Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

fault - a

- a perfect master of the art of reasoning, yet aware of the limits, to which reason should be confined, now wielding it with the authority of an angel, and now again stooping it before the deep things of God with the humility of a child-alike removed from the Puritan of his own generation, and the Rationalist of the generation, which succeeded him — no Precisian, no Latitudinarian :- Full of faith, yet free from superstition, a stedfast believer in a particular Providence, in the efficacy of human prayers, in the active influence of God's spirit, but without one touch of the visionary : - Conscious of the deep corruption of our nature, though still thinking he could discover in it some traces of God's image in ruins and under a lively sense of the consequences of this corruption, casting himself altogether upon God's mercy through the sufferings of a Saviour for the consummation of that day, which he desired with a strong desire 'to attain unto, when, bis mind purged and his eye clear, he should be

permitted to behold and understand without the labour and intervention of slow and successive thonght, not this our system alone, but more and

more excellent things than this.' (Te igitur vel ex hac re amare gaudeo, te suspicor, atque illum diem desiderare suspiriis fortibus, in quo purgata mente et claro oculo non hæc solum omnia absque hac successiva et laboriosa imaginandi cura, verum multo plura et majora ex tua bonitate et immensissima sanctissimaque benignitate conspicere et scire concedatur.)The Quarterly Review p. 289. [I will just halt to remark that the Reviewer is unintentionally unjust to Parr in confounding the Noles to Dr. Parr's Sermon with the Sermon itself; he admits that PARR “has treated his subject with singular ability,” and does the Reviewer's “head ache,” because Parr has so “ treated his subject?” Then, if Parr had shewn less ability, - had infused some of the essence of dulness into his composition,- the Reviewer's “head" would have “ached” the less ! The Notes are extrinsic to the Sermon itself, as the Sermon is intelligible without the Notes. In comparing BARROW's Sermon with Parr's, the Reviewer must exclude the Notes, because they form no part of the Sermon itself, which is the sole subject of comparison. His "head" will not " ache” with reading Park's Sermon, and what, then, will be the fair result of the comparison, which he has suggested?]

“In fertility and energy the eloquence of Barrow is perhaps unrivalled in the English language, and surely we should not be accused of exaggeration for applying to it the striking words, in which the immortalis ingenii beatissima uberlas of Cicero is described by Quintilian 10,1, Non pluvias, ut ait Pindarus, (01. xi.) aquas colligit, sed vivo gurgite exundal, dono quodam providentiæ genitus, in quo totas vires suas eloquentiæ experiretur. Within the grasp of his mighty and capacious mind were comprehended the broad generalities, which are discussed in science, and the minuter discriminations, which are to be learned only by familiarity with common life. At one moment he soars aloft to the great, without any visible exhaustion of his vigour, and in the next, without any diminution of his dignity he descends to the little,- he drew his materials from the richest treasures of learning, ancient and modern, sacred and profane,-he sets before us in solemn and magnificent array, the testimony of historians, the criticisms of scholars, the arguments of metaphysicians, the description of poets, the profound remarks of heathens ages, and the pious reflections of Christian fathers. Like the poet described by Johnson in Rasselas, he seems to have found every idea useful for the decoration or enforcemieut of moral or religious

truth,to have estimated the happiness and misery of every condition, to • have observed the power of all the positions in all their combinations, to • have written as the interpreter of nature, and the legislator of mankind,• and to have considered himself as presiding over the thoughts and manners

[ocr errors]

of future generations.' Equally instructive he is, and equally impressive, to readers of every class in society, and every sect in religion, — to the man of business, and the man of pleasure,— 10 the polished courtier, and the solitary recluse,- to the sceptred monarch, and the humble peasant. But his piety is bever cramped by superstition, por his philosophy debased by refinement. Every principle of morality, every precept of religion, every ground of obligation, every motive of action, every faculty of the understanding, every emotion of the heart, every beauty in virtue, every defor. mity in vice, every sanction of every law, by which the conduct of moral and rational creatures ought to be regulated, every present and futare interest, by the prospect of which their fears and their hopes can be made subservient to their present or future happiness, pass in review before us, when we peruse the immortal writings of this learned, wise, and holy instructor. 'Whether he means to convince or to persuade,- to refute the scorner or to reform the sipner,--to elucidate a speculative difficulty, or to enforce a practical duty,—he brings with bim the same profusion of stores collected from extevsive and laborious reading, the same babit of intense observation employed apon the properties of human nature and the tendencies of human affairs,— the same compass and precision of thought upon words and things,- the same perspicuity and accuracy of arrangement,the same rapid succession of just and vivid conceptions -- the same ardor and loftiness of spirit, and the same copiousness, and vigour, and stateliness of diction. But numerous and splendid as are the excellencies of Barrow, he is not to be considered as a model of artificial and refined composition. He seems indeed never to have paused in the choice of a phrase, nor to have made any effort for giving regularity to his sentences, and harmony to his periods. Yet the most fastidious critic would endure in the original those pecnliarities, which he would condemn as defects in a writer, who professes to accommodate the matter of Barrow to the received notions and approved forms of language in a more refined age. It doubt. less required great vigilance and great taste to alter the phraseology of such a writer without impairing his” (the) "sense. Mr. Fellowes had often occasion to make the perilous experiment, and he has generally made it with success. But we think it our duty as impartial critics to point out some instances, in which that phraseology might, according to our judgment, have been improved by the substitution of terms less innusual and less uncouth." Dr. Parr, in the Critical Review, June 1808. p. 118.

