Page images
PDF
EPUB

discover how seldom the cause of a quarrel is commensurate with the consequences-' how great a matter a little fire kindleth.' PARR had taken several opportunities of speaking handsomely of Dr. HURD in his notes upon Rapin, written some six years before. They were not then published, it is true, but they are now, and stand upon record as his deliberate opinion of the Bishop at that time. And this circumstance, we think, is enough to show that it was not WARBURTON'S Own treatment of LOWTH that drew down upon the head of WARBURTON'S friend the vials of PARR'S wrath. But when PARR was presented to Hatton, which was in the diocese of Worcester, 'he necessarily went to Hartlebury - he was treated coldly-not even a repast was offered 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.' Vol. 1. p. 307.

[ocr errors]

"Hinc illæ lacrymæ! This probably was the whole truth, trifling as it seems; for 'contempt,' says Lord Bacon, is that which putteth an ⚫ edge upon anger as much or more than the hurt itself;' and PARR was just the man to be alive to it. He could forgive an injury, for he was generous; but he could not forget an insult, for he was vain. Accordingly in this Dedication and Preface, especially in the former, he lets himself loose, and whilst the kindlier feelings of the man occasionally betray him into the most beautiful sketches of characters, whom he revered, for Bishop HURD he has nothing but one unceasing pitiless storm of sarcasm, indignation, and contempt."

(The Reviewer cites from PARR's Works 6, 371. the following passage: :-The distinguishing virtues- -always went before him,' for the insertion of which I have not space, and he then proceeds.) "Who could believe that the same original is sitting to PARR in this Dedication, and to MASON in the 4th of his Elegies? But the Lord Hatton, whom CLARENDON despises, (Hist. Rebell. 2, 156. Oxford,) is the same whom JEREMY TAYLOR (Dedic. to the Lib. of Proph.) delights to honour, and the SPORUS of Pope's coarse and tremendous satire, (Prol. to the Satires,) is the LORD HERVEY, whom MIDDLETON (Dedic. to the Life of CICERO) represents as the most virtuous and accomplished of mankind. The following tribute to the memory of WARBURTON and of JOHNSON, contained in the Preface to these Tracts, (3, 404. Few men, etc.) need not fear a comparison with anything of its kind in our language. There is an allusion in it, it will be perceived, to the delay of BISHOP HURD in producing his Life of WARBURTON, which, for prudential reasons, was not suffered to accompany the edition of his Works." 1. I admit the candour and fairness, which pervade these strictures on PARR's treatment of HURD, when that treatment is contemplated in the same light, in which the amiable Reviewer has surveyed it; but I deny the justice of them, and whoever impartially reads the statements and the reasonings, which are contained in my book, will, I venture to say, be equally prepared to deny the justice of them. 2. HURD's publication of his Correspondence with WARBURTON, breathing the most rancorous

spirit against LELAND, JORTIN, and Lowтн, and proving his desire to eternize his hatred of those eminent and virtuous men, fully justifies PARR for his re-publication of the Tracts in question, which I regard as the MOST MERITORIOUS, perhaps the MOST USEFUL, but certainly the LEAST UNDERSTOOD, act of his literary life. 3. The Reviewer blames the want of "courtesy due from one man of letters to another" in PARR'S re-publication of Tracts, which "their author had shown himself desirous to suppress;" the "courtesy" was "due" only in case the motives for the suppression were right and pure, and the Reviewer himself admits that "he compassionates Dr. HURD the less, because the suppression of his pamphlets against JORTIN and LELAND appeared, after all, to be the effect of caution rather than of contrition." Now, as HURD's motives for the suppression were not right and pure, PARR was not bound by any law of courtesy to respect them; HURD had treated him contemptuously, and PARR determined to inflict proper chastisement on him, and he was at liberty to take his own measures for that purpose; HURD had committed enormous offences against the republic of letters by his conduct towards particular scholars, two of whom, (LELAND and LowтH,) were PARR's personal friends and correspondents, who had given no offence whatever to HURD himself, and PARR was on public grounds amply justified in resenting this conduct, and right generous and noble was it in him to encounter, in the cause of truth, the obloquy and odium, which were certain to arise out of the measures, which he resolved to take. 4. The Reviewer contends that "it was not the respect, which an inferior clergyman owed to his Diocesan." PARR has most scrupulously abstained from touching on theological matters, about which alone he owed respect to his Diocesan; in the free republic of letters there is NO DIOCESAN, to whom any respect is owed; the contrary maxim is MOST PERNICIOUS, and should be forthwith expelled from the memories and the minds of men, for its direct tendency is to grant impunity to Bishops within their dioceses, for any offences against the clergy resident in them, even on occasions, which have no reference to ecclesiastical authority or hierarchical dicipline. HURD shewed no respect whatever to the virtues, talents, and learning of JORTIN, LELAND, and LowтH, and he was therefore not entitled to claim any from the avenger of their cause. He received strict justice from PARR in regard to censure and to praise; and if the censure outweighed the praise, it was not the defect of PARR's scales, but the deficiency of HURD's merits, which made so awful a balance against the DIOCESAN. 5. "It was not the charity," continues the Reviewer, which should lead every Christian, and particularly every Christian minister, to extinguish instead of prolonging strife." JORTIN and LELAND were laid in their grave, it is true, but no one of their friends had vindicated their memory from the slanders of a BISHOP; the pious office was undertaken, performed, and fulfilled by Dr. PARR. This, then, was Christian charity to the dead. The "strife" had, it is true, abated by the victory of LELAND, and the forbearance of JORTIN, not by the repentance and amendment of

