« PrécédentContinuer »
Leipzig bookfellers, Reinicke and Heinrichs, had concerted measures with the publifher to prepare a French tranflation in Leipzig, to be conveyed from thence, to France, to anticipate the one made at Paris. But in Eng, land the competition was ftill greater. Three bookfellers procured at the fame time, by the quickest conveyance, copies of the original from Germany, and began trandations. The fpeculative Phillips commenced an inftantaneous correfpondence with the publisher, from whom he procured (at a very heavy expence) the original in theets, and placed it in the hands of fix different tranflators in London, in order to anticipate the other publifhers of the fame work, who were likewife ufing every effort to tranf plant this monftrous exotic production. The bookfeller Geifweiller, had already affociated with fome others for its immediate publication; and his tranflation, which the ingenious Mr. William Tooke, affifted by Mr. Hinkely, had compleated with incredible activity, appeared at the fame time with that of Philips's. A third, undertaken by Stockdale, did not appear till afterwards. The gazettes and journals now teemed with extracts from this tale. Mr. Tilefius at Leipzig gave an abridgement, containing about four fheets of the work he had corrected for the prefs,
"In the French papers defences appeared of the poor Vaillant, whom the pretended wandering jojner attempted to detect of falfehood in his reprefentations.
"In the St, James's Chronicle, and other London papers, whole pages were filled with extracts from the English translation. But now the ini quity was ripe for detection, and every thing confpired to bring the matter to light. About the fame period when the rumour of this work had fo generally gone abroad, there appeared in the Literary Magazine of Gottin gen, and in the Univerfal Literary Gazette of Jena, by the learned critics Meiners and Paulus, evident teftimonies of the fabrication by Damberger; in which the deception is unmasked by an exposure of a thoufand glaring inconfiftencies and grofs miftakes, both in the fciences of geography and natural history, The author and publisher were both called upon to defend themselves.
"The publifher, Martini, at Leipzig, having entertained fome fufpicion of D'amberger a fhort time after their engagement, which increased with a farther acquaintance, began to compare the MS. of Jofeph Schrodter edited by Wolf, and Zacharias Taurinius published by Jacobaer, with that of D'amberger in his poffeffion; whence he was convinced, that the fhoemaker Schrodter, the printer Taurinius, and the joiner D'amberger, were only one perfon with three different names.
"He fummons him before a magiftrate. The wretch appears; and, without any appearance of confufion, confeffes that he is the identical Taurinius, as well as his reafon for taking the name of D'amberger; but pofitively denies that he was the author of the work which was published under the name of Schrodter; alledging that he had only affifted Schrodter, who refided at Hamburgh, as an amanuenfis, because that man was unable to write. With regard to the travels, he maintained his own perfect rc&ttude, as they contained authentic materials, with this difference only, that not D'amberger, but he himself had undertaken the wonderful voyage to Africa before mentioned. He alledged as the reafon for affuming this name, that he had travelled in the caravan of a man fo called through Barbary to Morocco. That the real D'amberger had been likewife at the Cape, and in the fame yeffel in which he, Taurinius, had gone, but afterwards proceeded
proceeded to Holland, where he had again entered into the Dutch service, and now was probably fettled at Surinam. Taurinius had given the fame depofition to two literary gentlemen of Weimar, named Bertuch and Bottiger, whom he had formerly promifed, by a public declaration, to vifit, in order to juftify himself to them; which juftification, together with his mode of living, they had publifhed in the Literary Magazine of Jena. in this depofition the moft glaring contradictions are difcoverable, by which the whole fcheme of impofture is unfolded."
The London bookfellers, who published the English translation of these pretended travels, we think, are very juftly punished for the ridiculous anxiety which they difplay for the fpeedy importation of all the fustian and ribaldry of the German School, which tend not only to corrupt the taste but to deprave the manners of our country.
The fame man is faid, by the author of the pamphlet, to be the fabricator of all the three works above-mentioned, though published under different names. We heartily with that no greater impofitions were practifed by the German Literati; and that none of them were more guilty than this wretched thoemaker, who was probably stimulated to commit the forgery the calls of hunger.
This little tract is evidently the production of a foreigner;-it contains only nineteen pages, widely printed, including two title pages, and two blank pages, and is charged one filling; by which we fuppofe that Mr. Geifweiler is willing to indemnify himself for the lofs which he must have fuftained by publishing one of the tranflations of Mr. D'Amberger's forgery.
The New Speaker; or English Class Book, confifting of I. Moral and In Atructive Effays. II. Narrative and Pathetic Pieces. III. Dialogues. IV. Orations and Harangues. V. Epiftles. VI. Mifcellaneous Pieces. VII. Select Poetical Varieties. To which are prefixed, a short fyftem of • Rhetoric, and an Effay on Enunciation or Delivery, chiefly abftracted from Blair's Lectures. For the Ufe of Schools. By Wiliam Mavor, L L D Author of the British Nepos, Natural History, &c. &c. Wallis, London. 1801.
