Lectures in Print
Lectures in Print
Abstract and Keywords
This chapter moves away from academy life to present a series of publishing histories investigating the collaborative publication of educational works attributed to a single author. Doddridge’s Course of Lectures and ‘Lectures on Preaching’ are described, and the collective effort undertaken by Doddridge’s former students to ensure that certain parts of his educational system were made available in print is demonstrated using the correspondence of his widow, Mercy Doddridge. The chapter explores different attitudes to publishing among members of Doddridge’s circle and presents information about Dutch and French translations of Doddridge’s teaching materials. It shows that these printed lectures were not only of interest to dissenters but were used in other educational environments, further demonstrating the influence of dissenting educational modes on the English universities, colleges in America, and among Catholics.
On 25 April 1763, the forthcoming publication of Doddridge’s A Course of Lectures on the Principal Subjects in Pneumatology, Ethics and Divinity was advertised in the London press. On Thursday 28 April, the public was told, the lectures ‘Neatly printed in One Volume Quarto’ would go on sale priced at sixteen shillings.1 Since this represented the first published appearance of Doddridge’s method of teaching, it is worth outlining the publishing landscape for works deriving from institutional lectures in the period. The lectures made their debut on rather an empty stage. Very few editions of theological or philosophical lecture courses from academic institutions were being published at this time or for several decades to come. When materials were printed it tended to be in the form of ‘heads’ (a summary of topics) rather than complete texts and the purpose of these was primarily to attract current university students to current courses.2 A Course of Lectures—published twelve years after Doddridge’s academy had closed—was far more substantial. It detailed all the information, arguments, and references for the complete, ten-part interwoven series of lectures on pneumatology, ethics, and divinity delivered at Northampton. In this respect it was closer to materials associated with Scottish universities (such as Francis Hutcheson’s lectures) and to publications emerging from other dissenting academies (such as Henry Grove’s System of Moral Philosophy) which were also posthumously published, though in smaller formats than Doddridge’s.3 While Hutcheson’s and Grove’s publications antedated Doddridge’s lectures, there is nothing to suggest that his editors (p.90) consciously followed the example of their editors in the presentation of lecture room materials in print.
Printed texts based on academy lectures in subjects other than philosophy and theology were available, usually (though not always) also in the form of ‘heads’. These latter were printed locally and were probably, like the Oxford and Cambridge texts, for the use of current students.4 The diverse appearance of all these books of lectures from universities and academies in England and Scotland suggests that, unlike manuscript production and circulation, there was no settled tradition for presenting higher-level educational material in print in the middle decades of the century. Further, the overlapping presence of manuscript and printed copies of lectures in classrooms and libraries as described in Chapter 2 suggests that the two forms coexisted in complementary ways right through the eighteenth century. Even though the increasing number of tutors committing their lectures to print does indicate a slow culture shift, print did not completely replace manuscript as the preferred mode of lecture dissemination in dissenting academies.
Doddridge’s Course of Lectures was an unusual publishing project. Its elaborate structure, complicated mise-en-page to represent the mathematical method, large format and extent (600 pages), and expense placed the book beyond the means of most students and set it apart from more modest publications based on academic lectures. The nature and extent of the work’s life following its first publication is also unusual. It had three editors (Samuel Clark, Andrew Kippis, and Edward Williams) over a forty-year period. In this chapter, the reasons for and consequences of the lectures’ periodic republication are considered through readings of the prefatory rhetoric and textual interventions of each editor. Both Kippis and later Williams modified the work of their predecessors and made claims for a uniquely faithful relationship between their version of the lectures and Doddridge’s own course, which the texts themselves belie. Each editor expresses his view of what the publication did to Doddridge as an author, to the lectures as a resource, and to their own dissenting community. The distinct appearances of printed publications under different editors and in different languages is unlike the gradually changing shape of his lecture course as represented in manuscript copies of student lecture notes. This chapter sets out the practical and intellectual dimensions of editing educational works as a form of stewardship by which a pedagogy and philosophy (p.91) are preserved and transmitted. As such, it is concerned with the intellectual, editorial, and financial aspects of educational publishing in the second half of the eighteenth century and proposes that investigating the practice of publishing lectures reveals the interrelations of learned, educational, and religious endeavours in this period.
Editors were extremely important agents in the transformation and dissemination of teaching materials. But there was considerable variation in the duties and attitudes of editors depending on time, their own status, and the nature of the materials being edited. The role of particular editors in the provisional, partial, and cumulative publication of materials whose suitability for print was repeatedly questioned is therefore also explored in this chapter with reference to Doddridge’s ‘Lectures on Preaching’. The divergence of opinion among dissenters about what was fit to be published had a denominational dimension, as readers and editors sought to reaffirm the significance of Doddridge the writer, preacher, and educator as a figurehead for particular orthodox or heterodox branches of dissent. The different formats and print locations in which the ‘Lectures on Preaching’ were published gave it different meanings, and that story of publication can be told in terms of collaboration and the transition from manuscript to print, the movement from the private lecture room to the public world of letters. The publishing histories of A Course of Lectures and the ‘Lectures on Preaching’ together illustrate the different forms educational texts might take in print and the anxieties that attended the publication of dissenters’ teaching materials. But the histories also clearly show that notwithstanding the difficulties they faced, Doddridge’s former students and his widow were united by a strong sense of intellectual and evangelical purpose in carrying out Doddridge’s wishes.
1. Publishing a Course of Lectures
A Course of Lectures had three distinct printed appearances in England as well as editions in Dutch and French in the 1760s and 1770s, in addition to the various manuscript copies in longhand and shorthand that continued to be transcribed and circulated in the century after Doddridge’s death. The first edition of 1763 was reprinted in 1776 in the same single quarto volume format. In 1794, Andrew Kippis’s edition was published in two octavo volumes priced fifteen shillings in ‘common paper’ and one guinea in ‘fine paper’.5 This edition was reprinted in 1799. In the (p.92) nineteenth century, the lectures—edited by Edward Williams—appeared in Doddridge’s complete works published in 1804–1805. They were published separately for the last time in 1822.6
Manuscript copies of the lectures formed part of Doddridge’s literary property bequeathed to his widow Mercy at his death in 1751. His will specified that ‘if the Theological Lectures be printed as I am very willing they should it may be done in a handsome manner and for the benefit of my ffamily’.7 It therefore fell to a woman with no prior experience of publishing and no professional knowledge of the content of academy teaching to manage the publication process. Mercy Doddridge took the task of completing the publication of Doddridge’s educational writings very seriously. ‘[M]y chief concern’, she told a bookseller when negotiating the publication of A Course of Lectures, ‘is to second to ye utmost of my power ye pious intentions of my ever Dear mr D—by spreading [h]is writing as much as possible in the world.’8 Her business acumen and understanding of the booktrade developed rapidly but were severely tested during the decade or so she spent guiding Doddridge’s works into print. Doddridge arranged for assistance by requesting in his will that Job Orton oversee the preparation of the manuscript. He named James Waugh as the publisher, and asked that the work be issued in two quarto volumes. In the event, it was not until twelve years after his death that A Course of Lectures was published in one volume, edited not by Orton but by Doddridge’s former student and assistant tutor Samuel Clark. Mercy Doddridge’s correspondence sheds light on the reasons for the delays to the publication of what Job Orton characterized as Doddridge’s ‘capital posthumous work’ and also reveals how Doddridge’s friends and former students conceived his academy lectures as fitting into the project of publishing his works in order to consolidate his posthumous reputation.9
It also provides substantial information about the legal and financial aspects of publishing academic works. In 1759, during her negotiations with a new bookseller (the colourful and untrustworthy James Rivington), Mercy Doddridge presented the lectures as a tempting commercial proposition by reporting current interest in the lectures from ‘the principle persons of the ye colldge of new Jersey’ and ‘a gentleman of considerable (p.93) rank in Swisstzertzer[land]’.10 In laying out her terms for the sale of the manuscript, she declared a preference to sell the manuscript and rights to publish to the bookseller. Before reaching this decision she had sought advice from several of her husband’s associates. William Warburton advised:
I much suspect (considering the didactic and severe nature of such kind of compositions) that if you published them at your own expense you would hardly be a saver; if a Bookseller would undertake it at his, you would scarce be a gainer. I should therefore propose (if you think you lye under obligations to give them to the public), that they be printed by subscription.11
But rather than retaining the rights to the edition and funding the publication through subscriptions as he suggested, she offered the copyright of the edition for sale.12
The main advantage of selling the copyright was the greater likelihood of swift publication: once a bookseller had paid for a work it was in his financial interest to publish it as soon as possible so that he could begin to recoup his investment. It appears that by 1759 Mercy Doddridge wanted the lectures on sale. She wrote to Job Orton suggesting that he and ‘Mr C’ (presumably Samuel Clark) should work together ‘to fit them for ye Publick’, in accordance with Doddridge’s will. In December 1759, Clark had taken charge of the process and he told Mercy Doddridge:
ye Lect[ures] have been for some time at a stand. He [the bookseller] has several Sheets of ye Copy in his hands: but I have as yet recd but one from ye Press, tho’ that indeed has been printed off 2 or 3 times in order to correct some errors I observ’d in ye 1st Impress—However I shd be glad to receive ye Remainder of ye Copy in yr hands, as soon as you can conveniently send it.13
(p.94) Preparing A Course of Lectures for the press involved not only checking the proofs of this structurally and visually complex work (itself a time-consuming task), but also seeking information on the publication schedule and conveying it to Mercy Doddridge. On her side, acting as executrix required her to supervise the editing, printing, and distribution of the work even once she had sold the copyright.
