« AnteriorContinuar »
I have also observed three obvious errata :-objiciter, p. 111; conjesta, p. 279; and fine for sine, p. 281.
I remain, Mr. Editor, yours &c., T. K. A. Lyndon Rectory.
P.S.-Since I wrote the above, I have had an opportunity of consulting Stephens's Thesaurus (old edition). Besides the passage in the Ethics, where I remembered to have met with the word, he quotes several passages from Plutarch, who describes Cato as, árapairntoç üv εν το δικαίω, όρθιος και αυθέκαστος. The explanation he gives is from Budæus, -“ Severus naturâ, rigidus, exacte rectum verumque persequens."
LIBERALITY OF A CLERGYMAN. Sir,-- In these unhappy times, when the infidel and the dissenter are found in monstrous league with the members of the church of Rome to deny even the semblance of merit to the establishment, it is gratifying to contemplate the unobtrusive efforts which her members are making to improve her efficiency, and put to shame the misrepresentations of her unscrupulous assailants.
In the parish of which I am rector, a school for the children of the poor of both sexes has been built and endowed almost at the sole expense of a clergyman of the name of Bagshaw. The education is to be conducted on the national system, and every arrangement has been made to give full effect to the benevolent intentions of the founder.
Feeling desirous that this act of private munificence should be generally known, that others may be provoked unto the same charitable work, I venture to hope that you will oblige me by inserting this communication in your wext number.
I am, Šir, faithfully yours, Henry Cleveland. Barkstone, Lincolnshire, Nov. 14th, 1835.
NOTICES AND REVIEWS.
A Letter to the Rev. John King, of Hull, occasioned by his Pamphlet, entitled,
“ Maitland not authorized to censure Milner.” By S. R. Maitland. Lon
don : Rivingtons. MR. King, in the pamphlet alluded to, pursued a course which did not, to the reviewer, seem to be the dictate of “absolute wisdom.” It was this. Mr. Maitland, in two pamphlets, had brought certain specific charges against Milner as an historian, not resting on his own authority, but supported by copious and minute references. Mr. King, instead of noticing these references, and refuting any errors which they might contain, chose to look, or endeavoured to make others look, on the attack as resting solely on Mr. Maitland's authority; and, consequently, he thought it convenient and advisable to endeavour to destroy Mr. Maitland's credit, by shewing that a former work of his was inaccurate. Strange to say, he did not even notice the existence of Mr. Maitland's second pamphlet (the whole object of which was to examine one long portion of Milner, and to shew, by detailed examination of page after page, that where Milner would seem to be referring to original authorities, he is only giving, often incorrect, abridgments of secondary ones—that he is inaccurate, and often quite wrong as to facts, dates, places, and men, as well as really unacquainted with many of the books to which he refers), and on Mr. M.'s inquiry of him (Mr. King) by letter, whether he had seen it before his own pamphlet appeared, declined to answer. Now, this plan does not appear wise, because he could not reasonably hope that all this could be allowed to pass in silence; and it was clear that, the very moment it was stated that he does not reply to charges made with reference to chapter and verse, but makes a personal attack on his opponent, he must lose all the pains he took in preparing his pamphlet, and the warmest friend of Milner must see that Mr. King neither has done, nor can do, any good to his cause. Suppose Mr. Maitland to be as wrong in a former work as Mr. King says, how does that get rid of detailed charges against Milner?
This, however, has mere reference to the expediency of Mr. King's line of defence. Mr. Maitland has sufficiently shown that it is perfectly unjustifiable on much higher grounds, and has shown too that it is conducted in a spirit and on principles which are anything but such as one would wish to see. Altogether, Mr. King will find Mr. Maitland's pamphlet a very disagreeable one for him. It will be disagreeable as affecting him personally, and disagreeable, as he is doubtless a sincere partizan of Milner's work, because it produces yet heavier charges (and yet more forcibly urged) against Milner's own work. This, indeed, is the main question, and it is a matter of sincere regret that Mr. King should have introduced so much personal feeling into a queston of a literary nature, and not have discussed it, if he could, or left it to others to discuss, on fair and proper grounds.
After all that has passed, the writer of these lines knows but too well what dreadful offence is given by venturing to insinuate any disrespect for Milner. Abstaining, therefore, from any remark in the way of opinion, he wishes to point attention to the very serious nature of the charges now brought, with full authorities, against Milner, as an historian. With every respect for his intentions and his piety, he is alleged not to have known even a fair proportion of the original sources of history, not to have known the names of many writers, not to have understood the references to many others, and to have so written as to lead the reader to suppose that he is reading extracts from original works, instead of mutilated abridgments of secondary sources. If these charges are not correct, the only way to refute them is by a detailed examination of a competent number of them. This will be readily seen by every impartial person, and indeed all candid admirers of Milner must be aware that by this test he must stand or fall. The original author of this controversy had not the slightest idea of provoking it, or drawing down such wrath on himself, when, in the discharge of his duty, as he conceived, he was obliged to say what he really thought of Milner. But he cannot now affect to regret it, as he is persuaded that this discussion will tend to fix the real character of Milner's work. Another good, too, has already arisen from this controversy,that it has shown the world that they possess in Mr. Maitland one who, in extent of learning and diligence of research, recalls the memory of past times. It may be right to mention that, while Mr. M. wisely defers all defence of his former work as beside the present question, he assures Mr. King that he shall shortly hear from him on that subject also.
