Imatges de pàgina
PDF
EPUB

(60) 126. [118. T.] Were any event unordained by Providence, the prelate's attempted sarcasm might be excusable. Providence is here used, though not with strict correctness, for an act of Providence.

(61) 144. [133. T.] The note of Dr. Toulmin is so conclusive, that I shall place it before my readers. Bishop Warburton having charged Neal with calumny in the statement that Charles I., when Prince, formed a resolution of attempting a coalition of the two churches [of Rome and England], the Editor says,

"It is strange how his Lordship could give his pen a licence to pass this unjust censure on Mr. Neal: when the conduct of Charles I. furnished so many proofs of his wishes and endeavours to coalesce with the Church of Rome. His letter to the Pope from Madrid; the articles of the marriage treaty, to which he solemnly signed and swore, and the private articles, to which he also swore, are witnesses to the truth of Mr. Neal's assertion. If he had not aimed at this, why did he disown the foreign Protestants? Why did he restrain the press with respect to books written against Popery, and license publications in favour of it? Why was Popery not only tolerated, but countenanced and favoured? See the facts to this purpose fully stated in Towgood's Essay towards a true idea of the Character of Charles I.' Chap. ix. &c. &c."

(62) 147. [137. T.] Whatever Harsnet's" learning and parts" were, other qualifications for the episcopal office might be wanting in him. Not that I pronounce any thing on his actual character, which at present I have no means of ascertaining. The notices of him indeed seem to be extremely imperfect.

(63) 148. [138. T.] Neal cannot be fairly accused here of perversion, though he laboured, I think, under a misapprehension of the import of Gondomar's unguarded and ridiculous language: Dr. Toulmin's pertinent annotation demands our notice.

(64) Ib. [Ib. T.] The historian and the prelate differ from each other, as might be supposed, in respect of the soundness of Laud's principles of reasoning against Fisher.

(65) 149. [139. T.] Toulmin proves most clearly that if Neal mis

represented Selden, so did Heylin, who, it is evident, considers that learned man as taxing the Episcopal clergy with ignorance and laziness.

(66) 156. [153. T.] Let the reader mark what Granger * says of Noy: "He was equal at least to any of the lawyers of his time, but had no amniable qualities. He was, in a word, a man of an enlarged head, and a contracted heart." To be merely a great lawyer, is to have very slender claims on our admiration and esteem.+

(67) 178. [172. T.] Warburton affects to despise the historian's conjectures as to the real motives of the war with France. Let the reader judge for himself. For my own part, I deem Neal's reasoning upon the case good and sensible.

(68) 181. [179. T.] The stricture concerns solely the character of Archbishop Usher in a particular instance: Neal's faithfulness in transcribing the document, merits praise.

(69) 209. [202. T.] It is really against Fuller, and not against Neal, that the prelate's childish banter has been, once more, directed.

[ocr errors]

(70) 232. [222. T.] Laud's public character was so faulty and pernicious, that there can be no occasion to insist on any doubtful parts of his conduct. In truth, Neal does but state the circumstance of the lay impropriations.

[ocr errors]

(71) 257. [246. T.] Neal does not represent the controversy about innovations as trifling:" all which he intimates, and this very truly, is, that it did not affect the life of religion."

(72) 272. [260. T.] Toulmin shews that the historian does not refer this charge to the queen's personal vices.

(73) 289. [276. T.] Bishop Warburton's general estimate of Laud's character, is unquestionably correct.

(74) 290. [277. T.] By “awakening preachers," our prelate understands "mad fanatics." See his note on Pope's line, "Let modest Foster," &c., and Lowth's Letter, ut supra, p. 45.

(75) 295. [282. T.] Here we meet

226.

Biog. Hist. &c., Vol. II. (3rd ed.), p.

+ Swift's Letter to Pope, No. vii., and Lowth's to Warburton, pp, 63. 64.

with very just though severe animadversions, by Warburton, upon Laud. In this instance he does not differ from the historian of the Puritans.

(76) 303. [290. T.] An extract from Heylin, gives rise to the present annotation, which contains some intelligence respecting Franciscus de Clara [Christopher Davenport].

(77) 387. Ch. vii. (not vi.) [369. T.] I read, in Toulmin's edition of Neal, "Bishop Hatfield's tomb, which had been erected many years before." [Warburton's statement is 250.] The truth is, Hatfield died in May, 1381, and was buried at Durham under the Episcopal stall.*

(78) 429. (405. T.] Warburton does not concur in the historian's judginent of Grimstone's and of Selden's speech. Our prelate's attachment to his own theory of church-alliance, may insensibly have biassed his opi

nion.

