WORKS OF THE REV. SYDNEY SMITH. DR. PARR.* [EDINBURGH REVIEW, 1802.] WHOEVER has had the good fortune to see | species.' Some men, it has been remarked, Dr. Parr's wig, must have observed, that while It trespasses a little on the orthodox magnitude of perukes in the anterior parts, it scorns even Episcopal limits behind, and swells out into boundless convexity of frizz, the ua Java of barbers, and the terror of the literary world. After the manner of his wig, the Doctort has constructed his sermon, giving us a discourse of no common length, and subjoining an immeasurable mass of notes, which appear to concern every learned thing, every learned man, and almost every unlearned man since the beginning of the world. For his text, Dr. Parr has chosen Gal. vi. 10. As we have therefore opportunity, let us do good to all men, especially to those who are of the household of faith. After a short preliminary comparison between the dangers of the selfish system, and the modern one of universal benevolence, he divides his sermon into two parts: in the first, examining how far, by the constitution of human nature, and the circumstances of human life, the principles of particular and universal benevolence are compatible: in the last, commenting on the nature of the charitable institution for which he is preaching. The former part is levelled against the doctrines of Mr. Godwin; and, here, Dr. Parr exposes, very strongly and happily, the folly of making universal benevolence the immediate motive of our actions. As we consider this, though of no very difficult execution, to be by far the best part of the sermon, we shall very willingly make some extracts from it. "To me it appears, that the modern advocates for universal philanthropy have fallen into the error charged upon those who are fascinated by a violent and extraordinary fondness for what a celebrated author calls 'some moral Spital Sermon, preached at Christ Church upon Easter-Tuesday, April 15, 1800. To which are added, Notes by SAMUEL PARR, LL.D. Printed for J. Mawman in the Poultry. 1801. A great scholar, as rude and violent as most Greek scholars are, unless they happen to be Bishops. He has left nothing behind him worth leaving: he was rather fitted for the law than the church, and would have been a more considerable man, if he had been more knocked about among his equals. He lived with country gendeinen and clergymen, who flattered and feared him. are hurried into romantic adventures, by their excessive admiration of fortitude. Others are actuated by a headstrong zeal for disseminating the true religion. Hence, while the only properties, for which fortitude or zeal can be esteemed, are scarcely discernible, from the enormous bulkiness to which they are swclien, the ends to which alone they can be directed usefully are overlooked or defeated; the public good is impaired, rather than increased; and the claims that other virtues equally obligatory have to our notice are totally disregarded. Thus, too, when any dazzling phantoms of universal philanthropy have seized our attention, the objects that formerly engaged it shrink and fade. All considerations of kindred, friends, and countrymen, drop from the mind,. during the struggles it makes to grasp the collective interests of the species; and when the association that attached us to them has been dissolved, the notions we have formed of their comparative insignificance will prevent them from recovering, I do not say any hold whatsoever, but that strong and lasting hold they once had upon our conviction and our feelings.. Universal benevolence, should it, from any strange combination of circumstances, ever become passionate, will, like every other passion, justify itself; and the importunity of its demands to obtain a hearing will be proportionate to the weakness of its cause. But what are the consequences? A perpetual wrestling for victory between the refinements of sophistry, and the remonstrances of indignant nature-the agitations of secret distrust in opinions which gain few or no proselytes, and feelings which excite little or no sympathy the neglect of all the usual duties, by which social life is preserved or adorned; and in the pursuit of other duties which are unusual, and indeed imaginary, a succession of airy projects eager hopes, tumultuous efforts, and galling disappointments, such, in truth, as every wise man foresaw, and a good man would rarely commiserate." In a subsequent part of his sermon, Dr. Parr handles the same topic with equal success. "I admit, and I approve of it, as an emotion of which general happiness is the cause, but not as a passion, of which, according to the usual order of human affairs, it could often be the object. I approve of it as a disposition to wish, and, as opportunity may occur, to desire and do good, rather than harm, to those with whom we are quite unconnected." "The stoics, it has been said, were more | and he is only erroneous in excluding the parsuccessful in weakening the tender affections, ticular affections, because, in so doing, he dethan in animating men to the stronger virtues prives us of our most powerful means of proof fortitude and self-command; and possible moting his own principle of universal good; it is, that the influence of our modern reform- for it is as much as to say, that all the crew ers may be greater, in furnishing their disciples ought to have the general welfare of the