priesthood was to be separate, distinct, and removed from the secular concerns of the world; and that they who assume this office must be regularly admitted thereto according to the practice which he has enjoined, as laid down by the holy apostles."-- pp. 37--40.

Poor wight! he expects we shall sneer at him, and is seemingly conscious that he deserves it. But the drivelling and absurdity of this passage do not even provoke a sneer, and they admit of no reply. We are quite content to hand Mr. Lawson over to the Old Lady for whom he entertains a very tender and natural attachment. For ourselves, we have no desire to be numbered among her offspring or her adWe are really hopeless subjects" in this matter; quite beyond the reach of argument or reason." Mr. Lawson therefore may feel no jealousy of uswe shall neither claim fraternity with him, nor rank among his rivals.

mirers.

66

66

Speaking of the accession of James to the throne of England, he attacks Neal with his customary style of abuse and virulence.

"It is amusing to observe the opinions which the Puritan historian indulges on James's accession. That veracious writer, determined to support his enthusiastic party at the expense of truth, fears not to hazard any assertion, however absurd or contradictory; and as Laud is most conspicuous in his narrative of this period, for the public share he sustained in the controversies of the day, a few remarks upon the following passages may not be out of place. 'There had been a cessation of controversy,' says Neal, for some time before the death of Queen Elizabeth: the Puritans being in hopes, upon the accession of a king that had been educated in their own principles, to obtain an easy redress of their grievances; and certainly no prince ever had it so much in his power to compromise the differences of the church as King James I. at the Conference at Hampton Court; but being an indolent and vain glorious monarch, he became a willing captive to the bishops, who flattered his vanity,

and put that maxim into his head, ・ No bishop, no king.' If King James,' he farther remarks, had any principles of religion besides what he called kingcraft, or dissimulation, he changed them with the climate, for, from being a rigid Calvinist, he became a favourer of Arminianism in the latter part of his reign: from being a Protestant of the purest kirk upon earth, a doctrinal papist and, from a disguised Puritan, the most implacable enemy of that people, putting all the springs of the prerogative in motion to drive them out of both kingdoms.' And once more, to the same purpose, in another place, about James's

accession, 'The Scotch ministers did not approach him with the distant submission and reverence of the English bishops, and therefore within nine months he renounced Presbytery, and established it for a maxim, no bishop, no king: so soon did this pious monarch renounce all his former principles, (if he had any,) and break the most awful

and solemn oaths and vows.'

"The above assertions are utterly groundless from beginning to end, and this, even although I were not persuaded that future generations will yet do justice and actions of James, when those times to the too often misrepresented motives arrive in which men will divest themselves of the prejudice of party, and accustom themselves to calm and sober reflection. These statements, however, are false, on three accounts: first, because they contain a dogmatic apology. for the fanaticism of the Puritans, not on facts, but on mere assumptions; secondly, because they are libels on the character of James, which are disgraceful to the writer, in his lamentation for James's departure from the purest kirk on earth;' because they are not supported; and because some few phrases which the monarch used in ordinary conversation, are taken advantage of: thirdly, because they are denied by historical fact, and refuted by the practice of modern times.". pp. 54-57.

In a note to part of the above passage, he asserts that "Neal must have been aware that he was here writing a falsehood;" thus offering the greatest insult to the character of a man that can be shown to it-calling him a deliberate and self-convicted liar. He afterwards proceeds, in his usual style, to establish the charge of falsehood preferred

against Neal's statements; but in which we do not hesitate to pledge our character, that he entirely fails, as our readers may easily satisfy themselves, if they choose to consult the work itself. There is not a more just account of

the character of James I. in existence, than that which is given by the historian of the Puritans. James was a poor, selfish, profane, pedantic, inconsistent, dogmatical, despotic mortal. We believe there are not two opinions, among men capable of forming an opinion, that he deserves all this, and more, to be said of him. Yet our historian endeavours to defend his follies, and apologizes for his immoralities. James became an enemy to the Presbyterians, and an advocate of Arminianism-this is enough to constitute him a saint in Mr. Lawson's estimation.

Having adverted to the character of Neal, as given by our biographer, and to the offensive style in which that historian is always spoken of by him, we shall embrace the opportunity offered us of saying a word or two on that subject. Neal has been the ob ject of attack and vituperation from the appearance of his first volume to the present day. Madox, Grey, and Warburton, laboured to destroy his reputation, and to discredit his work. Others have followed their steps, their equals in intemperate language, however inferior in research. Southey has the audacity to call him "the most prejudiced and dishonest of all historians." It is easy to call names, but a different matter to justify their application.

