ON THE VALIDITY OF THE ORDINATIONS OF THE ENGLISH, AND OF THE SUCCESSION OF THE BISHOPS OF THE ANGLICAN CHURCH; WITH THE PROOFS ESTABLISHING THE FACTS ADVANCED IN THIS WORK: BY THE REV. FATHER PIERRE FRANCOIS LE COURAYER, CANON REGULAR AND CHIEF LIBRARIAN OF THE AUGUSTINIAN ABBEY OF ST. GENEVIEVE AT PARIS. THE OLD TRANSLATION OF MR. WILLIAMS COLLATED THROUGHOUT WITH THE THE REFERENCES AND QUOTATIONS VERIFIED AND CORRECTED. To which is added, BESIDES MR. WILLIAMS'S PREFACE AND OTHER EDITORIAL MATTER, WHICH IS ALL RETAINED, 1. AN INTRODUCTION CONTAINING SOME ACCOUNT, AS WELL of the PRESENT AND RABLE CONTROVERSIES TO WHICH THIS WORK GAVE RISE. II. A CONSIDERABLE BODY OF FURTHER NOTES. III. AN EPITOME OF THE WHOLE VOLUME. Labor Emprobus. OXFORD, JOHN HENRY PARKER: RIVINGTONS, LONDON. MDCCCXLIV. THE EDITOR'S INTRODUCTION: CONTAINING SOME ACCOUNT, AS WELL OF THE PRESENT AND FORMER EDITIONS, AS OF THE AUTHOR HIMSELF, AND THE MEMORABLE CONTROVERSIES TO WHICH THE PRESENT WORK GAVE RISE. THE fact that after an interval, apparently, of an hundred and sixteen years, a new Edition of the most celebrated Work yet published in defence of the validity of the Anglican Orders", has at length been loudly called for, is of itself both a safe indication of the great and favourable change which has taken place in the direction of English thought, and also a happy earnest of what, with the Divine blessing, may be hoped from the future. Under these circumstances, particularly, it was felt that all reasonable pains ought to be taken in editing so important a Work. At first, indeed, it was naturally supposed that, with a letter so complimentary as that from the author to Mr. Williams (see p. 11-16), no better warrant could have been desired for reprinting that gentleman's translation as it stood; to have done which would of course have made the republication a comparatively easy task. This process, however, had scarcely commenced, when the present Editor, having occasion to consult the original, was surprised to find that it by no means corresponded so accurately as that letter seemed fairly to imply. Still it was hoped that, On the Nag's-head Fable in particular, a Work intitled "The Story of the "Ordination of our First Bishops in Queen "Elizabeth's Reign at the Nag's-head "Tavern in Cheapside thoroughly_ex"amined, &c.", by Thomas Browne, B.D. 1731, is the fullest examination of all the facts of the case. iv Wretchedness of Mr. Williams's translation.-Why it could [EDITOR'S without the labour and delay of a systematic collation, it might be sufficient to correct such material inaccuracies as might happen to be observed. As the work, however, proceeded, the extreme faultiness of that translation became at length so apparent, as to make it impossible to doubt the absolute necessity of comparing it with the original throughout, and correcting it thereby ;-although it was not until this last business was fairly in hand, that the full truth appeared, how wretched beyond parallel (as one may reasonably hope) that translation was; that in fact there were, comparatively speaking, but few sentences which did not require all but re-writing. In short, to convey to the reader any tolerable idea of the translation, or rather, attempt at translation, in question, one can only compare it to the exercise of a beginner performed with no small haste and carelessness :almost constantly aside of, it very frequently made important alterations in, occasionally even reversed, the meaning of the original; and all this over and above so general an inaccuracy and awkwardness of expression, as to leave (when taken in connection with the above more serious faults) not merely few sentences, but comparatively few lines even, in which correction, more or less, was not required. In addition to all which, very considerable mutilations were also discovered. Some occasional specimens of Mr. Williams's way of translating will be found in the Editor's Notes to the latter part of the Work: to have transcribed throughout even the worst specimens, would have been of itself no slight undertaking. After the preceding account of that gentleman's translation, the reader may naturally wonder, that it was not at once discarded altogether, and a new one substituted in its place. In the way, however, of this, there was a material impediment, namely, that Mr. Williams had had communication with the author, and by his direction made certain alterations in the Work". Had these alterations been formally enumerated, and the original of the substituted passages preserved, the whole might of course have been translated anew, making only the substitutions directed. In the absence, however, of any such specification, Mr. Williams having unfortunately considered his translation "sufficient for the English reader" (p. 10, 1. 