to tender the oaths of supremacy to all ministers and others compellable by act of parliament, to certify the names of such as refuse it into the King's Bench, and to use a specific seal of office.
Thus I have examined every part of this High Commission. The investigation establishes Neal's care and accuracy and hence we might fairly argue to his general correctness and governing love of truth. Hume in this instance happens to be right. Why he was never reluctant to set forth the arbitrary measures of Queen Elizabeth, no attentive readers of his own Life, and of his History of the Stuarts, can need to be informed. As to Brodie, if he had discriminated between the case of inquiry and that of punishment, he would not have contradicted Neal's and Hume's representation of the tyrannical spirit of this state-paper.* In the mode of the investigation the Commissioners were left considerably to their discretion in the punishment they were bound down by law. Let us now return to Warburton.
*The remark applies to Southey, ubi