or Stavraía. 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,

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 pupil. Markham shewed some grace in his neutrality. "God bless you, dear Sir!

"I am yours most heartily,

S. PARR."

"The Rev. Dr. Forster, Colchester, Essex."

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 unacquainted as with that of Hoadly, and from the 'praise' of whom (p. 118,) 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 love 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