HURD; it was not "extinguished" even by the death of JORTIN and LELAND, for HURD was resolved, in a fiend-like spirit, to pursue them even beyond the confines of the grave, as is apparent from the MOST DELIBERATE entry made by him in a port-folio on Jan. 18, 1793. respecting the publication of the Correspondence with WARBURTON, 4 years after the republications of Dr. PARR, who cannot justly be said "to have prolonged" a "strife," which HURD himself had not suffered "to be extinguished," and which the public should not have desired "to be extinguished," till ample justice was done to the memories of JORTIN and LELAND. The Reviewer too should have recollected that the most uncharitable HURD was not entitled to expect much charity from others; Dr. PARR exhibited true disinterested Christian charity in avenging the unmerited wrongs of JORTIN and LELAND, and to inflict exemplary punishment on a great literary offender, (for in maxima fortuna minima licentia est,) and to incur the obloquy and odium of inflicting it, is Christian charity to the public,-an example worthy the imitation, not only of "every Christian," but of "every Christian minister." 6. In the Letters between HURD and an eminent Prelate," continues the Reviewer, those useful scholars, (and especially the former of the two,) are still spoken of in language sufficiently offensive and contemptuous. It is true that this shows itself chiefly in WARBURTON's share of the Correspondence." And why? because HURD SUPPRESSED a great part of his communications to WARBURTON, as too foul, no doubt, to bear the public eye! 7. "And, on the other hand, it is true that some allowance is to be made for WARBURTON, who had reason to complain of a want of generosity, at least, in JORTIN's dealings towards him." No "allowance" whatever " is to be made for WARBURTON," because there was no "want of generosity" on the part of JORTIN, as I have abundantly shewn in this volume, and WARBURTON had no son to complain," but took offence, because JORTIN would not worship the image, which WARBURTON had set up, in respect to the sixth Eneid; JORTIN gave judicious praise, but the inordinate vanity of WARBURTON expected extravagant praise, and his imperious spirit could brook no censure, and demanded entire submission to his opinions.

66

rea

I have succeeded in procuring a copy of the book, to which I have alluded p. 362, The Address of Q. SEPT. TERTULLUS, Proconsul of Africa, translated by SIR DAVID DALRYMPLE, Edinb. 1790. 12mo. pp. 139. Lord Hailes in p. 58, of this opusculum writes:-"An excellent summary of both passages is to be found in the following words:Tertullian is at pains to vindicate the Christians from 'the charge of being ill-affected to the State, and gives it as one reason, among others, why in their public liturgies they constantly prayed for the safety of the Caesarean empire, from the persuasion then generally held, and professedly founded on the "authority of this text," (2 Thess. 2, 5-8.) "that Antichrist could not be revealed, so long as that empire should continue, and that 'the greatest calamity, which ever threatened the world, was only delayed by its preservation.' Sermons by BISHOP HALIFAX

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

6

b

[ocr errors]

1, 152. On this occasion I indulge myself in the melancholy pleasure of quoting the words of a lamented friend, and I add my testimony of approbation, such as it is, to that of all, who knew his worth and accomplishments." In p. 103, his Lordship uses an ambiguous epithet," the laborious Dr. LARDNER," and in p. 107, he thus vindicates himself against the censure, which he supposed Dr. PARR to have passed on him for having used that phrase:"Towards the beginning of this note, I gave the epithet of laborious to Dr. LARDNER; and in other Tracts, published by me, I have, in speaking of that author, used the same epithet, or something equivalent. While engaged in the support of the proofs of Christianity, I little expected to meet with the following note by one, whom we must suppose friendly to the common cause:That spirit of the WARBURTONIANS, which induces one of them 'to call the author of the Credibility of the Gospel-History, the laborious DR. LARDNER.-The disciples of this school generally dispense their praise with a discretion, which prevents its being exhausted by their occasional prodigality; to the profane, · σπείρουσι χειρὶ, but to the initiated ὅλῳ τῷ θυλάκῳ. The friends of Christianity, and in particular the friends of the Church of England, ought to be cautious in giving currency to such a nickname, when they recollect who it was, that added to the English language, already redundant in terms of sarcasm and invective, the phrase Warburtonian school. I received many civilities from BISHOP WARBURTON, and I honour his memory: I have possessed the friendship of his friends, and I am proud of it; but neither they, nor I ever considered the BISHOP as infallible.