Some preliminary points emerge from this sketch of the publishing history of the first edition of A Course of Lectures. The publication of the lectures happens quite separately to the concurrent ongoing delivery of the lectures in academies and the production of manuscript copies. Notably, the theology tutor delivering lectures based on Doddridge’s—Caleb Ashworth—is not the editor. This corresponds to a wider pattern for lecture publication in the period: theology tutors do not publish their own lectures, or editions of other theological lectures. The reason may be the practical one that they are too busy teaching to undertake the work of editing. In the case of Doddridge’s lectures, the force driving their publication is not a colleague or tutor but his widow. The impetus comes from Doddridge’s family rather than his academy associates: the motivation is (in Mercy Doddridge’s terms) to honour the author’s memory and (in Doddridge’s own) to secure financial provision for the author’s family, rather than any educational ambition to further diffuse the intellectual and pedagogic practices of dissent. What this set of circumstances says about the status of dissenting education as an intellectual enterprise in the world at large is a question that will be pursued over the duration of this chapter.
2. Editing a Course of Lectures
None of Doddridge’s teaching materials had appeared in print in the form of lectures before, and the matter of whom they were for and what publication was intended to achieve was to preoccupy successive editors. In the case of A Course of Lectures, how to define Doddridge as the author of a printed edition of lectures, which were still the basis of theological education at various academies after his death, was at issue. Doddridge insisted that the structure of the lectures encouraged their adaptation, and their flexibility was integral to their ongoing use. Printing the lectures, however, fixed their form and content for a given edition. It also introduced them to an audience beyond dissenting academies, unfamiliar with and possibly hostile towards Doddridge’s methods. Different editors took different positions on the extent to which Doddridge’s method of adaptation constituted an integral part of his work, and how the printed (p.95) lectures should be used. Successive editorial prefaces are therefore important statements of purpose and interpretation.
Samuel Clark’s ‘Advertisement’ opens each of the eighteenth-century English printed editions of A Course of Lectures and commences with the explanation that:
This work was originally drawn up for the use of the students under the Author’s care; but it appears by a clause in his will, that it was his intention it should be published after his decease.14
The original setting of the lecture room at Northampton academy and Doddridge’s own directions that the work should be published are the frame through which the publication of these lectures is to be viewed. Clark’s two preoccupations in the ‘Advertisement’ are with defending the propriety of the enterprise and establishing its purpose. He balances conventional assurances of fidelity to the source materials (‘I have carefully compared [the transcript] with the original short-hand copy’) with declarations that the work is new and important. He does this by emphasizing that, while the mathematical method came originally from Jennings, Doddridge extended and refined the content of the course to such a degree that ‘the whole may properly be considered as a new work’.15
Clark’s assertion that Doddridge used Jennings’s lectures as his source but modified them as he saw fit underlines that the key feature of the scheme (on Clark’s view) was that its structure permitted additions and alterations. By including this information, Clark provides an implicit justification for his own procedure of adapting existing materials: his approach has been in keeping with the origins of the course and he is following Doddridge’s own practice.16 In this way the published Course of Lectures becomes a location for Doddridge’s ideas and, as importantly, a positive representation of his method. And while Clark acknowledges the originality of Doddridge’s scheme, he carefully reassures the reader that his version of Doddridge’s course is a faithful one: ‘The public may be assured, that the Author’s sentiments have been everywhere scrupulously preserved’ and only ‘a few references have been added’.17 He does not, however, say what these additions are. Nor does he explain that successive tutors have adapted Doddridge’s course, or that a modified version of the course is currently in use at Daventry and elsewhere. While the (p.96) publication of this work might be imagined to have been primarily of interest to men within the sphere of dissenting education, the fact that many of them had access to manuscript copies suggests that just as important a purpose was to portray the extent of dissenting learning to a world beyond the academies. In that case, the presentation of Doddridge’s educational method to the public is rather uneasily poised between celebration and defence.
The title page of the 1794 two-volume edition generates the sense that the work is a refreshed version of the course by specifying that it contains additional references ‘from writers who have appeared since the doctor’s decease’. This expression of improvement is heightened by the use of terms of abundance: ‘added’, ‘a great number of references’, with ‘many’ notes on ‘various’ writers. The editor of this edition was Andrew Kippis, another former student of Doddridge’s academy, who had experienced the system as a student, though Kippis downplayed his own familiarity with the lectures and the circumstances of his encounter with them, saying that he had ‘only been occasionally a reader on a few detached parts Dr. Doddridge’s Lectures’.18 Kippis uses the flexible form of the lectures to add to the references and insert new ideas, and uses this as a way of promoting a new, expanded edition of the lectures. He explains that adding references follows Doddridge’s own practice, thereby drawing on Doddridge’s authority and reputation to legitimize the project. The form of the lectures means that supplementing them enacts fidelity to the author’s ideas and, in Kippis’s representation of it, the editor’s responsibility includes updating the text according to the author’s principles.
Recurring themes in the prefaces to the 1763 and 1794 editions are the richness and variety of the references the work contains and the fact that the present edition conforms to Doddridge’s intentions. In several respects Clark and later Kippis follow the pattern Doddridge instituted when describing Jennings’s academy and thus perpetuate a tradition in the dissemination of dissenting educational materials. They both make claims for the originality of their tutor’s course which echo those made by Doddridge in relation to John Jennings’s method, and their position as former students presenting a version of their tutor’s educational system to the wider world is reminiscent of Doddridge’s own in 1729 as he wrote and circulated ‘An Account of Mr Jennings’s Method’. However, neither editor specifically identifies himself as a former student in the way Doddridge does. The intimacy that Doddridge sought to create through his use of epistolary form, the affective representations of tear-inducing (p.97) memories, and repeated expressions of esteem are absent from these two printed prefatory statements which, though they record respect, do so in formulaic terms. This is partly a consequence of the different expectations surrounding the dissemination of a manuscript epistolary treatise on one hand and printed volumes of lectures on the other. After all, conventions determine the style and content of any written document and formal, rhetorical, paratextual, and memorial traditions all shape the presentation of these lectures.
Though it is far from unusual for a new editor to use a preface to claim that he has updated, refreshed, and improved a work, and though title page wording and layout might be a blunt way of conveying the essence of a text, these were the principal means available for shaping the presentation of a work ‘in the strongest sense’, as Gerard Genette puts it: ‘to ensure the text’s presence in the world’ and to guide its reception.19 Attending to how editors and authors use these conventional elements of a printed book—‘a zone of transition but also of transaction’—to address their reading public can, as Genette demonstrates very thoroughly, offer insights into what those books are made to mean. Genette offers a taxonomy of prefatory functions—to declare novelty or adherence to a tradition; to claim unity and truthfulness for the work; to promote and guide reading—but though he states that ‘the functions of the allographic preface overlap with, but at the same add some specificity to the functions of the original authorial preface’, this is not borne out in his focus on authorial self-presentation and how it determines much prefatory rhetoric. The association of an individual author and a single creative work seems, on Genette’s account, to animate almost all prefaces.20 By contrast, Clark’s defensive specificity (‘my regard to the Author’s memory, and my apprehension of the usefulness of the work itself’ prompt him to explain ‘what has been done in relation to them’) and Kippis’s more celebratory tone (‘I have happily succeeded’ in obtaining the assistance of various tutors in supplementing the references, he proclaims) show two distinct approaches to the conventional matter of explaining editorial rationale. The choices these editors made from within a restricted prefatory vocabulary when framing their versions of Doddridge’s lectures indicate how the lectures have changed since the first semi-public account of them in Doddridge’s ‘Account of Mr Jennings’s Method’. But despite the differences in tone, there is consistency across the two prefaces in the articulation of the key features of those lectures. Both editors highlight the (p.98) abundance of references, the lectures’ usefulness to students, and the desirable intellectual habits of moderation and enquiry that their perusal would form.
In some respects neither Clark nor Kippis was particularly well suited to the editorship of these lectures. Both were former students of Doddridge and had studied the course they now edited, but neither advertised this fact in their prefatory remarks, unlike Doddridge’s ‘Account’. Neither man was a theological tutor and neither worked in an academy at the time his edition of Doddridge’s lectures was published. Clark had been Doddridge’s assistant tutor (meaning he taught classics and mathematics) and led Northampton academy for around a year during Doddridge’s final illness and before the removal of the academy to Daventry in 1752. His final experience of academy teaching of any kind ended almost a decade before the publication of A Course of Lectures. Kippis had been tutor of rhetoric and belles lettres at Hoxton academy from 1764 to 1784, and following the closure of that institution he became a founding tutor at New College Hackney where he lectured on history and chronology between 1786 and 1791 but never ethics or theology. Thus Clark and Kippis, though both educated at Northampton under Doddridge, came to be associated with distinct traditions within dissent over time.