To each of the four octavo volumes of the History of the Puritans, a volume nearly equal in size was produced in reply, by Bishop Madox and Dr. Grey.

The former was a person of a very feeble description, who had neither the understanding to comprehend, nor the patience necessary for the research which his subject required. The latter was a man of more ability; but quite as well qualified for illustrating Shakespeare and Hudibras, on both of whom he employed his pen, as for defending the Church against the representations of the Dissenting historian. But both take up a great number of points, and publish a variety of documents. We have long been familiar with their works. Neal defended himself successfully against the charges preferred against his earlier volumes; and Dr. Toulmin, in many of his notes to the edition of Neal, published by him, has vindicated the chief passages which have been charged as misrepresentations.

Considering the extent of Neal's work, the multiplicity and variety of the facts which it details, the difficulty in arriving at truth, amidst the conflicting statements of the contending parties, which are the subjects of his history, the prejudices to which all men are liable who engage in such undertakings as his; it appears to us extraordinary that he should have succeeded so well as he has done, and that so small a catalogue of errors, and those of a nature comparatively trifling, his lynx-eyed adversaries have succeeded in furnishing. We have never consulted Neal, and the authorities to whom he refers, without finding him borne out in his great facts, and generally in his reasonings upon them. Occasionally a slight inaccuracy occurs, and subsequent discoveries have thrown new and additional light on some of the great questions which he discusses. This is only what might be expected. The best proof of the

veracity and worth of our historian is to be found in his having maintained his ground, notwithstanding the numerous attacks which have been made upon him. He

is referred to, as authority, not by Dissenters only, but by all who enter into the history of those times; he is quoted, not by British writers only, but by Foreigners, with all the respect which integrity and candour must ever inspire, in disinterested men. To an acquaintance with the history of religion in Great Britain, from the Reformation to the Revolution, no book is so essentially necessary as Neal. It contains the record of a multitude of men, of whom the world was not worthy, who suffered and bled for those rights and privileges which we now enjoy, and the glory of contending and suffering for which, a set of dastardly and ungrateful scribblers now seek to wrench from them. It has fixed the brand of an indelible disgrace on persecution for conscience-sake in all its forms and degrees; and advocated the noblest rights of men on principles which must be eternal. has shewn that all attempts to force uniformity in religion, and

It

repress the progress of public opinion, are idle and fruitless; and that the greatest enemies of their country's peace and glory, have been unprincipled statesmen, such as Strafford, and persecuting churchmen, such as Laud, whom the Rev. John Parker Lawson has the conscience to ask us to fall down and worship. We are neither prophets, nor prophets' sons; but, for once, we will venture to encroach on the seer's office. When Madox and Grey are enjoying the slumbers, which, indeed, have long since commenced, and from which only the hand of the curious inquirer occasionally disturbs them; when the Book of the Church is consigned to the moles and the bats, as destitute of authority; and when the Life and Times of Archbishop Laud has found its way to "the tomb of all the Capulets;" the History of the Puritans will retain its original freshness and undiminished influence; and the name of BENJAMIN NEAL be loved, revered, and honoured.

We have not yet done with Mr. Lawson, and the Life and Times of Archbishop Laud. (To be continued.)

WE now come to the grand controversy on this important passage, which originated in the following paragraph in Gibbon's "History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire." Speaking of the Catholic frauds, he says, "The memorable text which asserts the unity of the THREE who bear witness in heaven, is condemned by the universal silence of the orthodox Fathers, ancient versions,

N. S. No. 51.

and authentic MSS. It was first alleged by the Catholic Bishops whom Huneric summoned to the Conference of Carthage. An al legorical interpretation, in the form perhaps of a marginal note, invaded the text of the Latin Bibles, which were renewed and corrected in a dark period of ten centuries. After the invention of printing, the editors of the Greek Testament yielded to their own

S

66

prejudices, or those of the times; and the pious fraud, which was embraced with equal zeal at Rome and at Geneva, has been infinitely multiplied in every country and every language of modern Europe." In a note to part of this passage, he adds, The three witnesses have been established in our Greek Testaments, by the prudence of Erasmus; the honest bigotry of the Complutensian editors; the typographical fraud or error of Robert Stephens, in the placing of a crotchet; or the deliberate fraud, or strange misapprehension of Theodore Beza."**

On this last sentence volumes of curious and angry controversy have been written. It shows how closely Gibbon had looked into the matter, while the choice of his epithets at once illustrate his knowledge of the subject, and the delight he took in reproaching the professors of Christianity. The infidelity of the writer is ill disguised in the studied ambiguity of his phraseology, which insinuates that the doctrine of the Trinity is established by worldly prudence, bigotry, fraud, or misapprehension. He well knew But

that this was not the case. that prejudiced enemy to Christianity was ever regardless of decency and justice, where its claims and its character were concerned. "He often makes, when he cannot readily find, an occasion to insult our religion, which he hates so cordially, that he might seem to revenge some personal injury. Such is his eagerness in the cause, that he stoops to the most despicable pun, or to the most awkward perversion of language, for the pleasure of turning

Rom. Emp. vol. vi. p. 291–293 Ed. 1807.

the Scripture into ribaldry, or of calling Jesus an impostor.