Those, who are acquainted with Parr's style in his more elaborate and finished compositions, will perceive, from the comparative carelessness of the composition in question, that Parr had dictated the matter without effort from the abundance of his mind, and that with his usual care and polish he would have given to it the same perfection, which is manifested in the delineations alluded to by the Reviewer in the London-Magazine. I will observe by the way that this Reviewer is mistaken in declaring Dr. Southey to have written the Article in the Quarterly Review; it was written by a person of much less celebrity.

'The Quarterly Reviewer makes the following remarks on Park's treatment of Hurd, p. 274.: — .“ We now come to the re-publication of * The Tracts by Warburton and a Warburtonian,' with a Dedication and Preface by Dr. PARR. - In again producing to the world two early compositions of the Bishop of Gloucester's, which their great author bad set no store by, and which the discreet editor of the Bishop's works had

suppressed in his edition, there was no great harm; — they were curious as the first-fruits of such a harvest of genius - and PARR, though not a hlind, was a sincere admirer of WARBURTON, and was well aware that the author of the Divine Legation, of the Julian, and we will even add, (however objectionable in many respects, and in its spirit especially,) of the Doctrine of Grace, could amply afford to be known by productions less advantageous to his fame than these. But to be the means of reviving the Delicacy of Friendship, and the Letter to Lelund, after the long lapse of time, which had ensued since their first publication, and when their author had shown himself desirous to suppress them, this was not the courtesy, which was due from one man of letters to another; it was not the respect, which an inferior clergyman owed to his Diocesan; it was not the cbarity, which should lead every Christian, and particularly every Christian minister, to extinguish, instead of prolonging the strife. We are no partizans of Bishop HURD - we scarcely regret the chastisement he received. He had volunteered, like Sir Mungo Malagrowther, to be the whipping-boy to the king, whom he had set up for himself, and he therefore could not justly complain, if he was made to smart for it. Surely if WARBURTON had thought himself seriously aggrieved, WARBURTON knew how to complain, and how to take vengeance. We compassionate 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. In the Lellers between himself and an eminent Prelate, 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, 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; — but by deliberately causing these Lellers to be published (a thing on many accounts so objectionable,) Dr. Hurn identified himself here as elsewhere with his master - while, by making that publication posthumous, he denies to his character, (that which no right-minded man would wilfully violate,) the sanctuary of the grave; and puts it out of our power to contemplate him, (as we fain would do,) in the respectable light of one, who had lived to refuse the highest reward, to which ecclesiastical ambition can aspire, content to spend the evening of life in the peaceful retirement of Hartlebury, in oblivion of all that had given him offence, in sorrow for all whereby he had offended, and in humble hope of a better translation than that, which he so magnanimously had declined. Still this does not justify PARR. Dr. Hurd was in the wrong, but Dr. Parr was not therefore in the right. Again, had Bishop Lowth, his illustrious patron, at that time suffered under the faint praise of the Bishop of Worcester, something might have been allowed to PARR's gratitude and indignation; but the Life of WARBURTON,' wherein that commendation is bestowed, was still, under the hands of its author, to be subjected again and again to the critical retort, till all its spirit should have evaporated before exposure to the world. Or further, had the controversy been of any recent date, Parr might have found some excuse in the excitement of the moment, and the inquietude of conscious talent; but it had been long laid to sleep : both the parties aggrieved were already beyond the reach of censure or of praise, quietly reposing in the grave, and the aggressor, now old and stricken in years, was following them apace. What then could impel Parr to an attack so furious, so uncalled for, so unjustifiable ? in which he stings with the venom of a hornet, animamque in vulnere ponit. It needs little observation of mankind to

[ocr errors]

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.

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 Park'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 Park 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 Lowth, 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 Lowth,) were PARR's personal friends and correspondents, who had given no Pence 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 Lowth, 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. Jortis 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 «i strife" had, it is true, abated by the victory of LELAND, and the forbearance of Jortin, not by the repentance and amendment of

« ZurückWeiter »