Neither editor made especially confident claims for their own fitness for the role. Clark’s prefatory statements create the impression that he took on the editorship rather unwillingly. Kippis summarizes the requisite qualities for an editor as outlined by Doddridge’s most recent biographer—someone with a knowledge of the history of religious controversies; a tutor who had made use of the lectures in teaching and had updated the references with texts published in the forty years since Doddridge’s death—while acknowledging that ‘I do not completely answer to the whole of this description.’21 There is something of a hall of mirrors at work in Kippis’s preface, for the author of that biography, the originator of calls for a new edition of A Course of Lectures, was Kippis himself, and, the rather thin mantle of anonymity notwithstanding, readers familiar with the 1792 edition of The Family Expositor in which the biography appeared would have been aware of that fact. His other activities in the wider world of polite literature identified him as a man interested in preserving intellectual endeavour in print. He edited the periodical New Annual Register, and was commissioned to co-edit the second edition of the Biographia Britannica (1778–95). Kippis believed a key function of the Biographia Britannica was to record the notable publications of its subjects:
(p.99) it is part of our plan to give copious accounts of the writings of learned men, if they have been in any degree eminent. This is the only way of doing them that full justice, to which, by their merits, they are entitled. From the accumulation of new books, and the revolutions of literary fashion, even works of no small reputation come to be neglected.22
Kippis reproduced his biography of Doddridge from The Family Expositor in volume V of the Biographia Britannica. His attention to Doddridge’s work and life in his literary endeavours prior to his editorship of A Course of Lectures suggests that keeping Doddridge’s memory alive using print was a long-standing project for him, as the biography contains very full summaries of Doddridge’s teaching and publications. Republishing A Course of Lectures, Kippis is attempting to do Doddridge ‘that full justice’ of having his activities and principles remembered late in the century. But more than preserving a record of a book ‘of no small reputation’, he is using Doddridge’s work as a vehicle for his own contribution to the contemporary study of ethics and theology by adding new references to the work. In this respect he is acting in a similar way to Belsham (whose heterodox views in some areas he shared) but he sets his adaptation of Doddridge on a public stage rather than within the academy environment.
In his biography of Doddridge, Kippis emphasized the intellectual value of updating A Course of Lectures, saying: ‘it would be extremely useful to enlarge the list of references, by introducing the names and productions of those writers who have treated upon the several matters in question since the Doctor’s decease’.23 Here he follows the example of Samuel Clark, who noted that ‘a few references have been added particularly to some books published since the Author’s death’. There is a difference in the intensity of claims for novelty, as Kippis announces in stronger terms that his edition augments what has gone before. He says that the changes to the course ‘will be particularly apparent to any one who shall take the trouble of comparing the catalogue of authors inserted at the end of the present work with that which is given in the former editions’.24 Indeed, he notes that this updated edition contains more references than a student could possibly consult, and this admission is the point at which Kippis’s ideas about the purpose of the course diverge from Clark’s and Doddridge’s. He shares with his former tutor a vision of the work being used as a repository of references for ‘future enquiries’ to which ministers can turn even after they have competed their academic studies. But for Kippis, unlike Doddridge, it is not necessary to follow up each reference:
(p.100) It is not to be expected that in their state of pupilage they should be able to pay a due attention to one half of the books here specified … it may be of great importance to know where hereafter to apply for fresh stores of knowledge.25
Nor do the ‘fresh stores of knowledge’ belong only to some hypothetical future lean winter. The book itself is full of these ‘fresh stores’; so full of new material that it cannot strictly be considered as Doddridge’s alone, a point underlined by Kippis’s inclusion of the other tutors whose references he has incorporated. Kippis hints that the augmented nature of the course might lead to tensions in the text, saying, ‘it is no part of my design … either to confirm or gainsay the opinions of Dr Doddridge’.26 This leaves open the possibility that his new edition, in adapting and extending ideas from Doddridge’s course, might introduce positions with which Doddridge would have disagreed.27
Samuel Clark had insisted that despite any changes, this course remained Doddridge’s in its fidelity to the important feature of its flexible, evolving form. In a development of this point, Kippis notes that he has incorporated additional references, some from his former colleague Samuel Morton Savage (theology tutor at Hoxton academy) taken from the Benjamin Edwards’s copy of Savage’s lectures and others from James Mannings’s copy of Samuel Merivale’s lectures given at Exeter Presbyterian academy between 1761 and 1771. Kippis names all these men, emphasizing that this edition is created out of the work of tutors at academies with different denominational affiliations. Shared endeavour among dissenting tutors is celebrated in the paratexts and references of A Course of Lectures, and Kippis’s preface publicly attests to the ongoing utility of Doddridge’s lectures at academies both orthodox (like Hoxton) and heterodox (like Exeter) and transforms ‘Doddridge’ into an authorial figure through which to embody those practices. In another instance of the rich interconnections of manuscript and print cultures, teaching copies of the lectures that nourish academy practice circulate within a community of dissenting educators and inform a new printed edition of Doddridge’s lectures while both the lecture manuscripts and the new edition draw on Clark’s printed edition of the lectures. Kippis supplements the references in Doddridge’s course with more recent printed texts but also with texts (p.101) published in Doddridge’s lifetime that Clark does not include. In the ‘Definition’ of the soul’s immateriality that Belsham treated quite contentiously, Kippis reproduces all the references from the 1763 edition and adds four more, including Richard Price’s sermon The Nature and Dignity of the Human Soul (1766) but not the exchange between Price and Priestley.28 Even though he includes the additions of other tutors and recent books, and even though Belsham was his colleague at New College Hackney at this time, Kippis chooses not to include the most controversial relevant references at certain points in the course.
The sociable and intellectually generous nature of dissenting educators—their candour—has a high profile in Kippis’s edition. He not only emphasizes the help he has received from various tutors in the production of the work but constructs the work itself as a beacon of tutelage, declaring that it can function as a resource for tutors in the future. It is to them that he addresses the remark ‘It is the business of individual tutors to enlarge upon the Lectures in that way which accords with their own sentiments.’29 In his edition, which does precisely this, Kippis provides a model for the use of Doddridge’s lectures by later tutors: as a structure to which tutors could add their own references, and as a repository of sources. Kippis himself was a founding governor and tutor of New College Hackney, which did not impose any religious tests for entry and which developed a reputation for heterodoxy. His editorship of A Course of Lectures creates a connection between Doddridge’s pedagogy (especially the principle of liberality of thought) and the educational and intellectual practices of heterodox dissenters, though Kippis himself is careful to distinguish between Doddridge’s course and his own contributions in order to make it clear that Doddridge himself was theologically orthodox.
Kippis presents the edition as following Doddridge’s method and supplementing his content. But that serene portrayal of fidelity was challenged by Doddridge’s nineteenth-century editor Edward Williams (Congregationalist minister, tutor at Oswestry academy and later Rotherham College), for whom Kippis’s extensive additions to Doddridge’s text were problematic. In the ‘Advertisement’ to the third English version of A Course of Lectures, published in volumes IV and V of the Works (the whole collection edited jointly with Edward Parsons), Williams distances Kippis’s edition from Doddridge’s lectures. He announced that this edition contained all the references from Clark’s version of the lectures but retained only some of Kippis’s, and while Clark’s ‘Advertisement’ is reproduced in full, only three (p.102) paragraphs of Kippis’s preface appear. In the text itself, where Williams does include some of Kippis’s additions, these are relegated to one source among many for additional references. These moves reassert the strength of Doddridge’s orthodoxy and diminish the presence of Kippis (associated with New College Hackney and heterodoxy) in Doddridge’s lectures.
Kippis is not erased from the work, however. Throughout the text, Williams attributes references to the particular tutor responsible for them: ‘The notes … are marked by the initials of their authors respectively, DODDRIDGE, CLARK, SAVAGE and KIPPIS.’30 He represents the resource of the references as a collective endeavour developing over time and with the contributions of educators at various academies, as Kippis had done. This can be seen as one of the key traditions of the lectures in print: successive editors add substantially to the original content. Clark’s ‘Advertisement’ identifies this as a procedure authorized by Doddridge himself by explaining that Doddridge inherited the mathematical form and some of the references from his own tutor, John Jennings, ‘but he has so much enlarged and improved on the original plan, that the whole may now properly be considered a new work’. This statement is included in all subsequent editions of the lectures, contributing to the sense of a tradition of innovation being perpetuated.
However, Williams’s treatment of references changes Doddridge’s lectures profoundly. The references are relegated to the ‘the bottom of the page’ rather than being interwoven with the content which separates the references (both Doddridge’s and those of other tutors) from Doddridge’s own words, thereby altering the emphasis of the course.31 The references are no longer central to the conduct of the lectures, but are supplementary materials. The sequence of the course as a whole also appears very differently in this nineteenth-century version. The lectures are divided across two volumes and appeared in the middle of all Doddridge’s other works, hardly a form that could readily be adopted for lecture room use. Here the lectures serve as a historical record rather than a contemporary resource. ‘It should be considered as a book of reference, when investigating the history of opinions on Pneumatology, Ethics, and Divinity’, he suggests, and proposes that it be understood as ‘the most complete syllabus of controversial theology, in the largest sense of the word, ever published in the English language’.32 The combination of superlatives and the (p.103) emphasis on the national language situates the printed Course of Lectures as a work of national, and not merely dissenting, significance.
3. European Editions, 1768–1773
Printing the lectures was not only an English activity, however. Between the first and second English editions of the lectures came two independent translations of the work, both published in the Netherlands. The first was a four-volume octavo edition in French. The anonymous translator provided an introduction explaining how the lectures had been modified to make them appropriate for a Roman Catholic audience—particularly students at Jesuit seminaries such as the one in Liège, where the work was printed—and declaring that this version of the lectures contained substantial additions to Doddridge’s original.33 While comparing the Liège edition with the London one of 1763 does not entirely bear out this claim, it is certainly the case that the French editor has restructured the course far more freely than any of its English editors, who sometimes add materials, but never change the order of the lectures. For example, proposition 90 (‘Various definitions of miracles examined’) constitutes lecture 101 in the printed English edition (the beginning of part V of the course) and lecture 126 in the French (from part VIII of that version). The French editor has omitted some parts of Doddridge’s course entirely (parts VIII, ‘Of the fall of human nature’, and X, ‘The Scripture doctrine of good and bad angels, and of a future state’). He has reduced other aspects; for example, much of the material to do with Jewish customs and the Old Testament in part VI of the English course is omitted. Other sections are expanded, so that lectures on civil government become an entire part of the course (part IV) rather than a section of part III, as they are in the English. This editorial freedom marks a strong disjuncture with the practice of the editors of the English printed text.
