characters, renders the mild violent, and the phlegmatic warm, -nay, frequently the pride of conqueft, which mingles itself, imperceptibly, with the best principles, and the most generous views, all thefe produce or nourish an intemperate zeal, and this zeal is, in fome cafes, almost inevitable.

The fecond Appendix contains fome very judicious obfervations concerning the prefent ftate of the reformed religion, and the influence of improvements in philofophy and fcience on its propagation and advancement, occafioned by fome paffages in the preface to the CONFESSIONAL,

The third Appendix contains a circumftantial and exact account of the correspondence that was carried on, in the year 1717 and 1718, between Dr. William Wake, archbishop of Canterbury, and certain doctors of the Sorbonne at Paris, relative to a project of union between the English and Gallican churches.

I have been favoured, fays Dr. Maclaine, with authentic copies of the letters which paffed in this correfpondence, which are now in the hands of Mr. Beauvoir of Canterbury, the worthy fon of the clergyman, who was chaplain to lord Stair in the year 1717, and alfo with others, from the valuable collection of manufcripts left by Dr. Wake to the library of Christ'schurch college in Oxford. It is from thefe letters that I have drawn the following account, at the end of which, copies of them are printed, to ferve as proofs of the truth of this relation, which I publish, with a difinterefted regard to truth. This impartiality may be, in fome meafure, expected from my fituation in life, which has placed me at a diftance from the fcenes of religious and ecclefiaftical contention in England, and cut me off from thofe perfonal connections, that nourish the prejudices of a party fpirit, more than many are aware of; but it would be still more expected from my principles, were they known.

From this narrative, confirmed by authentic papers, it will appear with the utmost evidence:

Ift, That archbishop Wake was not the first mover in this correfpondence, nor the perion that formed the project of union between the English and Gallican churches.

Ildly, That he never made any conceffions, nor offered to give up, for the fake of peace, any one point of the established doctrine and difcipline of the church of England, in order to promote this union.

IIldly, That any defires of union with the church of Rome, expreffed in the archbishop's letters, proceeded from the hopes (well founded or illufory, is not my butinefs to examine here) that he at first entertained of a confiderable reformation in that church, and from an expectation that its moft abfurd doctrines

M 2

would

would fall to the ground, if they could once be deprived of their great fupport, the Papal authority;-the deftruction of which authority was the very bafis of this correfpondence.

It will further appear, that Dr. Wake confidered union in external worship, as one of the best methods of healing the uncharitable diflentions that are often occafioned by a variety of fentiments in point of doctrine, in which a perfect uniformity is not to be expected. This is undoubtedly a wife principle, when it is not carried too far; and whether or no it was carried too far by this eminent prelate, the candid Reader is left to judge, from the following relation."

We fhall conclude this article, with obferving, that fuch of our Readers as are defirous of being informed about archbishop Wake's conduct in relation to the abovementioned correfpondence, may, by an attentive and candid perufal of Dr. Maclaine's narrative, and the letters annexed to it, receive ample, fatisfaction.

R.

Occafional Remarks upon fome late Strictures on the Confeffional. Part II. Containing chiefly Remarks on the First of Three · Letters to the Author of that Work. And an Examination of Dr. Maclaine's Defence of Archbishop Wake, in the Third Appendix of a Supplement to the Quarto Edition of Dr. Mofheim's Ecclefiaftical Hiftory. Addrefled to a refpectable Layman. 8vo. 3s. 6d. fewed. Bladon. 1769.

THE bold, fpirited, and fenfible manner in which these

Remarks are written, leave the Reader at no kind of lofs to know who the Author is, and fhew, very clearly, that he is in no one respect inferior to the author of the CONFESSIONAL. The friends to civil and religious liberty will peruse them with pleasure, and though they may, and, no doubt, fometimes will, differ from him, in fome incidental matters, which are, comparatively, but of fmall importance, will yet think themselves under peculiar obligations to him for his generous and manly defence of the fundamental principles of proteftantifm, and for hewing the neceffity there is for a farther reformation of our ecclefiaffical conftitution, with so much strength and freedom.

