« AnteriorContinua »
(60) 126. [118. T.] Were any represented Selden, so did Heylin, event unordained by Providence, the who, it is evident, considers that learnprelate's attempted sarcasm might be ed man as taxing the Episcopal clergy excusable. Providence is here used, with ignorance and laziness. though not with strict correctness, (66) 156. [153. T.] Let the reader for an act of Providence.
mark what Granger says of Noy: (61) 144. [133. T.] The note of “ He was equal at least to any of the Dr. Toulinin is so conclusive, that I lawyers of his time, but had no ainiashall place it before my readers. Bi- ble qualities. He was, in a word, a shop Warburton having charged Neal man of an enlarged head, and a conwith calumny in the statement that tracted heart.” To be merely a great Charles I., when Prince, formed a re- lawyer, is to have very slender claims solution of attempting a coalition of on our adıniration and esteem.t the two churches (of Rome and En- (67) 178. [172. T.] Warburton gland), the Editor says,
affects to despise the bistorian's con" It is strange how his Lordship jectures as to the real motives of the could give his pen a licence to pass this war with France. Let the reader judge .unjust censure on Mr. Neal: when for himself. For my own part, Ideem the conduct of Charles I. furnished so Neal's reasoning upon the case good many proofs of his wishes and endea- and sensible. vours to coalesce with the Church of (68) 181. [179. T.] The stricture Rome. His letter to the Pope from concerns solely the character of ArchMadrid; the articles of the marriage bishop Usher in a particular instance: treaty, to which he solemnly signed Neal's faithfulness in transcribing the and swore, and the private articles, to document, uerits praise. which he also swore, are witnesses to (69) 209. [202. T.] It is really the truth of Mr. Neal's assertion. If against Fuller, and not against Neal, he had not aimed at this, why did he that the prelate's childish banter has disown the foreign Protestants? Why been, once more, directed. did he restrain the press with respect (70) 232. (222. T.). Laud's pubto books written against Popery, and lic character was so faulty and pernilicense publications in favour of it? cious, that there can be bo occasion Why was Popery not only tolerated, to insist on any doubtful parts of his but countenanced and favoured ? See conduct. In truth, Neal does but the facts to this purpose fully stated state the circumstance of the lay imin Towgood's · Essay towards a true propriations. idea of the Character of Charles I.' (71) 257. (246. T.] Neal does Chap. ix. &c. &c.”
not represent the controversy about (62) 147. [137. T.] Whatever innovations as trilling :") all which Harsnet's " learning and parts” were, he intimates, and this very truly, is, other qualifications for the episcopal that it did not affect the life of relioffice inight be wanting in him. Not gion." that I pronounce any thing on his (72) 272.
[260. T.] Toulmin actual character, which at present I shews that the historian does not refer have no means of ascertaining. The this charge to the queen's personal notices of hin, indeed seem to be vices. extremely imperfect.
(73) 289. [276. T.] Bishop War(63) 148. [138. T.] Neal cannot burton's general estimate of Laud's be fairly accused here of perversion, character, is unquestionably correct. though he laboured, I think, under a (74) 290. [277. 1.] Bý“ awakenmisapprehension of the import of ing preachers," our prelate underGondomar's unguarded and ridiculous stands“ mad fanatics." See his note language: Dr. Toulwin's pertinent on Pope's line, “Let modest Foster,” annotation demands our notice. &c., and Lowth's Letter, ut supra, p.
(64) Ib. [Ib. T.] The historian and 45. the prelate differ from each other, as (75) 295. [282. T.] Here we meet might be supposed, in respect of the soundness of Land's principles of rea
* Biog. Hist. &c., Vol. II. (3rd ed.), p. soning against Fisher.
(65) 149. [139. T.] Toulmin + Swift's Letter to Pope, No. vii., proves most clearly that if Neal mise and Lowth's to Warburton, PP, 63. 64.
with very just though severe animad- intelligent note will scarcely approve versions, by Warburton, upon Laud. of Warburton's confident declaration. In this instance he does not differ from (84) 505. [474.T.) Neal explains the historian of the Puritans.
himself; nevertheless, his episcopal (76) 303. [290. T.] An extract annotator overlooks the explanation. from Heylin, gives rise to the present (85) 510. [479. T.] Warburton annotation, which contains some in. rises in his language, and now speaks telligence respecting Franciscus de of “a villainous accusation, destitute Clara (Christopher Davenport]. of all proof and likelihood.”
