MR. FABER IN REPLY TO THE EDITOR AND MR. CROSTHWAITE.

SIR,-With your permission, and as a public act of justice to myself, I offer a short reply to your note, which occurs in the British Magazine for this month, p. 43.

You describe me as charging you with unfairness, though you have inserted my letters as speedily as possible.

I respect your sensitiveness on this point, both because the character of an editor, like that of Cesar's wife, ought to be above even suspicion, and because the honour of one, now (I lament to say) no more, was intrusted to your keeping, as his temporary representative.

Yet, if you will reperuse my communication, upon which your complaint is founded, you will perceive that I, at least, have brought against you no charge of unfairness.

This is the simple fact. Nevertheless, though I have brought no such charge against you, it cannot, I fear, be dissembled, that an enemy might do it not altogether without a show of plausibility. The matter stands thus ::

Mr. Dowling's original letter you nakedly inserted, without first sending it to me, in order that I might have the option of his attack and my reply appearing conjointly in the same number of the British Magazine.

But the second part of my reply was promptly sent to Mr. Dowling, instead of being nakedly inserted in your journal; and thus he was privileged to enjoy an advantage which I enjoyed not; though, by your giving such advantage to him, the regular order of attack and reply was exactly inverted.

Were this the whole, your supposed enemy might be deemed captious; but unfortunately for the case, it is not the whole.

If charged with captiousness, he would remark that, not content with giving Mr. Dowling this advantage, (for whether of much intrinsic value or not, it certainly was an advantage,) you associated it with a piece of gratuitous rudeness which was wholly uncalled for. You stated yourself to have sent my communication to Mr. Dowling, in order that he might answer it in the same number, “if he thought it worth his while.'

Now, when Mr. Dowling sent to you his first letter, it was inserted without any intimation that, "if I thought it worth my while," I might answer it; but when my communication was transmitted to Mr. Dowling, the offensive language in question, which apparently does not savour much of fair play, was, after the manner of a partizan, studiously introduced.

As a friend I fairly tell you, that so an enemy might not unplausibly, though doubtless very incorrectly, argue. For my own part, I cheerfully say, that you have acted quite fairly in admitting my papers; and I feel assured that the same inherent love of fairness will secure an admission for this reply to yourself.

You put, however, a plain question to me: "Do you mean to deny, that a published work is not fairly open to criticism?"

Assuredly not. My careful statement of the regular order of replies

and answers attached to my expression, "without the slightest provocation on my part," purely sprang out of your own expression"If he thought it worth his while;" insomuch, that if your expression had been spared, my statement would never have appeared.

I argued thus.

If Mr. Dowling may easily and rationally "think it not worth his while" to answer my reply to his attack, the editor, who employed that phrase, and who by it suggested to Mr. Dowling the propriety of a dignified silence, may peradventure, purely in his critical capacity, "not think it worth his while" to insert that my reply. But with some pardonable feeling (I suppose) of the amour propre, it so happened, that I wished my reply to be inserted. Therefore, quite naturally, I appealed to the Editor's "known love of fair play," (my very words, observe,) against his better critical judgment, which, with much propriety, would deem my reply in itself unworthy of insertion. To your "known love of fair play" I did not appeal in vain; but my conjecture as to your probable low estimate of my reply, which might have shut it out from the British Magazine, is fully confirmed by your present claim of credit to yourself, or even (as you say) more than credit, in neither reviewing my work on the Vallenses, nor in allowing it to be received. [query reviewed.]

No doubt, under your impressions, you act with irreproachable propriety in adopting such a resolution; but your good nature, I am confident, will be gratified by the information, that this critical decision does not occasion me so much disappointment as might have been apprehended. You ask from me-"Did he not send the book to the Magazine, in order that it might be criticized?" This question clearly imports, that you received the book; but as for its transmission, it was assuredly NOT sent, either by me or by my direction, or even with my knowledge. My respectable publisher, I doubt not, sent it purely in the ordinary routine of business. At all events your question puts me in possession of a fact with which I was previously unacquainted.