He introduces his remarks on Dr. Maclaine's third appendix in the following manner: I was going on to confider what the Letter-writer hath faid on the behalf of Archbishop Wake, with respect to his tranfactions with the doctors of the Sorbonne, concerning an union between the English and Gallican churches, when, being informed that Dr. Maclaine had undertaken the

For our account of the First Part, fee Review, vol. xxxviii. p. 321.

archbishop's

archbishop's defence against the author of the Confeffional, in a particular tract, I determined to wait for its publication, and. not long after received the doctor's Supplement to the quarto edition of his tranflation of Mofheim's Ecclefiaftical Hiftory, where, in a third appendix, and a series of letters fubjoined, is contained his defence of Archbishop Wake.

Dr. Maclaine's reafoning upon the correfpondence there exhibited is much the fame with that of the Letter-writer, as likewife his reproofs of the Author of the Confeffional, infomuch, that it is possible, if not probable, they may have conferred notes upon the fubject; there is at least a remarkable refemblance in their fentiments, and even in their language, which feems ftrongly to mark congenial talents for defending fuch a caufe as that of Archbishop Wake, and taking down the intrepidity of fuch adventurers as he of the Confeffional.

But as Dr. Maclaine is much the more temperate and agreeable writer of the two, and has nothing of that devotional grimace, which the Letter-writer is perpetually intermixing with the overflowings of a very different fpirit, it is much more eligible to debate the matters in queftion with him, which I hope to do without tranfgreffing thofe rules of civility and goodmanners, that ought to be obferved towards a gentleman and a fcholar, though an adverfary, at least in the fame degree that the doctor himself hath obferved them towards the Author of the Confeffional.

In perufing the archbishop's letters exhibited in this Supplement, I was immediately ftruck with a reflection, that if, as was natural to fuppofe, the Author of the Confeffional had undertaken to defend Archbishop Wake against Mosheim's, or rather Dr. Maclaine's account of this tranfaction, and Dr. Maclaine had stood up to vindicate his author, and to fix the charge upon the archbishop, nothing could have been more to the doctor's purpose than thefe very letters; and I cannot but look upon. the expedient of furnishing Dr. Maclaine with these authentic copies, as one token that the anfwerers of the Confeffional were taken by furprize, and determined in the conduct of their feveral defences, rather by the neceffity of anfwering an obnoxious book at all events, than by the merit and propriety of the ma terials employed in that service.

On another hand, to fome people it may appear whimsical enough, that the defence of an Archbishop of Canterbury, fufpected of Romanizing a little, fhould be committed to the care of a minifter of the English church at the Hague, against the cenfures of one who, as the ferious and folemn Letter-writer is ready to make oath, has an ecclefiaftical station and character in the ecclefiaftical church of England.'

It would afford little edification or amusement to the generality of our Readers to enter into the particulars of the debate about Archbishop Wake; those who think the dispute of importance must have recourfe to Dr. Maclaine's narrative, the letters annexed to it, and our Authors remarks upon them.

Of the many crimes charged upon the author of the Confeffional, that of high-treafon againit Archbishop Wake appearing to have made the most general impreflion, and to have occafioned the loudeft clamour, I was willing, fays he, for my own fatisfaction, as well as in juftice to an injured author, to examine it to the bottom, for which a firer occation could not be offered (unless the whole correfpondence had been published) than the publication of these authentic copies, in the learned Dr. Maclaine's Supplement to his tranflation of Dr. Mofheim's Ecclefiaftical Hiftory.

The room this examination has taken up obliges me to apologize to the Letter-writer for poftponing for the present my remarks on the remaining part of his first letter; afturing him however that, at a proper time, he fhall not be forgot.