(79) 431. [407. T.] It was scarcely worth notice that Neal has informed us where Guy Vaux's dark-lantern is deposited. At such points does Bishop Warburton cavil, in the absence of materials for any weighty accusation! (80) 434. [409. T.] The historian's representation concerning Goodman, is not prejudiced. I consider Dr. Toulmin's note as decisive of the question.

(81) 436. [412. T] Of this annotation the reasoning may be left to the reader. It will be sufficient for me to observe that it is matter of opinion, and does not impeach Neal's faithfulness and impartiality. Acts of attainder are most odious in my eyes, and scarcely reconcileable with our constitution.

(82) 433. [414. T.] It is difficult to suppose, that this letter did not proceed from Strafford's own pen. The king's consent to his execution, reflects no honour on the personal character of Charles.

[ocr errors][merged small]

intelligent note will scarcely approve of Warburton's confident declaration.

(84) 505. [474. T.] Neal explains himself; nevertheless, his episcopal annotator overlooks the explanation.

(85) 510. [479. T.] Warburton rises in his language, and now speaks of "a villainous accusation, destitute of all proof and likelihood." "His Lordship," remarks Neal's Editor,

[ocr errors]

might have spared some of his warmth and bitterness. For if it be an accusation, it comes forward as a conclusion arising from the facts and authorities stated in the preceding pages. It is properly the opinion of the author, and the reader will judge how far it justly flows from the evidence laid before him."

So far, Dr. Toulmin. His reply is that of genuine candour and good sense to violent prejudice and passion.

(86) 512. [481. T.] With Dr. Toulmin, I ask, "Why should a design to mislead be insinuated against Mr. Neal? Has he not in the same paragraph informed his readers, that many were of opinion, that those grievances which had been redressed ought to have been covered? Doth he not fairly state the whole business? And doth he not, with candour and impartiality, avoid biassing his reader, while he was giving a decided opinion on the conduct of the parliament in this affair? All this appears, in the hurry of his remarks, at breakfasttime, to have escaped his lordship's notice. Had he read on before he wrote, in the margin of his book, it would have precluded his censure."

(87) Ib. [Ib. T.] This annotation contains the prelate's judgment on facts, which our historian has ingenuously recorded.

(88) 527. [494. T.] Neal's Editor has satisfactorily vindicated him from this charge of "a notorious_falsehood," which has arisen from Bishop Warburton's want of candour and discrimination.

(89) 532. [499. T.] Our prelate objects to Neal's reasoning in answer to Collyer's. Be the historian's argument or opinion what it may, the attack is not made upon his integrity.

(90) Ib. [Ib. T.] Rapin as well as Neal is censured for what Bishop Warburton thinks an erroneous con

Godwin de Præsulibus, &c., (1743,) clusion.

p. 759.

(91) 534. [501. T.] The validity of

the historian's reasoning, is again disputed; but, surely, without cause. More should be said of the breach of privilege committed by the king, in respect of the five members, than that it was an act of "unparalleled folly:" it was grossly unconstitutional and illegal, and involved the responsible advisers of the Crown (if such there were) in the guilt of a high crime and misdemeanour.

(92) 535. [501. T.] Let Toulmin's judicious note be read, previously to any decision against Neal for quoting the authority and giving in to the opinion of Eachard. It is remarkable enough that Hume* divides the blame of this "fatal importunity" between the queen and the ladies of the court and Lord Digby.

(93) 536. [502. T.] Does Neal either say or insinuate that the king's fears were pretended?

(94) 540. [506. T.] The language on which Warburton animadverts, is that of the enemies of the bishops; not the historian's, who quotes both Baxter and Collyer.

(95) 544. [510. T.] That Neal's sentiments on certain political measures are opposed to those of Lord Clarendon, Eachard and Warburton, cannot be a subject of astonishment, or necessarily of blame.

(96) 550. [516. T.] Another sneer at the historian's impartiality! However, it is not his statement of facts, but his estimate of the quality of them, which the prelate oppugns.

(97) 551. [517. T.] The controversy turns not on the opinion and declaration of the two Houses, but on the truth of the facts stated. And these amendments [if as both Houses shall declare, the religion and liberties of the nation be in imminent danger, &c.] preserve the contrast between the opposite parts of Mr. Neal's proposition, which he is very politely represented by Bishop War burton as not knowing how to state." Toulmin.

