« ZurückWeiter »
HURD; it was not“ extinguished" even by the death of Jortin and LELAND, for Hurd was resolved, in a fiend-like spirit, to pursue them even beyond the confines of the grave, as is apparent from the MOST DELIBERATE entry made by him in a port-folio on Jan. 18, 1793. respecting the publication of the Correspondence with WarBURTON, 4 years after the republications of Dr. Parr, who cannot justly be said “to have prolonged” a “strife,” which Hurd himself had not suffered “to be extinguished," and which the public should not have desired “to be extinguished,” till ample justice was done to the memories of JORTIN and LELAND. The Reviewer too should have recollected that the most uncharitable HURD was not entitled to expect much charity from others; Dr. Part exhibited true disinterested Christian charity in avenging the unmerited wrongs of Jortin and LELAND, and to inflict exemplary punishment on a great literary offender, (for in maxima fortuna minima licentia est,) and to incur the obloquy and odium of inflicting it, is Christian charity to the public,- an example worthy the
imitation, not only of “ every Christian,” but of “ every Christian minister.” 6. • In the Letters between Hurd and an eminent Prelate," continues the Reviewer, 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 why? because HURD SUPPRESSED a great part of his communications to WarBURTON, as too foul, no doubt, to bear the public eye! 7. “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.”. No “allowance" whatever “ is to be made for WARBURTON," because there
want of generosity” on the part of Jortin, as I have abundantly shewn in this volume, and WARBURTON had no reason to complain,” but took offence, because JOKTIN would not worship the image, which WARBURTON had set up, in respect to the sixth Æneid, Jortin gave judicious praise, but the inordinate vanity of WARBURTON expected extravagant praise, and his imperious spirit could brook no censure, and demanded entire submission to his opinions.
I have succeeded in procuring a copy of the book, to which I have alluded p. 362, The Address of Q. SEPT. TERTULLUS, Proconsul of Africa, translated by Sir Davin DALRYMPLE, Edinb. 1790. 12mo. pp. 139. Lord Hailes in p. 58, of this opusculum writes :-“An excellent summary of both passages is to be found in the following words:-—'Tertullian is at pains to vindicate the Christians from 'the charge of being ill-affected to the State, and gives it as one
reason, among others, why in their public liturgies they con* stantly prayed for the safety of the Cæsarean empire, from the persuasion then generally held, and professedly founded on the authority of this text,” (2 Thess. 2, 5-8.) “ that Antichrist could not be revealed, so long as that empire should continue, and that ' the greatest calamity, which ever threatened the world, was only delayed by its preservation. Sernoons by Bishop HALIFAX
1, 152. On this occasion I indulge myself in the melancholy pleasure of quoting the words of a lamented friend, and I add my testimony of approbation, such as it is, to that of all, who knew his worth and accomplishments.” In p. 103, his Lordship uses an ambiguous epithet," the laborious Dr. LARDNER," and in p. 107, he thus vindicates himself against the censure, which he supposed Dr. Parr to have passed on him for having used that phrase :“ Towards the beginning of this note, I gave the epithet of laborious to Dr. LARDNER ; and in other Tracts, published by me, I have, in speaking of that author, used the same epithet, or something equivalent. While engaged in the support of the proofs of Christianity, I little expected to meet with the following note by one, whom we must suppose friendly to the common cause : • That spirit of the WARBURTONIANS, which induces one of them 'to call the author of the Credibility of the Gospel-History, the ·laborious Dr. LARDNER.— The disciples of this school generally dispense their praise with a discretion, which prevents its being exhausted by their occasional prodigality ; to the profane, σπείρουσι χειρί, but to the initiated όλα τα θυλάκω. The friends of Christianity, and in particular the friends of the Church of England, ought to be cautious in giving currency to such a nickname, when they recollect who it was, that added to the English language, already redundant in terms of sarcasm and invective, the phrase Warburtonian school. I received many civilities from BISHOP WARBURTON, and I honour his memory: I have possessed the friendship of his friends, and I am proud of it; but neither they, nor I ever considered the BISHOP as infallible.
