objects of dread! Mr. Berington, furely, will not affirm that his notions of toleration, written for the latitude of Great Britain, will be fubfcribed without more expreís qualification by the conclave at Rome.

It is, therefore, by overlooking a partial, to comprehend a full, view of the fubject, that we cannot altogether join in the conclufion above drawn. Mr. B. admits, that a better eftablishment, more confonant with the rights of the people, and the prerogative of the crown, England can never enjoy.' Is the legislature then to be blamed for fecuring it by the fame human prudence which raifed it, and which is employed to guard the crown, and to fecure our civil rights? The time. was, when mere toleration would have contented all diffenters; but as times mend, their demands increafe: perfonal rights being fecured, they now boldly reproach the ftate for withholding political privileges. Even Catholics, hoping for an act of oblivion, prefs foremost in the crowd! But though there are fashions in principles as well as in drefs, let us beware of rufhing from the extremes of caution to those of confidence,

ART. XV. Tracts, by Warburton, and a Warburtonian; not admitted into the Collection of their refpective Works. 8vo. FF. 281. 59. Boards. Dilly. 1789.

HE learned editor of this fingular publication must not

expect us to compliment him on his calmness and impartiality, notwithstanding he has been pleafed to ftyle himself (p. 157) dispassionate and impartial. His eagerness to attack the Bishop of Worcefler, both on the fcore of omiffions and commitions, and the fwollen torrent of poignant language which he has poured forth against him, feem to indicate a mind warmed and ftimulated by paffion. To genius, inflamed by anger, rather than to judgment foftened by candour, we must afcribe the prefaces and dedication with which the pieces contained in this volume are again introduced to the notice of the reader. They feem to be republifhed, not fo much for their intrinfic value, as that they were deemed capable of forming admirable batteries, wherce Dr. Parr might difcharge his heavy artillery on the R. R. Editor of Warburton's Works. Whether he has any juftifiable motives for commencing thefe hoftilities, it is not our bulinefs, as critics, to enquire; we have only to do with what is before us, or to confider how far these proceedings are, in themselves, juft, reasonable, and fuch as one literary gentle. man might be fairly allowed to carry on against another.

With respect to the charge firft brought against the Bishop of Worcester, of his having criminally omitted fundry Translations in Profe and Verfe, and the critical and philofophical Enquiry into the Caufes of Prodigies and Miracles, as related by Hiflorians, &c.

in the complete edition of Warburton's works, lately published by him, we think Dr. Parr has been too hafty. He is defirous of attributing Dr. Hurd's conduct, in this inftance, to a bad motive; when, for aught that, at prefent, appears to the contrary, it might have proceeded from one which is commendable. The editor thus begins his preface to the Two Tracts of Warburton:

For reasons, which it is by no means difficult to conjecture, though it might be invidious to ftate them, the Bishop of Worcester has not deigned to give a place to the two following Tracts in his late magnificent edition of Warburton's works. By republishing them, however, without the permiffion of the R. R. Editor, I mean not to arraign his taste or his prudence. I am difpofed even to bestow fome commendation upon the delicacy of his friendship in endeavouring to fupprefs two juvenile performances, which the author, from unneceffary caution, or ill-directed pride, would probably have wished to be forgotten. But among readers of candour and difcernment, the character of Bishop Warburton cannot fuffer any diminution of its luftre from this republication. They who are curious in collecting books, muft certainly be anxious to poffefs all the writings of that eminent prelate.'

Warburton's reputation, we agree with Dr. Parr, would not have fuffered, had thefe Tracts been included in the fplendid quarto edition of his works; but the Bishop might have judged otherwife, and if this was the cafe, we cannot wonder at their exclufion. Editors are not bound to give to the curious collectors of books every thing which they might wish to poffefs. Warburton himself did not think that he was obliged, in his edition of Pope's works, to exhibit all the pieces which this celebrated poet ever compofed; and, perhaps, he particularly requested of his learned friend, Dr. Hurd, to omit the Tranflations, together with the critical and philofophical Enquiry, &c. from the pofthumous collection of his works; and though this request might have proceeded from unnecessary caution, or illdirected pride, his editor is not entitled to any fevere animadverfion for complying with it.

