ticular request of,

Your moft obedient fervant,

TIMOTHY TROPELOVE.

Somewhere, Dec. 5, 1783.

ABOUT BOUT this time appeared a book, intituled "A Difcourfe of Freethinking, occafioned by the Rife and Growth of a Sect, called FREE THINKERS." The dangerous tendency of this work, which was generally read, determined Bentley to anfwer it publickly, under his affumed name of Phileleutherus Lipfienfis. He addreffed his reply to Dr. Hare, although Collins, the author of the book, had been his pupil. The title was, "Remarks upon a late Difcourfe of Free-thinking; in a Letter to F. H. D. D. by Phileleutherus Lipfienfis."

In the addrefs he compliments Hare upon the care and secrecy with which he conveyed his annotations on Menander to the prefs, which encouraged him to fend him these remarks on Collins.

Dr. Salter has informed us, that Bentley is not ferious, when he compliments Hare for his taciturnity and fecrecy, with refpect to the emendations of Menander. He has not, however, declared his authority for fuch an affertion, and if it was conjecture, there feems no foundation upon which to build fuch a fufpicion. It does not appear, that the delay of the papers was occafioned by any mistake of Haret, or that he ever betrayed the fecret. At this time, though they afterwards quarreled, he almoft idolized the Matter of Trinity-College; Scioppius fcarcely venerated Scaliger in a higher degree. Why then fhould Bentley pay him any ironical compliments?

PLATO, de Legib. IV.

These remarks deferve the highest commendation, whether we confider the defign or the execution. Those powers of ratiocination, that lively wit, that quickness of imagination, and that penetrating acuteness, which fhope fo confpicuously in the differtation on Phalaris, were now again difplayed. Ignorance and perversion were never more thoroughly expofed.

Thefe Remarks, and the introduc. tory letter, afforded Dr. Hare an opportunity of publicly demonftrating his regard for Bentley; and in the courfe of the year he addreffed a pamphlet to him, intituled "The Clergyman's Thanks to Phileleutherus Lipfienfis, &c." in which he urged the author to continue and complete his remarks.

This

Before the expiration of the year, therefore, appeared the fecond part of this critique on Collins, with another letter to his friend H. H. in which he affures him, that his requeft was his only inducement to purfue the fubject, as he had many weighty reafons which urged him to remain filent. publication did not complete his original defign, but contains a critical examination of the tranflations which he gives of his quotations from the ancients. But Collins did not require fo acute an examiner to refute his erroneous affertions. Bentley difplays his ufual penetration, but the fubject finks beneath him: "The former part of the book (he fays in his introduc tory letter) contained matters of confequence, and gave fome play to the anfwerer; but the latter is a dull heap

of

5

of citations, not worked, nor cemented together, mere fand without lime; and who would meddle with fuch dry, mouldring ftuff, that with the beft handling can never take a polish? To produce a good reply, the firft writer muft contribute fomething: if he is quite low and flat, his antagonist cannot rife high; if he is barren and jejune, the other cannot flourish; if he is obfcure and dark, the other can never fhine."

Such is the defcription which Bentley gives of his fituation, when he wrote these remarks. Yet this fecond part is equal to the former, in point of critical fagacity, and farcaftic ridicule. Nor is it in any degree inferior, with respect to learning, as far as Collins gave fcope for a difplay of his wonderful erudition.

Thefe two parts were univerfally read and admired. Even his enemies were filent. No caviller dared to attack this admirable performance. Collins forfeited his reputation for learning and abilities, and his book, which had been held up as a model, funk into obfcurity. Eight editions of thefe Remarks have been published, and he began a third part, at the defire of Queen Caroline, when fhe was Princefs of Wales. Of this only two half fheets were printed, and not much more was written; for Bentley wrote his remarks sheet by fheet, as the copy was wanted by the printer. During his difpute with the Univerfity, in 1717, he gave up this defign of finishing his obfervations; nor could he ever be perfuaded to refume the fubject. At the fame time he declared, with great indignation, that thofe in whofe favour he wrote, were as bad as thofe he wrote against.

The few pages which are published of this third part contain remarks upon fome paffages from Lucan, which Collins had quoted, about Cato. It is much to be lamented, that he never finished this piece of criticifin, for however trifling was the value of the

the book, there is fuch a fprightlinefs, and wit in his manner of confuting his antagonist, that entertains, while it convinces.