Non isto viximus illic, Quo tu rere modo. And now as to the epithet bestowed on Dr. LARDNER, I should be glad to know what I ought to have called him? Orthodox divine, able textuary, exact translator, or elegant writer? I praised him for his labour and industry well employed; and this may be esteemed no mean praise, since every age produces persons superior to him in genius and literary accomplishments, who do not employ their time and talents so usefully as he did; I like to give things their true names; and, were a man to empty his common-place book of Greek and Latin upon the public, I might say that he had read much, but I should hardly call him judicious; I might scatter a few grains of praise, but I should be unwilling to pour out a sackful of encomium on his pamphlet. After all, it is probable enough that the author of this bitter sarcasm had in his eye a person much my superior. But, as he cannot answer for himself, I desire that what I have said, may be considered as an apology for what my departed friend, Bishop Hallifax, has said.” (I may observe by the way, that Lord Hailes, as other writers have done, fluctuates in his orthography of Hallifax, to which he in the first instance has assigned only a single l. The Bishop himself in the 4th edn. of the Analysis of the Roman Civil Law, 1795. uses the
double letter.) I. The epithet laborious, even with the explanation of his LORDSHIP, is not sufficiently adapted to the merits of Dr. LARDNER; and it is better to withhold praise altogether than to dispense it with too niggardly a hand. "That his LORDSHIP can praise liberally, is apparent enough from his warm commendations of WARBURTON, Hurn, HALLIFAX, and other disciples of the Warburtonian School! 2. Dr. Parr did not allude to his LordSHIP, with whose writings he seems to have been little acquainted, but to Bp. HALLIFAX. 3. Dr. Parr was not the author of the phrase W ARBURTONIAN School, and as the term School is not used in derision or contempt, any more than when we speak of the School of Aristotle, Plato, Zeno, and Epicurus, it is not a nickname; it merely denotes identity of feeling, of sentiment, of opinion with WABBURTON. I have neither time nor space to collect authorities; but I will give one, which is at hand. The Monthly Rev. Oct. 1764, in a notice of Hurd's Letter to LELAND, writes thus:“ Such is the regard, which this writer thinks is due from one scholar to another. In what school he has learned his goodbreeding few of our readers need be told ; that he is an apt SCHOLAR, and zealous for the honour of his MASTER, is abundantly evident.” 4. I give his LordSHIP more credit for the happy pleasantry of his retort on Dr. Parr than for the propriety and decency of his remarks. Dr. Parr has not "emptied his common-place of Greek and Latin upon the public” in the Dedication and Preface, to which his LORDSHIP refers; the quotations are neither long nor numerous, most appropriate, and very unostentatious; as Dr. Parr was addressing a scholar, and writing only for men of letters, such quotations are unobjectionable in themselves, and add much zest to the wit, and much force to the matter. . Dr. PARR never throughout life used a common-place book; his great memory readily supplied him with pertinent quotations. His LORDSHIP was himself deficient alike in taste, and in “judgment,” if he could peruse the Dedication and Preface, and arrive at the conclusion that Dr. Parr had “ read much," but had displayed a want of “ judgment;” and if, while he was “ unwilling to pour out a sackful of encomiums on his pamphlet," he was disposed “to scatter” only “a few grains of praise” on one of the finest compositioris in our language !
In a note to the Spital Sermon p. 124, Dr. Parr writes : -"Dr. HALLIFAX, Dr. RUTHERFORTH, and Dr. WATSON very abundantly conveyed the information, which belonged to their departments, sometimes in the disputes of the schools, and sometimes by the publication of their writings.”
My excellent friend, the late JOSEPH CRADOCK, Esq., relates, in a Letter addressed to me and dated July 27, 1825. that, “ when Dr. Parr went to meet Hurd at Lichfield, just then made Bishop, they abruptly encountered each other near the chancel, and that it was doubted which of the two bowed the lowest.”
Another excellent friend wrote to me thus on May 1, 1829.:“With regard to the coldness, (or more than coldness,) between Hurd and Parr, the following account of its termination was
communicated to me by a gentleman of high estimation both in the fashionable and literary world. At one of Hurd's Visitations, in the latter part of his life, he observed Dr. Parr, among the clergy, and walking up to him, said — Dr. Parr, there has ' long been variance between us, but my age is now so advanced 'that I can no longer afford to be at enmity with any human be
ing; and therefore earnestly request that we may shake hands, ' and consign the past to oblivion. My informant added that Parr was affected even to tears by this address."
“ Before I proceed, I cannot help saying a word upon that profound scholar, MARKLAND, who was, perhaps, inferior to BENTLEY alone in critical acumen, but possessed a most elegant and liberal mind, was unassuming, affectionate, and benevolent. His works immortalize him, and he was gentle as a lamb. Yet, alas! what is the effect of party in the polemics of literature! Bishop Hurd, by nature, and by general habits, a most amiable man,” [the Letters to Warburton prove the very reverse of this, ] “has, in two,” [nay, in a great many,] “ instances, been a victim of his abject homage to WARBURTON. One of them respects Dr. JORTIN, and is too well known. The other applies to MARKLAND, whom, in one of his Letters to the idol of his pen, he depreciates in the most contemptuous manner, though a very superior critic and scholar to either of them. I would recommend MARKLAND's Dedication to Hemsterhusius, and his brother editor, Wesselingius, for a model of pure Latinity, and, (which is better,) of a modest humility upon the subject of his own peculiar talent.” Mr. JUSTICE HARDINGE's Biographical Anecdotes of DANIEL WRAY, Esq. p. 159.