In a note, fubjoined to the preface, Dr. Parr admits, that if the Bishop did impofe any prohibition of this kind, the Right Rev. Editor has acted an honourable part in holding them back.' He moreover confeffes, that he knows not but that the Bishop might have impofed fuch a prohibition. To what then does the accufation amount? It is a charge unfupported by evidence, -that is imputed to Dr. Hurd as a crime, which might poffibly proceed from an amiable virtue. The Editor cenfures the Bishop of Worcester in one page for having acted upon motives which it would be invidious to flate; when it appears in the next, that there is at least a poffibility of his having thus acted a very honourable part. Had the learned editor of thefe tracts patiently waited till

the Account of the Life and Writings of Warburton, promised to the public by Dr. Hurd, makes its appearance; and had he then found no reafons affigned for thefe omiffions, his attack would, in fome degree, have been juftified; but, at present, every impartial reader muft deem his cenfure of the Bishop of Worcefter totally premature. Audi alteram partem, is a maxim to which we should always adhere, especially before we condemn.

As to the republication of the Tracts of a Warburtonian, it is as little to be vindicated, as the attack made on Dr. Hurd for omitting the Tracts of Warburton. The plea for this publication which is intimated, though not exprefsly mentioned, in the titlepage, is unfounded, viz. that it is to fupply the defects in the colletion of the Bishop of Worcester's works. We never heard that this R. R. Author had ever collected his works together in a regular edition; but had he even been fo employed, we think he might have been allowed to reject the indifcretions of his younger years. Is an author bound to perpetuate his faults, and excluded from the privilege of repentance? This Warbur tonian thought otherwife; he has, therefore, if we have not been mifinformed, been endeavouring for years paft to buy up all the copies of these two pamphlets, that the attacks which they contain on Fortin and Leland, being undeferved by thofe great men, and now difapproved by himself, might no longer have exiftence. Dr. Parr requires a direct and explicit retractation; but this is not ufual with authors; a tacit acknowledgment of error is as much as, in general, we must expect. But be this as it may, there appears, to us, fomething unfair and invidious in dragging back to the light two hafty publications, which it is the wifh of their very refpectable author to envelope in darkness and oblivion. Greatly, therefore, as we admire the learning, the elegance, and the energy of compofition difplayed by Dr. Parr in the dedication and preface which he has thought fit to prefix to them, we lament at feeing him fo unfuitably employed;we grieve that fuch great talents, and fuch splendid attainments, as he confeffedly poffeffes, fhould be exerted only to diminish the fame, and obfcure the virtues, of the elegant and accomplifhed Bishop of Worcester.

We do not write this, becaufe we are more defirous of defending a Bishop's reputation than that of any other man; nor do we mean to attempt the fmalleft juftification of the Addrefs to Dr. Fortin, and the Letter to Dr. Leland. On the contrary, we think both are very objectionable, and met with wellmerited cenfure at the time of their first publication; but we cannot esteem this a fufficient reafon for again obtruding them on the public; nor do we confider the liberty which Dr. Parr

has

has taken in the prefent inftance, as fuch as one author fhould be permitted to take with the works of another living author.

There is little in the pamphlets that will now intereft the reader, fo that few will be difpofed to thank the editor for refcuing them from the oblivion which they had almost obtained. For the dedication and preface, let B fhop Hurd make his acknowledgments, if he finds himself fo difpofed. The former breathes no fulíome flattery; nor is the latter calculated to make the Bishop proud of his works. Bifhop Warburton and his Lordship are exhibited as a pair of portraits; and, as writers, are thus contrafted with each other.

He (Warburton) blundered against grammar, and you refined against idiom. He, from defect of talte, contaminated English by Gallicifm, and you, from excess of affectation, fometimes difgraced what would have arifen to ornamental and dignified writing, by a profufe mixture of vulgar or antiquated phrafeology. He foared into fublimity without effort, and you, by effort, funk into a kind of familiarity, which, without leading to perfpicuity, borders upon meannefs. He was great by the energies of nature, and you were little by the mifapplication of art. He, to fhew his ftrength, piled up huge and rugged maffes of learning, and you, to fhew your kill, fplit and fhivered them into what your brother critic calls ψήγματα καὶ ἀραιώματα. He fometimes reached the force of Longinus, but without his elegance, and you exhibited the intricacies of Ariftotle, but without his exa&tnefs.'