The Roman-catholic Church in Scotland, its Establishment, Subversion, and
Present State. By J. P. Lawson, M.A., &c. &c. Edinburgh and London:
Smith, Rider, and Co. 1835. 12mo. pp. 320. Tuis is an useful and interesting volume, not controversial, but simply historical and statistical. It describes the sees, their extents and revenues, the colleges, monasteries, &c., of the church of Scotland before the Reformation; the circumstances of its fall, of the destruction of the buildings, &c., and the present state of Roman-catholic congregations and church government. It contains much information in a small space, and does great credit to Mr. Lawson, whose principles and diligence are such as to merit great respect.
Hymns for Young Persons. London: J. W. Parker, West Strand. 1834.
This book requires farther weeding. For example-hymns 1 and 2 are unobjectionable, but tame. In hymn 3, the three first stanzas and the last might be well omitted ; 4, is miserable ; 5, much better; 6 and 7, tolerable ; in 8, the fourth stanza has little or no meaning ; 9, is a well-known and spirited hymn, with a singularly bad concluding verse; 10, is as poor as can be; and ii, quite terrible-(" Oh! help me when my spirits bleed!") 12 and 13, common place; 14, is the well-known “ How are thy servants blessid, O Lord ;" 15, tolerable; 16, nonsense ; 17, has no clear object; 18, is vague; 19, poor; and in 20 the taste is very bad—“ He smiles in heaven, he frowns in hell,”' &c. &c.) In the other twenties there seem to be more enthusiastic hymns. There is little of objectionable in all now mentioned, perhaps not above five or six stanzas seriously so. But what is the use of making all children learn a great deal of common place moderate verse? Again, there are a great many modern hymns, of a good deal of poetical spirit, but with so little of what the writer thinks the genuine, calm, gentle, simple tone of sacred poetry, (such are several of Bishop Heber's,) that they are anything but desirable for children. Bad taste often leads to bad feeling and bad doctrine.
The collector of these hymns is entreated to believe that all this is said unwillingly. But the country is deluged with collections of sacred poetry for children; and, very injudiciously, teachers and directors of national schools are crying out for more fresh ones. The answer to that cry will be a supply of cant, common place, and bad taste. It can be no other, for the world cannot produce sacred poets whenever national schools please to call for them, and therefore, if they will have a supply, they must have a bad one. The effect in those schools will be a love of a certain canting tone and phrases with which these works will familiarize them. In the higher orders more mischief still will be done, because the taste also will be spoiled.
An Examination of Dissent, &c. By Theron. London : Seeleys. 1835. Tuis is a repetition of what we have had fifty times before,—of fat rectors, who preach only morality; the great improvements from extempore preaching and Gospel divines; pluralities and non-residence ; altering the Liturgy; and thus curing the evils of dissent. It is about as dull and as self-complacent as the rest of the works in the same line.
Reasons for Conformity to the Church of England Defended. By T. Gibson.
Exeter. 1835. These local discussions often do more good than general ones, by exciting attention in particular districts. Mr. Gibson seems able and earnest. It is only to be regretted that he and his antagonist are so personal.
Horæ De Decanice Rurales, &c. By the Rev. W. Dansey. London: J. Bohn,
and others. 1835. 2 vols. Small 4to. Mr. Dansey gave us, two or three years back, a small publication on the subject of Rural Deans, containing an old treatise on the subject, with commentaries by himself. The present is one of the most elaborate works of the kind which the present day has seen. It contains a complete account of this useful and important office, as exercised here and abroad, and goes back to the earliest periods in which we find any account of it. Mr. Dansey adds to the fondness of a genuine antiquary for his own pursuit, that diligent research, extensive reading, and knowledge of primitive antiquity which distinguished the scholars and divines of other days. The work is most elegant in its form and appearance; and has no other fault than that it may be too costly to get into all the hands in which one would wish to see it.
The Air. By Robert Mudie. Ward and Co. 1835. Royal 18mo. This work seems entitled to the same praise as Mr. Mudie's other works of a similar character.
It is hoped that every one interested about education will read a most excel. lent pamphlet, entitled “On the Study of Mathematics as a part of a Liberal Education. By the Rev. W. Whewell, M.A., Tutor of Trinity College, Cam. bridge." It is a matter of sincere pleasure, also, to notice the appearance of the second of Mr. Mitchell's series of plays of Aristophanes, “The Wasps," in which he inculcates principles of the most sound and valuable kind, while he gives the student a taste for sound scholarship. The last Number of the Memorials of Oxford contains very interesting drawings of two of the old and very curious churches in that city. The views in Scotland, and those in Switzerland, continue with their accustomed beauty and cheapness. Mr. Churton has commenced a series of Illustrations of the New Testament, by Messrs. Westall and Martin.
