of orthodoxy requires not such aids.-The church of England approves them not the spirit of Christianity warrants them not. Let Dr. Priestley, indeed, be confuted, where he is mistaken. Let him be exposed where he is superficial. Let him be repressed where he is dogmatical. Let him be rebuked where he is censorious. But let not his attainments be depreciated, because they are numerous, almost without a parallel. Let not his talents be ridiculed, because they are superlatively great. Let not his morals be vilified, because they are correct without austerity, and exemplary without ostentation; because they present, even to common observers, the innocence of a hermit and the simplicity of a patriarch; and because a philosophic eye will at once discover in them the deep fixed root of virtuous principle and the solid trunk of virtuous habit.

-

"If I mistake not the character of that excellent man, whom I respect in common with yourselves, he would not wish to see you again plunged into mischiefs, which cannot again reach himself spare then his blushes, and his tears-give him the satisfaction of knowing that you have proved to the world, the wholesome efficacy of his instructions, by your generosity in forgiving those who have already been your enemies, and by your wisdom in not offending those who wish to continue your friends."

In 1791, Dr. Parr having received two anonymous letters, probably undeserving of notice, publicly attributed them to the Rev. Charles Curtis, rector of Solihull, in Warwickshire. This unlucky surmise rested on a few slight coincidences, which suspicion, as usual, magnified into proof. There is strong reason for believing that these letters emanated from Dr. Parr's own pupils, who were fond of encouraging literary warfare. Mr. Curtis, in justification of his own character, contradicted the charge in the St. James's Chronicle, which, produced from the Doctor an octavo pamplet of two hundred and seventeen pages, thickly strewed with notes, and a proportionate appendix, entitled, "A Sequel to the Printed Paper lately circulated in Warwickshire by the Rev. Charles

Curtis, a Birmingham Rector," &c. 1792. Though the subject was little worthy of our modern Aristarchus, yet its pages contain some admirable remarks on the political and religious topics of the day. So open to ridicule, however, was this huge Sequel, that it tempted Cumberland to enter the field with a humourous pamphlet, called "Curtius rescued from the Gulph, or the Retort Courteous to the Rev. Dr. Parr, in answer to his learned Pamphlet, entitled 'A Sequel,' &c."

In this composition, the author raked into the indexes of the Delphin and Mattaire's editions as cleverly as the Doctor had cited Stobæus. From the title-page

"Ille mi PAR esse deus videtur,

Ille, si fas est, superare divos."- Catullus.

to the word FINIS, inclusive,

"Jam sumus ergo PARES!"

it was one string of puns.

In 1793, he was plunged into the depths of another and yet more important controversy. Dr. Parr had been induced to afford valuable advice and assistance to Mr. Homer and Dr. Charles Combe, in editing a most splendid and comprehensive edition of Horace. Mr. Homer was an accurate and not unsuccessful editor of the prose classics; but his exertions on a poet of the very first order are supposed to have hastened his end. On the demise of Mr. Homer, the bulk of the undertaking devolved on Dr. Combe, who was found incompetent to the discharge of so arduous a task; and Dr. Parr's assistance towards the second volume, from circumstances which may on some future occasion be developed, was withdrawn, and he was induced to publish some severe animadversions in the "British Critic," a periodical work then lately established by Mr. Beloe, and others. In reply to this,

* On being informed of the death of Mr. Homer, Dr. Parr said, with extreme emotion: "I shall never look on his like again; I do not speak of the frieze or the cornice, but I speak of the column."

+ This critique, which continued through five numbers, was partly reprinted in 1812, "with alterations and additions," in the fifth volume of the "Classical Journal."

Dr. Combe published a pamphlet, entitled, "A Statement of Facts, relative to the behaviour of the Rev. Dr. Parr to the late Mr. Homer and Dr. Combe, in order to point out the source, falsehood, and malignity of Dr. Parr's attack, in the British Critic,' on the character of Dr. Combe, 1794." In this statement, Dr. Parr was accused of breach of promise, violation of friendship, and even want of veracity; he was styled by his antagonist the " literary Ajax ;" and to make that epithet good, he replied, in a closely-printed octavo pamphlet of ninety-four pages, called "Remarks on the Statement of Dr. Charles Combe, by an occasional Writer in the British Critic,' 1795." The following extract from this pamphlet is interesting, as it contains Dr. Parr's own account of his critical labours:

"The reader will, I trust, excuse me, if, for reasons of delicacy, I now take an opportunity to state the whole extent of the share I have ever had in reviews. To the British Critic,' I have sent one article, besides those which were written for the Horace. For the Critical Review,' I have furnished a few materials for two articles only. For the Monthly' I have assisted in writing two or three, and the number of those which are entirely my own does not exceed six or seven. In almost all these critiques, my intention was to commend rather than to blame, and the only one in which I ever blamed with severity, related to a classical work, the editor of which deserved reproof for the following reasons. He clothed bad criticisms in bad Latinity. He had not availed himself of that information which preceding editions would have supplied to any intelligent editor. From the stores of other critics he collected very little, and from his own he produced yet less that was valuable. But he had indulged himself in rude and petulant objections against Dr. Bentley; and for this chiefly I censured him. Here ends the catalogue of my crimes hitherto committed in reviews; and, as I now have somewhat more leisure than I formerly enjoyed, it is possible that I may now and then add to their number. But I assure Dr. Combe and the public, that

whensoever I take upon myself to deal rigorously with any writer, I shall not shrink from the strictest responsibility. My contributions to works of this kind are occasional, and, therefore, I have no right to the benefit of that secrecy which it may be wise and honourable for the regular conductors of reviews to preserve. Of the share which I have already taken, and may hereafter take, in these periodical publications, I never can be ashamed. I might plead the example of many scholars both at home and abroad, far superior to myself in vigour of intellect, and extent of erudition. But I wish rather to insist upon the utility of the works themselves, and upon the opportunities which they furnish to men of learning, for rendering some occasional service to the general cause of literature. There is no one review in this country but what is conducted with a considerable degree of ability: and though I decline the task of deciding npon their comparative excellence, I have no hesitation in saying, that all of them deserve encouragement from learned men. They much oftener assist than retard the circulation of booksthey much oftener extend than check the reputation of good books they rarely prostitute commendation upon such as are notoriously bad. For my part, I am disposed to view with a favourable eye the different opinions and propensities which may be traced in the minds of the different writers. By such collisions of sentiment truth is brought into fuller view, and a reader finds himself impelled, by the very strongest curiosity, to examine the reasons upon which men of talents nearly equal have founded decisions totally opposite. By posterity, too, reviews will be considered as useful repositories of the most splendid passages in the most celebrated works. They will show the progress of a country, or an age, in taste and arts, in refinement of manners, and in the cultivation of science. They mark the gradations of language itself, and the progressive or retrograde motions of the public mind upon the most interesting subjects in ethics, in politics, and in religion."

Mr. Boswell, in his Life of Dr. Johnson, having expressed his doubts respecting the correctness of Dr. Parr's assertion, that the great lexicographer "not only endured, but almost solicited an interview with Dr. Priestley," Dr. Parr sent to "The Gentleman's Magazine," in March, 1795, his reasons for that assertion, which were accompanied by some curious correspondence. To this "a general answer" was prepared by Mr. Boswell, a short time before his death, but not published. In the same year, Mr. Beloe published a translation of "Aulus Gellius," the very learned and judicious preface to which was written by Dr. Parr.

On Easter Tuesday, in the year 1800, Dr. Parr preached his justly-celebrated Spital Sermon, at Christ-church, Newgate-street, before Harvey Christian Combe, Esq. the Lord Mayor. The church, though large, was crowded to excess, and the doctor gratified the more intelligent portion of his hearers by a discourse, in which he happily combated the delusive dogmas of those philosophers who ascribe all benevolence and justice to a selfish principle. This sermon was soon afterwards printed, with a number of curious notes; which induced the author of " Political Justice" to publish, in the same year, an octavo pamphlet, entitled "Thoughts occasioned by the perusal of Dr. Parr's Spital Sermon, being a Reply to the Attacks of Dr. P., Mr. Mackintosh, and others." A suspension of intercourse between Dr. Parr and Mr. Godwin was the consequence; but a few months previous to his death, Dr. Parr sent Mr. Godwin a message of peace, and invitation to Hatton.

In 1801, Dr. Parr was offered (by Alexander Baring, Esq.) but declined it, the vicarage of Winterbourne Stoke, in Wiltshire. In 1802 he was presented by Sir Francis Burdett to the rectory of Graffham, in Huntingdonshire. The following is the interesting correspondence which passed on the occasion:

* See Nichols's "Literary Anecdotes," ii. 403.