48. Mutual Knowledge in a future State; offered as an Argument of Confolation under the Lofs of Friends. In a Sermon, preached by William Dodd, LL. D. Chaplain to the late Lord Bishop of St. Davids, and one of his Majefty's Chaplains in Ordinary. 8vo. Pr. 6d. Faden.

Nothing, certainly, can afford us greater confolation on the death of our friends, than a belief that we shall meet again in a ftate of perfect and everlasting felicity. This argument is very properly applied in this discourse, and enforced by a variety of interefting confiderations. But in the following reflection the author exceeds the limits which revelation prescribes.

How eilgible, in this view, muft be that future world, that kingdom of univerfal reception, to which every pilgrim below is unerringly directed, and at which every pilgrim muft undoubtedly arrive! Not a friend left behind, but we shall one day welcome thither not a friend left behind, but fhall one day glad our expetting eyes, and add by his arrival augmentation to our blifs!'

This, no doubt, is a very comfortable doctrine; but unfortunately a doctrine on which we cannot, in every cafe, depend. For Christianity affures us, that this exalted privilege is referved for those only who are duly prepared and qualified for a state of blifs. Were the mansions of happiness open to all, were every pilgrim indifcriminately admitted, heaven itfelf would become a fcene of confufion, and the habitation of the just a den of thieves.

To this discourse is prefixed a fhort account of the life and writings of the late bishop of St. Davids, and a letter of condolence to Mrs. Squire, in which Dr. Dodd has displayed the virtues and accomplishments of his patron, by many elaborate, and, as we apprehend they will be called by the generality of his readers, extravagant encomiums.

tion.

49. The Practice of Inoculation juftified. A Sermon preached at Ingateftone, Effex, October 12, 1766, in defence of InoculaTo which is added, an Appendix on the prefent State of Inoculation; with Obfervations, &c. By Robert Houlton, M. A. Chaplain to the Earl of Ilchester, and officiating Clergyman at Mr. Sutton's. Published by general Request. The fecond Edition. 8-v0. Pr. 25. Wilkie.

The design of this discourse is to vindicate the common practice of inoculating the fmall-pox against all objections of a religious nature.

The appendix on the present state of inoculation, is a kind of panegyric on Mr. Sutton, a furgeon in the county of Effex, who within the last three years is said to have inoculated twenty thousand perfons.

Of the above multitude, fays Mr. Houlton, he denies that a fingle patient has died fairly from inoculation, (by him or his affiftants) or from its effects. The death of two or three reported to have died was owing, one to his own imprudence in being drunk feveral times during the eruption; the other two to complicated diforders, which would have killed them had they not been inoculated; for as to the fmall-pox, they had but very few puftules, and had taken their leave of Mr. Sutton.' This fhort quotation is a proof of Mr. Sutton's great fuccefs, and at the fame time a specimen of our author's diction.

** To this difcourfe Mr. Houlton has prefixed a letter to the Critical Reviewers, in which he says, we have made one Toft the publisher of three of his pieces, viz. a Sermon on Detraction, and two pamphlets, figned Oxonienfis; neither of which he printed or published.'

In answer to this important charge we reply, that, with regard to these pamphlets, if our printer has made any mistake, it is of no confequence. T. Toft was the vender. With respect to the Sermon, the author himself is guilty of grofs detraction, the very crime he attempted to expose; for Strupar was the publifher of that difcourfe, and we have actually fubjoined his name to the title, in our Review *.

He alleges, that we have manifeftly discovered a partial defign.' But in what refpect we cannot conceive: for it could be no advantage to any man living to have his name annexed to the publications in question.

This letter is injudiciously placed at the head of a SERMON. Serious readers, who expect evangelical meeknefs in compofitions of this kind, will be offended at the petulance of this young divine; and others will only laugh at his folly.

At the conclufion there is an arrogant letter to Mr. Pine, a furgeon in Kent. This difcourfe therefore, with these appendages, feems to be, not fo much a work of piety, as a vehicle of illiberal altercation.

50. A Sermon preached in Lambeth Chapel, at the Confecration of the Right Reverend Father in God Charles Lord Bishop of St. Davids, on Sunday, November 30, 1766. By William Dodwell, D. D. Archdeacon of Berks Published by Command of his Grace the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury. 410. Pr. s. White. Dr. Dodwell takes his text from the first chapter of St. Paul's Epiftle to Titus, in which the apoftle draws the character of a good bishop. The nature and extent of the epifcopal office in the apoftolic age, is the fubject of his firft enquiry. His obfervations on this topic are judicious.

* See Critical Review for March, 1766,

With refpect to bishops he fays, the fact is, that the apoftles, who knew the design of their Mafter, who in this as in other inftances copied after the pattern of the Jewish church, and their immediate fucceffors who knew the defign of the apostles, did univerfally establish this order, and appoint one to prefide in each church over all other spiritual officers. And. this fact, in conjunction with the confeffed neceffity of fuch a distinction of orders as the only prefervative from endless divifions and feparations, is the ftrongeft kind of argument, that the nature of the cafe admits of, and may be deemed almoft equivalent to an express declaration in Scripture, that epifcopacy was the firft authoritative form of church governments The very earliest writers fpeak of the feparate orders of bishops, priefts, and deacons as fubfifting amongst them; and in a manner that proves that no other form had ever fubfifted, and even in fuch a manner as to fhew that they themselves underftood this form to be of divine institution.'