A second Part of the Psalmist, by Vincent Novello (a collection of psalmtunes), has been sent to the office, but there is no account of the plan; and the first number, which probably contains it, has not been sent.
(From the Gloucestershire Chronicle, Oct. 31.) We have been told so often that we are quite tired of hearing it (to say nothing of its being a lie), that it is most unkind, uncharitable, and even unjust, to charge people wlth intentions which they disavow, and projects such as they profess to abhor. But, be this as it may, we cannot help doing it; and have never been able to muster liberality enough to get over the comfirmed habit. On the contrary, we think it very possible that, both at the Old Bailey and elsewhere, we may have heard people most fervently disavow intentions with which they were very justly charged, and for which the judge and jury, uncandid as it might be, had them hanged. And, really, were we to look out of our window about midnight, and to see a gentleman prowling up and down the road, with a dark lantern in his hand, and a very investigating eye kept towards the hedge of a rick-yard, we should somehow instinctively suspect that he was one of the Swing family. He might tell us, in a chatty good-humoured way, that he abhorred all such vile proceedings, and was the last man in the world to think of any such thing—that he was only taking the air for the benefit of his health
that the lantern was only to light his pipe, as anybody might see by his carrying it dark-and that he had a right to walk on the king's highway, without being suspected of rick-burning, unless he openly avowed the intention. Still-somehow-something would remain in our minds, like what Dr. Caius felt, when he asked, “ What shall the honest man do in my closet ?"
Something like it, too, we feel with respect to the proceedings of the dissenters. They tell us that they do not wish to create disturbance, or produce revolution--that they are a remarkably quiet, inoffensive, loyal, and religious people, and for their own sakes we hope that many of them are so, though they have a very odd way of shewing it. Indeed we wish that we could believe this feeling to be as general as some persons pretend: but if it is so, what can they mean by setting up and maintaining a newspaper like the Patriot? Our readers know, or ought to know, that this paper is the acknowledged and accredited organ of the most respectable part of the dissenters. A leading article in the Patriot is not an expression of mere private opinion. What is so printed and published is not to be got over by saying, “Oh! there will always be in the best and the most select societies, some weak and violent persons who (all that one can do) will say foolish things, which grieve their pious friends and injure the cause of truth.” The Patriot is not even a private speculation, which, though opposed to the great body of respectable dissenters, has somehow or other contrived to keep on its legs, and to ricket along through a few years, by catching at anything which might happen to come in its way. Very far from it. The publication of the Patriot was, we believe, determined on “ At a Meeting of Evangelical Dissenters of different Denominations, held at the Congregational Library, December 23d, 1831. Thomas Wilson, Esq., in the chair ;” and the “ Provisional Committee" then appointed, consisted of the Rev. T. Binney, Rev. John Blackburn, Rev. John Campbell, Rev. J. Clayton, jun., M.A., Rev. F. A. Fox, L.L.D., Rev. Joseph Fletcher, D.D., Rev. John Leifchild, Rev. Isaac Mann, M.A., Rev. Robert Philip, Rev. Thomas Price, Rev. Arthur Tidman, together with several other gentlemen--among others less known, John Wilks, Esq., M.P., Thomas Wilson, Esq., and Joshua Wilson, Esq. Now a paper thus set up is, if any thing can be, the organ of a body; and if anything else could be required to shew that this is really the case with regard to the Patriot, it is furnished by a fact which has lately transpired. In the accounts of the late solicitor and secretary of the deputies, and the united committee those who know anything of the dissenting interest will know that we are speaking of the representatives and acknowledged leaders of the dissenters throughout the country—in the accounts, we say, of the late secretary, (for he fairly told his employers that he was afraid they were sinking into a mere political party, and wished them good day,) which have been printed, if we remember right, within this twelvemonth, we find one item to be for three thousand five hundred copies of the Patriot newspaper. Let our readers, then, take a sample from the Patriot of this week. We reprint the whole article (which stands as a second leader) with its own italics; and if any person can say that he ever read anything more completely radical and revolutionary, he will do us a particular favour by informing us where he found it.
“We need scarcely invite the attention of our readers to the able speech of the Attorney-General on meeting his constituents at Edinburgh. It embraces most of the topics of pressing interest at the present moment; but it evades, rather than meets the great problem— How is the king's government to be carried on with a hostile majority in the House of Lords, who court, rather than shrink from a collision with the representatives of the people? The great difficulty is to find a constitutional remedy for this result of the long reign of toryism, which has left this spawn of ennobled boroughmongers and trimming lawyers behind. But a remedy must be found.”
May we consider this as speaking the sentiments of the great body of dissenters, and particularly of the provincial dissenting ministers? We ask this question, because we know that it will meet the eye of a good many of them. Are we to understand it as their language? Or, if it does not express their feelings, will they DARE to say so? If they are silent, will it not lead churchmen to ask, why?