“ Dr. WARBURTON, in a Letter to Dr. Birch, says:glad that the Society for the Encouragement of Learning is in so ' hopeful a condition; though methinks it is a little ominous to 'set their press a-going with the arrantest sophist, that ever 'wrote, prepared by so arrant a critic. This probably alludes to Mr. MARKLAND's edition of Maximus Tyrius; at least the following quotation from another Letter shews Dr. WARBURTON's opinion of that able critic:—'I have a poor opinion both of MARKLAND's and Taylor's critical abilities, between friends: I speak from what I have seen. Good sense is the foundation of criticism ; this it is that has made Dr. BentLEY and Bp. Hare 'the two greatest critics that ever were in the world. Not that good sense alone will be sufficient ; for that considerable part of it, emending a corrupt text, there must be a certain sagacity, • which is so distinguishing a quality in Dr. BENTLEY. Dr. * CLARKE had all the requisites of a critic but this, and this he wanted. LIPSIUS, Jos. SCALIGER, FABER, Is. Vossius, SALMA
sius, had it in a great degree; but these are few amongst the + infinite tribe of critics.' J. Nichols's Biogr. and Lit. Anecdotes of BoWYER P. 637.
The anecdote told of DEAN TUcken by me in p. 232, with some doubtful recollection, is, as I now find from my notes of conversations with Dr. Parr, this : -- WARBURTON one day met DEAN
TUCKER, who said that he hoped that his Lordship liked his situation at Gloucester. The Bishop sarcastically replied : • Never * Bishopric was so be-deaned ; for your predecessor,'(Dr. Squire, I believe, was named,) 'made religion his trade, and you make trade your religion.'
In Chalmers's Biogr. Dict. under the art. Tucker we read :“ So great was his reputation for commercial knowledge, that Dr. Thomas Hayter, afterwards Bishop of London, who was then tutor to his present Majesty, applied to Dr. Tucker to draw up a dissertation on this subject, for the perusal of his royal pupil. It was accordingly done and gave great satisfaction. This work, under the title of the Elements of Commerce was printed in 4to., but never published. Dr. WARBURTON, however, who, after having been member of the same Chapter with the Dean at Bristol, became Bishop of Gloucester, thought very differently from the rest of mankind, in respect to his talents and favourite pursuits; and said once, in his coarse manner, that ‘his Dean's trade was religion, and religion his trade.' The Dean on being once asked concerning the coolness, which subsisted between him and WARBURTON, his answer was to the following purpose,” [the reader will observe the ungrammatical struoture of this sentence:] ' The Bishop affects to consider me with contempt, to which I say ' nothing. He has sometimes spoken coarsely of me, to which I ' replied nothing. He has said that religion is my trade, and trade
is my religion. Commerce and its connections have, it is true, 'been favourite objects of my attention, and where is the crime ? “And as for religion, I have attended carefully to the duties of 'my Parish, nor have I neglected my Cathedral. The world
knows something of me as a writer on religious subjects; and I 'will add, which the world does not know, that I have written
near 300 Sermons, and preached them all, again and again. My 'heart is at ease on that score, and my conscience, thank God, ' does not accuse me.' The fact is that, although there is no possible connection between the business of commerce and the duties of a clergyman, he had studied theology in all its branches scientifically, and his various publications on moral and religious subjects show him to be deeply versed in theology.”
ARCHBP. HERRING, as Dr. Parr informed me, was of Benet College, in early life a water-drinker; latterly, to remove low spirits, drank rum and water, and at last proceeded to drink pure rum. He was the patron of Jortin, who, at a charitable meeting respecting the Sons of the Clergy, got up to reach his hat; his fine tall figure attracted the eye of Dr. HERRING, who inquired his name, and requested to be introduced to him.
The story told of Dr. LELAND p. 177, I find thus related in my notes of Parr's conversations :-- LELAND was a remarkably dull man in conversation, and never but once said anything, which deserves to be remembered. He had been looking up for Irish preferment, and when he went to pay his court to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, (the Duke of Newcastle, I believe,) his Grace enquired about the progress of his History of Ireland