Had the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, however, contained nothing more injurious to the doctrine or revelation of the Scriptures, this statement, and the insinuation implied in it, might have been allowed to pass. Like many other things of a similar nature, it would have silently floated down the current of time, and would soon have been lost in that oblivion to which all accusations against the Word of God are doomed. But, unfortunately, Gibbon had a name, and his works enjoyed celebrity. It was the fashion of the day to write apologies for the Bible; and some men who would never have risen to public notice otherwise, endeavoured to write themselves into fame or preferment by attacking the infidel historian.

In an evil hour, and prompted by some evil genius, the Rev. George Travis, Archdeacon of Chester, took up his pen, to defend, not the doctrine of the Trinity, but the testimony of the heavenly witnesses, against the charges preferred in the above passage. He addressed three letters to Mr. Gibbon on this subject, in the Gentleman's Magazine for 1782. These he reprinted separately, along with two more, in a quarto volume, in 1784. In 1786, they appeared again with additions. In the same Magazine for 1788 and 1789, Professor Porson replied to Travis. In 1790, Travis wrote another letter on the subject, in the same Magazine, to which Porson replied in the following month. And in 1794, the Archdeacon published the whole, in a large octavo vo

*Porson's Letters to Travis, Pref. pp. xxviii. xxix.

lume. This is the best edition, and which has been consulted in writing these observations.

In these letters it is the object of the writer to defend Erasmus, the Complutensian Editors, Beza, and Stephens, against Mr. Gibbon's charges; to maintain the authenticity of the disputed passage; to reply seriatim to the leading writers who had disputed it; and to account for its omission from so many MSS. and versions. That he undertook a herculean task is very evident; that he sunk under it, can excite no surprise. What he wanted in argument, he made up by boldness; and contrived to maintain an appearance of truth and victory, by carefully avoiding to meet his enemy in the face.

He succeeds in defending the first Editors of the Greek New Testament against the base insinuations of Gibbon; for though the cause must be given against Mr. Archdeacon Travis, no one will concede to the historian of the Roman Empire, that the learned editors were bigots, hypocrites, or fools. But, when from defending their character, he proceeds to defend their text, the ground becomes very different, and the tactics entirely of another order. Instead of pursuing a straight forward course, in order to reach his point, he is obliged to follow one the most indirect and circuitous. In place of beginning at the beginning, he begins at the end. He commences with the writers and authorities next to the period of the Reformation, and endeavours to trace the stream up to the fountain head. Instead of the evidence becoming clearer and stronger, however, it becomes the feebler and more obscure the longer he pursues it; till, at last, notwithstanding his perpetual mistakes and mistatements, it is left in

His

uncertainty and darkness. account of the testimony of the writers whom he quotes in support of the passage, is, in many instances, not to be depended on, as it is often quoted at secondhand, or some circumstance is left out of view, which, when understood, either in a great measure, or entirely subverts it. His account of the MSS. of Valla and Stephens is altogether erroneous; and the impression which he labours to produce, that a great number of Greek and Latin MSS. contain the verse, is directly the reverse of the truth.

He makes a show, for it is often little better, of replying to fiftyfive arguments or objections of Dr. Benson; and pronounces that his Dissertation, for intrepidity of assertion, disingenuousness of quotation, and defectiveness of conclusion, has no equal, stands aloof beyond all parallel-as far as his reading extends—either in ancient or in modern times." This is something like the ass kicking the dead lion; but which, as we shall find, was destined to receive no ordinary correction. The character given to Dr. Benson's work, in the opinion of Porson, more properly belongs to the production of Travis. In the same

manner, he professes to meet fiftyone arguments of Sir Isaac Newton; whose arguments were not more powerful than Benson's, but who is treated with more courtesy than the Presbyterian divine. Griesbach and Bowyer are dispatched in a very few pages, and not more satisfactorily than the former.

In short, Archdeacon Travis, though a very respectable Clergyman, and an able " Tythe-Lawyer," was altogether disqualified by his prejudices, his ignorance, and his injudiciousness, from rendering any important service