6

6

Non isto viximus illic,

Quo tu rere modo.

And now as to the epithet bestowed on Dr. LARDNER, I should be glad to know what Ỉ ought to have called him? Orthodox divine, able textuary, exact translator, or elegant writer? I praised him for his labour and industry well employed; and this may be esteemed no mean praise, since every age produces persons superior to him in genius and literary accomplishments, who do not employ their time and talents so usefully as he did; I like to give things their true names; and, were a man to empty his common-place book of Greek and Latin upon the public, I might say that he had read much, but I should hardly call him judicious; I might scatter a few grains of praise, but I should be unwilling to pour out a sackful of encomium on his pamphlet. After all, it is probable enough that the author of this bitter sarcasm had in his eye a person much my superior. But, as he cannot answer for himself, I desire that what I have said, may be considered as an apology for what my departed friend, BISHOP HALLIFAX, has said." (I may observe by the way, that LORD HAILES, as other writers have done, fluctuates in his orthography of HALLIFAX, to which he in the first instance has assigned only a single l. The BISHOP himself in the 4th edn. of the Analysis of the Roman Civil Law, 1795. uses the

double letter.) I. The epithet laborious, even with the explanation of his LORDSHIP, is not sufficiently adapted to the merits of Dr. LARDNER; and it is better to withhold praise altogether than to dispense it with too niggardly a hand. That his LORDSHIP can praise liberally, is apparent enough from his warm commendations of WARBURTON, HURD, HALLIFAX, and other disciples of the Warburtonian School! 2. Dr. PARR did not allude to his LORDSHIP, with whose writings he seems to have been little acquainted, but to Bp. HALLIFAX. 3. Dr. PARR was not the author of the phrase WARBURTONIAN School, and as the term School is not used in derision or contempt, any more than when we speak of the School of Aristotle, Plato, Zeno, and Epicurus, it is not a nickname; it merely denotes identity of feeling, of sentiment, of opinion with WARBURTON. I have neither time nor space to collect authorities; but I will give one, which is at hand. The Monthly Rev. Oct. 1764, in a notice of HURD's Letter to LELAND, writes thus:"Such is the regard, which this writer thinks is due from one scholar to another. In what SCHOOL he has learned his goodbreeding few of our readers need be told; that he is an apt SCHOLAR, and zealous for the honour of his MASTER, is abundantly evident." 4. I give his LORDSHIP more credit for the happy pleasantry of his retort on Dr. PARR than for the propriety and decency of his remarks. Dr. PARR has not "emptied his common-place of Greek and Latin upon the public" in the Dedication and Preface, to which his LORDSHIP refers; the quotations are neither long nor numerous, most appropriate, and very unostentatious; as Dr. PARR was addressing a scholar, and writing only for men of letters, such quotations are unobjectionable in themselves, and add much zest to the wit, and much force to the matter. Dr. PARR never throughout life used a common-place book; his great memory readily supplied him with pertinent quotations. His LORDSHIP was himself deficient alike in taste, and in "judgment,” if he could peruse the Dedication and Prefuce, and arrive at the conclusion that Dr. PARR had "read much," but had displayed a want of "judgment;" and if, while he was "unwilling to pour out a sackful of encomiums on his pamphlet," he was disposed "to scatter" only "a few grains of praise" on one of the finest compositions in our language!

In a note to the Spital Sermon p. 124, Dr. Parr writes: -" Dr. HALLIFAX, Dr. RUTHERFORTH, and Dr. WATSON very abundantly conveyed the information, which belonged to their departments, sometimes in the disputes of the schools, and sometimes by the publication of their writings."

My excellent friend, the late JosEPH CRADOCK, Esq., relates, in a Letter addressed to me and dated July 27, 1825. that, "when Dr. PARR went to meet HURD at Lichfield, just then made Bishop, they abruptly encountered each other near the chancel, and that it was doubted which of the two bowed the lowest."

Another excellent friend wrote to me thus on May 1, 1829.:"With regard to the coldness, (or more than coldness,) between HURD and PARR, the following account of its termination was

« PreviousContinue »