« ZurückWeiter »
his opprobrious and ribauld language, the little of argument to be found; and give it a fair and impartial examination.
• The two points, to which I shall at prefent confine myself, are the punishment of idolatry by the patriarchs; and the punishmen: of children for the fins of their parents.
In handling the first, I shall begin with the article of most consequence; To convict the doctor of arguing on the principles of intolerance, and shew that his complaints of being falsly and injuriously accused on this head, are groundless and impertinent. I shall then consider the arguments he brings, to prove that the patriarchs were impowered to punish idolatry; and detect and expose the sophistry, by which he has endeavoured to load and blacken the system of his learned adversary, and to hide and palliate the nakedness and deformity of his own. Lastly, I shall examine his objection to the bishop's defence of the Jewish laws in punishing idolaters with death; and fhew his inability to vindicate this part of the Mofaic conftitution, without having recourse to the principle of the theocracy.'
To such of our Readers as are acquainted with the character and writings of Dr. Lowth, which we cannot suppose to be a minority of thein, the professed design of these Remarks must certainly appear somewhat extraordinary; the attempt being nothing less than to prove the doctor an advocate for persecution and intolerance! The zeal of the learned Bishop of Gloucester, and of his disciples, to vindicate the just and generous principle of toleration, is, no doubt, highly commendable; but their undertaking to vindicate this principle against Dr. L. feems an effort as needless as it would be to set about proving Locke a philosopher, or Tillotson a Christian.-We shall, therefore, Tpare ourselves the trouble of reciting the particulars of so strange a charge against the worthy profeflor; and proceed to the fupplemental part of this publication : viz.
The second part of an epiftolary correspondence between the Bishop of Gloucester and the late Professor of Oxford, without an imprimatur, i.e. without a cover to the violated laws of honour and society. This Correspondence the Author of the Remarks tells us, he has the bithop's leave to annex.- It shews, says he, by the unerring evidence of dates, that the doctor was the aggressor, and began the quarrel. With what fpirit he began it, appears from his infolent and injurious comparison to Father Harduin. Yet this gross and glaring indignity extorted nothing more from his lordship than a little raillery. He preferred this gentler mark of sensibility to fírious expostulation, when he was expofing arguments that tended to establish intolerance and civil slavery. Srious expoflulation might have had consequences, which the bishop is the last man to countenance or approve.!
We have seen a printed copy of this Correspondence, with Notes and Remarks by Dr. Lowth. As, in all probability, it will never be published, our Readers, we are persuaded, will be pleased with some extracts from it. The title is-The second part of a literary correspondence, between the Bishop of Gloucester and a late professor of Oxford: accurately printed from an authentic copy. T. which are added, the notes of the first editor; with notes upon nites and remarks on the letters.
The Bishop of Gloucester and his friends exclaim loudly against Dr. Lowth, and charge him with a gross violation of the most respected laws of society, in publishing his lordship's private letters, without his knowledge or consent.
• If the publication of letters, says Dr. Lowth, concerning a mere literary dispute already become public, in vindication of the person to whom they were written, against an injurious attack of the writer of them, be a violation of the laws of honour and fociety; what shall we say of the publication of the late Dr. M.'s letters to Mr. W.? letters of a person, then deceased, to his friend ; letters of a private and confidential nature ; treating characters and persons, both living and dead, with the utmolt freedom ; disclosing opinions and sentiments without reserve, and such opinions and sentiments as have subjected the deceased author to very severe censure*; in short, such letters, as neither the deceased, nor those that were most near to him, would probably by any means have suffered to be published ? By whom, and by what right, were they published ? Had the publisher any plea of self-vindication, any kind of justifiable pretence for making them public ? Was it done by the direction, or the consent, of the deceased; with the permission, or even the knowledge, of bis widow and executrix ? Was it not managed in an underhand way, by a private dealing with the printer; inducing him to falsify the edition of the works of the deceased, by foisting in the faid letters, without proper authority; and in such a manner, that they must appear to have been published by order of the deceased author himself, or that of his executrix ? Till satisfactory answers can be given to these queries ; it is imagined we shall hear no more, upon this occasion, of the violation of the laws of honour and society; of morality, and the law of nature; and of the superlative sacredness of the trust of a private letter.'
We have the following note on the word dates in the bishop's first letter to the profesor.-- The conciliating letters, says his lordship, passed in the year 1756.---Dr. Lowth's injurious note, reflecting on the bishop, was printed in the year 1764,--and the bishop's poffcript, in answer to it, in 1765.—This is a clear
* Biographia Britannica. Act. Milaleton.
and short account of the maiter : but the bishop was to be made the aggreffor. How was this to be brought about? by a very extraordinary fetch of wit. In this unlucky year, 1756, an acquaintance of the bishop's examined Bishop Sherlock's Sermons, in which the doctor's opinion of the age of Job was controverted by a quotation from the book ittelf. But now unluckily again, the examination was published some months before the correspondence began.-What then? Might not a convention be broken before it was made, as well as an idolater be punished by the judge before the office was created ?'
On this note by the bishop, we have the following notes by Dr. Lowth:- In the year 1764, says his lordship: here, says the doctor, is a small chronological mistake. The note in question (in the second edition of the Prelections) was printed, and published, towards the end of the year 1763: This by the way shews, that his lordship’s animadversion upon the injurious note was no balty performance, no precipitate effusion of sudden paffion. It worked in his head, and fermented in his heart, for a long time; and it was preceded from the firft by violent and frequently repeated menaces. The first, of above a year's accumulated wrath, and studied invective, at last issued forth in the Appendix ; a piece, which, for conclusive reasoning, delicate wit, deep erudition, fine taste, and just criticism, cannot be paralelled from all the archives of Dunciad literature.'
