Memoirs of the Rev. Samuel Parr
Ch XVI. 1816-1820
CHAPTER XVI.
A.D. 1816—1820.
Dr. Parr’s friendly intercourse with Dr.
Rees—and Dr. Lindsay—His occasional attendance on
divine service in dissenting chapels—His opinion of the Rev. Robert
Hall—His letters to the Rev. Charles Berry—Biographical
notice of the Rev. Peter Emans—Dr. Parr’s
kind feelings towards those of different sects—His encomium on Dr.
Lindsay—His letter to Dr. Rees.
Among the divines, not of his own church, with whom Dr. Parr in his later years associated and occasionally
corresponded, was the late Rev. Abraham Rees, D.D.
F.R.S., minister of the dissenting chapel in Jewin-street, London. He is known to the
public as the author of four volumes of excellent sermons; and, still more, as the editor
of the new “London
Cyclopedia.” For several years he usually passed five or six weeks, in the
summer, at Leamington near Warwick, which, from an insignificant village, has lately risen
to the consequence of one of the largest and most fashionable watering-places in the
kingdom; and from his dignified person, his cheerful temper, his easy and obliging manners,
and his entertaining and instructive conversation, he was always the centre of attraction
in every company in which he appeared.
But the circumstance which rendered these annual visits peculiarly
agreeable to him, was the opportunity they afforded of enjoying much pleasing
intercourse with Dr. Parr, who,
on his part, was no less delighted with the conversation of Dr.
Rees. Few days passed on which they did not meet, either at Hatton or
Leamington, or at the house of some common friend; and, on these occasions, the writer had
frequently the pleasure of being one of the company. It was highly gratifying to witness
the sincere esteem and affection, which these two divines, though of different churches,
felt and expressed for each other; and the unreserved freedom with which they conversed on
all subjects, from the gay and the amusing to the serious and important. In the course of
their long conferences, they ranged together, it might almost be said, through the whole
circle of the sciences, not wholly excluding the arts, comprehended within the vast compass
of that laborious work which one of them has presented to the world. Their sentiments on
all the great questions of theology, politics, and literature, generally harmonised; and
where they differed, it is hardly necessary to say, they differed without the smallest
diminution of mutual respect.
A vehement debate, in which they once engaged, occurs at this moment to the
writer’s recollection. He had entertained at dinner, Dr.
Parr, Dr. Rees, Dr. Lindsay, the Reverends Timothy and David Davis, and a large party of friends,
at Leam; and, in the course of much interesting and animated conversation, some theological
questions were started; and, amongst others, the Arian notion of the person of Christ, to
which Dr. Rees was zealously attached; and which, with a sort of
public challenge, he stood forth to defend. Somewhat to
the surprise
of every one, Dr. Parr accepted the challenge; and maintained, in
opposition to him, the unitarian doctrine, perspicuously stating, and forcibly urging, the
principal arguments on this side of the long-disputed question. The debate was ably
sustained; and each of the disputants put forth all his strength in the friendly contest.
It is no discredit to Dr. Rees to say that, in the faculty of
reasoning, and still more in the powers of eloquence, he was inferior to his great
opponent, who, on closing the debate, took care to set himself right with the company, by
declaring that, though he had said what might be fairly said in favour of unitarianism, yet
he was not himself an unitarian. But if his opinions did not exactly accord with the
doctrine of that sect, it will appear, however, in a subsequent page, that they did not
widely differ from it.
The late Dr. James Lindsay, whose
name has just been mentioned, was an extraordinary man; surpassed by few in all the best
and noblest qualities, which constitute intellectual and moral greatness. For many years,
he was the pastor of the Scots’ church, in Monkwell-street, London; and was the
immediate successor of the celebrated Dr. Fordyce.
It was in the summer of 1814 that he accompanied Dr.
Rees in his visit to Leamington; and the opportunity was gladly embraced by
Dr. Parr of cultivating a more intimate
acquaintance with one, whom he had long known, and had as long admired and loved. Their
intercourse was frequent, and mutually agreeable. Dr. Lindsay
possessed great powers of conversation; and it was plea-
sant to
observe that Dr. Parr was sometimes put to the full and vigorous
exertion of his own powers, in order to maintain his accustomed superiority.