TRACTENT fabrilia fabri may jufly be applied to thofe who write or compile books for the ufe of fchools. We believe Dr. Mivor has long been in the habits of teaching, with fuccefs, and feveral of his publications are excellently adapted for the rifing generation, among whom we know they are general favourites, as well as with their parents and tutors. The New Speaker appears to us a real improvement on Enfield's, particularly in ar rangement, claffification, and copioufnefs. Indeed it is totally diftinct from, yet an auxiliary to, that valuable compilation. The different articles are fe jected with tafte and judgment, and their tendency is uniformly good. The work is infcribed to the Archbishop of Canterbury,
The Sin of Schism; a Sermon. By Edward Pearson, B. D.
TO THE EDITOR.
EXTÉNUATION and candour tread as often on the lips of the Critical Reviewers, as caution and politeness on those of the Monthly. But that these vir
tues are only preached, and not practised, by this society of Gentlemen, is abundantly evident from their review of Mr. Pearson's sermon on the Sin of Schism. As it is but short, I beg you to favour your readers with á sight of it, from their Monthly Catalogue for January, 1801, p. 105. It runs
'A very judicious well-timed discourse on a sin very prevalent in these days. It arises in part from a negligence in the performance of the duties of the church by its ministers-in part from a want of union in the church in the meaning of its articles; but in a much greater degree from the want of a due consideration of the nature of the Christian Church, from the zeal of schismatical preachers, and from that fanaticism to which the vulgar are prone, when sufficient care is not taken of their spiritual instruction. It is in vain that the preacher points out the wretchedness of schism, unless he is in season and out of season, instructing his fiock in evangelical truth. If he be remiss, or if he dole out 10 them the meagre scraps of heathen morality, the poor will run to the less learned, but more earnest instructors-to those who speak to the heart, in terms intelligible to themselves, though not satisfactory to the refinement of taste or the acumen of philosophy!'
Such critiques, Sir, demand your particular attention, as a political and literary Censor, and therefore I make no apology for addressing to you a few observations on the subject. Be it understood, that I know as little of Mr. Pearson as of Mr. Pybus; but if the former be author of a judicious welltimed discourse, I think it was the duty of the Critical Reviewers to have treated their readers with a specimen of its excellence, instead of a vague philippic on the church. To step aside, and leave the direct path, in order to insult a body of men long unpopular with Critical Reviewers, by no means evinces that they are a society of Gentlemen. To impute to the Church that sin, of which Mr. Pearson's judicious discourse had irresistibly convinced them that they themselves were guilty as dissenters, is one of the admirable evasions of whoremaster man, who, when conscience flies in his face, can prove himself to have been guilty by spherical predominance. Whatever mischief arises, Mr. Editor, whatever wickedness prevails, it is no longer to be ascribed to the perverseness and depravity of human nature. We are so enlightened and perfected by the new philosophy, and the film of prejudice so happily removed from our eyes, that we can see plainly, that the root of all evil is the existence of the regular clergy. Yes, Sir; and Tenterden Church steeple, as Bishop Latimer observes, must indubitably be the cause of Godwin Sands.
One great reason of the increased confidence with which the Monthly and Critical Reviewers have of late reviled the Church, springs from the modest and humble, but unguarded manner, in which the authors of the Report from' the Clergy of a District in the Diocese of Lincoln, spoke of their own merits as clergymen. "Before we close our enumeration (say they) of the causes to which the decay of Christian piety and practical religion may be ascribed, we desire, under an awful sense of the importance and difficulty of that sacred trust with which we are charged, to declare our humble conviction and our unfeigned sorrow, that the frailties, omissions, and imperfections of the best of us, have contributed in no inconsiderable proportion to lessen the utiltiy of our establishment." I am perfectly aware, Sir, that when we have ione all those things which are commanded us, it is our duty to say, that we are un
* Some read clerical. Utrum mavis accipe; gentle reader. Rev.
profitable servants. But I doubt much, if such a confession ought to be made from the house-top; it should be whispered from one apostle to ano ther; it should be the private and internal suggestion of a conscience anxious to do its duty, and fearful of being checked in its laudable career by ebullitions of vanity and self-approbation. Were I to advise with the Christian minister respecting his public conduct, I should certainly say, sume superbiam quæsitam meritis; let no man despise thee. It was no proof of pride in Samuel, publicly to testify and assert his integrity. A church which openly proclaims itself, in times like these, to be without merit, becomes felo-de se, by provoking and inviting its enemies to violence. In how insidious and disingenuous a manner the Monthly Reviewers have availed themselves of such a convenient handle, may be seen by p. 91 of their Review for January, 1801: how artfully the Critical Gentlemen have applied it, is manifest from the critique before us.
The first insinuation in this elegant morsel, which savours strongly of candour, is, that schism arises in part from a negligence in the performance of the duties of the church by its ministers. The author perhaps intended to be equivocal, and has therefore left us to guess at his meaning: whether he alludes to nonresidence, or the irreverend manner in which the duties of the reading-desk and pulpit may be sometimes discharged, I know not. Let his allusion be to either, we find a strange reason for schism in both senses. Is the service of the church the less orthodox, because irreverently performed? Are her. doctrines less sound and pure, because preached by a curate in the absence of his rector? A justification of schism, full as reasonable, was urged by Mr. Middleton, when he ascribed it to taking tythes in kind.