On the whole, though, the French translation follows Clark’s edition closely in terms of content, and in particular it includes almost all those references. Often a reference gives the English title of a work (Locke’s Posthumous Pieces, for example, and Samuel Chandler’s On Miracles) but sometimes the French title is provided: Samuel Clarke’s ‘Boyle Lectures’ (as the work is titled in A Course of Lectures) is identified as ‘Démonstration de l’Existence & des Attributs de Dieu’ in part VI of the course, (p.104) proposition 90.34 The choice reflects the language in which a work was available: if it had been translated into French, the French title is given. The French edition retains the page numbers of Doddridge’s references where he reproduces a title in English. When a French title is used, there are no page references. This reference to French editions of works raises one of the many questions surrounding this version of the lectures: just how likely was it that French-speaking Roman Catholic theology students would have access to the English Protestant religious works which make up the bulk of the references in A Course of Lectures? And why did the editor not replace Doddridge’s references with French, Roman Catholic authors? Given the anonymous editor’s stated desire that the lectures be introduced to French-speaking seminaries, colleges, and universities it seems strange that he did not use works more likely to be available to students and tutors in these institutions.35 Frustratingly, these questions have proved almost impossible to answer. Extensive investigation has not yielded the identity of the translator or evidence for the lectures’ use in Jesuit colleges or even any clues as to how French-speaking Jesuits found out about Doddridge’s lectures in the first place.36 The translation of the lectures into French did contribute to Doddridge’s reputation in the continental world of letters, for entries in nineteenth-century biographical dictionaries list the English and French versions of A Course of Lectures among his significant works.37
The fullest information about this edition of the lectures comes from correspondence between Mercy Doddridge and a former student at Northampton named Benjamin Sowden, minister of the English Reformed Church in Rotterdam from 1748 to 1778. Like several of Doddridge’s former students he wrote occasionally to his tutor’s widow. In Sowden’s case the letters provided religious and literary news from the continent and asked for updates from home. It was he who appraised the Doddridge circle of this French edition by sending extracts from the preface with translations, and who told them that it was associated with the English Jesuit (p.105) college in Liège.38 He was also involved in the publication of a Dutch translation of the lectures, which came five years after the French version (in 1773). This publication has been neglected by scholars, both of Doddridge and of the international dissemination of academy teaching materials.
Unlike the French edition, the Dutch version of A Course of Lectures did not face the challenge of explaining how Doddridge’s Protestant course had been transformed for a Roman Catholic audience. Indeed, in contrast to the French editor’s somewhat overstated insistence that the lectures were more or less a new work, the Dutch version took pains to demonstrate its fidelity to Doddridge’s lectures as delivered in his own lifetime. The lectures followed the structure of the 1763 English edition and the references in the samples I have studied are identical. Unlike the French edition, the titles of works are not translated. Where an English word can only be rendered imperfectly in Dutch, the English word is included as a footnote.39 Such textual fidelity and editorial transparency corroborate the strong statements of commitment to Doddridge’s words and work in the prefatory materials. As well as translations of Doddridge’s introduction and Samuel Clark’s advertisement explaining the genesis of the lectures and his editorial procedure (both from the English version), the Dutch edition carries a translation of a letter from Clark whose purpose is to endorse this particular edition and reaffirm the lectures’ authenticity for a Dutch readership.
Clark’s letter reaffirms and strengthens the statements from his English preface that any changes are to the style and not the content of the lectures. He insists that any additional references do not alter the sense of the work, and specifies that most changes are in the theology section of the course.40 His argument in support of the publication’s authenticity is made in terms of moralistic declarations of his own fidelity and by naming the former Northampton students Thomas Greaves and Benjamin Sowden (both residents of Rotterdam) to forge a direct connection between Doddridge’s academy in the 1740s and the lectures’ publication in the 1760s and 1770s. In a statement which bespeaks great confidence in (p.106) the consistency of student transcriptions of Doddridge’s lectures, he notes that Greaves and Sowden have their own manuscript copies from Northampton academy which can be used to check the printed text.41
Greaves and Sowden’s names reappear in the very long list of subscribers. They are the only English subscribers to the work, but are far from being the only ministers listed. The religious plurality of Doddridge’s readers is strongly attested and so is their learning: numerous professors, lecturers, and students from institutions including the universities of Groningen and Franeker, and scholars from smaller towns (many in Friesland) including Leeuwarden, Sneek, and Zwolle. Pastors, preachers, and teachers from various Protestant groups are listed, including Mennonites, Lutherans, Remonstrants, and adherents to the Augsburg Confession. Booksellers across the United Provinces from all the towns previously listed, many smaller settlements such as Zierkzee, Arnheim, and Nijmegen, the civic centres of Amsterdam and Rotterdam, and the university towns of Groningen, Leiden, and Utrecht subscribed to the publication, some of them purchasing dozens of copies.42
Clark’s additional letter for the Dutch edition indicates there was uneasiness about the publication in some quarters which Doddridge’s supporters sought to forestall. Perhaps this is related to an earlier regional controversy about theological orthodoxy in which antagonists implicated Doddridge’s works in a more specific and heated way than had ever occurred in England.43 Clark’s statement that ministers should be granted more latitude when delivering lectures in the privacy of a lecture room to students they knew well than they might be granted when preaching anticipates Belsham’s free adaptation of Doddridge’s lectures to articulate controversial doctrines that was not registered in Kippis’s printed edition of the lectures.
The Dutch attempt to neutralize the controversial potential of the work was apparently successful. The large number of subscribers from different denominations and districts suggests that Doddridge’s lectures were welcomed by Dutch speakers who considered the risks of exposure to heterodox opinion to be worth running in order to receive an educational and theological compendium of such diversity. However, there was no second edition of the work. The lectures had a burst of Dutch support twenty (p.107) years after Doddridge’s death and a decade after their English publication, but it does not appear as though they were absorbed into the mainstream of theological education in the United Provinces.44 In this respect, the European reception of both Netherlands editions of Doddridge’s lectures are similar, even if the circumstances of their translation could not be more different in terms of the religious affiliation of the anticipated audience.
In every edition of the Course of Lectures the editor offered his perspective on how the lectures should be used and understood, but each time this personal interpretative gesture is counterbalanced by the presence of Doddridge’s own ‘Introduction’ which is included in every edition except the French one. This statement explains the content and sequence of the course and also the method to follow: to look up the references as soon as possible after the lecture or, in the case of the printed text, immediately after reading throughout a given section. In Clark’s edition, a footnote to the heading ‘Introduction’ explains it is:
to be considered as the Author’s address to his own pupils, when they entered upon this course of Lectures, which will shew the propriety of some of the directions, which might otherwise appear too particular and minute.45
Clark emphasizes that publishing Doddridge’s ‘Introduction’ presents the guiding principles of the course in their originator’s own words. This establishes their cultural authority by reaffirming the author’s personal presence in a posthumous, printed text and locating the lectures in a specific time, place, and method of study. Doddridge’s editors were relocating his course to a public forum, away from the lecture room in which the words were originally delivered, and including Doddridge’s advice meant that an expression of the author’s intentions for the text remained available to readers. Doddridge’s complicated, unfamiliar, and, to some, controversial method required the explanatory voice of its originating author and the framework for reception of their original use, and his editors were eager to provide this even as the lectures were being translated into a new language or religious context, or when their structure was being radically altered.
In the fifty years between Doddridge’s death and the final edition of the Course of Lectures, the lectures were presented to different reading publics in a variety of ways. Originally the core theological education at his own dissenting academy and its successor, they continued to exert a strong (p.108) influence over dissenting education both as lectures delivered to students and as a printed text that served as a repository of references to theological debates from the later seventeenth to mid-eighteenth century. Printing the lectures consolidated their purpose as a work of reference and made that resource available to a wider audience.46 The audience for the printed lectures were not confined to one denomination, nation, or language group. Their reach extended into Europe via developments of Doddridge’s own personal connections. While they were primarily of interest to Calvinist Protestants, ministers and students in the Church of England, Roman Catholic colleges, and heterodox Protestant environments made use of the lectures, amply demonstrating Doddridge’s own claim that they were a flexible and copious repository.
4. ‘Lectures on Preaching’: Anxieties About Publication
In the provisions Doddridge made for the publication of his educational works in his will, he paired his theological lectures with the shorter course of lectures on preaching which came at the conclusion of the academy course, declaring that he wished both to be printed. He ends the section of his will dealing with the practical matters of publication with a statement about ministerial seriousness and responsibility. Combining instruction and exhortation, he demands that a copy of the lectures be given to students leaving the academy for their first ministerial post and that it should be accompanied ‘with a Solemn Charge as before God and the Lord Jesus Christ that they seriously attend to the Contents of them so far as they are in their Consciences convinced of the agreeableness of those Advices to reason and to the Word of God’.47 In this statement on education Doddridge reaffirms his belief that rational thought and the revelation of the Gospels are complementary aspects of religious knowledge, a view later echoed by editors of his Course of Lectures in their prefaces. In a testamentary act that issues authoritative directions for their use, he provides instructions for the reception of the ‘Lectures on Preaching’. Rather than being a set of rules, they model the behaviour ministerial students should be guided by their own consciences to follow. Doddridge’s idea that the published ‘Lectures on Preaching’ should be (p.109) placed after A Course of Lectures—connected yet distinct—is consistent with their appearance as the final volume in the ten-volume series of shorthand lecture notes made by Samuel Henley at Daventry and in the reports of how the lectures were introduced at Northampton academy found in Doddridge’s ‘Life of Thomas Steffe’ and Job Orton’s biography of Doddridge himself.48 Doddridge imagined that the lectures in print would follow the pattern of their manuscript use.
