the best foundation for the prosperity, peace and lasting security of the state.”

This plan our author has minutely and accurately examined, both as to its nature and its expediency for fecuring the liberties of mankind, or the christian doctrines in their purity; and, according to his account, it is no fence against the most pernicious errors in religion, nor any fecurity from the most tyrannous and oppreflive yoke of imposition that ever disgraced the chriftian church. If, fays he, we confider either the infirmity of human nature in general, how liable men are to be corrupted in their principles under the profpect of power and preeminence over their fellow creatures, or what hath been actually the conduct of churchmen in fuch circumstances, we fhall have reason to believe, that our author's plan could not take place without danger to the liberties of mankind, as well as to the purity of the christian doctrine. It contains in it all the outlines and fundamentals of popery.'

Having confidered the general principles of this ecclefiaftical fyftem, he makes fome remarks on the inconfiftency into which, he fays, the Effayift has been betrayed by endeavouring to give an air of plausibility to his work, and to cover the deformed afpect which his plan, contemplated in its naked form, must have prefented.-The latter part of this performance contains fome obfervations on the Effay, confidered as an anfwer to the Confeffional, and a defence of the church of England.

For my own part, fays Dr. Dawfon, I stand amazed at the indifcretion of the writer in putting the defence of the church of England on fuch an iffue. He has undertaken to vindicate religious establishments in general, to demonftrate their utility and expediency, and therein to defend our establishment in particular.-Prepofterous method of defence, in my opinion!But, however that be, could not this have been attempted without one word of the Confeffional?-Muft it be thought effentially neceffary for the fecurity of our foundations to combat the worthy author of that book?-Or is that the only quarter from whence we can apprehend danger to them?→→→ Has deifm then ceafed all attempts against our holy religion? -Or doth popery abate of her malignant influence, and in her malicious efforts Was there not an Infidel or a Papift to oppofe, that our Effayift fhould bend his force against a Chriftian and a Proteftant writer?-Or were their principles thought not fo fundamentally fatal to the church of England, that he should meditate her defence against those which have flowed from the pen of a confeffed friend to truth and liberty?'.

But who, the author may think, that loved the church, could stand unmoved?-or why diffemble our fears in fo perilous a time?-The danger was inftant." The battery levelled againft our foundations was powerful;" unfilenced too by former attempts. "It seemed a duty, therefore, to endeavour to filence it."-Good man!-We are all of us to use our best endeavours, no doubt, in the discharge of our duties; and gratitude, mayhap, might forbid the author to confider his duty to the church among the leaft. But then, the church would have us prudent in the management of her caufe, as well as affectionate and dutiful in afferting it. And fhe will hardly think her defence undertaken and conducted "on the principles of plain fenfe and common prudence," by a man who has reprefented her as trembling on her foundations under the ftrictures of a Proteftant writer and a worthy advocate, himself being judge, for the caufe of truth and liberty. Is not this the readiest way he could have taken to bring contempt upon the church of England, and to inspire the belief, that her guardians are thus fhuddering under an apprehenfion of danger to fome other parts than her Proteftant foundations.

But are there really " many paffages in the Confeffional which imply a diflike in the writer of our whole constitution, and which strike at the root itself of our religious establishment?"They muft imply this diflike, and must strike at the root of Proteftantifm itself. For our Effayift must be told, that, whatever defects have been remarked in the fuperftructure, the church of England has Proteftantifm for her foundation. How then was the author of the Confeffional to be confuted? Not by a flowery Effay on the nature of Religious Eftablishments in general; nor by fuch a draught of one, as would incorporate and ally much better with a popish than a protestant state; but by fhewing the utility and expediency of our establishment in particular, as founded in proteftant principles, by fhewing the evil tendency and malignant nature of those popish and persecuting principles which it oppofeth; and by fhewing and proving, that the principles which the author of the Confeffional avows, in the many paffages complained of, are of that complexion: for, if they are not, they need to give us no uneasiness on account of our foundations. This fhould have been attempted by one, who eflayed to defend our foundations against principles fubverfive of them, and "to filence the powerful battery which was levelled against them, whether with intention or not," yet moft certainly, according to our author, under a strong diflike thereof.

But the truth is, the Effayift has undertaken the defence of our foundations against a writer who has not attacked them; a writer,

a writer, whofe caution, in the ftrictures he fometimes thinks proper to interfperfe among his arguments and ftriking narratives of fact, will, perhaps, be found equal to his confeffed abilities and uncommon fpirit in maintaining the caufe of proteftantifm. So far is that writer from having fhewn, as he hath been represented, a strong dislike of our whole conftitution, and levelled a powerful battery against our foundations, that the very enquiry he hath refumed, viz. how far proteftant churches in fetting forth fyftematical confeffions of faith, and requiring fubfcription to articles of religion which may not only concern the confeffion of the true Chriftian faith and doctrine, act confiftently with their original principles: I fay, the refumption of this enquiry, and his method of conducting it, is a plain proof, that he hath a strong liking of the foundations of our church, whatever else he may diflike in it. He would not otherwife have appealed, as he conftantly doth, for the truth of the fentiments contained in the Confeffional, to the original principles of reformation.