The fame confide ation must be my excufe for omitting, at this time, fome remarks which have occurred in running over the refpectable Dr. Maclaine's fecond appendix in this Su piement. A future occafion will be taken to pay a pro er ieard to it. The fubject is interefting and curious, and may be debated with lefs regret than a question, the elucidation of which is perpetually exhibiting fo many ftriking and mortifying inftances of the weakness and waver ng of fo great a man (in other refpecs) as Archbishop Wake. But (to borrow Dr. Maclaine's Motto) Magis amica veritas. Where the interests of the proteftant religion are concerned, the writer of these papers hath learned from St Paul, Ουδένα ειδεναι κατα σαρκα.

By way of closing the fubject, I would humbly recommend it to Dr. Maclaine, with all due deference to his own fagacity, to be extremely cautious how he takes the characters of the great churchmen of this country, whether living or dead, from clergymen of a certain ftamp, however learned or worthy in other, matters. Moft men are apt to be warped either by their own early prejudices, or by interefting connexions in their commerce with the world, but more particularly in the fate of afpirants.'

In a fhort poftfcript to his Remarks, he apologizes for the author of the Confeffional's dwelling fo much upon bye-matters. -It fhould be confidered, he fays, that many fruitless attempts having been made to induce the governors in church and state to review our public forms of doctrine, difcipline, and worship, in order to fuch corrections as might feem more confonant to the original principles of the proteftant reformation; it became quite

neceffary,

neceffary, upon any new effort of the fame tendency, to fhew what iniquitous measures had formerly been made use of, to ftifle all approaches towards a farther reform, and to expofe the duplicity of the ftiflers, when their conduct came to be compared with their profeffions; and to remind thofe whom it may concern of the impropriety of following thefe wretched examples, at a period when we value ourselves on the encouragement given to freedom of examination, and when learned, judicious, and ingenuous men, of all ranks and denominations, appear to be heartily ashamed of the illiberal and felfifh confiderations, which influenced their narrow-minded predeceflors to adhere with obftinacy to fo many unedifying reftraints upon Chriftian liberty.

To counteract the impreffions, continues he, that fo plain a ftate of this affecting cafe might make upon the readers of the Confeffional, and to obviate the inferences that every man of common fenfe would naturally draw from it, arofe the Letterwriter and fome others of the like complexion, partly to defend, and partly to palliate, the perfecutions of the Whitgifts and Bancrofts, and even of the Lauds and the Sheldons of former times; and, by afcribing to Diffenters in every period of our history the worst principles, and the worst defigns, to terrify the prefent generation from the remoteft endeavours to depart an hair's breadth from the prefent establishment."

And here begins my apology. It is true, thefe partial whitewashings on the one hand, and malevolent fuggeftions on the other, are nothing to the purpofe, when fet befide the principles. on which it is reasonable to folicit a reformation. But greatly to the purpose with thofe who measure orthodoxy and herefy merely by ftablished forms. And through all the canting pretenfions of the Letter-writer to moderation and charity, it is eafy to perceive his purpose is to hold up the authority of human establishments, as the fole standard of public judgment in matters of religion.'

To expofe therefore the futility, the fophiftry, the misreprefentation, the hypocrify, and falfehood of fuch writers, muft open a way, we are told, to an effectual removal of our ecclefiaitical improprieties and incumbrances, which muft ever remain where they are, and as they are, while the prejudices against refor mation, instilled into the public mind by fuch folemn dictators as our Letter-writer, are fuffered to take their courfe without oppofition. For who, our Author afks, that is perfuaded by fuch accounts as the Letter-writer gives, that a reformation in our church-establishment was never propofed, but either by her falfe friends, or her declared enemies; nor even obtructed but by the wifeft and most upright of mankind; will be at the pains to ftudy the controverfy for a fort of fatisfaction which they can come at with fo much lefs trouble and expence of thought? A Treatife

M

R.