Despite Doddridge’s instructions, the ‘Lectures on Preaching’ were not published until the nineteenth century. Though in his will he emphasized their connection to the other lectures, and though the relationship between the two courses of lectures was preserved in academy teaching long after his death, the publication histories of the two courses were very different. And though the lectures themselves were short, the debates they generated in dissenting circles were of long duration. This was partly because of their content but also because of general religious and social principles they were seen to represent. To Doddridge’s heirs these lectures were not simply a practical set of instructions or a valuable resource for new ministers (though they were both of those things). They were emblematic of ministerial attitudes towards the dissenting laity and to ministerial forebears, and raised the question of what sort of ministry was being espoused by those who recommended or used these lectures.
The state of the manuscript lectures was also problematic when it came to their publication, the question of which had first arisen in 1763 as A Course of Lectures was being published under Samuel Clark’s stewardship. Mercy Doddridge, attempting to carry out Doddridge’s wishes, seems to have requested Job Orton’s opinion on how to proceed with publication of the ‘Lectures on Preaching’. Orton acknowledged that ‘[t]he Author intended the preaching Lectures shd be printed’ but questioned whether the lectures as they stood were in a good enough state for that, telling Mercy Doddridge, ‘I know he intended to have transcribed them & thrown them into quite a different Form.’ The practical difficulty was that the lectures had not been edited for publication by their original author: they were private and unpolished. But this was only the start of Orton’s anxieties:
As they stand at present, to print them wd be the greatest Injury to his Reputation & Memory—to the dissenting Interest in General & the Credit of our Academies in particular; for there are many particular Remarks upon Authors yet living, many Cautions & Directions about ye prudential part of (p.110) his Pupils Conduct, which were given to the pupils in Confidence, & by no means fit to appear in the world—as Nothing wd please ye High Church Men & narrow People among the Dissenters more, than to have an Opportunity to expose the Dr & his pupils & Instructions, as they wd have a Handle for doing, were his private advices exposed.49
Orton’s concern that the lectures might distress those at either end of the ecclesiastical spectrum is striking. He wished not to associate Doddridge with controversial views or actions but to construct his mentor as a reliable, orthodox authorial figure who could represent moderate dissent and appeal to all denominations within dissent and outside it. Orton would not risk publishing work under Doddridge’s name which might lead to him becoming associated with heterodox ideas, enthusiastic impulses, or impolite manners. It was not a question of authenticity—the lectures, after all, were undoubtedly Doddridge’s—but of propriety. Having appealed to Mercy Doddridge’s sense of decorum by reminding her that the printed lectures must serve as a memorial to her husband for good or ill, Orton invoked the consensus of other dissenters, saying ‘I have consulted all my Fellow pupils, to whom I had Access on this Subject & they all strongly remonstrated against printing them.’ He evidently considered this collective opinion a strong claim, for he reiterated the point that ‘among all my Brethren to whom I have fairly communicated this Affair, there is not one but agrees with me that it wd be [in] every way wrong to print ye preaching Lectures’.50 Emphatically though this point is made, Orton is not simply deploying an argument of strength in numbers. Collective agreement was valued highly among religious dissenters. New ministers were ordained after examination by a group of ministers, congregations selected their pastor by taking a vote of their members, and ministers (including Doddridge) often appointed groups of deacons to advise them on pastoral matters. By presenting Mercy Doddridge with the considered opinion of Doddridge’s former students, Orton is invoking the principle of collective decision making. He hoped to persuade her to accept his advice by telling her that those best qualified to judge the merits of publication (all of them ministers, all of them men) had sided with him.
Orton acknowledged the importance and purpose of Doddridge’s lectures, but questioned the seemliness of transposing lectures which had not been revised for publication from the private realm of personal interaction in the lecture room to the public arena of print. His particular anxieties were that private conversations between Doddridge and his (p.111) students should not be made public and, with respect to the content of the lectures, that writers still living were treated too brusquely and honestly for general reading. A further issue that Orton avoided fully articulating was that to overcome all of these problems, the ‘Lectures on Preaching’ would have to be carefully revised and edited, and Orton did not want to take on the task. Orton’s opinion must have carried weight with Mercy Doddridge, for there is no further evidence in extant correspondence that she pursued the possibility of publishing the ‘Lectures on Preaching’ in her lifetime.
Lectures on preaching and pastoral care rounded off ministerial education in dissenting academies into the nineteenth century, and manuscript copies of Doddridge’s lectures were being made and circulated right up to the moment a printed version of the text was published.51 In a private setting among dissenters and guided by approved teachers these lectures were an acceptable resource; indeed a respected one. But granting readers who did not understand how Doddridge’s academy was conducted access to his unmediated views on puritan and dissenting divines and Church of England clergymen concerned Orton (and rightly so, it would turn out). While dissenters may not have faced prosecution or persecution routinely in the eighteenth century, their anxieties about the content of some of Doddridge’s works suggests that they feared the consequences of publicizing their teaching.
5. ‘Lectures on Preaching’ in Print
The preaching lectures first appeared in full, in book form, and in English in volume V of Williams and Parsons’s edition of Doddridge’s works, published in 1804. These editors expressed no qualms about the publication. In contrast to Orton’s anxiety, they declare that the lectures ‘secure the deserved reputation of Dr. DODDRIDGE’ and assert their ‘excellence’ in three respects:
In them we discover a great insight into human nature, an uniform regard to religious, moral, and civil propriety of conduct, ardent wishes to benefit mankind by promoting vital and practical religion.52
(p.112) In this précis the attributes for which Doddridge himself was praised are applied to the lectures, whose suitability for student and public perusal is extolled. No reason is given for the long delay in publication, nor do the editors note that at last Doddridge’s wishes are being met. Indeed, there is no indication that they were familiar with the terms of Doddridge’s will for they observe that ‘the author has intimated no prohibition’.53 This seems strange: if the lectures were such an honourable addition to the Doddridge canon, why had they not been published before and why did the editors choose neither to address that question nor to account for the gap? Striking too is the flurry of editions in the early nineteenth century following forty years of silence after Orton’s strong injunction against their publication. There were six separate editions of ‘Lectures on Preaching’ in the first few decades of the century and the lectures were also included in three collections of Doddridge’s writings.54 Before these book publications of the whole body of lectures, extracts from the ‘Lectures on Preaching’ appeared in the Universal Theological Magazine and in an appendix to a collection of sermons compiled by Doddridge’s editor Edward Williams, The Christian Preacher (1800).
Three factors can account for the late flourishing of the lectures. First, the passing of time obviated Orton’s fears about the propriety of discussing living preachers so candidly. Second, the diversification and proliferation of print, which reached a high rate in the early decades of the century. The diversity of outlets for these particular lectures attest to the lively print culture for educational works of piety: they appeared in a periodical, within a multi-volume collected works, and as separately published, relatively inexpensive student editions. Finally, by the turn of the nineteenth century Doddridge’s high reputation was secure. This was due to the passage of time and the resources of print and it acted as a spur to further publications (including the lectures) and reprints of existing works. Because of Doddridge’s reputation there was a market for all his books, be they titles that had consolidated that reputation, or previously unpublished material.
(p.113) These lectures’ emergence into print cannot be fashioned into a single story. The different versions have different editors; and they identify (and treat) different ‘problems’ within the lectures. Each version must therefore be described in order to present a full picture of the discursive, adaptive, and often discontinuous construction of an official body of materials attributed to a particular author which took place posthumously and over many decades. It is also impossible to fix on an incontrovertible starting point for the process. The first version treated here is extracts that appeared in a volume of sermons by various authors edited by Edward Williams because that work constituted a kind of trial run by the editor of the first printed full version of the ‘Lectures on Preaching’.
In The Christian Preacher: or, Discourses on Preaching, Williams collected together sermons by Doddridge, John Jennings and Watts, John Wilkins, and the seventeenth-century French Protestant minister Jean Claude, and a discourse by the Halle Pietist August Hermann Francke, all on the subject of preaching.55 The compendium of sermons by English, German, and French ministers of different Protestant denominations provided ministers at work in the nineteenth century with examples of preaching and strictures on homiletic practice from earlier generations. By bringing these authors together as preachers on preaching, Williams was constructing a tradition of European evangelical orthodoxy and including Doddridge within it. The exemplary sermons were supported by an extensive bibliography in an appendix entitled ‘The Preacher’s Library’.56 The list of books (which Williams developed over successive editions) begins with remarks about the value of reading and advice on where to discover which books have been published and their likely price. It lists titles and authors according to forty-seven categories, starting with editions of the Bible and biblical commentators and ending with poetry and music. Section 27 lists ‘English Practical Writers’ in the manner of lectures II–IV of the ‘Lectures on Preaching’. Williams flags the point that the arrangement of writers follows Doddridge’s ordering and that he incorporates some of Doddridge’s comments:
We may, with Dr. Doddridge, distribute them into the Puritans, the Nonconformists, and Episcopalians. Those writers of works which he has characterized shall be noticed in his own words, when they suit my purpose, distinguished by inverted commas.57
(p.114) While the list does not correspond exactly with that of the ‘Lectures on Preaching’, there are sequences where the names of the writers appear in the same order as they do in the lectures. The printed list thus follows the manuscript tradition of incorporating these parts of Doddridge’s lectures into materials produced by other tutors. Williams states in a footnote that his source is Doddridge’s ‘Preaching Lectures in Manuscript; of which I have two copies. When these differ, as they often do, the character which appears most just is given’.58 Significant additions to Doddridge’s lists include entries for George Whitefield (‘a genius naturally sublime, sanctified by sovereign grace’) and Doddridge himself (‘Doddridge excels in distinctness of method, & scripture phraseology’).59 The entry on Doddridge is absent from the full ‘Lectures on Preaching’ as published four years later, perhaps in order to preserve the idea that the text is as close to Doddridge’s words as possible. Whitefield does not appear in the printed ‘Lectures on Preaching’ either, perhaps because Williams was consciously avoiding including any controversial figures. Not carrying forward later additions to the lectures indicates that Williams was careful to make the published lectures keep as close to the authors noticed by Doddridge as possible.60 Such fidelity is perhaps more important in a collected edition of an author’s works than in extracts appended to a text written by another author.
