spirit against LELAND, JORTIN, and LowтH, 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 offence 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 LowтH, 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." JORTIN 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 "strife" had, it is true, abated by the victory of LELAND, and the forbearance of JORTIN, not by the repentance and amendment of

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. PARR 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 was no "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 JORTIN would not worship the image, which WARBURTON had set up, in respect to the sixth Eneid; 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 DAVID 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.' Sermons by BISHOP HALIFAX

b

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 be'ing exhausted by their occasional prodigality; to the profane, · σπείρουσι χειρὶ, but to the initiated ὅλῳ τῷ θυλάκῳ. 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. 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, HURD, 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 WARBURTONIAN 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 WARBURTON. 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 compositions 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: "I am '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, SALMASIUS, 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 TUCKER 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