During the period of his stay at Leamington, Dr. Lindsay once conducted the morning-service of the High-street chapel,
Warwick, on which occasion Dr. Parr had declared his
intention of being present; nor did he think it any degradation to appear in the full dress
of a clergyman, though within walls not consecrated by episcopalian authority. The sermon,
delivered by Dr. Lindsay, was an interesting and instructive
discourse, since published, “On the character of the beloved disciple;”
and both in it, and in the prayers which were put up, some expressions were introduced,
respectful to the great divine then present, and to the church of which he was a minister.
At the close of it, Dr. Parr declared that he had seldom attended any
religious service with a higher degree of satisfaction; and, alluding particularly to the
discourse, he said to a friend, on leaving the chapel, “this is true
Christianity.”
It is well known that, through life, he was in the habit of going
occasionally to places of worship protected,—as he used to say, “most wisely and
most justly protected”—though not established, by state authority. His
feelings on this subject were exactly those expressed in the following passage from the pen
of a liberal divine, some time ago deceased:1—“I know not how it is, but I confess, though a clergyman
of the establishment, I see no evil in joining, for public worship, or social
inter-
course, with any of the denominations of Christians. I hear what
passes with candour; join, where I approve; and reject whatever appears contrary to
Scripture, and the plain dictates of sound reason and common sense. I am well aware
this comes not up to the full standard of orthodoxy. But if such conduct constitutes a
bad churchman, I am not anxious to be accounted a good one.” In the same
spirit, Dr. Parr thus writes to a
friend:—“You are aware of those jealousies and prejudices which churchmen feel
upon any connexion whatever with persons who are not of the national church. I feel
them not; I disapprove of them speculatively; I resist them practically. But many of my
clerical brethren are out of humour with me for so doing.”
So in-wrought were these sentiments into the mind of Dr. Parr, that no ridicule or reproach could produce upon
them the least effect. Some years ago, after attending morning-service at one of the
chapels in Manchester, he happened to dine in company with a zealous Church-of-England man,
who immediately began to question him tauntingly on the subject. “Well!
Dr. Parr,” said he, “where have you been
this morning?”—“To Cross-street chapel,” was the answer.
“What! to a dissenting chapel!” exclaimed he
scornfully;—“how strange!” Then, after a moment’s pause,
resuming in the same tone—“And pray, Dr. Parr,”
said he, “where will you go next?”—“Sir, do you ask,”
replied Dr. Parr, speaking slowly and solemnly, “where I
shall go next?—Why, sir, if I remember, and practically regard what I have
heard this morning, the place I shall go to last—if not
next—is—heaven!”1
There were few of the more distinguished dissenting divines, of whom
Dr. Parr had not been, at one time or other, a
hearer; and to the respective merits of each he was always eager to render the meed of his
sincere and generous praise. He has several times heard the celebrated Mr. Hall preach; and, on one of these occasions, being
asked by a friend whether he had been pleased—“Pleased,” replied he,
“Sir, I have been enraptured!”—To another friend, who had observed,
that of all the eminent preachers among the various classes of dissenters, Mr.
Hall might claim the first place:—“Yes, sir,” said
Dr. Parr, “and you might have added, within the pale of
the church too.”
Of one of the most admired of Mr.
Hall’s published discourses, that “on Modern Infidelity,” Dr. Parr thus speaks:—“In common with all men of letters, I read
with exquisite delight Mr. Hall’s sermon, lately published.
As compositions, his former works are replete with excellence; but this last approaches
to perfection, μετα του σεμνου την χάριν εχει.”
Mr. Hall himself, Dr. Parr thus highly
panegyrises:—“I will give my general opinion of him,” says he,
“in words which were employed to describe a prelate, whose writings are,
1 Dr. Parr
was once present in a dissenting chapel, seated near the pulpit, when the
officiating minister was one of inferior merit, which gave occasion to the
following jeu-d’esprit:— A paradox of paradoxes the greatest by far. Parr below
the preacher, and yet the preacher below par.
|
|
I believe, familiar to him; and whom he strongly resembles, not,
perhaps, in variety of learning, but in fertility of imagination, in vigour of
thinking, in rectitude of intention, and holiness of life. Yes, Mr.
