« PreviousContinue »
and Leland, and then suppressed his pamphlets, which are very able and very diabolical. I have republished them with a bitter, biting Dedication to Dr. Hurd, who is, but dare not own that he is, the author. You see what a fine field lies open before me. I have entered it boldly, and
correspondent in the passage cited, to have been said of Porteus; and it is very certain that Dr. Parr entertained no good opinion of that Prelate, not because he was orthodox, or because he was heterodox, (for Dr. Parr respected many orthodox, as well as many heterodox churchmen,) not because he was a changeling, turncoat, or apostate from his early principles, (for, though Dr. Parr loved honest consistency in thought, word, and deed, he did not and could not reproach any man for a conscientious renunciation of former opinions, without any hope or prospect of advantage from that renunciation,) but because he saw sufficient reason to doubt the sincerity of those, who held one language before their elevation to episcopal dignity, and after their elevation held a different language. They might be sincere, it is true, but in the circumstances Dr. Parr thought that silence best became them; in their officious and forward zeal he discerned the latent workings of ambition,—the desire to please a patron in the expectation of higher preferment; in their severe reflections on the opinions and the conduct of men, who still adhered to the sentiments and the doctrines, which they had themselves abandoned, Dr. Parr marked the uncharitableness or the malignity of their nature, and with the proud consciousness of his own independence, his own consistency, and his own integrity, it is no wonder that he, in dealing with such persons, emptied the phials of his wrath, and launched forth the thunders of his invective, and hewed down with his Turkish cymetar. In a volume of tracts on subscription to articles of faith, in my plans and manoeuvres you will see no want of skill. If Milton killed Salmasius, the Curate of Hatton, aided by the cold, will be the killer of his Diocesan. I forgot to tell you that I have written a Preface to Hurd's Tracts, and that I have most wickedly, most wickedly collected all the reproaches cast upon these two works, which reproaches I have with editorial accuracy and solemnity, prefixed under the classical title of Testimonia Auctorum. In short, dear Doctor, the whole is what Dr. Glynn calls a d-ble wapper; what the Greeks would call the many karpia
mentioned in the Bibliotheca Parriana p. 610, of which tracts the first is— Dr. Powell's “celebrated Sermon in Defence of the Subscriptions required in the Church of England, preached before the University of Cambridge, on the Commencement-Sunday, 1757, (third edn. 1759,) and the fourth is—An Address to the Clergy of the Church of England in particular, and to all Christians in general, for Relief in the Matter of Subscription, by Dr. F. Wollaston, 1772. Dr. Parr has the following note : — “Powell's Sermon stirred up the dispute. Dr. Wollaston, Vicar of Chislehurst ; Porteus, then Rector of Lambeth, afterwards Bishop of London; and Yorke, then Dean of Lincoln, afterwards Bishop of Ely, waited upon Cornwallis, Archbishop of Canterbury to obtain his support for a reveiw of the 39 Articles, and a reform of the Church Service on Dr. Clarke's plan. They failed; but Porteus, many years after, attacked the Socinians in a pamphlet without his name, which I have not, and which was lent to me by the late worthy and learned Dr. Matthew Raine of the Charter-House. I smiled at the conversion of Porteus, when he wore a mitre. S. P.” Conduct of this sort was exactly that description of conduct, which was calculated to rouse the honest indignation, and to provoke the pointed sarcasms of Dr. Parr. It will, however, be right to give to the accused Bishop the advantage of his omn statement, with the comments of a friendly pen: — “In 1773, a circumstance occurred, which then excited con
siderable interest, and in which the part, that Dr. Porteus took, has been much misinterpreted and misunderstood. The following statement in his own words will place the fact in its true point of view:-'At the close of the year 1772, and the ‘beginning of the next, an attempt was made by myself and a 'few other clergymen, among whoni were Mr. Francis Wol"laston, Dr. Percy, now Bishop of Dromore, and Dr. Yorke, now Bishop of Ely, to induce the Bishops to promote a review of the Liturgy and Articles, in order to amend in both, but 'particularly in the latter, those parts, which all reasonable per‘sons agreed stood in need of amendment. This plan was not ‘in the smallest degree connected with the petitioners at the ' Feathers-Tavern, but, on the contrary, was meant to counte'ract that and all similar extravagant projects; to strengthen
and confirm our ecclesiastical establishment; to repel the at'tacks, which were at that time continually made upon it by 'its avowed enemies; to render the 17th Article on Predesti'nation and Election more clear and perspicuous, and less liable “to be wrested by our adversaries to a Calvinistic sense, which
has been so unjustly affixed to it; to improve true Christian 'piety among those of our own communion, and to diminish “schism and separation by bringing over to the national Church 'all the moderate and well-disposed of other persuasions. On
these grounds we applied, in a private and respectful manner, 'to Archbishop Cornwallis, requesting him to signify our wishes *(which we conceived to be the wishes of a very large propor
or davraía. And I shall be called by some Erasmus, and by others Diabolus ; both of which names, coming as they will, from different quarters, will be equally pleasant to me.