(77) 387. Ch. vii. (not vi.) [369. Lordship," reinarks Neal's Editor, T.] I read, in Toulmin's edition of might have spared some of his Neal, “ Bishop Hatfield's tomb, which warmth and bitterness. For if it be had been erected many years before.” an accusation, it comes forward as a (Warburton's statement is 250.] The conclusion arising from the facts and truth is, Hatfield died in May, 1381, authorities stated in the precediog and was buried at Durham under the pages. It is properly the opinion of Episcopal stall.
the author, and the reader will judge (78) 429. (405. T.) Warburton how far it justly flows from the evi. does not concur in the historian's judg- dence laid before him.” incnt of Grimstone's and of Selden's So far, Dr. Toulmin. His reply is speech. Our prelate's attachment to that of genuine candour and good his own theory of church-alliance, sense to violent prejudice and passion. may insensibly have biassed his opi- (86) 512. [481. T.] With Dr. nion.
Toulmin, I ask, “Why should a de(79) 43). [407. T.] It was scarce- sign to mislead be insinuated against ly worth notice that Neal has informed Mr. Neal? Has he not in the same us where Guy Vaux's dark-lantern is paragraph informed his readers, that deposited. At such points does Bishop many were of opinion, that those Warburton cavil, in the absence of grievances which had been redressed materials for any weighty accusation ! ought to have been covered? Doth
(80) 434. [409. T.] The histo. he not fairly state the whole business? rian's representation concerning Good- And doth he not, with candour and man, is not prejudiced. I consider impartiality, avoid biassing his reader, Dr. Toulmin's note as decisive of the while he was giving a decided opinion question.
on the conduct of the parliament in (81) 436. [412.T] Of this anno- this affair? All this appears, in the tation the reasoning may be left to hurry of his remarks, at breakfastthe reader. It will be sufficient for time, to have escaped his lordship's me to observe that it is matter of opi- notice. Had be read on before he nion, and docs not impeach Neal's wrote, in the inargin of his book, it faithfulness and impartiality. Acts would have precluded his censure.". of attainder are most odious in my (87) Ib. [Ib. T.] This annotation eyes, and scarcely reconcileable with contains the prelate's judgment on our constitution.
facts, which our historian has ingenu(82) 433. [414. T.] It is difficult ously recorded. to suppose, that this letter did not (88) 527. [494. T.) Neal's Editor proceed from Strafford's own pen. has satisfactoriiy vindicated him from The king's consent to his execution, this charge of “a notorious falsereflects no honour on the personal hood,” which has arisen from Bishop character of Charles.
Warburton's want of candour and (83) 504. [472. T] That Neal's discrimination. insinuations against this monarch in (89) 532. [499. T.] Our prelate respect of the Irish insurrection are objects to Neal's reasoning in answer “ very unjust and groundless," is not to Collyer's. Be the historian's arguquite so much a matter of certainty inent or opinion what it may, the as our prelate supposes. The reader attack is not made upon his integrity. of Dr. Toulinin's discriminating and (90) Ib. [Ib. T.) Rapin as well as
Neal is censured for what Bishop
Warburton thinks an erroneous conGodwin de Præsulibus, &c., (1743,) clusion. p. 751.
(91) 534. [501. T.) The validity of
the historian's reasoning, is again dis- seems a favourite personage with the puted; but, surely, without cause. prelate, vho employs him, it must be More should be said of the breach of confessed, with some effect. Not privilege committed by the king, in that these witticisms bear upon Neal, respect of the five members, than that but upon actors in the scenes which it was an act of " unparalleled folly:" Neal delineates. it was grossly unconstitutional and (100) 583. [545. T] Here again illegal, and involved the responsible the historian relates the fact; and his advisers of the Crown (if such there right reverend annotator supplies the were) in the guilt of a high crime and comment. inisdemeanour.
(101) 586. (547. T.) Bishop War(92) 535. [501. T.] Let Toulmin's burton censures Mr. Neal for using judicious note be read, previously to the word deserted, bis selection of any decision against Neal for quoting which Toulmin amply justifics. the authority and giving in to the (102) 588. [550. T.) “ — the loss opinion of Eachard." It is remparkable of as many Protestant lives as perislıcd enough that Hume* divides the blame by the insurrection and massacre of of this “ fatal importunity between Ireland.” Was the fact so, or not? the queen and the ladies of the court That is the simple question. The and Lord Digby.
prelate shews himself to be as refined (93) 536. (502. T.] Does Neal and subtle a commentator upon Neal either say or insinuate that the king's as he was upon Shakspeare. fears were pretended ?