Hall, like Bishop Taylor, has the
eloquence of an orator, the fancy of a poet, the acuteness of a schoolman, the
profoundness of a philosopher, and the piety of a saint.”1 To this testimony he has added another, in the following clause of his Last
Will:—“I bequeath a mourning ring to the Rev. Robert
Hall, as a mark of my reverence for his exemplary virtues, and of my
admiration of his sublime and hallowed eloquence.”
Among the dissenting clergy, whom Dr.
Parr received into the number of his personal friends, was the Rev. Charles Berry, of Leicester; of whom he often spoke
in high terms, as uniting strong powers of mind with a good share of solid and useful
learning, and a keen sense of moral purity and propriety with the affections of a
benevolent heart, and the attractions of unassuming and amiable temper and manners. In two
long letters, with which the writer has been obligingly furnished, the plan of a classical
education is traced, by Dr. Parr, in bold outline,
intended for the use of Mr. Berry, in which, among other expressions
of friendly regard, the following occur:—“Remembering that you, my dear sir, are
endowed with good sense, and with more than usual capacity for good taste, I shall give
you some advice upon the questions you proposed to me, about the education of your
children. I shall endeavour to
put you and your boys, in a strait path, and upon strong grounds;
and you will consider this code of instruction as a decisive mark of my friendship for
you.” Then, having prescribed the method, in which he thought the Greek and
Latin might best be studied, in order to form the complete and accomplished scholar, he
thus humorously proceeds: “I can forgive your heresy, and your schism; but I think
you ought to be tormented in Tartarus, seven years, if you do not follow my advice,
implicitly, implicitly, implicitly. I am looking to use, not to display: and I speak
with the authority, which experience justifies me in assuming.”—Afterwards,
entering on another part of his subject, he thus writes:—“I have only to speak on
one more subject; and I speak feelingly. If you wish your boys to be good theologians,
make them good biblical grammarians:” and having given minute directions as
to the best means of accomplishing that object, he adds, “when once they are thus
become good grammarians, they may take their choice for heterodoxy or orthodoxy;
though, probably, they will care little for either.”—Drawing the second of
his two letters to a close, thus he expresses himself:—“As I seldom see you, I
have written very fully: and as I really esteem you, I have written, also, very
earnestly. I beg you will send your answer by Dr.
Hill, who is coming to my birth-day feast, on the 11th of January. I
wish you lived near me. Give my compliments and best wishes to your wife; and to your
children, I send my services and affectionate blessing.—I am, dear Sir, truly your
well-wisher, &c.—S. Parr, Dec. 21,
1819.”
There was another dissenting
divine, who resided in his own neighbourhood, long since deceased, for whom
Dr. Parr professed high regard, and with whom he
always gladly associated. He had, like Dr. Parr, an extensive
knowledge of books; and, like him, too, possessed a large and well-chosen library; which he
purchased with the careful savings of a very scanty income;1 and in
which he found the chief occupation and enjoyment of his life. It happened, in his later
years, that pecuniary difficulties compelled him to think of selling, at least, some
considerable portion of his books; when Dr. Parr, being informed of
these difficulties, summoned the present writer to a conference, in order to devise, if
possible, the means of relief. He began with protesting, as a point which he had previously
and decidedly fixed, that not a single volume of that library should, with his consent, be
sold. He then desired to know what sum would meet the necessity of the case; and, being
told about 200l., after the pause of a moment, he recommended a
subscription; declaring, that what could not be raised of that sum elsewhere, should be
advanced by himself, and by some of his own friends, to whom he would immediately apply.
“Never,” said he, speaking with ardour, “shall our friend
have to mourn the loss of his books. No, No! he shall not be deprived, in his old age,
1 “.—This book was once in the possession of the
Rev. Mr. Emans, a studious
dissenting minister of Coventry; who, with a small income, contrived to buy
many good books. S. P.”—Bibl. Parr: p.
702. |
of the solace, which they alone can afford.”—Of this
generous offer, however, it was not found necessary to take advantage; as the money was
obtained by loan, from other quarters.
The person here referred to, was the Rev.
