The sermon, commonly called the Hospital, or, by abbreviation, the Spital Sermon, is annually preached at Christ Church, Newgate-street, before the Lord Mayor of London, and the incorporated governors of various charitable institutions, chiefly of royal foundation, established in the City. In compliance with the request of his friend, Harvey Christian Combe, Esq., who, at that time, filled the civic chair, on Easter Tuesday, 1800, Dr. Parr delivered the discourse, of which some account is now to be given.
It is much to be regretted that, instead of a moral and religious
disquisition, on the subject of which it professes to treat, the preacher should have
allowed his discourse to assume the form of a personal attack, as already noticed, on a
very distinguished writer and a friend; and still more to be regretted is the want of
fairness and candour, so
| 402 | MEMOIRS OF THE |
But even these commendatory expressions, almost concealed and lost as they are amidst a vast body of notes, could hardly be considered as a sufficient reparation for the injury done by the bitter invectives scattered through a discourse, which was delivered to a crowded audience from the pulpit, and afterwards to the world from the press. Such a procedure, it must be owned, wears too much the air of a private apology for a public affront. If acknowledged error must be proclaimed aloud, and censured with unsparing severity, justice surely demands that the rare merit of the frank and explicit acknowledgment should be, at least, as openly announced and applauded.
But waving these objections to the form of this discourse, and to the spirit which too much pervades it, even in the subject matter of it, the
1 Page 52. |
| LIFE OF DR. PARR. | 403 |
Entering on the consideration of his important subject, benevolence, the preacher begins with stating and condemning two theories, which have been proposed for explaining the nature and the origin of the social affections. The first of these he reproachfully terms the “selfish system;” though in reality, when cleared from offensive and objectionable terms, and represented in its true form, it seems to be the most reasonable and probable of all the theories, which have yet been suggested.1 According to that theory, the essence of virtue consists in its tendency to promote the highest happiness of every individual; and moral obligation resolves itself, at last, into that all-powerful obligation, which is imposed upon every intelligent being, of providing, in the best possible manner, for his own true and permanent felicity. What are called disinterested affections, according to the same theory, always take their first rise from interested motives, or from views of personal good; and it is only by length of time, and a succession of efforts, that they reach their disinterested state; or that state, in which they prompt to action, without the least regard to considerations of self-advantage, and even with a certain degree, more or less perfect, of self-oblivion. If it be said that a noble and generous action may be performed, solely for its own sake, or for the sake of some gra-
1 This theory is adopted in its principle by Bishop Cumberland, Rutherforth, Brown, Helvetius, Hume, Hartley, Tucker, Gisborne, and Belsham. |
| 404 | MEMOIRS OF THE |
But though to this theory the term selfish seems to be contemptuously applied by Dr. Parr, and though he found much to censure, no doubt, in the representations which have been sometimes given of it, especially by the Epicureans of old, and by the schoolmen of the middle ages, yet when placed in its true light, and guarded against abuses, it is evidently the theory which he himself adopted. For thus, in one place, he expresses himself: “I grant that every man’s satisfaction is the spring that actuates all his motions;”1 and though he affirms that “our sympathy with others arises from the very constitution of our nature, and not from any views of personal advantage;”2 yet he afterwards gives, not very consistently with this, the following account of the origin and progress of the benevolent affections: “Probable it is that, by the laws of association, the elements of these affections, which impel us ‘to weep with those that weep,’ and ‘to rejoice with those that rejoice,’ were first brought into action, by events which immediately interested ourselves—which produced our own pleasure, or removed our own pain.”3
The second of the two theories, and that which is more particularly noticed and censured by Dr. Parr, he calls the “philanthropic system;” or that which requires us to direct our benevolent thoughts
1 Page 32. 2 Page 2. 3 Page 4. |
| LIFE OF DR. PARR. | 405 |
“If you compare the selfish with the philan-
| 406 | MEMOIRS OF THE |
Proceeding from his introductory observations to the more particular consideration of his text, which is happily chosen from Gal. vi. 10. As we have therefore opportunity, let us do good unto all men, especially unto them who are of the household of faith—the preacher observes, that “this text, like many other passages of Scripture, has the substance, without the form of genuine philosophy;” that “in language obvious to every understanding, it exhibits the result of the most minute analysis which can be given of our faculties and duties as social beings;” that “it contains all that is practicable in the doctrine of general benevolence, and all that is required of us indispensably by that which is particular.” To these observations a critical re-
1 Page 2. 2 Page 3. |
| LIFE OF DR. PARR. | 407 |
Having explained the language of his text and proceeding to the two-fold division of his subject—in the first, the preacher proposes to consider the nature of benevolence, general and partial, and the consistency of the one with the other; and in the second, to inquire into the value of the charitable institutions placed under the charge of the incorporated governors, to whom the discourse was particularly addressed.