Under Williams’s stewardship, extracts from Doddridge’s ‘Lectures on Preaching’ formed an increasingly significant component of a popular guidebook for preachers that promoted evangelical orthodoxy. Concurrently, extracts from the ‘Lectures on Preaching’ appeared in the Unitarian periodical the Universal Theological Magazine. In autumn 1803, two issues carried Doddridge’s comments on Bible commentators, and two contained his sketches of the preaching style of puritan, dissenting, and established church preachers.61 These extracts correspond very closely to (p.115) those in manuscript copies of the ‘Lectures on Preaching’ as well as the version printed in the Works. An earlier extract was rather different. In June 1803, a letter from ‘Rusticus’ had been printed which announced:
I am induced to send you two other pieces, transcribed from a Course of MS. Lectures on ORATORY, which were used in the seminary over which Dr. Doddridge once presided. I apprehend a great part of them were drawn up the Doctor; but the copy from which I transcribed mine had evidently received additions.62
This first instalment comprises ‘A brief account of ancient and modern moral writers’ (a survey of Greek, Latin, French, and English orators) and comments ‘On Style in Writing’, which gives sketches of the style of various poets and preachers. The first set of remarks do not appear in any other manuscript or printed copies of ‘Lectures on Preaching’, and though some of the writers referred to in the second set appear in the preaching lectures, the range and order of the names bears little relationship to the manuscript ‘Lectures on Preaching’ which pre-date it, or to subsequent printed versions. The comments on the writers are often exactly the same as in eighteenth-century manuscript copies of the ‘Lectures on Preaching’ (for example, the remarks on John Tillotson’s ‘beautiful simplicity’, which Doddridge borrows from Jennings) or the same idea is expressed in different words.63
How does the decision by ‘Rusticus’ and others to send extracts from Doddridge’s lectures to the Universal Theological Magazine relate to Edward Williams’s activities? The periodical setting is significant: ‘Rusticus’ presents his activity as part of the project to gather together and publish materials representative of dissenting culture in the previous century.64 But while denominational magazines often published letters from, and anecdotes and opinions about, deceased ministers and tutors, presenting previously unpublished lectures in this way was unusual.65 (p.116) Moreover, publishing extracts of Doddridge’s lectures on oratory and preaching in this particular magazine introduced Doddridge’s advice to appreciative readers from a specific demographic: ministers interested in controversial theology. The contributors and editor were publishing materials which had circulated widely in manuscript for decades, presenting it as the first time the material had been printed, and making no connection with the other recent appearance in print of similar extracts, those in Williams’s Christian Preacher. The Universal Theological Magazine may have had the aim of establishing them as a legitimate and valuable part of the Doddridge corpus, but given that it only offered decontextualized extracts, a more obvious purpose was to align Doddridge and his teaching with a dissenting group that was rather different from Williams’s own. Denominational differences may account for this. The Universal Theological Magazine was a relatively learned Unitarian journal whose readers were mostly ministers, but they might not have been in sympathy with Williams, who was an orthodox Congregationalist unsympathetic to the heterodoxy that Unitarianism supported. Including extracts from Doddridge’s lectures here claims him as a forebear to a different tradition of dissenting education from the one Williams wrote for and to which he belonged.
In the period just before their publication in complete form in Doddridge’s Works, dissenters from different theological parties who all viewed Doddridge as an influence apparently wanted to make his teaching materials available. They did not, however, issue complete publications: extracts from the ‘Lectures on Preaching’ appeared in peripheral locations of appendixes and periodicals at first. Perhaps those responsible were testing out the lectures’ suitability for print publication, and hoped to gauge responses to the publication of extracts before publishing the whole course. At least one response to the activities of the 1800s indicates that Orton had correctly anticipated objections to the ‘Lectures on Preaching’ all those decades earlier. ‘P. H.’, a correspondent to the Universal Theological Magazine, observed that ‘DR. DODDRIDGE’S Preaching Lectures were never intended for the press, and are in many views unfit for publication; otherwise they would have been published with his other Lectures.’66 This correspondent insists that the magazine should not print further extracts, nor should the editors of the Works publish the ‘Lectures on Preaching’. Though the two locations treat the lectures differently, ‘P. H.’ believes that nowhere in print is appropriate for the ‘Lectures on Preaching’.
(p.117) In the case of the ‘Lectures on Preaching’, print follows manuscript precedents very closely. Both Williams and the Universal Theological Magazine published the same parts of the Doddridge course: the comments on preachers. This was also the material from Doddridge’s lectures which academy tutors appended to their own lectures on preaching. The parts of Doddridge’s course dissenters were most likely to circulate were among the parts of it Job Orton thought should be suppressed. They are both controversial and important to generations of ministerial students.
Williams and Parsons claimed that by publishing the lectures in the Works they were responding to a demand from the reading public. In fact, they claimed that a desire to forestall any improper appearance of the lectures in their entirety drove them to include them in their edition:
it is well known that there are many mutilated and very imperfect copies abroad; and it is not improbable that, from some motive or other, a copy might find its way into the press in a form calculated to reflect but little credit on either the publisher or the author.67
The editors may have had the first extract to appear in the Universal Theological Magazine in mind as one such ‘imperfect’ copy and ‘Rusticus’ himself had noted that the copy in his possession could not have been a transcription of lectures delivered by Doddridge himself. ‘Rusticus’, however, was at ease with the process of circulating manuscripts and adding materials to them: he described how his copy was taken from another manuscript copy, not made while following the lectures in person, and he noted that two lectures by Kippis had been included in the manuscript. Williams and Parsons were not able to endorse this flexible way of combining materials from different sources in one document. As the editors of Doddridge’s complete works, their project was to define and reproduce the corpus of Doddridge’s writings. To assert that their version was not only the official one, but also the only one that should be trusted to convey Doddridge’s words most accurately and comprehensively, they stress the thoroughness of their editorial practice. ‘For the purposes of collation the Editors are in possession of four copies’; they wrote, and listed the dates to prove the authenticity of each of the manuscripts.68 Their emphasis on the variety of manuscripts available and the extent to which their content varied does not conform to the evidence provided by manuscript copies extant today (for the lectures correspond in arrangement and (p.118) content with surviving manuscript copies) but it may be a rhetorical justification for the publication of the lectures and a claim for the usefulness of having an established version in print.
Following the publication of Doddridge’s Works, the ‘Lectures on Preaching’ were published separately a number of times. The first such edition was published in 1804 in London, by Robert Ogle, who was one of the booksellers responsible for the Works.69 The immediate appearance of a separate, small-format edition of the lectures may have been to forestall piracy.70 The editorial statement which precedes the text in each separate edition of the lectures is an excerpt from the ‘Advertisement’ by Williams and Parsons, described as ‘the respectable Editors’.71 The lectures are presented as an educational work, and this particular edition as an economical version designed to serve the needs of divinity students and ministers who do not possess a copy of Doddridge’s Works. Students and readers outside dissenting academies could now possess a copy of Doddridge’s ‘Lectures on Preaching’, and those within it need not make a handwritten copy of the lectures. The publication carried the authority of Williams’s and Parsons’s version of the lectures beyond the collected Works into separate, affordable books.