Insinuation the second, is want of union in the church on the meaning of its articles. Here is strange confusion, Mr. Editor. The want of union com plained of, is manifestly on the side of those who have departed from the church. They who still remain with the church, acknowledge, by the act of adherence, that all is right. They who do not adhere to the church, who do not speak the same things as the church, who are not perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment, are not of the church; they are schismatics, strictly and truly, according to the Apostle's own defi nition in 1 Cor. 1, 10. I recommend, Sir, to the Critical Reviewers, an amicable interview with their Monthly brethren, that they may, by uniting the wisdom of their councils, determine what is the church, and what is not. The latter, for an obvious purpose, at p. 90, of their last number, endeavour to persuade the Mothodists that they are not of the church, but ought to regard themselves as dissenters. The former manifestly confound seceders with the church itself, in order to support an unmannerly assump tion, that schism originates in the disunion of the church as to the meaning of its own articles.
The critique on Mr. Pearson, in the next sentence, kindly condescends to bestow a share of the blame of schism on those who leave the church. It ascribes to them want of due consideration of the nature of the family of Christ, intemperate zeal and fanaticism; but instantly recoils, and imputes the pro pensity of the vulgar to such extravagance, not to its true cause, the obsti nacy, credulity, and fallibility of the mind of man, but to the regular clergy. The case of all, it seems, is, that sufficient care is not taken of their spiritual instruction. If we ask how Critical Reviewers can know that sufficient care is nor taken, they will not be able to inform us that they know it practically by attending our places of worship, but they will refer us to the Lincolnshire Clerical Report. Supposing the modesty of that report had not rendered it a
document somewhat fallacious on this head, will writers of extenuation and candour maintain, that it is possible to conduct the human mind to whatever conviction we please by spiritual instruction? If a single preacher, if a whole established church, be rendered unpopular by scandal and calumny, will not the most saving truths be uttered by their lips in vain? Will not their words fall into the vulgar ear, as profitless as water in a sieve? Again, if a preacher, however meanly qualified, will stoop to base means in order to render himself popular; if he will flatter the sins of his audience, rave and foam in presence of his hearers, and impute his extacies to the Holy Spirit, is it not plain that such a man may instil the most pernicious doctrines with effect, and lead the credulous rabble into whatever enormities he pleases? The Apostles, themselves, with all their supernatural endowments, were not always able to stem the torrent of popular prejudice and phrenzy. What care then, what regard to spiritual instruction can enable their successors to quiet the zeal of schismatical preachers, and the fanaticism of their followers? To say that their want of care is the cause of such zeal and fanaticism, is as absurd as to impute the horrid catastrophes of Paris to the Court of London. The vulgar mind alone can be duped into a belief, that there is the shadow of a connection between the one and the other. Oh! the liberality of Critical Reviewers!
A personal reflection is cast on Mr. Pearson, when his reviewer says, that it is in vain for the preacher to point out the wickedness of schism, unless he is at all seasons instructing his flock in evangelical truth. If the critic does not mean to insinuate that Mr. P. is personally culpable, he aims a blow at the church through the sides of Mr. P. for which both may thank him as a striking proof of forbearance, politeness, candour, and Christian charity.
This extremely liberal critic proceeds to insinuate, under the convenient mask of hypothesis, that Mr. P. or the church, or both, are remiss, and dole out to their congregations, the meagre scraps of heathen morality; and that to this cause we are to look, for one of the reasons why the poor run to the less learned, but more earnest instructor. I doubt not, Sir, that this hostile separatist could produce as many causes for schism, as we have lately heard for scarcity, and that he is sophist enough to fasten them all upon the church. I believe, on the contrary, that the church is as little to be charged with producing schism, as scarcity. That she does not contribute to occasion the former by the means here alledged, that is, by doling out (most liberal expression) the meagre scraps (delightful candour!) of heathen morality, I could prove by appealing to the voice of her pulpits; but the critic manifestly never enters a church; I must therefore be content to refer him to sermons recently published by the regular clergy, of which, since they are not despised and overlooked by Anti-Jacobins and British Critics, so contemptuously as by Monthly and Critical Reviewers, I am able to produce two creditable instances which entirely defeat his assertion. Let it be remembered, that the clergy are accused of not instructing their flocks in evangelical truth; that is, in the trite phrase, they do not preach the gospel. Such an accusation is at least implied, and lies concealed among the meagre scraps of this designing
At page 21, of the British Critic, for January, 1801, the Reviewer will find Sermons preached to a Country Congregation, by William Gilpin, Prebendary of Salisbury and Vicar of Boldre. Here then we have an admirable opportunity of judging what sort of doctrine the church preaches, in these days of heathen morality, to the poor. What then, let us inquire, are the subjects discoursed apon by this Vicar of the Church? Sermon I. On the gradual progress of