Peter Emans, of Coventry; and as the much-respected friend of Dr. Parr, and his own, the writer hopes to be pardoned, if
he indulge, for a moment, in the recollection of a very amiable and estimable man. A
vigorous understanding, assiduously cultivated; a judgment truly, almost severely correct;
learning, various, extensive, and accurate; piety, rational, unostentatious, and deep-felt;
benevolence, which breathed its fervid spirit in warm affection to his friends, in feeling
compassion to the distressed, in generous regards to all his fellow-creatures around him,
and even in humane consideration for the sensitive creatures below him:—these were the
predominating qualities, accompanied with the exactest attention to the little proprieties
and kind offices of social life, and recommended by the charms of gay, cheerful, even
playful temper, and of obliging unassuming manners, which combined to form in him a
character of no common excellence and dignity. As a Christian, his faith was the effect of
sincere conviction, the fruit of long, learned, and anxious investigation; and whilst his
views of Christian doctrine were different, in many important respects, from those of the
prevailing creed; yet he was never forward to question the opinions, or to oppose the
prejudices of others. As a preacher, his sermons were well arranged and well digested,
usually directed to the great objects of practical religion; always
judicious and instructive; somewhat deficient in animation and pathos; but distinguished by
seriousness of thought, by justness and strength of reasoning; by great purity and
perspicuity, and some vigour of style. He published nothing with his name; but he was a
frequent writer in the Monthly Review, in the
earlier and better days of that first and best of all the early critical journals.
In the younger part of life, Mr.
Emans was known and received, with honourable distinction, in a wide circle,
in which were some men of the higher orders in society, and some of the greatest eminence
in literature. But during his later years, straitened circumstances, and an obscure
situation, though unattended with the slightest querulousness of temper, or with the
smallest degradation of exterior appearance or manner, threw a veil over the many
excellencies of his character, and prevented some from discerning, and others from duly
honouring them. He was born in London; and his education, which was begun at St.
Paul’s school, was completed at Mile End academy. After various settlements at
Dorking, Ipswich, Nottingham, and some other places, he finally fixed himself at Coventry.
Through his long life, he was never once laid on the bed of sickness; till, on a visit to a
friend at Dudley, he was suddenly seized with a painful disorder; and, within a few days,
expired, June 28, 1810, in the seventy-fourth year of his age, not leaving one surviving
relative, near or distant, to lament his loss; but
followed to the
grave by the deep regrets of all who had the happiness to know him. ϕευ ω αγαθη
χαι πιστη ψυχη, οιχη δε απολιπων ημας.1
Dr. Parr was one of those who considered dissent as a
good rather than an evil; and who acknowledged, in the various classes of dissenters,
instead of enemies, useful auxiliaries to the church. He often said, that the great cause
of religion derived benefit from diversity of opinions, and opposition of views and
interests in its professors; because, thus, attention is awakened, inquiry stimulated, and
discussion promoted: of all which the general result must be favourable to truth and
virtue. He thought that the church owed much obligation to dissenting divines, for their
many able defences of the great common principles of Christianity; and that its thanks were
even due for writings, which objected to what appeared to them erroneous or defective, in
the national system of doctrine or discipline; because well-founded objection is sure, at
last, to produce conviction, and conviction amendment and improvement. He felt an utter
contempt for such little-minded men; great, though they might be, in other respects, as
those, of whom Bishop Watson mentions one1—an eminent divine, too, in the church—who, on accidentally opening
a book, written by a dissenter, immediately closed it, declaring that “he never
read dissenting divinity.”3 Two or three times
Dr. Parr has publicly censured, in Bishop
Halifax, of whom, however, he thought highly, “the Warburtonian spirit,” which induced him
contemptuously to call the author of the “Credibility of the Gospel History,”
“the laborious Dr.
Lardner.”1—“To my weak
understanding, and grovelling spirit,” says he, “it does not seem
the best method for supporting the general interests of literature and religion, that
one scholar should speak thus of another; not upon a doubtful or unimportant subject of
taste or criticism, but upon the merits of a work, intended like that of
Lardner, to uphold the common cause of
Christianity.”2
Impressed with these views, so far from wishing ill to dissenting
societies, Dr. Parr always rejoiced to hear of their
prosperity; and was even willing to assist in promoting it. “If dissent, and with
it the spirit of generous rivalry, should ever be annihilated,” he was
accustomed to say, “so much the worse for our church: for, in that case, its
clergy and its members, amisso cui æmulari consueverant in segnitiam
torporemque resoluti essent.” The wants of indigent ministers
of other denominations, if
carry their proscription of dissenting
writings beyond the science of theology. The writer once heard Dr. Rees tell, to the great amusement of Dr. Parr, a story of an Oxford divine, who had
ordered the New
Cyclopedia, at its first appearance, to be sent to him
regularly; but who, after receiving ten or twelve numbers, made the woful discovery
that the editor was not of the church; when, instantly he returned to his
bookseller, to be disposed of as he could, all the numbers already purchased, with
orders to send no more! 1 Preface to Warburtonian Tracts, p. 109. 2 , p. 29. |
properly made known to him, he was as ready to relieve as those of
his own church; and his contribution towards the building or repairing of dissenting
chapels was seldom solicited in vain. He used to say, “we of the church are more
bound, from our situation, to aid in supporting the institutions of other sects, than
they are to aid in supporting ours. The state takes care of us: and we ought to take a
little good care of them.” When, a few years ago, some improvements and
embellishments were proposed in the High-street chapel, Warwick, Dr.
