« PreviousContinue »
in Latin. I could have shot my bolt in Latin without any great difficulty, as the more I write, the better I write, and perhaps, if I can draw master Hurd out, I may continue the debate in another language, or I may not ; for it is all chance. Keep up your spirits. Ogle will go to
by his station, he was made so conspicuous a member. But we should like to know what grounds Dr. Parr had for his injurious insinuation; or whether he had any grounds whatever for the charge except the gratuitous assumption, that, because Bishop Porteus once concurred with many others in desiring a review of the Articles and Liturgy of our Church, he must needs have gone to the utmost length with the most violent opponents of her discipline and doctrine. Many of the petitioners may have wished for such an alteration of our Liturgy, on mere Socinian principles; others, because they favoured the Arian tenets, and others may have objected to the present forms of subscription, simply because they thought our Liturgy in some respects capable of improvement, and would have desired that the Athanasian Creed, though they fully assented to its explications of the Catholic Faith, should no longer be publicly recited in our Churches. To this last class of petitioners we believe Bishop Porteus to have belonged; and we know that there are some of the most eminent and most judicious members of the Church of England, who still think that certain of her public offices might be advantageously revised ; and, whilst they sincerely subscribe to the truth of the eighth Article, entertain the strongest doubts concerning the expediency of admitting into our public religious service a Creed, which is not received into the ancient Liturgies either of the Greek or Latin Church, and which is couched in language so abstruse and obscure, as to render it hardly intelligi
St. Asaph. Think of Hurd voting against his
ble to general hearers. That the calumniator of Porteus should be the panegyrist of such prelates as Clayton and Hoadley, (Hoadly,) is a mere matter of course. But Dr. Parr could only admire at a distance their good fortune, which threw them on those happier days, when it was permitted to an Arian and a Socinian, to avow their principles, and yet to retain their mitres, and when the government interposed its shield to protect them from the censures of the Church, which they at once insulted and disgraced. We trust that those days are gone for ever ; and that in future none, who have acquired their theological opinions from masters of the Racovian School, will, by their elevation to the highest ecclesiastical honours, cause the judgment of their Sovereign to be impugned, and give occasion to the assailants of our Reformed Church to accuse her of indifference to the fundamental doctrines of Christianity. The wonder is, not that the Church of England does not herself cast off such members, (for her hands are tied,) but that they themselves can continue in her communion, and in the enjoyment of her dignities, professing, as they do, to keep a conscience,' and very complacently assuming that they are the only members of the Church in that happy predicament."
The wonder,' expressed by this hyper-orthodox and ultraTory divine at the conclusion of this tirade is, like many other wonders, the offspring of prejudice and ignorance ; for, if he had ever read the writings of Archdeacon Blackburne, with
The insertion of Dr. Parr's Letter to Dr. Nath. Forster respecting Bishop Hurd furnishes me with an opportunity of introducing a variety of matter concerning Hurd, Warburton, Jortin, and Shipley. The subject is to myself one of much interest; it is particularly connected with Dr.
the orthography of whose name he is as anacquainted as with that of Hoadly, and from the “praise' of whom (p. 138,) by Dr. Parr, (though in the Bibl. Parr. p. 24, the Doctor merely speaks of him as “the celebrated Archdeacon,') he, by a new species of logic, very observable in him, and very worthy of the size of his understanding, infers Dr. Parr's 'secret lore of Socinianism, or, (in the abundance of the Reviewer's mercy,) his utter indifference to the doctrines of the Church, of which he professed himself a member," if, I repeat, the Reviewer had read the Preface to Four Discourses etc. delivered to the Clergy of the Archdeaconry of Cleveland, in the years 1767, 1769, 1771, and 1773, which I have quoted in the Addenda to the first Volume of the Parriana p. xvi, he would have ceased' to wonder,' and might have learned some Christian charity, and some solid sense. But let us leave this wonder to grow in the wilderness of his mind, and direct our attention to the terms, in which he has characterised the note of Dr. Parr about Porteus: the remarks are styled “ malicious ;' the ‘censure' is stated to be still more offensive’ than the remarks on Paley; the words are ' nothing better than envy, hatred, and malice ;" Dr. Parr is 'the calumniator of Porteus. But the Reviewer has in truth been drawing his own portrait, and has written underneath the notorious Dr. Parr instead of his own distinguished and venerable name! For the reader will, on an examination of Dr. Parr's note, find no other censure passed on the conduct, of Bp. Porteus than what is conveyed in these words, ' I smiled
Parr's biography; and therefore it will be interesting to many of his friends, as well as to scholars in general. I shall offer no other apology for making extracts and supplying comments. My chief authority is Mr. Green's Diary, and in his knowledge, penetration, judgment, taste, can
• at the conversion of Porteus, when he wore a mitre ;' and surely no censure can be more mild and harmless than this. The 'envy, hatred, and malice,' are nowhere visible in Dr. Parr's narrative, and as the Reviewer did not find them there, he has transplanted them from their native soil in his own heart! Dr. Parr, says this most sagacious and most profound reasoner, “ wished it to be believed that Porteus was once a Socinian, and that the acquisition of a mitre was the cause of his conversion.” Where is the proof that Dr. Parr wished any such belief to prevail? And where is the necessity for any such interpretation of the words ? As the Reviewer is as defective in Christian charity as in human logic, I will furnish him with an excellent rule for charitable argumentation, plain enough to be intelligible to him :- In disputing with an adversary never put an unfavourable construction on words, when they may be understood in an inoffensive, unobnoxious, or harmless sense. “ But we should like to know,” says the Reviewer, “ what grounds Dr. Parr had for his injurious insinuation, or whether he had any grounds whatever for the charge, except the gratuitous assumption that, because Bp. Porteus once concurred with many others in desiring a review of the Articles and Liturgy of our Church, he must needs have gone to the utmost length with the most violent opponents of her discipline and doctrine?” Dr. Parr makes no “injurious insinuation, but merely states facts ; he has no “gratuitous assumption,' has no “grounds whatever for the charge,' but what those facts supply; he does
dour, and impartiality I place great reliance. His valuable book has not acquired much celebrity, and therefore the matter extracted will be new to many readers. The notices respecting these eminent individuals are dispersed over his Diary, and the collection and the connection of
not say that Porteus ever was a Socinian ; he may or may not, in point of fact, have been a Socinian in early life; but ‘the acquisition of a mitre was,’ in Dr. Parr's opinion, “the cause of his conversion' in this sense, viz. that the time had been, when Porteus urged the Archbishop of Canterbury to promote a revision of the 39 Articles and a reform in the Church-Service oN DR. CLARKE's PLAN, (the Reviewer omits these capital words, cogent reasons him thereunto moving,) and if that plan was the production of a Socinian or an Arian, and if the consequence of its adoption, which was so earnestly implored by Porteus, as well as the object itself sought by its adoption, would have been, and was the instant admission of Socinians and Arians into the bosom of the Church, it is a fair presumption that Porteus was at that time, if not a Socinian or an Arian, at least friendly towards and connected with Socinians and Arians; his elevation to the mitre made him not only renounce the dangerous friendship, and loathe the impure connection, but converted him into a decided enemy, who evinced the warmth of his zeal, if not the sincerity of his conversion, by attacking them in a pamphlet some years after, when he had hoped that the part, which he had taken on their behalf, was erased from the public memory. Well might Dr. Parr “smile at the conversion of Porteus, when he wore a mitre " The Reviewer has the misfortune to be seldom right, and therefore it is no “wonder’ that he should confound Porteus, who never petitioned the Legislature, but only privately and personally addressed the Archbishop,