Mr. HONE and the Quarterl...
The Times, 1824-10-06T00:00:00

Mr. HONE and the Quarterly Reviewers, or one Quar- terly Reviewer, are at work upon each other again. Their quarrel elucidates one point, which, 'we suppose, malignity will not deny now,-namely, that all the abuse bestowed upon Mr. HONE-as sceptic, iBfidel, pagan, heathen-is without the slightest foundation. He might as well be called an Antlhropophagite or an Outrang-outang. He dis- putes like an ortkodox divine, of fathers, Codexes, the canon; and though indeed, having nothing to gain by his orthodoxy, he makes no professien of it, we suppose he is really orthodox. An article in the last Quarterly Re- vieuh. having abused him very bitterly, he recalls his resolu- tion of writing no more, from which professed resolution, he says,theReviewer gained the courage to assault him sobrutal ly ;and'now publishes " Another Articlefor the Quarterly 'tRebiew." Weshall not enter into the dispute, but extract a passage from which the respective candour of the two parties willappear. Eachhasmadeablunder. Mr. HoNEwrites alone: he has no one to consult-no one to peruse his work. The editor, at least, we should suppose, overlooks the articles of his contributors. MIr. HONE acknowledges his error; whereas the Reviewer attempts to palliate his by a fudge, which the editor should not have suffered to appear: as that, he (the Reviewer) mistook the contents of a book because it was erroneously lettered on the back:- "M ly mistake asto Faustus I at once admitted. Its ludicrous. ness excited no one's risibility more than my own. Perhaps it was no palliation that I paralieled with it the reviewer's mistake as to divinity; or, that I instanced, on the authority of Jones and Lempriere, that Jerome and Cornelius Nepos hadblundered in much the same way: such accidental errors are detectable even in Cirto and many of the authors of ancient times-to say nothing of later writers, and sonme who ' flourish' ia our own. Mloreo,er as a farther set-off against Faustus, I pointed out another macula tion in the reviewer. Instead of the Cod.r Jjpocryp1uas', a col'ec. tion of the New Testament Apocrypha by Fabricius in 1703, he had quoted tire ' Codex Pseudepigraphus,' a collection of Old Tes. tament Apocrypha, published by Fabricius, in 1713; on which I remarked, that as 'I mistook the later Faustus for the earlier Faus. tus, the reviewer mistiook the later Codex for the earlier Codex,' and that this brought us in juxta-position. He defends himself from this, by a ' curious' story. 'By somle accident,' bays the ' vera. cious' reviewer very gravely, 'our copy of the first work is lettered Codex Pseudepigraphus Novi Testamertit; and we freely confess that we erred as to the title; but not,' continues the respectable re- viewer, ' as to the work itself; for, all through our article, we cite this book with a specific reference to volume and p:rge, under the same title of Codex Pseadepigraphus.' According to this state- ment, r, also, must ' freely confess,' that any other person may fall into the same error as the reviewer, provided that he have the reviewer's copy of ths book with the 'accident' on the back; provided, too, that, like the reviewer, he refer to the binder's lettering-piece for the title instead of the title- page; and provided further, that alto, like the reviewer, he be so unacquainted with the Codex Apocryphus and the Codex Pseudepigraphus as not to know they are different works All this being premised, any other person, under these circumstances of the reviewer, may go on quoting the Codex Apocryphus ' all through an article, with a specific reference to volume and page, under the title of Codex Pseredepigraphus.' It is evident that thc reviewer was as ignorant that there were two Codices, by Fahricius, till my deteotion of his blunder gave hi,n the information, as I was ignorant that tiere were two persons named Faustus, till his detection of my blunder gave me that informa. tion. It is as impossible that the reviewer, with a competent knowledge of the existence and contents of the two codices, could have quoted the title of the Old Testament "odex, instead of the title of the New Testament Codex, ' all through an article,' as I, had I known of the existence of the two Faustuses, could have mistaken the ianichwan for the bishop. Yet. because lImen- tioned Faustus, with the single word ' learned' prefixed to his name, the reviewer chooses to falsify tlhat prefixiori, into tie ' bestowing commendationis on the learning of a person remmrkable for the want of it;' and he urges this fraudfal dilation, while he himself is actunlly engaged in proving, that I had m.istaken this person for another, whose learning entitled him to tire epithet, and to whom I directed that epithet; andi, not, as the reviewer maliciously counterfeits, to 'a person remarkable for the want of it.' Thus this, his last fabri- cation, folloWs the rest." 'The followinig is Mfr. Hoxu's confession of Iris own faith :-- " ' Infidelity is not so good a trade as it was,' says the reviewer, four or five years ago,' and therefore ' AIr. }tone has published a pamphlet, announcing that his character hns been quite mis. taken.tlmat he is a very sound Christian, and that in his opinion ' Christianity is a pure principle-a menWl iUumination, &c., The latter words lie quotes from my pamphlet, which he takes care to say was published 'nearly three years' after his attack upon rmc. Lord Kanies, I think, remacks thia it is in some degree a plea of' guilty. to be over hasty or solicitous in making a defence. lIv grounds for answering his first aggression at such a distanoe of time from thie assault, are stated in the pamphlet at considerable length. Thesa lie elects to conceal, and as he elects also to garble apassage from the answer I tlhen made to his charge of ' Ififidelity,' It ball extract the paragraph in which that passage stands. It is introdu ced bj the observation, that as a bookseller and publisher, I never speculated in any thing opiposed to my own selitirnents that I view those who oppose Christianity as opposed to an inde- stmrctible scheme of happiness, wbich in its beneficent progress embraces individuals, and in its final accomplishrment wil include the whole human race; and, that I regard Christianity, not as a patent of privilege to z few, buta grant to all-as the great charter of mankind; defining all rights; prescribing all duties; prohibit- ing all wrong; proscribiug all violence. Upon it every thing that is beneficial or permanent ir society is founded: without it, the advo- cates andsupportersof publicliberty can neitherattatin more normain. tain what they have.' Immediately after this, the paragraph contain. ing the passage garbled by the revienver commences thus ;_ I was btought up in religious habits, but theie are aurfaes,, not principles. They were worn offby circumstances in early youth, when * chlew. ing the cqd of sweet and bitter fancy,' I wondered at the world and at myself, and thewy after theory arose as the waves, weltezing art, diAliiq,,l!lig.lently -Afg for tuil, I c.,nve-sed with books rather than men, and hewed out principles as I ; her a litl nd ere a litte It is asd, that . azyopur nba commence 1dwoas at first, they doet kL-H why, ,,I with a blind zeal lersit in a religion which is they know not what.' (Jones or thc CO-, voL L p. 14.) 1 am not nmong that number; for it waS by patient rese'ich and painful process that I arrived at that cear eviderce for the truth of Chris. tianity, which, if sincerely And diUgently sought, is found to be ir- resistible. My religion is the retigion of the New Testament. As taught and exemplified by Christ himself, it Is the perfectiol of al - knowlege, ' which is, and wtich was, and which isto come.' I: in infinitc wisdom."