(98) 567. [530. T.] Mr. Neal is here inaccurate in point of expression; while his charge against the king remains substantially true. See the Editor's note.

(99) 569. [532. T.] Sancho Pancha

Hist., &c., [1793,] VI. 466, 467.

[ocr errors]

seems a favourite personage with the prelate, who employs him, it must be confessed, with some effect. Not that these witticisms bear upon Neal, but upon actors in the scenes which Neal delineates.

(100) 583. [545. T] Here again the historian relates the fact; and his right reverend annotator supplies the comment.

(101) 586. [547. T.] Bishop Warburton censures Mr. Neal for using the word deserted, his selection of which Toulmin amply justifies.

(102) 588. [550. 'T.]

- the loss

of as many Protestant lives as perished by the insurrection and massacre of Ireland." Was the fact so, or not? That is the simple question. The prelate shews himself to be as refined and subtle a commentator upon Neat as he was upon Shakspeare.

(103) 596. [557. T.] Oliver Cromwell had a purpose to serve in his speech against the Presbyterian armies of the parliament. If Warburton could seriously lay stress upon such language, from such a quarter, and in such circumstances, I should accuse him of greater imbecility than he professes to find in Neal.

(104) 597. [558. T.] We are now presented with a sarcasm on the scarcity of preachers of a learned education, who took part with the parliament. Is not Neal characteristically honest in mentioning this circumstance?

(105) 600. [561. T.] The historian's Editor has well defended him from the charge of inconsistency and of a want of accuracy in speaking of the Seldens, &c. In the very next sentence Neal ingenuously owns that the Puritan divines were unacquainted with the rights of conscience.

(106) 615. [574. T.] Warburton makes some distinctions, which, as Dr. Toulmin intimates, savour more of chicanery than solid reasoning, but in which Neal's reputation is not involved

(107) Review.-Appendix. - Preface to Third Volume. We have here three articles of remark, which I possess not an opportunity of fully verifying. The first would seem to be mere and irrelevant banter-the second states the Protestant Dissent of an anonymous writer-and the third

expresses our prelate's concurrence in Neal's very just reproof of an obscure clergyman [I believe, Walker].

(108) Vol. III. 62. [56. T.] In re ply to what Bishop Warburton says of Selden and a convocation, Neal's Editor has made some most apposite quotations from Selden's Table Talk. (109) 80. [72. T.] Neal's language is, "most of the religious part of the nation:" a statement thus modified, should have saved him from the prelate's taunt.

(110) Ib. [73. T.] The historian expressly declares that the imposing the covenant as a test can never be justified. To impose it, was a force upon the conscience.

(111) 93. [84. T.) Let Diodati's opinion and his answer have the weight that they deserve.

(112) 102. [92. T.] Together with Warburton's note about Dr. Cheynel's villainous book, we should read Toulmin's respecting the same individual, who had a tendency to madness." (113) 107. [98. T.] A merited condemnation of one part of Charles the First's public character.

(114) 164. [152. T.] I fear that in some instances the language and behaviour of the Baptist lay preachers amounted to overt acts of sedition. Whether it would not have been the better policy to have let "the brawling torrent" pass, is another question. (115) 166. [153. T.] Warburton conjectures that the elector palatine had his eye upon the crown.

(116) 247. [227. T.] Neal looks upon Laud as having been more a man of business than of letters: Warburton, as seems to me, appreciates him better.

(117) 253. [235. T.] That the sentence of the historian's on which the prelate animadverts, does not merit the name of "foolish declamation," has been proved by Neal's Editor.

(118) 258. [240. T.] Charles the First appears to have mistaken the drift of Hooker's reasoning in his Ecclesiastical Polity. Neal produces his voucher for the fact, and is not answerable for the error

(119) 263. [243. T.] Whether the historian misapprehends Lord Claren

son.

See the Life of him by Dr. S. John

don's meaning or not, still he agrees with Warburton that the commissioners' hands were tied, but differs from him as to the cause of their inability of going further.

(120) 265. [246. T.] The fact of the queen's ascendancy over her husband, is notorious; though Warburton condemns the present notice of it as misplaced. Let the remainder of the prelate's annotation be compared with Toulmin's observations in reply.

(121) 266. [248. T.] I must still doubt, whether it be so generally understood that the Earl of Glamorgan exceeded his commission. See Laing's History of Scotland, (1800,) I. 308, 509, &c.