This is a very fine antithefis;-the two pictures are strongly contrafted; and every ftroke in each, manifefts the hand of a great mafter; but both are not good likeneffes. Warburton is well drawn; but his R. R. Editor is fo pictured, that few, we will venture to fay, will be able to trace the refemblance. No man of taste and judgment, whofe mind is not jaundiced by prejudice, will allow this to be a fair appreciation of the merit of Bishop Hurd's works, as compofitions. Though not faultlefs, he evidently clafies among our moft judicious and elegant writers.

After fo noble a paragraph, as that which is contained in the above extract, was compofed, it was not to be blotted out for the trifling confideration of its having deviated a little from truth. Ingenious writers have a way of fetting all right, without making the dreadful facrifice of a polished antithefis. This is managed by throwing in a little fubfequent praife, which feems to foften the weight of the charge; and yet, after an author is pronounced little, mean, exceffively affected, intricate, a Splitter and shiverer of learning, and one who has adopted into his style a profufe mixture of antiquated phrafeology, there does not appear to be much room for flattering commendation; but we are mistaken. The Bishop of Worcefter, notwithstanding his efforts were meanness, is confeffed to have produced beauties,

❖་

which, from their fuddennefs, originality, and splendour, have burft into a flood of glory" upon the attonished and enraptured reader.' Nor does Dr. Parr's commendation of Dr. Hurd, terminate in this one declaration. He proceeds:

Often has my mind hung with fondnefs and with admiration over the crowded, yet clear and luminous galaxies of imagery diffused through the works of Bishop Taylor, the mild and unfullied luftre of Additon, the variegated and expanded eloquence of Burke, the exuberance and dignified ease of Middleton, the gorgeous declamation of Bolingbroke, and the majestic energy of Johnson. But if I were to do juftice, my Lord, to the more excellent parts of your own writings, and of Warburton's, I fhould fay that the English language, even in its widelt extent, can not furnish paffages more ftrongly marked, either, by grandeur in the thought, by felicity in the expreffion, by paufes varied and harmonious, or by full and fonorous periods.'

Left, however, the Bishop fhould become vain by fo flattering a commendation, Dr. Parr fummon's the whole force of his mind, and plays ff another ftinging antithefis on him.

To grapple with the unwieldy, was among the frolics of Warburton, whilft your Lordship toiled in chafing the fubtle. He often darkened the fubject, and you perplexed it. He, by the boldnefs and magnitude of his conceptions, overwhelmed our minds with aftonishment, and you, by the fingularity and nicety of your quibbles, benumbed them with furprize. In him, we find our intellectual powers expanded and invigorated by the full and vivid reprefentation which he fometimes holds up, both of common and uncommon objects, while you, my Lord, contrive to cramp and to cripple them by all the tedious formalities of minute and fcrupulous analyfis. He fcorned every appearance of foothing the reader into attention, and you failed in almost every attempt to decoy him into conviction. He inftru&ted, even where he did not perfuade, and you, by your petulant and contemptuous gibes, difgufted every man of ferfe, whom you might otherwife have amufed by your curious and fhewy conceits.

⚫ Converfant as I may be in the most celebrated writings of the Warburtonian fect, I confefs myfelf unable to expatiate after your Lordship's manner, upon their romantic freaks of affectation or ipleen in the choice of their fubjects-upon the stately array, or the grotefque machinery of their arguments-upon the wanton corufcations of their metaphors, and the "batelels fabrics of their vilions" in allegories and double fenfes upon the rambling digreffions into which we are diverted, and the intricate labyrinths in which we are bewildered by their notes--upon the luxuriant and vicious, as well as upon the more chaite and more happy embellishments of their ftyle. I leave therefore this land of phantoms and wonders to be explored by fome dainty commentator, who, like Launcelot, "hath planted in his memory an army of good words," and who, like your Lordship, would for a trickfy phrate defy the matter." Let me, however, drop a few remarks upon thefe untparing and undiftinguishing fallies of ridicule which have been employed, fometimes to

adorn