Under the former of these divisions—after stating the obvious fact, which no philanthropist would attempt to deny, that the more remote our connexion with social beings, in the same degree our benevolent feelings become less vivid, and our desires for their happiness less ardent and anxious—and after having admitted almost as fully as the most ardent philanthropist could desire, not only the practicability, but the duty, of extending our kind thoughts and good wishes, wide as the world of human creatures—he goes on to observe:—
|
1 Page 3. |
| 408 | MEMOIRS OF THE |
“Now whether we conceive of universal benevolence as a quality of nature, or a principle of action, it is highly expedient for us not to misunderstand its properties or its offices. I admit and I approve of it as an emotion of which general happiness is the cause; but not as a passion of which it could often be the object. I approve of it as a disposition to wish, and, as opportunity may occur, to desire and to do good to those with whom we are quite unconnected. I approve of it as a capacity, sometimes to receive uneasiness from their pains and satisfaction from their joys; but an uneasiness and a satisfaction far less frequent, less intense, less permanent, than the uneasiness and satisfaction which we feel for those around us, and by which we are stimulated to act as we feel in their behalf.”1
In this passage, the preacher’s design seems to be to show the difference between himself and the philanthropists, whom he opposes; and yet so small and evanescent does the difference, after all, appear, that we might almost wonder at the zeal of the opposer, as Mr. Godwin himself observes, if it were not recollected how often the warmth of disputation rises, exactly in proportion to the minuteness of the point which divides the disputants. There are some other passages, besides, in which concessions are made in favour of universal benevolence, large enough to please and satisfy the most enthusiastic of its admirers. Still, however, the preacher apprehends that the doctrine of philanthropy may be pushed too far, so as to produce
1 Page 6. |
| LIFE OF DR. PARR. | 409 |
“If the mother could forget the child that hung at her breast—if the friend, with whom we took sweet counsel together, should forsake us, when we are compelled to beg our daily bread—if they who have trodden the same soil with ourselves, spoken the same language, followed the same customs, enjoyed the same rights, obeyed the same laws, bowed before the same altar, should be no more endeared to us than other men, whose kindness we have never experienced, whose faces we have never seen, whose voices we have never heard—if all these things were done under the pretence ‘of cultivating universal philanthropy,’ what would become of society; which parental affection, which friendship, which gratitude, which compassion, which patriotism do now uphold?—how changed would be the scenes around us?—how blunted the edge of all our finer affections?—how scanty the sum of our happiness?—how multiplied and embittered the sources of our woe?”1
To this ardent and eloquent appeal against the dangers of philanthropy, would it not be fair to reply—that if the doctrine of universal benevolence could be so far perverted as to produce, or even to encourage, insensibility to the claims of kindred, friends, and countrymen, this would be a gross abuse of the doctrine, like that to which the best principles of religion and morality are liable; but that, from the natural and almost irresistible strength of the private and domestic affections, such
1 Page 9. |
| 410 | MEMOIRS OF THE |
Proceeding from the first to the second division of his subject—the preacher here offers some remarks, in reply to the objections of a celebrated foreigner against charitable institutions in general, founded chiefly on the abuses, to which long experience has shown they are ever liable: sometimes, indeed, though not often, it is to be hoped, to the extent of subverting all the purposes of utility which they were intended or adapted to accomplish. This foreigner was the late M. Turgot, minister to Louis XVI., “who had deeply explored,” says Dr. Parr, “the true science of politics, and was sincerely attached to the interests of humanity.” The objections of such a man are
1 Godwin’s Reply to Parr, &c. |
| LIFE OF DR. PARR. | 411 |
Not the least valuable, and by far the most extensive portion of this publication, is the notes, which comprise, besides several disquisitions, a vast miscellaneous collection of extracts from writers, ancient and modern, bearing more or less on the topics discussed in the sermon. Among the former, Aristotle and Plutarch furnish, in rich abundance, their share of these quotations; and, next to them, Plato and Seneca. Gassendi, the great impugner of the Aristotelian doctrines, is often appealed to. Of the more modern writers, many valuable passages are borrowed from Lord Bacon, Bishops Taylor and Butler, Hutchinson, Adam Smith, Hume, Tucker; and next to these,
1 These are the five following institutions:—Christ’s, St. Thomas’, St. Bartholomew’s, Bethlem, and Bridewell hospitals. The encomiums bestowed on the four first of these noble institutions are probably just. But the last, with an endowment of 8000l. a year, is shamefully perverted from its original purpose, which was that of a school of industry for untaught youth, a place of occupation for unemployed men, and a house of refuge for the infirm, the vagrant, and the destitute. It is now used as a common prison! |
| 412 | MEMOIRS OF THE |
Of the disquisitions, as from their length they may be called, which occur among the notes, the first is, on the question whether general character in the object ought to influence the exercise of compassion in cases of distress, or of gratitude in return for kindness received. The difficulty of determining the moral merits of another is strongly urged; and independently of its connexion with the question proposed, the following passage, which may be read as an appeal against censoriousness, is striking:—
“Who art thou that judgest another? Who has laid open to thee
every thought of his heart?—or made to thee every effect and every tendency of his
actions known? Who has revealed to thee every extenuating circumstance of his