(122) 270. [252. T.] Baxter is speaking only of the former chaplains of the parliamentary army: Warburton chooses to understand him of "the Puritans."

(123) 360. [334. T.] According to Neal, the declaration that the Scots sold their king, was 66 an unjust and malicious aspersion:" it was not so in the eyes of Warburton. Let the voice of History decide the question. Neal assigns reasons for his opinion, which, at the least, are as plausible as those of the prelate, on the contrary side. See, too, the Editor's, note.

(124) 408. [377. T.] I do not here controvert Warburton's remarks: they have given rise to some adinirable observations, in support of them, from the pen of Dr. Toulmin.

(125) 493. [453. T.] Selden is not out of place: he had a seat (I use the words of Neal's Editor) in the Westminster Assembly.

(126) 495. [455. T.] The edge of Warburton's sarcasm against these "glorious saints," is completely taken off by Toulmin's sensible annotation.

(127) 497. [457. T.] This stricture (such as it is, for it affects not the historian) consists of a lively, amusing anecdote.

(128) 527. [485. T.] I agree with Toulmin that Mr. Neal is to be understood as speaking of the personal virtue of the parliamentary officers. With more candour and reflection, Bishop Warburton might have so discriminated.

(129) 530. [489. T.] Common equity demands that we again com

[blocks in formation]

(131) 545. [503. T.] It is far very far-from being yet evident that Charles I. wrote the sky baσikkŋ. The reader should consult Dr. Toulmin's appropriate note, before he acquiesce in the prelate's censures of our historian.

(132) 549. [507. T.] This stricture is well disposed of by the liberal and candid Editor.

(133) 551. [508. T.] Warburton concurs substantially in the judgment delivered by Du Moulin concerning the actors in the King's trial and execution. As to the remainder of the prelate's stricture, it is far from being probable that Episcopalians and Nonconformists will soon arrive at the same inference, in respect of the party who prepared the entertainment, and was at the expense of the exhibition.

The strictures of Bishop Warburton upon Neal, amount to above one hundred and thirty, and may be classed in the following manner: 1st, those which profess to impugn the historian's veracity; 2dly, those which regard the nature of the facts and opinions that he records; 3dly, those which are directed against his judgment of men and things; and 4thly, those which in any degree or shape affect his reputation for integrity and fair dealing.

I. He who takes the pains of reckoning the number of the first class of objections, will find it to be extremely small. It is not without the greatest difficulty that I can discover eighteen, which even accuse Neal of falsifying the truth of history: nor in a single instance is the charge substantiated.

II. A large proportion of the notes -not fewer than sixty--concern the quality of certain facts and sentiments which Neal records, and which are found either in documents of public

VOL. XX.

4 H

notoriety, or in works referred to in his margin. By this set of objections the historian's probity cannot be invalidated: how completely they fail of bringing his understanding into question, let those determine who have carefully perused the edition of his History by Dr. Toulmin.

III. Many of Warburton's strictures fall under the third division: they are levelled at the judgment which Neal pronounces or intimates on men and things. It was to be supposed that the historian and his censor would usually differ from each other in their estimate of both. A dignitary of the Church of England and a Protestant Nonconformist minister were not likely to view the events and actors of that period with precisely the same eyes. Nor am I disposed or able to say that, in point of opinion, Neal is always right or Warburton always wrong. Common justice and candour demand this admission: to readers whom these qualities characterize I submit the matters in dispute.

There remain then the very few annotations which may be thought to bear in any degree or shape on Neal's reputation for integrity and fair dealing. Now, in the retrospect, I discover none of any importance, except No. 34; our historian's language concerning Udal's death. Here it might be wished that he had expressed himself with more reserve: here perhaps he was insensibly led away by that excessive zeal, from the effects of which even wise and good men are not always free; but even here no strong or lasting censure fixes itself on his memory. Let him who is without sin, in this respect, throw the first stone. That stone, most assuredly, should not be cast by Warburton.

I must not conclude without glancing at that prelate's qualifications, at Neal's, at Neal's Editor's, and at Dr. Southey's.

Of Warburton it were presumptuous in me to say much, after the masterly portraits and sketches of him which have been delineated by Dr. Samuel Johnson* and Dr. Parr.†

* In his prefaces respectively to Shakspeare and to his own Eng. Dict.

Tracts by Warburton, &c.

« AnteriorContinua »