Mr. Crosthwaite's continuation, as it appears in your January Number, from me requires no answer. That gentleman amuses himself and his readers by exhibiting me personally in the somewhat unlooked-for position of a staunch friend both to the papists and to the presbyterians; but he seems determined not to touch the vitals of the question. I have suggested to him that his real business is to demonstrate, upon competent historical testimony, that the power of ordination was, by the apostles, made exclusively inherent in the episcopate quoad ordinem. When this point is demonstrated, the inevitable result will be, that no ordination, save by bishops, either will or can, under ANY circumstances, constitute a lineal descent of power from the apostles.

Should Mr. Crosthwaite be able to demonstrate the point in question-which task he has hitherto diligently eschewed-he will, of course, stultify Hooker, who, in the depth of his presbyterian and popish ignorance, has declared, that "We are not simply, without exception, to urge a lineal descent of power from the apostles, by continued succession of bishops, in every effectual ordination." But

still, whatever may befal Hooker in the gripe of Mr. Crosthwaite, truth is truth, and must not be set aside by any matter of what the judicious presbyter calls by-regards.

My own ecclesiastical defence of the Vallenses and the Albigenses rests, not as Mr. Crosthwaite would charitably insinuate, upon my dislike of episcopacy and upon my mingled fondness for presbyterism and popery, but upon the precise ground of A NECESSITY, which, in the judgment of the immortal Hooker, can make an ordination valid, though not in a lineal descent of power from the apostles by continued succession of bishops.

Until I shall have been better taught than Mr. Crosthwaite has hitherto taught me, I really cannot exclude my clients from the true catholic church of Christ merely out of compliment - as Bishop Burnett speaks to "that MAGISTERIAL STIFFNESS in which some have taken upon them to dictate in this matter." However, we shall see what Mr. Crosthwaite will accomplish in the way of historical demonstration. I only take the liberty of begging him to keep to the point; a matter for which, as yet, he certainly has shewn no special affection. I have the honour to be, Sir, your obedient humble servant, G. S. FABER.

Sherburn House, Jan. 11, 1839.

P.S.-In your supplement, p. 756, I have just now observed a slight inadvertence in the very curious letter of my friend, Dr. Gilly. He describes me as making Pope Innocent III. use the word Vallenses. Upon this, you ask in the margin, "Where did Mr. Faber find Pope Innocent using the word ?" Certainly, I never found anything of the sort. If you will take the trouble of turning to my work, which you state yourself to have received, though, apparently, you have not read it, you will find that the word, which I cite Pope Innocent as using, is not Vallenses, but Valdenses. See the extract from his Decretal Epistle, which I give at p. 519. I acknowledged myself indebted for it to Archbishop Usher; and I doubt not that the primate was perfectly correct in exhibiting Innocent as using the word Valdenses.*

[The Editor sincerely regrets that he used the expression which has given Mr. Faber offence, as it leads to his being required to explain the circumstances connected with it. In the Notices to Correspondents in the November number, he stated that Mr. Faber's letter (which was inserted) had not reached him until the 23d day of the month, and the postscript not until the 27th, when the Magazine was so far made up that the Notices to Correspondents were actually written. That postscript being professedly written with a view to prevent Mr. Dowling from alleging what Mr. Faber thought that without seeing such a postscript he might allege, and with the declared intention of saving Mr. Dowling trouble, it appeared as if the best way would be to send it to that gentleman at once. How else could it effect the purpose for which it was professedly written? If this had not been done, Mr. Dowling's reply to Mr. Faber's letter would have appeared in the next number with the postscript, which he would not have seen while writing his reply; and which therefore, so far as concerned its professed intention with regard to him, need never have been written at all. Could it have been imagined that the Editor's sending this "postscript" (for it was then called by that name, though now Mr. Faber is pleased to describe it as "the second part of my reply," and to charge the Editor with inverting the "regular order" of attack and reply,) to Mr. Dowling would have been charged on him as a trick intended to give an unfair advantage? And what was the advantage?