Having afcertained the office of a bishop, this learned writer proceeds to confider the qualifications neceffary for a perfon in that important ftation. This part of the fermon is a comment on the words of St. Paul, ver. 7, 8, 9. Dr. Dodwell's explication of these words-a bishop must be the bafband of one wifeis worthy of notice.

The apoftle, he fays, did not mean only, that he should not have two wives at a time, for that was now prohibited to all Chriftians as well as to bishops; neither did he mean, that it must be one, who had never taken a fecond wife; for that was no more prohibited to bishops that to others; but he meant that it fhould be one, who even before his converfion to Chriftianity had always adhered to the original inftitution of matrimony, and had admitted but one partner in that honourable ftate. This would do him credit in his future office; for even where polygamy is tolerated, yet the unity of that engagement is always most esteemed: and in like manner amongst that intemperate fet of people in Crete, one who had always avoided being corrupted by that general contagion, was to be selected for the government of the church. This was a vice, which if

once contracted, men would not easily be perfuaded, was effectually reformed; and as nothing would more prejudice the fuccefs of his labours than this imputation, there was the more care required in the original choice of the perfon fet apart for this high office.

THE

CRITICAL REVIEW.

For the Month of April, 1767.

ARTICLE I.

The Hiftory of the Rebellion and Civil-War in Ireland. By Ferdinando Warner, L. L. D. 4to. Pr. l. Is. Tonfon. N a former review of this gentleman's Hiftory of Ireland, we animadverted upon the scantinefs of his critical abilities, which frequently led him into the most grofs fpecies of credulity. To the honour of the Irish nation, the public en-; couragement of his Ancient Hiftory of Ireland was difcontinued; but the work before us fufficiently proves, that when its author acts upon terra-firma, when he gets rid of his three loughs and nine rivers †, he is no mean performer in the pro- · vince of hiftory.

Dr. Warner very candidly acknowleges in his preface, that being disappointed in his expectations of public encouragement to his Antient Hiftory of Ireland, he fecured (and who can blame him) this precious morceau, the moft interefting, perhaps, in the Irish hiftory. Sir John Temple, mafter of the Rolls, and a privy counfellor, was one of the original proteftant authors who wrote the hiftory of the Irish maffacre and rebellion in its early period; and we agree with the Doctor in thinking, that the fenfe of what he suffered by the infurrection, together with his attachment to the miniftry, led him to aggravate the crines and cruelties of the Irish. Dr. Borlafe, fon of one of the lords juftices of that name, was the other original writer who treated of this fubject. The accounts of both thefe gentlemen, our author fays, are to be read with great fufpicions of partiality. As to Sir Richard Cox, who

See vol. xv. p. 361. † Ibid, p. 366.

Vol. XXII. April, 1764.

R

ufurped

ufurped the name of à generál historian of Ireland, Dr. Warner very juftly confiders him only as a compiler from the two laft mentioned authors, and the common news-papers - and pamphlets of the time.

The marquis of Clanricarde, and lord Caftlehaven, are the chief original popish writers who treat of this rebellion. The work of the former has been but lately published; and the part the author acted is fufficiently canvaffed in the body of the hiftory now before us.

The earl of Clarendon and Mr. Carte, both protestants, may be deemed the original English hiftorians who treat of this tragical event; but Dr. Warner very truly fuppofes, that both are warped by their partiality for the cause and memory of Charles I. In the business (fays our author) of lord Glamorgan particularly, Mr. Carte is extremely culpable; and, contrary to the evidence that was before him, throws all the blame of that transaction from the king upon his lordfhip.'

Nalfon and Rufhworth were little more than collectors of papers. The partiality of the former for the king, and of the latter for the parliament, render the labours of both very justly obnoxious to a reader who fearches after truth only. Dr. Warner's obfervation on the writers we have mentioned, neceffarily reflects a degree of cenfure upon later hiftorians who have copied the errors of these originals. Our author, however, in his preface, with a zeal which we apprehend is more fanguine than prudent, intimates, that the publication of this hiftory is particularly feasonable at this time. I do not (fays he) prefume to arraign the lenity of our governors in church and state, for a very aftonishing and unexampled connivance at the increase of popery: bat as fuch fwarms of je~ fuits-it is faid, and I believe truly,-have lately filled thefe kingdoms, whom other ftates have wifely banished, and who are the known enemies of our fpiritual and political conftitution, it appeared very feasonable to produce a history fraught with the dire effects of their religion and their practices in a former age. These reflections introduce feveral pathetic ftrokes upon the many apparent figns of an approaching diffolution of the religion and liberties of this country. We applaud the Doctor's concern as a divine, tho' we think it very ill founded as an author, or a man of fenfe. Complaints of immorality in every age are much older than the art of printing itself; but we moft fincerely believe, that they have not been fo ill-founded for five hundred years paft as they are at prefent. The numerous churches and chapels which are rifing in this great metropolis and its neighbourhood; the more than

princely