Parr gave five guineas towards the expense; to which many other members of
the established church, after his example, liberally contributed. On that occasion he said
to the writer, “your people ought to give more attention to the appearance of your
places of worship; such places ought not only to be decent, but handsome: divine
service loses something of its proper dignity, when performed in mean or unsuitable
edifices.” He hardly ever visited any considerable town or village, in his
occasional journeys, without inquiring into the state of the dissenting congregations and
the character of their ministers; and when he received favourable reports, it was always
with evident satisfaction that he communicated them to the present writer, at their first
meeting after his return.
He was much gratified by an invitation, which he received and accepted, to
dine with a number of dissenting ministers, at the library founded by the Rev. Dr. Williams in Red-Cross-street, London; and spoke
afterwards with great pleasure of
the large collection of books with
which it is furnished, and the numerous portraits of distinguished divines by which it is
adorned. His concern for the honour and the happiness of the dissenting clergy led him to
remark, with regret, the restraint, under which they are too often held by their
congregations. Though fettered by their forms in other respects, yet, in that respect, he
said, the ministers in the church enjoyed more freedom than those out of it: and he
concurred in the observation of a friend that, among the non-conformists in England, and
the Presbyterians in Scotland, “it was not the learned who teach the people what
to believe; but the people who prescribe to the learned what they are to
teach.” He sometimes expressed great solicitude about the proper education of
young candidates for the dissenting ministerial office; and never ceased to deplore deeply
their exclusion from the two universities; a measure which he always reprobated, as no less
unwise in the state, than unjust to them. Speaking of our academical institutions, he
lamented that they were formed on so small a scale, and dependent on such scanty funds; and
he asked why York academy was not converted into a large and noble college, which might
invite numbers, and obtain, as in that case he doubted not it would, a considerable share
of public support? With what joy, if he had lived a few months longer, would he have hailed
the wise, liberal, and magnificent project of the London University!
Once being present at the high bailiff’s annual dinner in
Birmingham, it was mentioned to him
that when the toast “To
the health of the clergy” was sometimes followed by another, “To
that of the dissenting ministers of the town,” many churchmen, jealous of
what they conceived the dignity of the church, hesitated or refused to receive it. As soon,
therefore, as the latter toast had been given, and duly honoured, Dr. Parr rose to address the company. He began with
returning thanks for the compliment paid, in the first instance, to the church of which he
was a member; and then went on to state, as the strong and settled conviction of his mind,
derived not from desultory reading, but from long and laborious study, that the principles
of the English church were those of toleration, carried to their utmost extent: and that
there was a time—“though we have seen,” said he, “a long and
dreary interval—when archbishops and bishops, the highest dignitaries and the brightest
luminaries of the church, thought themselves honoured, in cultivating the acquaintance
and the friendship of the heads of the dissenting churches.” Reasoning thus
from the writings and the conduct of the greatest and best men, in the purest and best
times of the church, he insisted that its true principles were those of the most perfect
liberality towards all, who conscientiously dissent from it: and he concluded in nearly the
following words—“In these principles, I thank God, I have been brought up; in the
maintenance of these principles, I have lived; and in the avowal of these principles, I
hope I shall die.” He then walked round the room; shook hands with many of the dissenting clergy then present; and, as it was growing late,
retired.