ON PRESBYTERIAN ORDINATION.

SIR,-The talent, the research, and the industry which Mr. Faber has shewn in his numerous publications, certainly entitle whatever pro ceeds from his pen to consideration and respect. An error made, or

Mr. Dowling received the manuscript postscript perhaps (for the Editor really does not recollect how long after the 27th of the month it was sent) one or two days be. fore he got the printed letter to which it belonged. How did that help him more than if it had been printed in its proper place, attached to the letter? It is the more necessary to notice this insinuation because it is made under the childish "banter" of a friend speaking like an enemy, which looks very much as if the writer was ashamed to own the silly charge which he was too weak, too angry, and too unprovided with solid grounds for attack, to repress. As to the Editor's language, some indulgence might be asked for words obviously written in the very bustle of publication, and to be printed almost before they were dry. But the Editor has no objection to its being thought that he "studiously introduced" the language which has offended Mr. Faber; for, hastily as it was done, it was not done without some consideration. He at first wrote only-"As, however, it is professedly written to save Mr. Dowling, the Editor, and Mr. Faber, the trouble which might arise from Mr. Dowling's framing a reply, under the idea that Mr. Faber had been guilty of a 'preterition of one part' of his letter, the Editor conceives that the purpose will be effected by his sending it immediately to Mr. Dowling, and inserting it next month, with his reply." But having written this, it occurred to him that he thereby pledged himself to two things-one of which he did not know, and the other of which he would be reluctant to do. In the first place, it seemed to be engaging that Mr. Dowling would reply, while the Editor really did not know whether he would or not. Secondly, it was pledging himself to the public in general, and to Mr. Dowling in particular, that he would publish Mr. Faber's postscript, which he could not help wishing, simply and solely for the author's sake, might be withdrawn. He therefore added to the foregoing words those which have offended Mr. Faber, as well as some others which he has not noticed-"that is, if Mr. Dowling should think it worth while to reply, and Mr. Faber should not express any wish to withdraw his postscript;" the Editor was led to add that part which Mr. Faber has not referred to, chiefly by the consideration of the obvious haste and irritation in which the postscript had been written. Had the former part of this addition produced dignified silence, or silence of any kind in his opponent, Mr. Faber would have had no reason to complain; and had he taken the hint conveyed in the latter part of it, and withdrawn his postscript, it appears to the Editor that his character as a gentleman and a scholar would have escaped a public degradation. Still the Editor acknowledges that, whatever trusts may be in his hands, Mr. Faber's character for learning, civility, and fairdealing, certainly is not; and therefore, perhaps, he was not called upon to throw out a hint which might have led to reflection, and saved it from discredit; but the simple fact is, that he was not satisfied to print such a document as the postscript without having done something of the sort. Mr. Faber may probably meet this statement with sneer, which is habitual to him; but the document is printed, and every man who understands anything of the question may decide whether suggestions which might have silenced Mr Dowling, and led the author of the postscript to withdraw it, were any violation of fair play towards Mr. Faber. The attempt to get outof ignorant misstatement under pretence of "banter," and to exhibit Mr. Dowling as a blockhead too stupid to take the joke, seemed so extremely gross that the Editor really expected to have had its insertion countermanded. At the same time, though he regrets that he thus interfered in this case, he begs it may be understood that he by no means admits what Mr. Faber seems to insinuate by talking of introducing language "after the manner of a partizan." Does he think that an editor should be so completely a beast of burden, that he must not so much as look round while his panniers are loading, and is to come under the lash if he betrays, even by a hitch in his gait, that he considers the right or the left the heaviest? If he does, the Editor begs to protest against the doctrine; and to say, as a matter of fact, that far from pretending to be an indifferent dealer in truth and error, he avows a very strong partiality for what he VOL. XV.-Feb. 1839.

