GEDDES. 
ae and that thofe of them 
ho were the leatt literal e rmoft for saa and intel. 
an re ne their text. That Dr. Geddes fhould have 
had, among the members of his own church, an hoft cof 
oppofers, will not afford matter of afouthment to any one: 
he feems to have anticipated obloquy from the rich and the 
low vulgar, as the principal reward o* an almoft more than 
Herculean labour. ut he was — to go noes 
evil as well as good repor ew he had not a “ mer- 
oul the able cee a pofterity val confefs, 
C exparded with the beft ciples of 
liberality ne difintereftednefs. « I ex 
«© excefiive pro ofits from excefiive exertions, 
never want meat, and clothes, and fire; to a philofophic and 
contented mind, what mere is neceffary ?” 
ears that Dr. Geddes had been engaged feveral 
eat oe . sefore he faw aoe profpe 
rag ke it pu 
ae cee: frilly literal v 
of this kind, 
e a mind 
treath. 
e ecules no errer in any pei However exalted, 
nor would h sar it advanced ‘and ma ee withouw 
fhewing the indignation of a high’ and nob! e {pi The 
fentiment contained in the preface to his i “addreffed 
to the Englifh Catholics, was one of the leading maxims 
by which ue oe le 3 governs ed. ‘ At any rate, J do what 
to do, and do it fairly and openly. In 
wing pages, ye will find neither palliation nor dif- 
guife es I pour out my fentiments with the fame fincerity 
as if-I were before the tribunal of Him ca is to judge the. 
living and the dead. Miftake I may, but prevaricate I 
never w:k.”’ Such a ates fhewn in almo& every a& of his 
life, a in ail the intercourfes and connections with 
‘the world, though meriting the applaufe of every honour- 
‘able Aad waster the mot like ay to conciliate the, regards of 
tho fe who might have aflorded h realand 
After he had {pent much of his valuable life in biblical 
i and cruel 
em, and 
ever bel eing i in a fitastion to refume them, 
threw me into the arms of fuch a patron as Origen himfelf 
might have been proud to boaft of, a patron, who, for thele 
ten years pal s, with a dignity peculiar to himfelf, af- 
~ eas me every -convenisney that my heart could defire to- 
n my arduous work.” 
was the mea excellent lord Petr tre. 
the y 
f anew T ranfaion of = Bible,’’? which excited very 
fiderable attent an 1788 he publihed « * Propofl 
for Printing by 8 ee a New Tran of the 
Bib] 
e, &c.’’ but it was not till the {pring of ce a 1792, 
that the firft volume of this work made 
The 
ad 
SE 
pas 
5 
oO 
v 
ama, 
iffued a paltoral letter, addreffed to their refpective flocks, 
warning them againft the reception of Dr. Geddes’s verfion. 
“his unwarrantable ftretch of ecclefiaftical power occafioned 
a correfpondence between Dr. Geddes and the bifhop of 
Centuriz, in the courfe of which, the prelate, probably 
feeling his o ape n argument, availed himfelf of 
the little cae authority of office, and declared the doctor 
1786, Dr. Geddes publifhed his « pee take 
fufpended from the exercife of his et functions 
unlefs he would fignify his ca eae 
tamed in the paftor ral letter. Th 
¢ ms, and admirably adapted 
cifcumit eae of the ae And in a ftill longer letter to the 
bifho ae ee = fays, * I truft ye will not deem it 
prefumption in grapp are ae vou 
hae toldly eae at po pope injure 
Our Catholic ancettors fr ey grapple with them, . 
A fometimes came off victorious. A p and cone 
n the es 1797, the. 
econd volume of the Rice was given t o the world. 
2 the aed to this — the author ene an 
eed gives up the p nee oe of the Gao and 
eee eon of a Scriptures ; 
Hebrew hiftorians to have written, like a 
from fuch human documents as they could a ig aca : 
like them, lable to miftakes. ‘Phe doer alfo ga £ 
of the divine eran 
nétion ie as Cialis to his mind 
and in this view 
omman 
a 
heel even 
In his volume of “ Critic rks, 
he rane into a full vindication of this theory. If th 
x10Uus i rane created him a of op- 
mention of .obno a 
pena a judi fication em was not likely to ae eed 
fury, nor very much Siminith their number. 
to pleafe no party, he had enemies in every party, na indeed 
toa —_ who thought and wrote fo freely, this will not. 
be unexpected. Dr. Prie ey — who had himfelf been a 
jas d-times calu ee eliever, feemed to doubt. 
if fuch a man as Geddes, who believed fo little, and who con- 
ceded fo much, could be a Chriftian. To pee of every de- 
{cription, and to all h the doctor replied, . 
in a work entitled A General Anfwer to the Queries, &c.’?. 
He had before this given a tolerably explicit avowal of his. 
creed. “ The gofpel of Jefus is my religious ecde: his 
doctrines are my een a elight : his eel is eafy, and his 
burthen light; but this yoke I would n t put on; thefe. 
do&trines I could not admire; that ad T would not 
make my law, if reafon, o reafon, were not my prompter 
ard preceptrefs. I willingly profefs myfelf a fincere, 
though aaa aifeipte a Chritt : prada n is my name, 
nd Catholic furname. Rather 
glorious titles, 1 I would fhed my blood, but I would not 
fh for what i is neither Cacholic nor Chriitian 
8 
other work h we: 
have es refe me we e fhould si as highly deferving 
the attention of the biblical {cholar, a letter to the } 
of London, 1787. 93, he wrote an addrefs to 
public on the publication of his new tranflation: and in t 
{ucceeding year, his letter to, and correfpondence with, ce 
ifhop of Centuriz, were pu . Asa controverfialif 
i himfelf in year 1787, by a 
y, in defence ivi 
th 
expediency of a general repeal of all penal ftatutes that re- 
gard religious opinions. In a modeft apology for the. 
Roman Catholics of Great Britain, publifhed in the fpring. 
of 18co, Dr. Geddes a ee age much zeal in defence - 
the tenets to which $ great moderation when. 
oa upon the. figucies which himfelf and pees 
were 
