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 gratuitous assumption,' has no grounds

facts; he has no

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,

them will be very useful for intelligent readers. Mr. Green had formed a very just opinion of Warburton and Hurd; and his notices of Hurd in particular give not only a clear, however unfavourable, insight into his literary, moral, and theological character, but a very correct analysis of his writings. Those will best relish the Tracts by Warburton and a Warburtonian, who best understand the writings and the character of Warburton and Hurd. The extracts are long, but their excellence will atone for their length, and the reader will find frequent mention of Parr in the course of them. He will not fail to notice that, though Mr. Green was only the acquaintance of Dr. Parr, and therefore may be supposed to be an unprejudiced judge, yet the sentence, which he has passed on Hurd, perfectly well accords with the sentiments of Dr. Parr.

But before I proceed to make the extracts from the Diary, I will copy the following list of Mr. Green's publications from A Memoir of Thomas Green Esq. of Ipswich, with a Critique on his Writings, and an Account of his Family and Connections, 1825. 4to. printed at Ipswich, not published, but most courteously presented to me

with the petitioners' at the Feathers-Tavern, to whom Porteus in his own statement represents himself to have been quite opposed. E. H. B.]

by the Guardians and Executors under Mr. Green's Will.

1. The Micthodion, or, A Poetical Olio, by a young Gentleman, Lond. 1788. 12mo. (published in conjunction with a friend, and noticed in the Monthly Review 78, 527.)

2. A Vindication of the Shop-Tax, addressed to the Landholders of England, Lond. 1789. 8vo.

3. Slight Observations upon Paine's Pamphlet, principally respecting his Comparison of the French and English Constitutions, with other Incidental Remarks: in three Letters from a Gentleman in London to a Friend in the Country. Lond. 1791. 8vo. (Monthly Rev. 6, 460.) 4. Political Speculations, occasioned by the Progress of a Democratic Party in England, Lond. 1791. 8vo. (Monthly Rev. 6, 461.)

5. A Short Address to the Protestant Clergy of every De

nomination on the fundamental Corruption of Christian-ity, Lond. 1792. 8vo. (Monthly Rev. 9, 236. Critical Rev. 6, 472.)

6. The Two Systems of the Social Compact, and the

Natural Rights of Man, examined and confuted, Lond. 1792. 8vo. (Monthly Rev. 13, 106. Critical Rev. 11, 222.)

7. Critical Observations on the sixth Book of the Eneid. Lond. originally printed 1770, reprinted 1794. 8vo. pp. 56.*

* There is no preface to the reprint, but Mr. Green has added the following words by way of a prefix : "A most clear, elegant, aud decisive work of criticism, which could not, indeed, derive authority from the greatest name, but to which the

8. An Examination of the Leading Principle of the New System of Morals, as that Principle is stated and applied in Mr. Godwin's Enquiry concerning Political Justice, in a Letter to a Friend, 1798. 8vo. A second edition was published in 1799, and contains a Preface, (substituted for the short Advertisement in the first edition,)

This

greatest name might with propriety have been affixed. book is ascribed, and I think with great probability, to the very 'learned and ingenious author, to whom the public is indebted 'for the History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. 'Be the writer who he will, the reader will say with me that • the work is, πίδακος ἐξ ἱερῆς ὀλίγη λιβάς. Warburton and a Warburtonian P. 192."

Τracts by

"This tract," says Dr. Parr, (Bibl. Parr. 629,) "supposed to be written by Mr. Gibbon, and scarcely to be found in any catalogue, was in 1794, republished, and obligingly sent me by the unknown editors. I was told by Mr. Godwin that the original edition had been suppressed, and that the persons, who republished it, were Mr. Symonds and Mr. Green of the Temple."

"The motto to the tract is very appropriate : "As the reasonable De la Bruyere observes, Qui ne sait étre un 'Erasme, doit penser à étre un Eveque.' Pope's Works 4, 321. with the Commentaries and Notes of Mr. Warburton."

Gibbon closes the pamphlet with the following words." It is perhaps some foolish fondness for antiquity, which inclines me to doubt, whether the Bishop of Gloucester has really united the severe sense of Aristotle with the sublime imagination of Longinus. Yet a judicious critic, (who is now, I believe, Archdeacon of Gloucester,) assures the public that his patron's mere amusements have done much more than the joint labours of the two Grecians. I shall conclude these observations with a remarkable passage from the Archdeacon's