Similar reasons for publication are stated in a unique Dutch edition of the lectures, published much earlier than these English editions and extracts. This edition is a publishing curiosity: it preceded English printed versions of the lectures by many decades but was not directly associated with any of them, nor with the Dutch publication of A Course of Lectures. The originator of this version was a former student of Doddridge’s named Thomas Greaves, who was assistant pastor to Sowden at Rotterdam from 1752 and later a subscriber to the Dutch Course of Lectures. The Dutch edition ends with a date: ‘Northampton den 28ste van January 1745’, which is consistent with the dates Greaves attended the academy.72 As a register of the year he transcribed the lectures, it is a vestige of the lectures’ manuscript origins included as an attestation of this work’s authenticity. Greaves’s preface begins with a strong assertion of Doddridge’s authorship which anticipates Clark’s prefatory statements included in the later Dutch (p.119) edition of the Course of Lectures. Greaves notes that the lectures are unpublished in either English or Dutch and acknowledges that this might cast doubt upon their authenticity. He declares, therefore, his own role as the trusted conveyor of true materials when he describes ‘having heard them from his own mouth, and have copied them from his own handwriting, when I found myself under his care for the five years I was in his house’.73
The body of the text is astonishingly close to the 1804 English printed edition right from the start. Both begin with a direct, oral address ‘Gentlemen … ’ or in Dutch, ‘Mynn Heeren’. The Dutch lectures contain nothing that is not also present in contemporary English manuscripts and later printed versions of the lectures. Very occasionally references are missing from the Dutch edition. For example, in lecture II students are advised to avoid natural religion as a topic, but to introduce aspects of it in the context of an evangelical sermon, and the Berry Street Lectures are used as a reference. In the Dutch version, the advice is there but the Berry Street example is not, possibly because Doddridge had not added it to his lectures at the point Greaves attended them, or because the title was not available in Dutch. Even idioms and figurative phrases are translated literally into Dutch, for example ‘It is feeding the people with roots rather than fruits’ is rendered as ‘dewyl het niets anders is dan het volk met de wortels in plaatz van met de vrugten in voeden’ and ‘Painting and carving are learned by imitation’ (to express reasons for taking notes of sermons heard and reviewing them in private) becomes ‘Schilderen en Beeldhouwen word geleerd door navolging.’74
The only significant change is the number of lectures: twenty-two in the Rotterdam edition, twenty-five in those published from 1804 onwards. The difference here is in arrangement rather than content. In the printed English version, lectures 2, 3, and 4 are ‘On the Use and Character of Practical Writers’, ‘The Character of Dissenting Writers in the Present Age’ (i.e. since 1700), and ‘The Character of Writers of the Established Church’, whereas this material occupies only two lectures in the Dutch version. The English lecture 5 (‘Rules for Composing Sermons’) thus corresponds to the Dutch lecture 4. The Dutch lecture 7 (‘On selecting thoughts and their arrangement’) combines lectures 8 and 9 from (p.120) the English version.75 Therefore the Dutch lecture 8 corresponds to the English lecture 10. In terms of content, there is virtually no difference. The element of the lectures which did vary slightly in English—the lists of preachers and their qualities—is consistent with English published versions. The lists of preachers (puritans, nonconformists, dissenters, and members of the established church) are identical between the Rotterdam edition in 1766 and the Boston edition in 1808.76 The affinity between the Dutch printed edition, translated from a copy of the lectures given by Doddridge in the mid-1740s, and the editions based on Williams’s and Parsons’s version in the nineteenth century indicates that all the editors took the manuscripts from the period of Doddridge’s own academy as their copy text. None of the printed editions registers the additions and slight variations incorporated in later manuscript copies as described in Chapter 2. In this respect the content of the lectures reflects the editorial statements insisting on fidelity, as far as possible, to Doddridge’s own words. Editors who knew nothing of each other’s work followed a very similar approach in editing these materials for publication.
6. Intentions and Effects
It was partly in order to demonstrate the thoroughness of dissenting education that A Course of Lectures was published, and dissenters from different traditions used it to claim Doddridge as a learned and respectable figurehead for their own educational and religious schemes in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. This single work was published in three distinct versions by dissenting ministers with different editorial agendas. One wanted to fulfil the wishes of his former tutor, another to confirm Doddridge’s place in the Republic of Letters, and the third to reassert Doddridge’s role within dissent as a learned author of an earlier age. This text is a representative example of a work that goes from having a long life as a coterie item scribally published within a particular community, to a public contribution to the Republic of Letters.
The publishing history of the lectures on preaching was rather different: excitement at finding and transmitting previously unpublished Doddridgeana motivated the diffusion of the lectures in periodicals, while the lectures were included in the Works in order to contribute to the production of a (p.121) complete record in print of Doddridge’s writings. These discursive and editorial activities were motivated primarily by the idea of Doddridge as an individual author, but the positive consequences of Doddridge’s reputation for the standing of dissent more generally, and the education of dissenting ministers in particular, were evidently in the minds of those who participated in the debates. The named author as an identifiable individual both bestows legitimacy on an ongoing tradition and is himself afforded significance by the present-day participants in that tradition.
Intentions for publishing these educational materials ranged from obedience (fulfilling the request of the deceased) through memorial (preserving the legacy of the dead using print) to polemic (claiming Doddridge for one group among competing dissenting interests). They were also motivated by antiquarian interest in denominational history and pride in the traditions of religious dissent. In these respects, both courses of lectures are comparable to the posthumously published and collected works which are discussed in Chapter 6, and broader questions about authorship and editorial procedure will be pursued there.
This chapter has investigated publication patterns for educational works originating in dissenting academies. While the facts about the publication processes can be stated with a considerable degree of certainty, the conclusions to be drawn about the project’s influence are tentative, largely due to the fact that the publication of theological and homiletic lectures was unusual throughout this period. Doddridge might have been an influential teacher but the publication of his teaching materials was not so, either in terms of curriculum or as a model for other tutors. Motivation can be established more definitively than influence. These materials were published with the aim of providing educational materials for new generations, but an increasingly powerful purpose was to establish an intellectual heritage for dissent that could be articulated through the figure of Doddridge as an exemplary author: the ‘celebrated Dr Doddridge’.77
Chapters 1–3 of this book have delineated the cooperative temper of education and publishing among men associated with orthodox dissenting academies in some detail. In order to broaden the picture of dissenters’ textual engagements to facilitate learning, Chapters 4–6 will turn to the ways in which dissenting precepts animated books for heterogeneous audiences, by examining the work Doddridge’s friend Watts.
(1) London Chronicle, 28 April 1763.
(2) For example Edward Bentham, Reflexions upon the Study of Divinity. To which are Subjoined Heads of a Course of Lectures (Oxford, 1771) and John Hey, Heads of a Course of Lectures in Divinity (Cambridge, 1783). Hey was Norrisian Professor of Divinity at the University of Cambridge. His lectures were published in full over a decade after he delivered them as Lectures in Divinity, 4 vols (Cambridge, 1796–1798).
(3) Hutcheson was Professor of Moral Philosophy at Glasgow University. He had Latin textbooks such as Philosophiae moralis institutio compendiaria (Glasgow, 1742) printed in his lifetime, though he insisted these were intended for student use only. The posthumous English translation was published as A Short Introduction to Moral Philosophy (Glasgow, 1747). Doddridge is listed as a subscriber in the first volume.
(4) Examples include Joseph Priestley, A Course of Lectures on the Theory of Language (Warrington, 1762); A Syllabus of a Course of Lectures on the Study of History (Warrington, 1765); A Course of Lectures on Oratory and Criticism (London, 1777)—all ‘heads’ for present study. David Jennings, Jewish Antiquities, or a Course of Lectures on the First Three Books of Godwin’s Moses and Aaron, 2 vols (London, 1766) is an example of a body of lectures transposed into a work of reference.
(5) The price is given in the review of the work in the Critical Review, 12 (1794), 303–12. In the list of Kippis’s works appended to Abraham Rees’s funeral sermon, the price is given as thirteen shillings. Abraham Rees, A Sermon Preached … Upon Occasion of the Much Lamented Death of the Rev. Andrew Kippis (London, 1795), ‘List of works’, item XXV.
(6) For a detailed chronology of the editions and a close study of the differences between the various editions of A Course of Lectures, see Rivers, The Defence of Truth, 18–26.
(7) TNA: PRO PROB 11/791, sig. 332.
(8) Mercy Doddridge to James Stonhouse, 11 March 1759. DWL MS NCL L.63/5.
(9) Job Orton to Mercy Doddridge, 18 August 1762. DWL MS NCL L.1/8/45.
(10) Mercy Doddridge to James Rivington, 6 April 1759. DWL MS NCL L.63/8. A nineteenth-century biographer of Doddridge claimed, ‘In the correspondence of Mrs. Doddridge with Mr. Orton there are references to a project by a Swiss gentleman, for translating her husband’s hymns into French’, but these letters cannot now be found: see John Stoughton, Philip Doddridge: His Life and Labours (London, 1851), 208. The identity of the Swiss gentleman has not been traced.
(11) William Warburton to Mercy Doddridge, 8 March 1759. Donald W. Nichol, Pope’s Literary Legacy: The Book-Trade Correspondence of William Warburton and John Knapton, with Other Letters and Documents, 1744–1780 (Oxford, 1992), 130.
(12) Ashworth calculated that the value of Doddridge’s literary property excluding the lectures was £1,106 3d. The terms Mercy Doddridge proposed, and which Rivington accepted, were first set out by Caleb Ashworth in DWL MS NCL L.63/7. She asked for £1,200 for the complete property, suggesting that the copyright of A Course of Lectures was valued at £94.
(13) Samuel Clark to Mercy Doddridge, 10 December 1759. DWL MS NCL L.1/5/25. The MS reads ‘at as stand’, which has been adjusted to ‘at a stand’ in the transcription.
(14) A Course of Lectures (1763), sig. A2.
(15) A Course of Lectures (1763), sig. A2v.
(16) It also indicates Clark anticipated that the majority of readers of this printed edition would have no idea about the development of Doddridge’s method.
(17) A Course of Lectures (1763), sig. A2. Rivers thinks it possible that Clark added the reference to David Hume: see Rivers, The Defence of Truth, 19.
(18) A Course of Lectures (1794), I, sig. a3.
(19) Gerard Genette, Paraxtexts: Thresholds of Interpretation, tr. Jane E. Lewin (Cambridge, 1997), 1.
(20) Genette, Paraxtexts, 264–5, and ch. 9.
(21) A Course of Lectures (1794), I, sig. a3.
(22) Biographia Britannica, IV, sig. b.
(23) Biographia Britannica, V, 301.
(24) A Course of Lectures (1763), sig. A2, A Course of Lectures (1794), I, sig. a3v.
(25) A Course of Lectures (1794), I, sig. a4.
(26) A Course of Lectures (1794), I, sig. a4.