ship with pleas for the neglect of their ordinary so much at heart that no sailor should ever duties, than in stimulating their endeavours pull any particular rope, or hand any individual for the performance of those which are extra- sail. By universal benevolence, we mean, and ordinary, and perhaps ideal. If, indeed, the understand Dr. Parr to mean, not a barren representations we have lately heard of uni- affection for the species, but a desire to proversal philanthropy served only to amuse the mote their real happiness; and of this princifancy of those who approve of them, and to ple, he thus speaks: communicate that pleasure which arises from contemplating the magnitude and grandeur of a favourite subject, we might be tempted to smile at them as groundless and harmless. But they tend to debase the dignity, and to weaken the efficacy of those particular affections, for which we have daily and hourly occasion in the events of real life. They tempt us to substitute the ease of speculation, It would appear, from this kind of lanand the pride of dogmatism, for the toil of prac-guage, that a desire of promoting the universal tice. To a class of artificial and ostentatious good were a pardonable weakness, rather than sentiments, they give the most dangerous a fundamental principle of ethics; that the triumph over the genuine and salutary dictates particular affections were incapable of excess; of nature. They delude and inflame our minds and that they never wanted the corrective of a with pharisaical notions of superior wisdom more generous and exalted feeling. In a suband superior virtue; and, what is the worst of sequent part of his sermon, Dr. Parr atones a all, they may be used as a cloke to us' for little for this over-zealous depreciation of the insensibility, where other men feel; and for principle of universal benevolence; but he negligence, where other men act with visible nowhere states the particular affections to and useful, though limited, effect." derive their value and their limits from their In attempting to show the connection be- subservience to a more extensive philanthrotween particular and universal benevolence, py. He does not show us that they exist only Dr. Parr does not appear to us to have taken a as virtues, from their instrumentality in proclear and satisfactory view of the subject. Na-moting the general good; and that, to preserve ture impels us both to good and bad actions; their true character, they should be frequently and, even in the former, gives us no measure referred to that principle as their proper criteby which we may prevent them from degenerat- rion. ing into excess. Rapine and revenge are not less natural than parental and filial affection; which latter class of feelings may themselves be a source of crimes, if they overpower (as they frequently do) the sense of justice. It is not, therefore, a sufficient justification of our actions, that they are natural. We must seek, from our reason, some principle which will enable us to determine what impulses of nature we are to obey, and what we are to resist such is that of general utility, or, what is the same thing, of universal good; a principle which sanctifies and limits the more particular affections. The duty of a son to a parent, or a parent to a son, is not an ultimate principle of morals, but depends on the principle of universal good, and is only praiseworthy because it is found to promote it. At the same time, our spheres of action and intelligence are so confined, that it is better, in a great majority of instances, to suffer our conduct to be guided by those affections which have been long sanctioned by the approbation of mankind, than to enter into a process of reasoning, and investigate the relation which every trifling event might bear to the general interests of the world. In his principle of universal benevolence, Mr. Godwin is unquestionably right. That it is the grand principle on which all morals rest-that Upon the whole, this sermon is rather the it is the corrective for the excess of all parti-production of what is called a sensible, than cular affections, we believe to be undeniable: of a very acute man; of a man certainly In the latter part of his sermon, Dr. Parr combats the general objections of Mr. Turgot to all charitable institutions, with considerable vigour and success. To say that an institution is necessarily bad, because it will not always be administered with the same zeal, proves a little too much; for it is an objection to political and religious, as well as to charitable institutions; and, from a lively apprehension of the fluctuating characters of those who govern, would leave the world without any government at all. It is better there should be an asylum for the mad, and a hospital for the wounded, if they were to squander away 50 per cent. of their income, than that we should be disgusted with sore limbs, and shocked by straw-crowned monarchs in the streets. All institutions of this kind must suffer the risk of being governed by more or less of probity and talents. The good which one active cha racter effects, and the wise order which h establishes, may outlive him for a long period and we all hate each other's crimes, by which we gain nothing, so much, that in proportior. as public opinion acquires ascendency in any particular country, every public institution becomes more and more guarantied from abuse. |