« This is a clear and sport account of the matter, says the bishop: this is not a clear account of the matter, lays the doctor, nor the whole of it. The matter is explained in the letter to the author of the Divine Legatiin, p. 10, &c. and shall be more minutely explained here. The Examination was published upon, or within a day or two of, May 18, 1756. The former correspondence was opened towards the end of August, as appears by the date of Dr. C.'s and Mr. S.'s letters to the professor. Almost the whole of which interval the professor spent as follows: in a journey in June from Wincheiter to Durham; in residence, and further ftay, at Durham, and in the ncighbourhood: in a journey from Durham to Chatsworth ; and after some time spent there, from thence to Winchester. During which time the P. saw no one person, who probably could give him any information of the contents of the examiner’s book; except Dr. Warburton, who made no mention of it to him. He had not the least notice of them from any other quarter, till some time after the correspondence was finished ; as may be fairly concluded from the second paragraph of letier 3d, in the former correfpondence; where no notice at all is taken of the ex@tminer, whose book furnished the absurd objection there refuted: nor did he enquire for, or fee, the book, till above two years after it was published. The examiner's book therefore was in
effect, as far as regarded the P. and his part in what is here called the Convention, as if it had remained all the while unpublished.'
• Might not a convention be broken before it was made ? says the bishop : How, replies the doctor, or by whom? By the examiner, who was no party in the convention, and had no manner of concern in it; and therefore could not break it? Or is this merely designed to introduce the pleasant conceit, which follows ;--as well as an idolater be punished by the judge, before the rfice was created :-as if there were no judges in the time of Job, because they did not wear a scarlet robe, a full-bottomed wig, and a coif.'
On letter 2d, we have the following note by the bishop :• And yet, if the account which has been given to the bishop of the doctor's printed letter to him, be true, (and he has reafon to think it fo from this very letter) there is more abuse in it than in all the bishop's writings put together. To select one curious particular. He charges the bishop with having, in his fermon preached before the king, laft Lent, something reflccting on, or alluding to, particular persons or transactions of a recent date. Now the man who affirmed this to the doctor, (if any such there were) and the doctor who affirms it to the public, are infamous calumniators. It is well known to several persons of confideration, that this very sermon, with every passage, (and in the very words) which gave birth to the calumny, was written and preached, more than once, (and at court too) many years ago.
On this note we have the following notes by the doctor. « There is more abuse, &c. fays his lordship: an accufation, says the doctor, of a moft heinous and Aagitious nature, founded on hear-fay; on the report probably of some of his own creatures, whom he has all the reason in the world to think prejudiced, and bad evidence, in this case : and of whose veracity indeed he seems to have some doubt; for he speaks with a caution and hesitation (if the account given him be true) which is not in his usual manner. He advances this horrible charge on hearsay, against a printed and publised letter, which he might at any time have read, to see whether what was reported to him were true or not; and which, at the same time that he accuses it as an infamous libel, he modestly declares, that he has not read, and never will read. More abuse in the letter than in all his writings put together! - -Courage, my lord; never fear! Your writings shall always stand unrivaled in this respect:
Quafitam meritis. • You have always valued yourself on your talent for abuse ; • and none shall dare to dispute the palm with you. The Silenne
and the Barri of antient times, the Aretines and the Scioppiufes of later date, shall all vail the bonnet to you: and if any upstart ribald of the present age shall dare to enter the lifts against you in this career; tell him with your usual spirit, that, at the long run, he shall have no reason to applaud his situation.
! To after age Thou shalt be writ the man,
tongue, • And dart the yenom'd taunt with keenelt rage. • To cite full and particular evidence of his lordship's superiour merits, in this way, would be an endless task. To sea leet therefore one curious particular only; and that, from a piece in the panegyric ftrain: for he has the address to exhibit his faculty upon every occasion, and to surprizę us with the difplay of it, when least expected. In the dedication prefixed to the third volume of Divine Legation, he qualifies all those, whosoever they may be, who bad controverted his opinions, many of them persons of known probity, piety, and learning, as zealots and bigots; as madmen leading the blind : as belying a zeal for religion by a ridiculous TARTUFFISM ; that is, by a sanctimonious hypocrisy, put on as a mask to cover the most flagitious designs. And he closes the list with the addition of a venerable archbishop of Canterbury, not long since deceased; marking him out by the initial letter of his name, as the encourager of false zealots, and the head of the unbelieving politicians." In would be impertinent to enquire, how this well-judged and decent address was received by the truly great and respectable person, to whom it was presented, in quality of patron, But one may ask, as a question of law, what judgment the same great magistrate would probably have passed upon it, in quality of Lord Chief Justice of England; if it had been presented to him, as a libel, by information in the court of King's Bench?
Let us now consider the remaining part of the note, containing a charge of an INFAMOUS CALUMNY.--The profesfor has hinted at a famous sermon preached at court, which was universally understood by those who heard it to reflect on, or alIuede to, persons or transactions of a recent date. In disproof of this it is alledged, that this very sermon, with every pasage, and in the very words, was written and preached many years ago. Has the Pro. said one word felating to any of these circumftances? Has he so much as intimated, that the sermon was old, or new-vampt; that it was, or was not, preached before, with every falsage, and in the very words? He has nothing to do with these circumstances : be thợy true or false, his veracity is not in the least concerned : fit filles penes auctorem. But, was not such a sermon preached ? It is not denied : are the sentinients, or even the words, of that sermon misreported ? It is pot pretended, that they are ; was not such an interpretation of