(27) For example, in part VII (‘The existence and nature of GOD, and the divinity of the SON and SPIRIT’) Kippis adds substantially to the references to proposition 128 ‘God is so united to the derived nature of Christ … that … Christ may properly be called God’, which he introduces with the observation ‘Since these lectures were written, the question concerning the Divinity of our Lord has afforded matter for repeated, and almost perpetual discussion,’ A Course of Lectures (1794), II, 170–6.
(28) A Course of Lectures (1794), I, 328–9.
(29) A Course of Lectures (1794), I, sig. a4.
(30) Doddridge, Works, IV, 283. Williams’s own additions are marked ‘W’.
(31) Doddridge, Works, IV, 281.
(32) Doddridge, Works, IV, 281–2. The work was also classified under ‘controversial theology’ in the library of Manchester College in 1830.
(33) See ‘Préface de l’Éditeur’, in Cours de lectures … du D. Doddridge, 4 vols (Liège, 1768), I, i–viii.
(34) Cours de lectures, III, 8–14. Clarke’s work had been translated into French by the Protestant Pierre Ricotier.
(35) ‘Préface de l’Éditeur’, viii.
(36) There were several tutors at the English Jesuit College at Liège who might have translated the work, but it has not proved possible to positively identify the translator or to establish how a copy of A Course of Lectures reached the college. One possible route is via William Strickland, a Jesuit priest from Warrington. I am grateful to Maurice Whitehead for this suggestion.
(37) Doddridge was included in several nineteenth-century French biographical dictionaries, which listed the English and French versions of A Course of Lectures among his significant works. See Biographie universelle ancienne et moderne, 85 vols (Paris, 1811–1862), XI, 388.
(38) DWL MS NCL L.1/9/24–5.
(39) For example ‘werkkragt’ translates ‘machinery’, ‘samengesteld’ translates ‘very complex’, and ‘astrekking’ translates ‘abstraction’; all in Philip Doddridge, Verzameling van Akademische Lessen, 3 vols (Rotterdam, 1773), I, 12.
(40) Clark claims he ‘makes not even the slightest change in the author’s meaning’ (‘zelfs niet de allergeringste verändering maakt in des Auters meening’), and states that any changes that have been made are ‘mainly in the theology part of them [the lectures]’ (‘wel voornamelijk in het Godgeleerd[heid] gedeelte van dezelve’). Samuel Clark, ‘Uittreksel van eenen Brief’, in Verzameling van Akademische Lessen, I, n.p.; paragraph 2.
(41) Clark, ‘Uittreksel van eenen Brief’, paragraph 5.
(42) Verzameling van Akademische Lessen, I, sig. 2*–10*v.
(43) For details of the debates about religious toleration and the risks of deism, see J. van den Berg and G. F. Nuttall, Philip Doddridge and the Netherlands (Leiden, 1987), 60–2. For Doddridge’s popularity among ministers from different groups in the Netherlands see Joris van Eijnatten, Liberty and Concord in the United Provinces: Religious Toleration and the Public in the Eighteenth-Century Netherlands (Leiden, 2003), 437–46.
(44) This is also the conclusion of van den Berg and Nuttall, see Philip Doddridge and the Netherlands, 70.
(45) A Course of Lectures (1763), sig. b.
(46) For a discussion of Williams’s and Parsons’s intentions in their version of A Course of Lectures, and an account of how they changed his mathematical method more significantly than either Clark or Kippis, see Rivers, The Defence of Truth, 24–6.
(47) TNA: PRO PROB 11/791, sig. 332.
(48) Samuel Henley’s lecture notes 1759–1761 (DWL MSS 28.35–44) show that Doddridge’s progression from theological lectures to lectures on preaching was preserved at Caleb Ashworth’s academy. See Doddridge, ‘Life of Thomas Steffe’, xix–xx and Orton, Memoirs, 95–6.
(49) Job Orton to Mercy Doddridge, 11 April 1763. DWL MS NCL L.1/8/48.
(50) Job Orton to Mercy Doddridge, 11 April 1763. DWL MS NCL L.1/8/48.
(51) DWL MS 28.124 is named and dated inside the front cover ‘Timothy Davis 13 March 1802 Carmarthen’ and ends ‘Finis Novbr 4th 1801’, fol. 158.
(52) Williams and Parsons, ‘Advertisement’ to ‘Lectures on Preaching’ in Doddridge, Works, V, 424. Though both men are named as editors of the works as a whole, Williams was probably the sole editor of these lectures, as he was for A Course of Lectures.
(53) Doddridge, Works, V, 424. They were unlikely to have known the content of Doddridge’s will.
(54) Separate editions were published in London in 1807, 1821 and 1822. The 1821 edition was simultaneously published in Edinburgh. The Boston edition was published in 1808. These collections in which they appeared were the Works and later The Devotional Letters and Sacramental Meditations of the Rev. P. Doddridge, with his Lectures on Preaching (London, 1832) and The Miscellaneous Works of Philip Doddridge, D.D., ed. Thomas Morrell (London, 1839). On 11 April 1758, Job Orton wrote to Mercy Doddridge to say that he and Samuel Clark did not think the sacramental meditations were suitable for publication: see CHCN Doddridge MS.
(55) Edward Williams, The Christian Preacher: or, Discourses on Preaching (Halifax, 1800).
(56) A second appendix of further reading was added in the fifth edition of 1843.
(57) Williams, The Christian Preacher, 467.
(58) Williams, The Christian Preacher, 452.
(59) Williams, The Christian Preacher, 470, 476. The remarks on Doddridge are not the same as those which appear in BBC MS G 93 and DWL MS NCL L.29/24.
(60) No evangelical Anglican preachers appear in Doddridge’s ‘Lectures on Preaching’, even though Whitefield preached from his pulpit, Wesley lectured to Doddridge’s academy students once, and both were among the most significant preachers of the age.
(61) The letter which introduces them begins, ‘In those Lectures of Dr. Doddridge, which are denominated his Preaching Lectures, and which were never printed, are brief characters of the most celebrated commentaries,’ Universal Theological Magazine, 9 (1803), 82. Commentators on the Bible are the subject of lectures XIV and XV (see ‘Lectures on Preaching’ in Doddridge, Works, V, 471–7). The notes on commentators appear in the Universal Theological Magazine, 9 (1803), 82–8 and 127–33; the second version of Doddridge’s notes on practical writers (which correspond closely to lectures II–IV of the ‘Lectures on Preaching’ in Doddridge, Works, V) are printed in Universal Theological Magazine, 9 (1803), 195–202 and 237–45. The Universal Theological Magazine was founded in 1802 by William Vidler and continued as the Monthly Repository by Robert Aspland from 1809. The title continued until 1836. See Francis E. Mineka, The Dissidence of Dissent: The Monthly Repository, 1806–1838 (Chapel Hill, NC, 1944), 80–1.
(62) Universal Theological Magazine, 8 (1803) 301–9. ‘Rusticus’ has been identified as the Unitarian minister Edmund Butcher, who had been educated at Daventry academy: see Alexander Gordon, ‘Butcher, Edmund (1757–1822)’, rev. M. J. Mercer, ODNB.
(63) Doddridge, Works, V, 435.
(64) ‘As a literary curiosity, and as I think containing some very just remarks, I send an Extract for insertion in your liberal and useful Work,’ wrote Rusticus in a letter dated 1 March 1803, and published in August that year. Universal Theological Magazine, 9 (1803), 82.
(65) ‘Rusticus’ also sent two lectures on eloquence by Andrew Kippis because they appeared in the same manuscript as the extracts of Doddridge’s lectures. These were the only other lectures to be printed in the magazine. Universal Theological Magazine, new ser., 1 (1804), 192–6, 255–63.
(66) Universal Theological Magazine, 9 (1803), 297–9.
(67) Doddridge, Works, V, 424.
(68) Doddridge, Works, V, 423. Williams writes in The Christian Preacher that he is in possession of two copies of the ‘Lectures on Preaching’, indicating that he borrowed two more in preparing the edition of the lectures for publication.
(69) While the 1804 and 1821 editions were published by Ogle, the 1807 edition was published by Richard Edwards, who was not connected with the Works, and the 1808 edition by Manning and Loring.
(70) The Works cost £2 in boards, according to an advertisement in the 1805 edition of The Family Expositor. On authors and publishers favouring swift reprints of a work in a small format to forestall piracy, see Sher, The Enlightenment and the Book, 84.
(71) Doddridge, Lectures on Preaching (London, 1807), iv.
(72) Philip Doddridge, Lessen over het Samestellen en Uitspreken van Predickatien (Rotterdam, 1770), 144. The surviving manuscript copy of ‘Lectures on Preaching’ from Doddridge’s academy also has 22 lectures. DWL MS NCL L.29/22.
(73) ‘als hebbende dezelve uit zynen mond gehoord en naar zyn eigen handschrift gevolgt, toen ik my onder zyne Academische zorg bevond en myn verblijf, vyf jaren lang, in zyn huis had.’ Lessen over het Samestellen, sig. *2.
(74) Doddridge, Lectures on Preaching, lecture 5, § 4, 36 and lecture 1, §13; compared to Lessen over het Samestellen, 20 and 5.
(75) Lecture 7 is titled ‘Over de verkiezing van Gedagten en derzelver Schikking’ in Dutch; Lessen over het Samestellen, 45.
(76) The only change is that in the 1808 edition, Charnock appears later in the list of nonconformists and Clarke earlier in the list of preachers from the established church.
(77) Notice of Mercy Doddridge junior’s death in Gentleman’s Magazine, 75 (1805), 1080.