no obscure intimations in various passages of the work." Why, he says, Vol. I. p. 204, that Plantin'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. John, tres sunt." This para. graph (the whole of which I forbear to transcribe) you know to be a quotation from the Encyclopædia Britannica, 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 socinianism? 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 conLains a treasury of sound doctrine," the intimation of his Socinianism would have been luminous enough. But he bas 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 bimself 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 evicent enough." The Editor believes so still. But if the asserting a man to be an Arian proves the assertor to be a Arian himself, does it not follow,

that asserting a man to be a Socinian proves that the assertors are Socinians; and that the Christian Observers are all Socinians, for they assert that the Editor of the Bibliographical Dictionary is a Socinian-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 Eusebius, 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

PHICAL DICTIONARY.

WE are more disposed to commend the general candour of the letter with which the Editor of the Bibliographical Dictionary has favoured us, than 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.

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 for. mer 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 Jaborious 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 nonexistence. 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 under stood as holding rather an amicable conference than a controversy, consid erably underrates our charity, if he imagines that we cannot go at least as far as himself in our opinion of Socini ans, and allow that "several" of tha sect are" men of amiable manners and irreproachable conduct." This is little if any thing, more than we voluntarily admitted concerning Dr. Lardner, at acknowledged Socinian. There ar some other points upon which we d not think it would answer any good pur pose to enlarge: we only add, tha what we said concerning the Socinian ism of the Editor of the Bibliographica Dictionary should have been represent ed, not as a "charge," but as our sus picions.

Having premised so much, we ar ready to admit, and we admit with sin cere gratification, upon the assuranc made to us-an assurance which w cannot question, that our suspicion were without any foundation in the re ality of the case; and, in this respec we here formally surrender them. Bu having done this piece of justice to th learned Editor, we think another du to ourselves. It is unnecessary to in form those who have any acquaintanc with the state of modern literatur that the most insidious attempts an made to propagate heresy, immorality and impiety; and that the most promis ing method to effect this purpose ha

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 undertaking; and those who are engaged in it are peculiarly liable to error. The nature of the case does not admit 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 therefore 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 Biblographical 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 Dictionary, and as it is connected with its context in the Encyclopædia Britannica, would form a very different 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, exulting 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 doubtful even in oppositon to previous prejudices. Cave is, indeed, referred to, and he is well known to be the best champion for Eusebius's orthodoxy; but in truth a bare reference has little