The powerful battery, therefore, which terrifies our Effayift, is erected on that very foundation which he fancies it points against. And the mischief to be apprehended to our foundations is what may come from the filencing battery erected on oppofite ground For, though I can well believe, that this Effay was intended only for the purpose which the author of it profeffeth, viz. as a filencer, yet even fuch an effect cannot well obtain, but the enemies to our proteftant establishment will be more gratified thereby, than its real and difcerning friends. As thefe cannot, without an honeft indignation, contemplate all attempts to stifle the cause of truth and religious liberty; fo neither will they be able to congratulate our Effayift on the ardent hopes, himself may entertain, of effe&ing his ungenerous, unmanly purpose; which would open too the pleafing profpect to our enemies, of pursuing their defigns against us, without further moleftation from fo able an advocate for the profeffion of pure, unmixed, genuine christianity, as the author of the Confeffional.'

The whole is concluded with the following remark :

The church of England is fubject to the KING, as suPREME HEAD thereof. All her laws, relating to the methods of public instruction, and all her inftitutions, as they must have the fanction of the parliament of England to make them binding upon the clergy, fo they are fubject to the fame authority for infpection, regulation, and reformation. By that authority she hath been refted on a Proteftant foundation, being fuffered to require nothing to be believed by any christian man, that is not contained in the word of God, and may not be

proved

proved thereby. The wifdom of parliament has empowered our ecclefiaftical rulers to receive the subscriptions of the clergy to all the articles of religion, which only concern the confeffion of the true chriftian faith, and the doctrine of the facraments.

But, in our Effayift's plan of ecclefiaftical legiflation, principles are laid down directly oppofite to the fundamentals of our eftablishment. In it a divine right is appropriated to ecclefiaftics to frame laws and make regulations relating to public instruction independently on the state. On their authority alone, not only creeds, but larger schemes and fyftems of faith and doctrine, are to be fet forth and bound upon the clergy, and the fupreme magiftrate is bound in duty to enforce the obfervation of the engagements they may think proper to require of the clergy for the security of what is called the Church. And are we to form our judgment of the church of England from fuch fentiments as thefe on the nature of establishments in religion? Surely not. By exhibiting them, however, in her defence, our Effayist must be confidered as applying them to her. It seemed highly feasonable, therefore, to contraft them with the above view of our foundations, which, as it is the true one, so it must appear, in the eye of every true churchof England-man, a more honourable one than that which hath been examined, and may serve, seasonably enough, as a landmark to future effayifts in their defences of ESTABLISHMENTS in RELIGION.'

The Examiner takes occafion to cenfure the Effayift for maintaining the freedom of the will, in oppofition to the articles of the church of England; but his remarks on this subject are fuch as we should not have expected from Dr. Dawfon. The freedom of the will may furely be afferted without granting to the papifts the doctrine of merit; and to the author of a late treatise concerning the Logos, and the defender of The Confeffional, the authority of the Thirty-nine Articles can be of no importance.

VI. A New Catalogue of Vulgar Errors. By Stephen Fovargue, A. M. Fellow of St. John's College, Cambridge. 8vo. Pr. 2s. 6d. Crowder.

T

HIS Stephen Fovargue, A. M. fellow of St. John's College, Cambridge, feems to be nearly allied to those ingenious and induftrious mortals, who are now employed in fabricating antiques; for he certainly has made fome vulgar errors which the vulgar never fo much as dreamed of.

The firft vulgar error mentioned in this Catalogue is, "That the more ammunition is put into a fowling piece, the further

it will do execution." We really muft, in this cafe, be of council for the poor vulgar, who we never heard adopt any fuch error. The fecond error is, "That the heron makes a hole in the bottom of her neft, through which her feet hang when the fits upon her eggs." The third, "That the bittern puts his bill or beak into a reed, and that the reed gives, by the breath and motion of the beak of the bird, that deep and loud note which we fo frequently hear him make as he lies in a fenn." The fourth, That the tone of a violin is to be brought out, by laying on like a blacksmith."

66

We ingenuoufly own ourselves not fufficiently converfant. either in rural affairs or harmonics, to decide whether our client, the vulgar, is guilty of these errors, tho' we do not remember ever to have heard him accused of fuch abfurdities. The third error is inferted by mistake, having been taken notice of by Sir Thomas Brown, who, according to this writer, seems never to have heard a bittern himself. It may be proper to observe, that there is a difference between a fiction and an error. That of the fwan's finging is a fiction; but we are inclined to think, that it is not believed even by the vulgar. If we remember rightly, Sir John Suckling has mentioned the mufic of the bittern.

Mr. Fovargue's fifth vulgar error is, "That the farther you go to the fouth, the hotter is the climate." The difcuffion of this question is fo very particular, that we fhall give it in the > author's own words.

Gentle reader, as thou art a perfon of understanding, thou wilt pardon the want of connection and form which thoụ findeft in the different fubjects which are here started for thy entertainment: it would be very easy, in the fair copy which will be wrote over, to range them in an order, suitable to the different branches to which they belong; but why fhould I pefter thee with form, when there is nothing fo agreeable to a man of taste as an eafy variety? Therefore, though it is ten to one that, before I have done with thee, I fhall have some more discourse with thee about mufical inftruments, yet I fhall not humour thee as a critic fo much as to give thee it now; well knowing, that if thou art determined to Review me, thou mayeft find abundance of other opportunities for it in this book : And likewife, that if thou doft approve of what is here difcuf fed, thou wilt, if thou art a good natured honeft fellow, pass by a little incorrectness; for what else can a man hope for in a book which treats of nothing but blunders? However, the two fellowing Sections may afford thee fome entertainment, if thou art a man of learning; and if thou art not a man of learning, they will give thee some instruction; and to tell thee the truth,

the