“ I read near four years ago Heyne's work, and have got many of his Tracts in the Gottin
‘tion both of the clergy and the laity,) to the rest of the Bis
hops, that every thing might be done, which could be prudently ' and safely done, to promote these important and salutary pur‘ poses. The answer, given by the Archbishop Febr. 11, 1773. ‘was in these words :- I have consulted severally my brethren 'the Bishops, and it is the opinion of the Bench in general,
that nothing can in prudence be done in the matter, that has 'been submitted to our consideration. There can be no question that this decision, viewed in all its bearings, was right; and Dr. Porteus, and those with whom he acted, entirely acquiesced in it. They had done their duty in submitting to the Bench such alterations, as appeared to them to be conducive to the credit and the interest of the Church of England, and of religion in general; and their manner of doing it was most temperate and respectful. At the same time it appeared to the majority then, as it does still, that the proposal was rejected on very satisfactory and sufficient grounds." Chalmers’s Biogr. Dict.
Now this statement does not disprove anything contained in Dr. Parr's note. It is clear from Porteus's own account of the matter that he was in 1772, a moderate Whig in church-politics, and a rational reformer, peradventure a latitudinarian divine, and if he was so indiscreet, so over-officious, so forgetful of his early opinions, so inconsistent, and so dishonest in principle, as to make, in an anonymous pamphlet, a severe attack on those very Socinians, whom, as part of “the mode
gen-Transactions. I could fill a sheet with narrative, and a pamphlet with criticism about him. He is a fine fellow, a very fine fellow, and a man after your heart and mind; but his Latin is not quite the thing—it is nervous, but not quite clear. Ernestus and Ruhnken are the two best
rate and well-disposed Dissenters,” it was the avowed object of himself and his associates “to bring over to the national church,” he merited the censure of Dr. Parr, as most mildly expressed in the above-cited note, though he did not merit all the censure contained in the alliterative description, if indeed that description was given in a serious sense with playful words, and was not, as I am disposed to think, a mere sportive sally of Dr. Parr's fancy at the time.
The note on Porteus in the Bibl. Parr. has roused the particular ire of a Reviewer in the British Critic, No.5. Jan. 1828. p. 118, to whose wounded spirit I had the pleasure of administering much useful consolation in the first volume of this work, and who on two or three more occasions will be entitled to my best exertions on his behalf: -" To the same source, to his secret love of Socinianism, or his utter indifference to the doctrines of the Church, of which he professed himself a member, may probably be traced his malicious remarks on Bishop Porteus and Paley.” “ His censure of Bishop Porteus is still more offensive :- This is nothing better than 'envy, hatred, and malice. He wished it to be believed that Porteus was once a Socinian, and that the acquisition of a mitre was the cause of his conversion. If it were so, much as we might despise his sincerity, we should rejoice that on his elevation to the prelacy, he had the good sense, and the feeling of propriety, to exhibit uniformly in his own conduct, and in his writings, a strict adherence to the principles of the Church, of which,