On the fifth of November, 1715, Dr. Eentley preached a fermon upon Popery, before the Univerfity. This deep difcourfe is replete with erudition, and was calculated for the learned body before whom it was delivered. It, however, afforded an opportunity of beginning a new affault to fome of his enemies; who foon after publifhed fome remarks on the fermon. This was one of the few attacks which Bentley did not bear in filence. When thefe petty fcribblers criticifed his claffical erudition, he felt conscious of his fuperiority. This pamphlet, however, was too fcurrilous not to provoke notice, and in 1717 he published an anfwer, intituled: "Reflections on the fcandalous afperfions caft on the Clergy, by the Author of the Remarks on Dr. Bentley's Sermon on Popery, &c."

In the year before this, 1716, two letters were addreffed to him, refpecting an edition of the Greek Teftament, for which he had long been collecting materials. Thefe were published with the Doctor's anfwers, in which the public were informed, that the Doctor did not propofe ufing any manufcript in this edition which was not a thoufand years old; and at the fame time added, that he had twenty of this age in his library.

The following year produced a new antagonift. Mr. Johnfon, a fchool maiter, at Nottingham, attacked with great virulence, and confiderable ability, Dr. Bentley's edition of Horacet.

This publication was delayed by Johnfon's illnefs, but however out of date it might appear, he tells us in a long preface, that he was determined to publish it, becaufe the authors of the former remarks on the Doctor's Horace had not mentioned the most glaring errors.

At the end of the preface, he has collected Bentley's egotijms, or the paffages in which he has mentioned him

felf:

felf; and after them his reflections on other writers. Among the former, he has inferted feveral which have no title to a place in fuch a collection; and many of the latter are as juft as they are fevere.

To follow this writer through all his animadverfions would neither be ufeful nor entertaining. Like moft other commentators, he appears to be fometimes right, and frequently wrong, in his criticiims on Horace. He was a good fcholar, but an exccrable critic. He had not tafte enough to difcover the value of many of Bentley's conjectural corrections, though his extenfive reading enabled him to point out feveral of the great critic's errors.

In addition to the emendations which we have already tranfcribed*, we muft add one or two more:

Horat. Ars Poet. 121.Honoratum fi forte reponis Achillem, Impiger, iracundus, &c.

For honoratum, Bentley, with a critical fagacity which has been rarely equal led, propofes to read Humereum, which Hurd has admitted into the text, in his edition, as indeed he has almoit all the readings of our British Ariftarchus. If you infert the character of Achilles, as it is drawn by Homer, into your work, let him be

"Impiger, iracundus, inexorabilis, acer, Jura neget fibi nata, nihil non anoget armis." The fon of Peleus, indeed, was dreaded on account of his courage, but if we confider his ftory, we do not find that honours were often showered down upon him. On the contrary, Agamemnon takes away his mifirefs, Bonis man, or, as Horace files her, Brifeis niveo colore; and though he had plundered fo many cities, yet did the commander in chief always carry off the richett fpoils, and enjoy the treafures which were acquired by his labours:

-Dice Taupe dacconelo, moxha d'exɛcvert. In Serm. II. Lib. 2, v. 120, Bentley corrects the punctuation of paffage, in which he fuppofes that Ho

race refers to an inedited epigram of Philodemus. Above forty years after, the epigram was published by Reiske, in the Authology of Cephalas, and confirmed his conjecture. Toup doubts, whether the Roman poet conceived the meaning of the epigrammatift; he, however, gives the lines, with our critic's emendation, which affords a fplen did inftance of his acumen, that can never be praised too highly, or too frequently. But let us proceed.