(103) 596. [557. T.] Oliver Croma (94) 540. [506. T.) The language well had a purp:se to serve in bis on which Warburton animadverts, is speech against the Presbyterian arthat of the enemies of the bishops ; mies of the parliament. If Warburnot the historian's, who quotes both ton could seriously lay stress upon Baxter and Collver.
such language, from such a quarter, (95) 544. [510. T.] That Neal's and in such circumstances, I should sentiments on certain political mea- accuse him of greater imbecility than sures are opposed to those of Lord he professes to find in Neal. Clarendon, Eachard and Warburton, (104) 597. (558, T.] We are now cannot be a subject of astonishment, presented with a sarcasm on the or necessarily of blame.
scarcity of preachers of a learned (96) 550. [516. T.) Another sneer education, who took part with the at the historian's impartiality! How. parliament. Is not Neal characterever, it is not his statement of facts, istically honest in mentioning this but his estimate of the quality of circumstance? them, which the prelate oppugns.
(105) 600. [561. T.) The histo(97) 551. [517. T.] “ The con- rian's Editor has well defended him troversy turns not on the opinion from the charge of inconsistency and and declaration of the two Houses, of a want of accuracy in speaking of but on the truth of the facts stated. the Seldens, &c. In the very next And these amendments [if as both sentence Neal ingenuously owns that Houses shall declare, the religion and the Puritan divines were unacquainted liberties of the nation be in imininent with the rights of conscience. danger, &c.] preserve the contrast (106) 615. [574. T.] Warburton between the opposite parts of Mr. makes some distinctions, which, as Neal's proposition, which he is very Dr. Toulmin intimates, savour more politely represented by Bishop War of chicanery than solid reasoning, but burton as not knowing how to state.” in which Neal's reputation is not inToulmin.
volver (98) 567. (530. T.] Mr. Neal is (107) Review.-Appendix. - Prehere inaccurate in point of expression; face to Third Volume. We have here while his charge against the king re- three articles of remark, which I posmains substantially true. See the sess not an opportunity of fully veriEditor's note.
fying. The first would seem to be (99) 569. [532. T.] Sancho Pancha mere and irrelevant banter-the se
cond states the Protestant Dissent of * Hist., &c., [1793,] VI. 466, 467. an anonymous writer-and the third expresses our prelate's concurrence in don's meaning or not, still he agrees Neal's very just reproof of an obscure with Warburton that the commissionclergyman (I believe, Walker). ers' hands were tied, but differs from
(108) Vol. III. 62. [56. T.] In re- hiin as to the cause of their inability ply to what Bishop Warburton says of of going further. Selden and a convocation, Neal's Edi- (120) 265. [246. T.] The fact of tor has made some most apposite the queen's ascendancy over her husquotations from Selden's Table Talk. · band, is notorious; though Warbur
(109) 80. [72. T.] Neal's language ton condemns the present notice of it is, “ most of the religious part of the, as misplaced. Let the remainder of nation:” a statement thus modified, the prelate's annotation be compared should have saved him from the pre- with Toulmin's observations in reply. late's taunt.
(121) 266. [248. T.] I must still (110) Ib. [73. T.] The historian doubt, whether it be so generally expressly declares that the imposing understood that the Earl of Glamorthe covenant as a test can never be gan exceeded his commission. See justified. To impose it, was a force Laing's History of Scotland, (1800,) upon the conscience.
I. 308, 509, &c. (11)) 93. [84. T.) Let Diodati's (122) 270. (252. T.] Baxter is opinion and bis answer have the weight speaking only of the former chaplains that they deserve.
of the parliamentary army: Warbur(112) 102. [92. T.] Together with ton chooses to understand him of Warburton's note about Dr. Cheynel's “the Puritans.” villainous book, we should read Toul- (123) 360. (334. T.] According to min's respecting the saine individual, Neal, the declaration that the Scots who “had a tendency to madness."* sold their king, was
an unjust and (113) 107. [98. T.] A merited con- malicious aspersion :" it was not so demnation of one part of Charles the in the eyes of Warburton. Let the First's public character.
voice of History decide the question. (114) 164. [152. T.] I fear that in Neal assigns reasons for his opinion, some instances the language and be- which, at the least, are as plausible haviour of the Baptist lay preacliers as those of the prelate, on the conamounted to overt acts of sedition. trary side. See, too, the Editor's, Whether it would not have been the note. better policy to have let “the brawl- (124) 408. [377. T.] I do not here ing torrent” pass, is another question. controvert Warburton's remarks: they
(115) 166. [153. T.] Warburton bave given rise to some adınirable conjectures that the elector palatine. Observations, in support of them, had his eye upon the crown.
