he was himself of this opinion. Dr. Leland published a reply to Dr. Hurd, in which, by still preserving the dignity of the literary character, he gained, in manners as well as argument, a complete victory over his antago

nist."

“In 1769, Dr Hurd published the Select Works of Mr. Abraham Cowley, with a Preface and Notes, in 2 vols. 8vo. This has not been thought the most judicious of Dr. Hurd's attempts, yet it was too fastidiously objected to, as interfering with the totality of Cowley's Works. Dr. Hurd had no intention to sink the old editions; he only selected what he thought most valuable.”

Mr. Chalmers appears to have overlooked the following passages, which furnish alike the objection and the an

"Mr. Murphy mentioned Dr. Johnson's having a design to publish an edition of Cowley. Johnson said, he did not know but he should; and he expressed his disapprobation of Dr. Hurd for having published a mutilated edition under the title of Select Works of Abraham Cowley. Mr. Murphy thought it a bad precedent; observing that any author might be used in the same manner; and that it was pleasing to see the variety of an author's compositions at different periods." Boswell's Life of Johnson 3, 28. "He said: - I was angry with Hurd about Cowley, for having published a Selection of his Works, but, upon better consideration, I think there is

6

no impropriety in a man's publishing as much as he 'chooses of any author, if he does not put the rest out of 'the way. A man, for instance, may print the Odes of • Horace alone.' He seemed to be in a more indulgent humour, than when this subject was discussed between him and Mr. Murphy." 3, 247.

My excellent and enlightened friend, Dr. John Johnstone, has devoted 36 pages of his Memoirs of Dr. Parr to this question of Hurd and Parr; and as I must confess that my own opinions differ much from his, — as I am fearful of doing any injustice to his arguments by misrepresentation or omission, — as the character of Dr. Parr is materially involved in the subject, and his conduct is capable of vindication, — as I wish my readers to have before them all the evidence, that they may compare my opinions with Dr. J. J.'s, and at the same time draw their own conclusion, — and as Dr. J. J.'s work is from its bulk so expensive as to be inaccessible to many readers, I find myself obliged to make a considerable quotation from these Memoirs, p. 305, etc.

"The Work was published in the year 1789, under the title Tracts by Warburton and a Warburtonian, not admitted into the Collections of their respective Works. Before the Tracts of Warburton is a short Preface of the Editor; before the Tracts by a Warburtonian, a Dedication and a Preface. Had the Preface been prefixed to the respective Works alone, some obligation might have been owed by the Republic of Letters to the exertions of Dr. Parr. They, who mark, with philosophic precision, the progress of the human understanding,' must thank him for giving them an opportunity of comparing the better productions of Warburton's pen with the worse;' nor was it unworthy of his love of ingenuousness and fairness in literary controversy, to unscreen a critic,

6

who anonymously employed an 'offensive spirit of controversy for the purpose of degrading' a learned writer. The Preface, however, has a better claim on our gratitude than any it can derive from the unveiling of dark manoeuvres, or the indignation it expresses against the foul arts of detraction so often practised by men of letters.' The characters of Warburton, and Leland, and Jortin, can never be read without delight: He, that speaks of them without approbation, must renounce his pretensions to impartiality of taste, to exactness of discrimination, or delicacy of feeling.' The Preface is written in a more dignified tone of mind, and with a Better spirit than the Dedication, which is directed as a death-blow at Bishop Hurd's literary reputation; and certainly its venom, its sly aims, its dexterous thrusts, as well as its furious blows, are unparalleled. Rarely does the Editor use the lighter missive weapons of the controversial armoury,

rarely does he pelt his adversary with trim urbanity or

oblique insinuation.' When he does, it is only to gain time, and to take breath to gather up his might, and to assail with recruited vigour. Wheresoever such powers are employed for any purpose, it will naturally be asked, Why were they so employed? I am fearful that a candid perusal of the Dedication will generate the same opinion in every reader of sense and virtue. Why should so learned a man as Dr. Parr attack so venerable and so respectable a man as Dr. Hurd in this bitter manner? What could be his motive? What motives could justify such an attack?

"In order that we may be just, let us briefly survey the Dedication with these views, and at the same time take a glance at some of Dr. Parr's deliberate writings

hitherto unpublished, so as to judge whether the motive was general or personal, of remote or recent date; and finally, whether he was not, after all, hurried away by one of those torrents of passion, of which there are too many instances in his life, as in the lives of us all. For, although his talents were enlisted on the side of virtue, our friend was sometimes deceived, he was often duped, — and he was always jealous of attention, and indignant at neglect. The sounding name too, of independence, and still more, his apprehension of apostacy, swerving, and inconsistency, were sure to open the sluices of his resentment. Now I think a gleam of light illumines the subject, if we advert to the patronage of the Doctor by Bishop Lowth, who was one of the antagonists of the Warburtonian school. By the Bishop's patronage Dr. Parr was promoted to a Prebend of St. Paul's: by other patronage he was made Curate of Hatton, and thus Bishop Hurd became the Diocesan of Dr. Parr.

“Dr. Parr went to Hartlebury necessarily on this occasion. He was treated coldly: not even a repast was offered to him. This slight roused his indignation. He probably, during the effervescence of his rage, recollected the Delicacy of Friendship, which he had caused to be copied at Norwich, and perhaps he did not forget the sneer concerning the long vernacular Sermons at Whitehall; and his fancy, under such influence, would naturally conjure up a phantom in the shape of Bishop Hurd, which had marched across the high road of his interests, and blighted the prospects of his preferment.

"From a comparison of Dr. Parr's opinion of Bishop Hurd, at the time he edited the Warburtonian Tracts, with his former opinion, my theory will receive support

and justification. On the constitution of parliaments, and the real foundation of the English constitution, in the Notes on Rapin, he calls Bishop Hurd's a more decisive opinion than De Lolme's, p. 13. He speaks of Bishop Hurd's 'acute reflection.' He quotes, then, nearly two close sheets of the Dialogues, p. 16. He quotes Hurd's authority as supreme on the limitation of feudal authority, as introduced by the Conqueror. And again, p. 18. Bishop Hurd elucidates Hume, p. 23. Bp. Hurd happily reconciles some contradictions of opinion about the feudal system, p. 35. Concerning the Tudors, Hurd is the first authority quoted, p. 29: The various ' and uncommon causes of Henry VIIIth's power are 'most profoundly traced and most exactly described by

Bp. Hurd.' In p. 32, is the following general character:- The Dialogues of Hurd on the reign of Eliza'beth are written with great delicacy of sentiment, and ❝ the most finished elegance of style. They abound with 'curious remarks on the personal qualities of the Princess, ' and the peculiar manners of her times; but they throw a very feeble light on the political history of her go'vernment; they are not marked by the strong features of sagacity and of impartiality, which distinguish the investigation of Hume.' James's notions of prerogative ably discussed by Hurd, p. 33. Sensible observations of Hurd to be impressed on the mind of the reader, p. 35. P. 54, Hurd quoted for producing a striking coincidence of sentiment in his Letter on the Marks of Imitation, in his Horace 2, 35.

"I think myself justified in thus comparing Dr. Parr with himself at two different periods, by the authority of an unpublished work. He had evidently some doubt of