Some of Johnfon's remarks on the Latinity of Bentley's notes are just and acute. They difplay great knowledge of the language, and infight into the modes of expreffion adopted by the beft Roman authors. But let it not be fuppofed that our critic is the only modern who deferves cenfure, on this account. Scioppius wrote a book against the Latinity of Strada, and the learned H. Stephens another of uncommen excellence on that of the great

ipfius. Markland, in more modem times, is not always equally correct in his annotations; and it would be found that even the great Toup, who is the Corypheus of Grecian literature, in the prefent age, if his preface to Longinus were exainined by a rigid grammarian, can fometimes, as well as critics of inferior rank, write inattentively, and adopt

"a Avle

In

Pa

"So Latin, yet fo English all the while.” Why does he ufe the ambiguous if not unclaffical phrafe of Longinum HER uno in loco reftituimus, which may mean not once, as well as more than once. another place he fays, non femel. blicafe is ufed by Pliny, in the fenfe of publishing a book, but, we believe, not by the writers of the Augustan age. Adene often begins a fentence, but not adeo ut, which requires a fubj. mood after it. Toup is wrong, when he puts an Indic. Cicero fays: Remp. funditus amifimus, adeo ut Cato adolejcers nullius confiliivix vivus effugeret." Ad Q. frat. et alibi. In page 4. Vocat fhould be vocavit, as the other verbs in

66

fettled. Dr. Bentley, however, ftill infifted upon his claim, but at laft was contented with a promiffory note from feveral of them, by which they engaged to pay the fee, if the difpute was determined in his favour, and even with out money or bond he fubmitted to create one of the King's doctors.

In this fituation the affair refted for above a twelvemonth. The illegality of his claim, indeed, was conftantly urged, and his right to the four guineas was continually debated. The demand was certainly great, and vindicated by no ftatute. Let it be remembered, however, that fome of the fees claimed by the Vice-Chancellor, and by the Chancellor's fecretary, and by other officers of the Univerfity, are not ordered by the book of ftatutes. The Profeffor of Divinity alfo, it fhould feem, has a right to confer degrees only, because he is a doctor, for the Chancellor ordered the ceremony to be performed by any other doctor: fo that he feems to be at full liberty to refufe, as the Univerfity does not appear to have any power to oblige him, at a fixed rate, or even at all, to perform the ceremony.

As the Chancellor had declared against this new fee, and as Dr. Bentley had created fome Doctors, without either fee or note, Dr. Middleton thought himself intitled to demand the return of his four guineas, although neither the fentiments of the King nor of his lawyers had pronounced the Profeffor's claim unjust.

Bentley refufed to give back the money, Dr.Middleton fent, and then called: but the meffage and the vifit proved equally fruitlefs. He next obtained a decree from the Vice-Chancellor, and a known enemy of the Profeffor was fent on September 23d to arreft his perfon: either through miftake or defign, however, the decree was left at Trinity Lodge, and the orders of the Vice-Chancellor were not executed. On Wednesday, the firft of October, another beadle arrefted him, and the Doctor, though he refufed to obey it at fuit, put in bail, and the following Friday was appointed for the day of trial. Dr. Bentley did not appear, but fent

his proctor. Dr. Middleton obtained permiffion of the court to appoint another proctor for himself, who accused the Profeffor of contempt, for not appearing. The beadle who went with the firft decree was examined, and a complaint was made out of his illufage, at Trinity Lodge. Among other things it appeared that the Doctor had faid: "I will not be concluded by what the Vice-Chancellor and two or three of his friends fhall determine over a bottle."

His words were accounted criminal, and Dr. Bentley was fufpended by the Vice-Chancellor from all his degrees, without citation, without hearing, without notice, who declared that he would vacate the Divinity Profefforfhip in a few days, if he did not make humble fubmiffion.

Never, perhaps, was fo daring and arbitrary an act committed. The Doctor's non-attendance could not be made a plea, as the ftatutes of the Univerfity, as well as the laws of England, determine that the debtor, if he does not appear, fhall forfeit his bail-bond. An action for debt was confounded with a procefs for crimes and mifdemeanors, If any contempt was fhown, it was to the firft writ, which was acknowledged to be invalid, even by the Vice-Chancellor himself, when he granted the fecond, which Bentley obeyed.

The Univerfity, and, indeed, the whole kingdom, were aftonished at this bold exertion of power. Even the lawyers who attended the trial were furprifed at it, although the ViceChancellor publickly declared, that Dr. Bentley's great contempt of the authority and juridiction of the University had rendered fuch a proceeding necessary. The beads of colleges who were then prefent gave their confent to the fufpenfion.

Three days were allowed for the fubmiflion, the feventh, the ninth, and the fifteenth of October. On the two firft, his name was not mentioned, and on the third, the Vice-Chancellor was reminded of it by his brother the Dean of Chichester, before he required the Profeffor to fubmit, and own himself

july