On this page
-
Text (1)
-
Untitled Article
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.
-
-
Transcript
-
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.
Additionally, when viewing full transcripts, extracted text may not be in the same order as the original document.
Untitled Article
( 22 ) 459 . [ 39 & . T . J The Prelate ' * note ia this place * is evidently diefeated . his overweening attachment to his theory of Jllianee * neither the subject nor the illustration of it calls for our regard at present . ( 23 ) 4 ^ 4 . [ 404 . T . ] Neal is again charged with being partial and inconsistent : his supposed delinquency
consists , according to Warburton , in reckoning the Bishop of Litchfield's conduct to be agreeable to law , because in favour of the Puritans , though he had before represented the Archbishop ' s publishing articles without
the great seal as illegal , because against the Puritans . Dr . Toulmin ' s answer is complete : the articles , in one case , are very different from the object of the judicatory , in the other ; nor does Mr . Neal decide on the
legality of the measure in either instance . ( 24 ) 466 . [ 407 . T . ] The " quaint trash" of which the Bishop now complains , will be found in Isaac Walton ' s Life of Hooker , but perhaps was borrowed from Dr . G&uden , who had
also " lately written and published " a memoir of that famous man . Which , of these authors Warburton meant to designate as a " fantastic life-writer , ' I know not . But where is NeaTa dis > -
ingenuousness ? He cites the words as they were delivered : and he must be a hasty reader , who does not perceive their import ; and he a captigus annotator who is offended at the introduction of them . Is not Calvinism
intended by Geneva , and Arminiamsrn by Canterbury ? This language reflects not personally on either Hooker or the Archbishop . ( 25 ) 470 . [ 413 . T . I The Prelate
highly eulogizes Hooker ' s answer to Mr . Travers' supplication . I am not concerned to question the propriety of the eulogiurn , but shall merely observe that it lias no reference to Neal .
( 26 ) 481 . [ 418 . T . ] I copy apart of Toulinin ' s note , and am sorry that have not room for the whole of it . ' Bishop Warburton / ' says the editor , " condemns the offering of the blH > [ for a further reformation / 1 as
such a mutinous action in the Puritan ln M ters > that lle wonders ' a writer w Mr . Neal ' s good sense could men-, ll lhem without censure , much more lilat he should do it with commenda-
Untitled Article
tion / It is not feasy to see , " adds Df . T ., < € where his Lordship found Mr . Neal ' s commendation of thas bill : the editor can discern a bare state of the proceedings only . And , by what law , or by what principle of the constitution is the offering of a bill and the representation of grievances to the House an act of mutiny ?"
To this question I will subjoin another . When the Prelate speaks of the conduct of the Puritans as rmttinous , does he not lose sight of their civil privileges as subjects of England , and intimate that their obedience was to be implicit ?
( 27 ) 482 . [ 42 L T . ] Neal simply records Ballard ' s language , but is not responsible for its justness . ( 28 ) 483 . [ 422 . T . ] Relief the Puritans certainly needed : that they wished for a separate establishment , does not appear .
( 29 ) 488 . [ 427 . T . } Whateyer Bishop W . might think or say , it is clear that the Puritans did not attempt to enlist the populace on their side , but submitted their alleged grievances to " the powers that were . " Not that the language and deportment of men of either party could in all respects be vindicated .
( 30 ) 491 . [ 429 . T . ] When the Puritans declared that they assumed no authority to themselves , they perhaps meant to reflect on the authority exercised against them . I agree , however , with Dr . T ., that there was , as Bishop Warburton hints , some impropriety in the disclaimer .
( 31 ) 495 . [ 433 . T . ] Could Warburton with equity or candour suppose that Neal must answer for the collusiveness of the arguments which it became his duty to record ?
( 32 ) 496 . [ 433 . T . J The Prelate ' s note refers to Dr . Reynolds letter , at the foot of the page . Whether Reynolds be right or wrong , is a consideration quite immaterial to the defence of NeaL
( 33 ) 498 . [ 434 . T . j I may allow , at least for argument ' s sake , that Warburton is correct in his estimate of the nature and effect of Hooker ' s Ecclesiastical Polity * But , here again , his opinion has no bearing on his charges against the historian of the Puritaus . ( 34 ) 508 . [ 444 . T . ] " Among the divines /* says Neal , " thai suffer-
Untitled Article
JStf&mmatim of JFurburton * &c * 517
-
-
Citation
-
Monthly Repository (1806-1838) and Unitarian Chronicle (1832-1833), Sept. 2, 1825, page 517, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/mruc/issues/vm2-ncseproduct2540/page/5/
-