The just and the generous principles, not of bare tolerance, but of esteem
and affection towards the sincere and the worthy of all sects, which Dr. Parr hoped to maintain till death, it may almost be
said, he avowed and maintained even after it. In his “Last Will,” he has
recorded his assurances of kind and respectful regards to more than thirty individuals, not
of his own church; and among them are the names of the following divines—Dr. Rees, Dr.
Lindsay, Mr. Belsham, Mr. Hall, Mr. Cogan,
Mr. Shepherd, and Mr. Corrie. To all these he has bequeathed mourning rings, as tokens of
friendship; and—will the reader pardon the seeming or the real vanity of the writer in
adding of himself—that he also was honoured with the same mark of friendly regard,
accompanied, too, with expressions, gratifying, he confesses, in the highest degree, to his
feelings—“Hoc juvat, et melli est, non
mentiar!”1
Dr. Lindsay, whose name is thus enrolled among the
friends of Dr. Parr, died four years before him. In
an assembly of divines of the three denominations of dissenters, convened at the library in
Red-Cross-street, for the purpose of considering Mr.
Brougham’s proposed plan of national education, Dr.
Lindsay had delivered his sentiments on that important subject, and had just
resumed his seat—when, falling suddenly into the arms of those
around him, he expired, Feb. 14, 1821, in the sixty-fourth year of
his age.
Soon after this lamented event—speaking to the writer, in a tone of
deep-felt grief—“Ah!” said Dr.
Parr, “our friend Lindsay is
gone!”—“Oh! he was a noble creature!—We shall long remember him—long
mourn his loss.” On a subsequent occasion, he expressed his opinion nearly in
the terms, and quite to the effect, that follows:—“He had fine talents: he had a
good store of ancient learning; and of modern literature his knowledge was various,
extended, and well digested.—Then, as to his moral qualities, there, we can scarcely
say too much—he was pure in heart; social in temper; benevolent in spirit; most upright
in conduct. Some would say there was a sternness about his integrity; and a vehemence,
almost passionate, in urging the right, and opposing the wrong, as it appeared to him,
in sentiment or action. But, in reality, there was all the sweetness, as well as all
the fairness, of candour. In debate, if he was sometimes warm, he was never
overbearing: if there was pressing earnestness, there was no discourtesy in his manner.
As a patriot and a philanthropist, the love of his country and of his kind was in him a
glowing passion, as well as a steady principle. As a Christian and a preacher, religion
was in him a subject of ardent feeling, as well as of honest profession; and, though
destitute of the graces of elocution, yet he possessed, in no inferior degree, all the
eloquence, which sincere conviction, vivid conceptions, strong emotions, and great
command of language can supply.”
Adverting to his “Discourses,” of which a volume had been recently published, Dr. Parr affirmed that “in all the first and best
qualities of sermons, there were few in the English language that could be placed above
them.” For clear arrangement, for cogent reasoning, for just and striking
observation, for purity and energy of moral sentiment, for fervour of devotional and
benevolent feeling, and for all the charms of a style, chaste, terse, flowing and elegant,
sometimes tenderly pathetic, and sometimes rising towards the impressively solemn and
sublime—these sermons, he said, almost touch the point of perfection. In his own copy they
are characterized as “eloquent and philosophical;” and in the same copy
is inserted the following inscription:—“Presented to Dr. Parr
in testimony of profound respect for distinguished talents, uniformly employed under
the guidance of an upright mind, and the impulses of a kind and benevolent heart, in
promoting the great cause of truth and freedom—from the author.”1
During his occasional visits at Manchester, Dr.
Parr was always delighted to renew his friendly intercourse with the late
Rev. W. Hawkes, for more than thirty years
minister of the chapel in Morely-street, erected with a particular view to the benefit of
his services, by a number of respectable persons, who had long known, and who greatly
appreciated his talents as a preacher, and his merits as a man. Though he was one of those
men of superior claims, but diffident of themselves,
who shrink from the gaze of public observation; yet he could not
conceal the many excellencies of his character from the notice and admiration of an
extended circle of friends and acquaintances. Among these was Dr.
Parr; who often spoke in terms of high commendation of the great and good
qualities of his understanding and his heart. Perhaps the tie of union was closer drawn
between them by the circumstance that both were accustomed to regard, with comparative
indifference, the points of doctrine about which Christians differ: and to reflect in their
own minds, and to insist in their preaching, far more on the great points, in which they
are all agreed. In the Bibl.