from the pen of Dr. Toulmin. (116) 247. [227. T.) Neal looks (125) 493. (453. T.] Selden is noi upon Laud as having been more a out of place: he had a seat (I use the man of business than of letters: War- words of Neal's Editor) in the Westburton, as seems to me, appreciates minster Assembly. him better,
(126) 495. [455. T.] The edge of (117) 253. [235. T.] That the sen- Warburton's sarcasm against these tence of the historian's on which the "glorious saiuts,” is completely taken prelate aniinadverts, does not merit of by Toulmin's sensible annotation. the name of “ foolish declamation," (127) 497. [457. T.] This stricture has been proved by Neal's Editor. (such as it is, for it affects not the
(118) 258. (240. T.] Charles the historian) consists of a lively, anus. First appears to have mistaken the ing anecdote, drift of Hooker's reasoning in his Ec- (128) 527. [485. T.] I agree with clesiastical Polity. Neal produces Toulmin that Mr. Neal is to be unhis voucher for the fact, and is not derstood as speaking of the personal answerable for the error.
virtue of the parliamentary officers. (119) 263. [243. T.] Whether the With more candour and reflection, historian misapprehends Lord Claren- Bishop Warburton might have so disa
criminated. See the Life of him by Dr. S. John- (129) 530. [489. T.] Common
equity demands that we again com
pare together the prelate's stricture notoriety, or in works referred to in and the note of Neal's Editor.
his margin. By this set of objections (130) 530. [489. T.] Warburton the historian's probity cannot be inlaughs at our historian for his ima- validated: how completely they fail gined simplicity in thinking that Oli- of bringing his understanding into ver Cromwell, 'when making a certain question, let 'those determine who speech, was really in doubt. Yet have carefully perused the edition of Warburton himself, in a former and a his History by Dr. Toulmin. no less palpable instance of grimace, III. Many of Warburton's strictures could receive Cromwell's words as fall under the third division : they are expressing his real opinion. Sce No. levelled at the judgment which Neal 303.
pronounces or intiinates on men and (131) 545. (503. T.] It is far- things. It was to be supposed that very far from being yet evident that the historian and his censor would Charles J. wrote the elkwy facinuky. usually differ from each other in their The reader should consult Dr. Toul- estimate of both. A dignitary of the min's appropriate note, before he ac. Church of England and a Protestant quiesce in the prelate's censures of Nonconformist minister were not likeour historian.
ly to view the events and actors of (132) 549. [507. T.] This stric. that period with precisely the same ture is well disposed of by the liberal eyes. Nor am I disposed or able to and candid Editor.
say that, in point of opinion, Neal is (133) 551. [508. T.] Warburton always right or Warburton always concurs substantially in the judgment wrong. Common justice and candoúr delivered by Du Moulin concerning demand this admission : to readers the actors in the King's trial and exe- whom these qualities characterize I cution. As to the remainder of the submit the matters in dispute. prelate's stricture, it is far from being There remain then the very few probable that Episcopalians and Non. annotations which may be thought to conformists will soon arrive at the bear in any degree or shape on Neal's same inference, in respect of the party reputation for integrity and fair dealwho prepared the entertainment, and ing. Now, in the retrospect, I diswas at the expense of the exhibition. cover none of any importance, except
No 34; our historian's language conThe strictures of Bishop Warburton cerning Udal's death. Here it might upon Neal, amount to above one hun, be wished that be had expressed himdred and thirty, and may be classed self with inore reserve: liere perhaps in the following ipanner : Ist, those he was insensibly led away by that which profess to impugn the histo- excessive zeal, from the effects of rian's veracity; 2dly, those which re- which even wise and good men are gard the nature of the facts and not always free; but even here no opinions that he records ; 3dly, those strong or lasting censure fixes itself which are directed against his judg- on bis memory. Let him who is withment of men and things; and 4thly, out sin, in this respect, throw the those which in any degree or shape first stone. That stone, most asaffcct bis reputation for integrity and suredly, should not be cast by Warfair dealing.
burton. I. He who takes the pains of reck- I must not conclude without glanoning the number of the first class cing at that prelate's qualifications, of objections, will find it to be ex- at Neal's, at Neal's Editor's, and at treinely small
. It is not without the Dr. Southey's. greatest difficulty that I can discover Of Warburton it were presumpeighteen, which even accuse Neal of tuous in me to say much, after the falsifying the truth of history : nor in masterly portraits and sketches of a single instance is the charge sub- him which have been delineated by stantiated.
Dr. Samuel Johnson* and Dr. Parr.t II. A large proportion of the notes -pot fewer than sixty--concern the quality of certain facts and sentiments * In his prefaces respectively to Shakswhich Neal records, and which are peare and to his own Eng. Dict. found either in documents of public + Tracts by Warburton, &c.