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

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

• How eilgible, in this view, must be that future world, that kingdom of universal reception, to which every pilgrim below is unerringly directed, and at which every pilgrim must undoubtedlý arrive! Not a friend left behind, but we shall one day welcome thither: not a friend left behind, but shall one day glad our expetting eyes, and add by his arrival augmentation to our bliss !"

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

thieves.

To this discourse is prefixed a short 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.

49. The Practice of Inoculation juftified. A Sermon preached at Ingatestone, Effex, October 12, 1766, in defence of Inoculation. To which is added, an Appendix on the present 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 second Edition. 800. Pr. 25.

Wilkie.

The design of this discourse is to vindicate the common practice of inoculating the small-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

Of the above multitude, says Mr. Houlton, he denies that

a fingle patient has died fairly from inoculation, (by him or his assistants) 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 disorders, which would have killed them had they not been inoculated; for as to the small-pox, they had but very few pustules, and had taken their leave of Mr. Sutton." This short quotation is a proof of Mr. Sutton's great success, and at the same time a specimen of our author's diction.

*** To this discourse 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, signed 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 consequence. T. Toft was the vender. With respect to the Sermon, the author himself is guilty of gross detraction, the very crime he attempted to expose; for Strupar was the publisher of that discourse, and we have actually subjoined his name to the title, in our Review *.

He alleges, that we have ' manifestly discovered a partial defign.' But in what respect 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 injudicioufly placed at the head of a SERMON. Serious readers, who expect evangelical meekness 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 discourse therefore, with these appendages, seems to be, not so 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. rs. White.

Dr. Dodwell takes his text from the first chapter of St. Paul's Epistle to Titus, in which the apostle draws the character of a good bishop. The nature and extent of the episcopal office in the apoftolic age, is the subject of his first enquiry. His observations on this topic are judicious.

* See Critical Review for March, 1766,

With respect to bishops he fays, the fact is, that the apostles, who knew the design of their Master, who in this as in other instances copied after the pattern of the Jewish church, and their immediate successors who knew the design of the apostles, did universally establish this order, and appoint one to prefide in each church over all other spiritual officers. And this fact, in conjunction with the confefsed neceffity of such a distinction of orders as the only preservative from endless divifions and separations, is the strongest kind of argument, that the nature of the case admits of, and may be deemed almost equivalent to an express declaration in Scripture, that episcopacy was the first authoritative form of church governments The very earliest writers speak of the feparate orders of bishops, priests, and deacons as subsisting amongst them; and in a manner that proves that no other form had ever subsisted, and even in fuch a manner as to shew 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 necessary for a person in that important station. 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 busband of one wife is worthy of notice.

The apostle, he says, did not mean only, that he should not have two wives at a time, for that was now prohibited to all Christians as well as to bishops; neither did he mean, that it must be one, who had never taken a second wife; for that was no more prohibited to bishops that to others; but he meant that it should be one, who even before his converfion to Chriftianity had always adhered to the original institution of mas trimony, and had admitted but one partner in that honourable state. 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 set 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 fuccess 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

CRITICALREVIEW.

For the Month of April, 1767.

ARTICLE I.

The History of the Rebellion and Civil-War in Ireland. By Ferdinando Warner, L. L. D. 410. Pr. 11. Is. Tonfon.

I

N

a former * review of this gentleman's History of Ireland, we animadverted upon the scantiness of his critical abilities, which frequently led him into the most gross species of credulity. To the honour of the Irish nation, the public en-. couragement of his Ancient History of Ireland was discontinued; but the work before us sufficiently 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 History of Ireland, he secured (and who can blame him?) this precious morceau, the most interesting, perhaps, in the Irish history. Sir John Temple, mafter of the Rolls, and a privy counsellor, was one of the original protestant authors who wrote the history of the Irish massacre and rebellion in its early period; and we agree with the Doctor in thinking, that the sense of what he suffered by the infurrection, together with his attachment to the ministry, led him to aggravate the crines and cruelties of the Irish. Dr. Borlafe, fon of one of the lords justices of that name, was the other original writer who treated of this subject. The accounts of both these gentlemen, our author says, 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 a general historian of Ireland, Dr. Warner very justly confiders him only as a compiler from the two last mentioned authors, and the common news-papers and pamphlets of the time.

The marquis of Clanricarde, and lord Castlehaven, 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 sufficiently canvassed in the body of the history now before us.

The earl of Clarendon and Mr. Carte, both protestants, may be deemed the original English historians who treat of this tragical event; but Dr. Warner very truly supposes, that both are warped by their partiality for the cause and memory of Charles I. • In the business (says 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 lordship.'

Nalfon and Rushworth 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 searches after truth only. Dr. Warner's observation on the writers we have mentioned, necessarily reflects a degree of cenfure upon later historians who have copied the errors of these originals. Our author, however, in his preface, with a zeal which we apprehend is more sanguine than prudent, intimates, that the publication of this history is particularly seasonable at this time. I do not (fays he) presume to arraign the lenity of our governors in church and state, for a very astonishing and unexampled connivance at the increase of popery: but as such swarms of jefuits-it is faid, and I believe truly,-have lately filled these kingdoms, whom other states have wisely banished, and who are the known enemies of our spiritual and political constitution, it appeared very seasonable to produce a history fraught with the dire effects of their religion and their practices in a former age.' These reflections introduce several pathetic ftrokes upon the many apparent figns of an approaching difsolution 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 sense. Complaints of immorality in every age are much older than the art of printing itself; but we most sincerely believe, that they have not been so ill-founded for five hundred years past as they are at prefent. "The numerous churches and chapels which are rising in this great metropolis and its neighbourhood; the more than princely