2 B

a point of importance involved in a degree of doubt, and placed in a questionable position, is therefore of much greater moment when it proceeds from such a person than from one whose talents are not so well known. And when we consider the circumstances of the times, and the endeavours which are now made by dissenting preachers to

thinks right, and against what he thinks wrong; that he considers himself at perfect liberty to comment on any letter which he inserts, or give an opinion on any controversy which he allows to be carried on in the Magazine; and he trusts that all those who think otherwise will find some other channel for the publication of their opinions.

As to the book having been sent for review, it may have been wrong to assume its having been sent by the author, though certainly people do generally suppose that books sent by the publisher are so far sent by the author as quite to put it out of his power to complain of being reviewed. It is true that there is no intimation in the volume as to who sent it; and, indeed, no inscription, except "To the Editor of the British Magazine," which is written on the title page,-a place where some authors and publishers love to scribble, perhaps to propitiate the Editor at starting, by shewing him that the presentation copy was really meant for him, and nobody else; or perhaps, with considerate self-denial, to save him from the discredit of having it found on his table or shelf without something to vouch for his not having laid out his money in the article; or perhaps (for charity itself cannot help suspecting that it is a more probable motive than either of the others) to prevent the poor drudge whom the selfish donor has set to bore through the volume from turning a penny by selling it. Be this as it may, however, the Editor is sorry that he assumed Mr. Faber's sanction, if he wishes to disclaim it; which, as it is quite new to him to hear that it is "purely in the ordinary routine of business" for publishers to send works of such a size and price without the sanction of the author, never once occurred to him. He hopes that in future no books will be sent, except by the desire, or at least with the knowledge and consent, of their authors.

As to the matter of Dr. Gilly and the Vallenses, that gentleman may have been guilty of a 'slight inadvertence;" but if he has, the Editor is glad of any opportunity to express his sincere conviction that it was not his intention, in this, or any of his writings, to say what was untrue, though from his not always searching out the alleged authorities of bold and ignorant writers he has sometimes become their dupe. But let us see how Mr. Faber argues-for it is quite worth while to notice a naked specimen of that absurdity which he most commonly conceals by involving it in a childish affectation of syllogism, and a pedantic use of hard words. Dr. Gilly (in the Supplement to the Magazine, p. 756,) gave a list of names by which a certain sect was called, one item of which, without note or explanation, was simply this"1198. Vallenses, Letter of Pope Innocent III., cited by Faber." The Editor asked Dr. Gilly where Mr. Faber had found the pope calling the sect Vallenses? and Mr. Faber infers from it that he cannot have read his work, for in that work he does not cite the pope as calling them Vallenses, but truly and correctly, and much to the discomfiture of Mr. Faber's own hypothesis, Valdenses. What would have been thought of the Editor's logic, if he had said, " No, Dr. Gilly; Mr. Faber never cited Pope Innocent as saying Vallenses,' for in his work,' p. 519, he cites him as calling them Valdenses'"? Dr. Gilly might answer, that he said nothing about that work, or any particular work; but could shew one where Mr. Faber does represent the pope as calling them Vallenses. In his Sacred Calendar of Prophecy, vol. iii. p. 45, he says, "In the year 1198, this pontiff addressed a letter to the bishops of Southern France and Northern Spain, where the persecuted and maligned Albigenses had many followers; and in this letter he declares that the Vallenses and the Albigenses were equally heretics." Who that should read this passage without the original words, (which do not accompany it,) and with a knowledge of the stress laid upon the spelling of the name with or without a d, as indicating its derivation from their locality in vallies, or from Valdesius, or some other form of their leader's name, but would imagine that the pope had countenanced that mode which Mr. Faber maintains? And does it not form some ground for thinking it probable that, somewhere or other, Mr. Faber might have done what so respectable a writer as Dr. Gilly affirmed that he had done, and for asking where the citation was to be found?]