7), and been content with inserting in the Appendix the chief of the rejected passages, there was no alternative but to collate his translation throughout with the original French, and distinguish as well as might be, between mere blunders and such alterations as the author might possibly have directed himself. To do this was in general not difficult, the alterations being almost always such as it was quite impossible See p. 10 A (i. e. p. 10, paragraph 1), with the Editor's Further Notes. INTROD.] not be altogether dispensed with.—Dr. Calder's mistakes. V the author could have desired; but where there appeared a doubt, Mr. Williams's rendering has at least been given in the Notes. It is stated, indeed, in the Life prefixed to the Socinian translation (London, 1787)d of our author's Latest Opinions (see below),—a Life, however, which as respects the French part of his career is extremely incorrecte, The word "Socinian" is employed here and elsewhere, in speaking of this translation and its author, as a popular term denoting the heresy which calls itself "Unitarian". By Dr. Calder: see p. lxi, note u. see In the little that is said of that period of our author's life, the present Editor observes the following errors: 1. On p. xiii (the first of the Life itself), he is said to have been born Nov. 7, instead of 17. This mistake however is found in, and appears to have been taken from, D'Hebrail and Laporte's La France Litteraire, in 2 vols., 1769; the authority of which Work is expressly adduced on the same page for another mistake, concerning which note s, p. xv. 2. On p. xv, he is stated to have been "considered as an avowed "heretic on the publication" of his Dissertation in 1723, whereas he was not so considered till about four years after. 3. On p. xvi, Cardinal Tencin is mentioned with the Journalists of Trevoux, Gervaise, Hardouin, and Le Quien as of the number of the "learned men 66 who, on the first appearance" of the Dissertation, presently entered the lists "to combat the new system".. What this Cardinal did and when, the reader will find in note i, p. xlv, and note y, p. xlix. 4. On p. xvi, xvii, the Defence of the Dissertation is said to have been published in 1725, instead of 1726. 5. On p. xvii, the Cardinal de Noailles, instead of the Cardinal de Bissy, is said to have "headed" the Prelates who formally condemned our author's Works. 6. On the same page it is implied that the Dissertation was formally condemned before the Defence, and consistently with this, the latter alone is mentioned as suppressed by the Decree of Council, Sept. 7. 1727. 7. On p. xviii, our author's Oxford D.D. degree is said to have been conferred May, instead of August, 28. 1727. † 8. On p. xxiii, the Abp of Paris is said to have "continued implacable", whereas it appears from our author's own account that the Abp was but forced by others into doing anything in the matter. Something more on this subject will be found in note i, p. xlv. 9. On 66 the same page the Marischal de Noailles, who endeavoured to arrange matters in a friendly way, is called "the Cardinal's brother", instead of his nephew; the brother too having been dead since Oct. 2. 1708. § 10. On the same page our author is represented as having set out for Calais "about "a month after the date of his letter to the University of Oxford", i. e. after Dec. 1. 1727; whereas,-besides that what follows afterwards in the same paragraph, that after three days' delay at Calais, he reached England (it should rather have been London) "towards the end of January", shews sufciently that, travelling in haste, he could not have set out sooner than about six weeks after the date mentioned,-we learn from his own statement (Relation &c. vol. 1, p. 311, 312), that he left Paris Jan. 12. 1728, and therefore that six weeks was in fact the precise period which intervened. 66 66 Such are the errors which the present Editor has observed in the nine short pages which this biographer has devoted at the beginning to the French part of our author's life! Farther on, but connected with the same period,-in that portion of the list of his Works which belongs to this time, the Dissertation is said (p. lxxv) to have been "first printed with the Approbation of the Licenser, that accompanies that Edition"; although this Approbation was purposely withheld at the time, and first published in the Relation &c. A.D. 1729: see note b, p. xvii. 2. In speaking of the unpleasant message which Bp Atterbury received from the French authorities on the occasion of our author's escape, this biographer has mistaken Cardinal Fleury (see p. xlvii) for the Cardinal de Noailles. 3. He misdates as made in England, an observation of our author's to Abp Wake, which was made more than two years sooner: see note h, p. xlv, xlvi. 4. He calls in question the fact of our author's actual excommunication, of which however the sentence itself is preserved in the Relation &c.: see p. 1, note c. Incorrect, however, as is this part of his work, the particulars which he has 15 The substance, it should be observed, of these four mistakes is found in this biographer's chief authority, the Anecdotes of Bowyer, p. 84, 85; the second, however, being expressly corrected on p. 544. The other three are continued in the Lit. Anecd. also: see p. vii. note. |