Parr,1 annexed to the title “Hawkes’ Sermons, 2 vols.” is added this
note:—“A man of deep reflection: and a very perspicuous and correct
writer.—S. P.”
It was [about the year 1820, that Dr.
Rees discontinued his annual visits to Leamington; a circumstance which
seems to have given occasion to the following letter, or, at least, to some of the
expressions contained in it. The reader will be struck with that part, in which Dr. Parr acknowledges the pleasure and the benefit, which
both himself and his parishioners had derived, from the use of Dr.
Rees’s published sermons, in his own church-services at Hatton.
“Dear and excellent Dr.
Rees,—The sympathies of friendship are rather invigorated, than
enfeebled in my mind, by old age. I shall always reflect with pleasure and with
pride, that I had
the honour of ranking such an enlightened man as
Dr. Rees among my friends. I received your letter,
with more than usual interest; for it recalled to me many scenes of rational
delight, which are to return no more. We have lost
Dr. Lindsay; but the remembrance of his talents, attainments,
upright principles, and generous spirit, will glow in your bosom, and my own,
till we sink into the grave. Dr. Rees, I am sure that no
personal partialities have influenced my judgment, in my estimation of the
sermons which you gave to
Mrs. Parr. I
have preached more than half of them. They guide me, and they animate me, as a
preacher. They satisfy me as a critic. They strongly resemble the sermons of
Jortin; and they impress me with no
painful feeling of inferiority, when they have been interrupted by his
discourses, and those of
Clarke,
Bishop Pearce, and
Sherlock. I wish you were an eye-witness of
the ardour which they inspire, when I deliver them from the pulpit. Joyfully
and thankfully shall I receive the two additional volumes; and you may be
assured that I shall unreservedly tell you my opinion of their merits.—Why do
you abandon your purpose of going to Leamington; where the baths and the
waters, as you know experimentally, are favourable to your health? At our
advanced time of life, procrastination is very dangerous. Come to your old
apartment at Copp’s, Do not forget how much your
lively conversation, your good manners, your good sense, and your good nature
cheered young and old, male and female, churchmen and non-cons, when you were
at the head of the table.—I suppose you will not be a
gazer at the coronation. Have you seen
Glover’s to our famous polemic,
Bishop
Marsh? Pray read it. Upon public affairs, you and I have the
same fears, and the same indignation.—With great sincerity I subscribe myself
your friend and respectful obedient servant,
Thomas Belsham (1750-1829)
Unitarian minister and controversialist; he was professor at Hackney College (1789-96)
and minister at Essex Street Chapel (1805). He was the elder brother of the writer William
Belsham.
Charles Berry (1783-1877)
Educated at Homerton College where his father was a schoolmaster, he was Unitarian
minister at Great Meeting, Leicester (1803-59), president of the Leicester Literary and
Philosophical Society, and a friend of Samuel Parr.
Henry Peter Brougham, first baron Brougham and Vaux (1778-1868)
Educated at Edinburgh University, he was a founder of the
Edinburgh
Review in which he chastised Byron's
Hours of Idleness; he
defended Queen Caroline in her trial for adultery (1820), established the London University
(1828), and was appointed lord chancellor (1830).
Samuel Clarke (1675-1729)
English theologian and Newtonian philosopher whose
Scripture Doctrine
of the Trinity (1714) provoked the charge of Arianism.
Eliezer Cogan (1762-1855)
Greek scholar, Presbyterian minister, and schoolmaster from 1801 at Essex Hall, Higham
Hill, Walthamstow; his pupils included Benjamin Disraeli and Samuel Rogers' nephew Samuel
Sharpe.
John Corrie (1769-1839)
The son of Josiah Corrie (1725-1800); educated at Daventry Academy and New College,
Hackney, he was a schoolmaster, president of the Birmingham Philosophical Society, and
Unitarian minister at the Old Meeting House (1817-19). Maria Edgeworth admired his
“very agreeable benevolent countenance, most agreeable voice.”
Timothy Davis (1786-1849)
A dissenting clergyman, he was born in Pentresion, South Wales, was educated at
Carmarthen Academy (1805-1807), and was minister of Smethwick near Oldbury,
Warwickshire.
Peter Emans (1736 c.-1810)
Educated at Mile End Academy (1754-1757), he was a Unitarian minister in Nottingham
(1769-74) and for thirty-three years minister of the Presbyterian congregation in Coventry.