misconduct, or every secret, minute, and exquisitely delicate motive, which in the
sight of heaven may have enhanced the merit of his better deeds? Who has thrown open to
thy view the register, in which are
| LIFE OF DR. PARR. | 413 |
The effects of atheism and superstition compared, form the subject of the second disquisition; in which occurs the following passage, admired by many of his friends, and considered by the author himself as the best in his book:
“What, I would ask, are the general effects of superstition and atheism upon the happiness and the conduct of mankind? Superstition, it is granted, has many direct sorrows; but atheism has no direct joys. Superstition admits fear, mingled with hope; but atheism, while it excludes hope, affords a very imperfect security against fear. Superstition is never exposed to the dreary vacuities in the soul, over which atheism is wont to brood in solitude and silence; but atheism is sometimes haunted by forebodings, scarcely less confused, or less unquiet, than those by which superstition is annoyed. Superstition stands aghast at the punishment reserved for wicked men in another state; but
1 Page 71. |
| 414 | MEMOIRS OF THE |
The longest and the most remarkable of all the discussions, pursued under the form of notes, is the defence of the two universities, in answer to the objections of Gray, and still more of Gibbon. Of this some notice has already been taken. It is extended through the space of thirty-two closely-
1 Page 97. |
| LIFE OF DR. PARR. | 415 |
Another long discussion, and the last which occurs among these copious annotations, is on the subject of future rewards and punishments, of which the substance is thus given, by the writer himself: “The result of the whole,” says he, “is this. It is a part of our present condition to be the subject of future rewards and punishments. It is a part of our present nature to be influenced, and very strongly too, by the hope of the one, and the fear of the other: but that hope and that fear, however necessary they may be to regulate, do not obstruct the proper energies of other parts of the same nature. They leave us to be actuated by the love of God and the love of our neighbour, in consequence of regards quite distinct from the peculiar objects, which they may themselves present to our minds. To the original and distinct force of these affections, they bring an additional and distinct force of their own.”
Towards the end of the year 1803, Dr.
Parr published another sermon, which he had preached on the fast-day, Oct. 19, in Hatton church. The
| 416 | MEMOIRS OF THE |
The first comprises an argument vigorously conceived, ably conducted, and eloquently enforced, in reply to the mis-statement of Lord Shaftesbury on the one hand, and Soame Jenyns on the other. The former writer held it forth, as an objection to Christianity, that, professing to be a perfect code of ethics, it omits all mention of the love of country; whilst the latter considered that very omission as an excellence, and even as a proof of the divine origin of the system, because patriotism, according to him, as a principle, is founded in narrow views, and as a passion, has been the cause of more mischief and misery to the world, than any one passion of the human mind besides.
In reply to the first of these mis-statements, it is justly contended, that though not formally mentioned in the Christian code, yet patriotism must, by fair construction, be understood as included within the meaning of those precepts, which inculcate general benevolence to our species, in all their moral and all their social relations; and is further recommended and enforced by the example of its great Author. For what lawgiver, moralist or philosopher can be named, in ancient or modern times, in whom a purer or warmer spirit of patriotism breathed; or who employed himself with more ardour and activity, in reforming the religion, correcting the morals, and promoting the true interests and happiness of the country in which he was born?
Such are the arguments urged in refutation of
| LIFE OF DR. PARR. | 417 |
It was notoriously the false and not the true patriotism which prevailed
both in the Jewish and the Heathen world: and for this reason, as it is here ingeniously
conjectured, the Christian lawgiver omitted the express and formal recognition, by a direct
and peremptory command, even of true patriotism, lest it should be perverted, by the rash
or the crafty, to the purposes of encouraging that mad, restless, ambitious spirit, which
has too long usurped its name, and which has been the
| 418 | MEMOIRS OF THE |
The closing part of this admirable discourse consists of a powerful and most impassioned appeal, on the state of the country at that time, threatened with all the horrors and miseries of hostile invasion; and whilst it carefully discriminates between justifiable and unjustifiable warfare, it exhorts and animates, in a fine strain of mingled piety and patriotism, to a brave and determined resistance to all the attempts of an insulting and invading foe.
The following is a sketch of false patriotism, contrasted with a portraiture of the true and the genuine:—
“No approbation is to be expected from the suffrage of the
religionists, by the factious incendiary, by the rapacious adventurer, by the ruthless
oppressor, or by the ambitious and tyrannous conqueror, when bedecked with titles, and
laden with spoils, and reeking with blood of fellow-christians and fellow-men, he calls
himself the saviour of his country. Upon the worthless, shameless, pitiless ruffian,
who, plunging his weapon into the bosom of a disarmed, fallen, sup-
| LIFE OF DR. PARR. | 419 |
“From the loathsome and terrific forms which lurk under the glare
of false patriotism, I gladly turn to the contemplation of that purer lustre in which
the true love of our country is arrayed, in the eye both of God and of man. To him,
then, who goeth to the battle, sincerely and seriously, in the well-applied name, and for the well understood glory
of the Lord of Hosts—to him who would deliver the ‘meek and humble’
from the cruel ‘despitefulness’ of the mighty and the
‘proud’—to him who ‘snappeth asunder the spear of the
destroyers, and burneth their chariots in the fire’—to such a patriot,
contending in such a cause, and
| 420 | MEMOIRS OF THE |
| ≪ PREV | NEXT ≫ |