He contributed to the
Monthly Review and was a friend of Samuel
Parr.
James Fordyce (1720-1796)
Scottish moralist and poet educated at Marischal College, Aberdeen; he was minister to
the Presbyterian congregation meeting at Monkwell Street.
George Glover (1778 c.-1862)
The son of George Glover; educated at Manchester School and Brasenose College, Oxford, he
was rector of South Repps, Norfolk (1804-62).
Robert Hall (1764-1831)
Baptist divine educated at King's College, Aberdeen; a celebrated preacher, he was
minister at Harvey Lane in Leicester, and Broadmead in Bristol.
Samuel Hallifax, bishop of St Asaph (1733-1790)
Educated at Mansfield School and at Jesus College, and Trinity Hall, Cambridge, he was
regius professor of civil law (1770-82), and bishop of St Asaph (1789).
William Hawkes (1759-1820)
Educated at Daventry and the Warrington Academy, he was a dissenting minister at the
Mosley Street chapel, Manchester. He was an acquaintance of Samuel Parr.
John Hill (d. 1857)
Educated at Marischal College in Aberdeen, in 1816 he succeeded Thomas Arnold as the
manager of Belle Grove, a private madhouse in Leicester, and afterwards practiced as a
surgeon in Derby. He was a friend of Samuel Parr.
Horace (65 BC-8 BC)
Roman lyric poet; author of
Odes,
Epistles, Satires, and the
Ars Poetica.
John Jortin (1698-1770)
English divine, philologist, and critic; he published
Remarks on
Spenser (1734); his essays were collected as
Tracts,
Theological, Critical and Miscellaneous (1790).
Nathaniel Lardner (1684-1768)
Educated at the Hoxton Square Academy, he was a Presbyterian divine and friend of
Archbishop Secker who corresponded with Philip Doddridge.
James Lindsay (d. 1821)
Born in Aberdeen; in 1782 he succeeded James Fordyce as pastor of the Presbyterian church
at Monkwell-street in London.
Mary Parr [née Eyre] (1765-1848)
The daughter of John Eyre of Coventry and sister of the Solihull schoolmaster John Eyre;
in 1816 she became the second wife of Samuel Parr.
Samuel Parr (1747-1825)
English schoolmaster, scholar, and book collector whose strident politics and assertive
personality involved him in a long series of quarrels.
Zachary Pearce, bishop of Rochester (1690-1774)
Educated at Westminster School and Trinity College, Cambridge, he was rector of St
Martin-in-the-Fields (1824), bishop of Bangor (1748), and bishop of Rochester
(1756).
Abraham Rees (1743-1825)
Presbyterian minister, tutor at New College, Hackney, and editor of
The
New Cyclopaedia, or, Universal Dictionary of the Arts and Sciences
(1802-1820).
William Shepherd (1768-1847)
Educated at the dissenting academies at Daventry and the New College, Hackney, he was a
Unitarian minister and schoolmaster at Gateacre near Liverpool, a political radical, and
member of William Roscoe's literary circle.
David Simpson (1745-1799)
Educated at St John's College, Cambridge, he was an associate of John Wesley and Rowland
Hill, and rector of Christ Church, Macclesfield.
William Warburton (1698-1779)
English Divine and man of letters; he was bishop of Gloucester (1759); he was the friend,
annotator, and executor of Alexander Pope.
Richard Watson, bishop of Llandaff (1737-1816)
Regius Professor of Divinity, Trinity College, Cambridge and bishop of Llandaff (1782);
he published
Apology for Christianity (1776) in response to Gibbon,
and
Apology for the Bible (1796) in response to Paine.
Daniel Williams (1643 c.-1716)
Presbyterian minister in Ireland and from 1687 in London; he left a large bequest for the
founding of charity schools and fellowships, and for the establishment of what came to be
known as Dr. William's Library in London.
Xenophon (430 BC c.-354 BC c.)
Athenian writer; author of
Memorabilia (on Socrates) and the
Cyropedia (on the Persian King Cyrus).
The Monthly Review. (1749-1844). The original editor was Ralph Griffiths; he was succeeded by his son George Edward who
edited the journal from 1803 to 1825, who was succeeded by Michael Joseph Quin
(1825–32).