હૈ

freedom, which a confcioufnefs of truth and duty infpires; more fufficiently than difcreetly penned,' fays Abp. Sancroft, who perhaps judged by the event; for it feems that the author was, on this account, committed to prifon. We find that this letter, but not fo large and full,' is to be met with, mifdated,' in Rushworth, and it is alfo mentioned in Camden's Annals. The last number on this fubject confifts of Inftructions Ambaffador into Spain: by —.” This is faid to be written wholly in Abp. Sancroft's hand, and to it is annexed the following words: 2. If these inftructions were written to Sir John Digby, by Sir William Cornwallis, Knt. elder brother of Sir Charles?' Whoever was the author, it difcovers much good fenfe, friendfhip, and knowledge of the world.

to

Nos. 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, give fome account of the state of the colleges, in the univerfity of Oxford, in the time of Henry VIII. and Queen Elizabeth; tenths and firft-fruits; old rents; annual revenues; number of fcholars and students; and expences of the buildings of Chrift-Church college.

No. 21. Sir Balthazar Gerbier's project for an academy royal in England, in the reign of James I.'

་

No. 22. A tafte of fome obfervations intended upon things most remarkable in the hiftory of this kingdom, from the Norman invafion till the 12th year of our virtuous Sovereign Charles the Firft, whom God have in his precious cuftody. Written by Sir Henry Wotton.' This is one of the moft agreeable articles in the volume: it only gives us a view of the reign of William the Firft. We find it has been printed among Sir Henry's remains, but with variations from the copy. His character of William is thus expreffed: Now for the conftitution or character of his perfon, or mind: he was not of any delicate texture; his limbs were rather sturdy than daynty; fublime and almoft tumerous in his looks and gefture, yea even in his oaths; for they fay he ufed to fwear By the refurrection of the Son of God. By nature far from profufion, and yet a greater sparer than faver; for though he had fuch means to accumulate, yet his forts, caftles, and towns which he built, and his garrifons which he mayntained, and his feaftings, wherein he was most fumptuous, could not but foak his exchequer.-One ftrange and excellent fame doth follow him, that the land hath never been fo free from robberies and depredations as through his reign; fcarce credible in fuch a broken and fhuffling time, if it were not fo conftantly delivered. But, it should feem, to ingratiate himself with the vulgar (with whom there is nothing more pupular than fecurity), he made it a masterpiece of his regiment; and perhaps action had pretty well evacuated the idle people, which are the flock of rapine.'

Mr.

Mr. Fuller's obfervations of the fhires is a humorous article, reprefenting the counties as complaining of Madam London, who devours them all, and fnatching her crown from her; but at length in comes Mother England, a grave matron, who foon fettles the difpute.

No. 24. An abftract of the plate prefented to the King's Majefty by the feveral colleges of Oxford, and the gentry of the county, 20th Jan. 1642.'

The next number might have been spared, not that it is void of fenfe, or ill written, but it is produced by a prejudiced party-man on party-affairs, and the fubject treated accordingly. Of the origin and progrefs of the revolutions in England. Written by Mr. M. Wren.' It relates to the times of Charles the Firft. The Author finds out many causes for this calamity, but he neglects, or paffes flightly over the chief, viz. the arbitrary and oppreffive principles and practices of government. No doubt there were faults on all fides, as there ever are in fuch contentions; but every man who loves his country, his friends, himself, will furely rejoice in the downfal of flavish and tyrannical maxims and ufurpations.

No. 26. A letter of Dr. Lloyd, bifhop of St. Afaph, to Mr. Thomas Price of Llanvyllen, concerning Jeffrey of Monmouth's history, &c.' This will afford fome entertainment to the exact antiquary.

Nos. 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, relate to the affair of printing in the two univerfities. The laft of thefe papers is dated 12th September 1634.

No. 33. Reasons why the judicature or expulfion of a scholar or fellow of a college, doth not belong to the determination of the judges of the common law.'

We now arrive at the most interefting and important part of the volume, confifting of a number of papers relative to the conduct of King James II. and the confequent happy revolution in the English ftate and government. We can do little more than lay before our readers the titles of thefe papers.

The dockett of King James the Second's licenfe, difpenfation, and pardon for Obadiah Walker, Nath. Boyfe, Thomas Dean, and John Bernard, May 1686.' These persons were Papifts, members of the univerfity of Oxford, in whole favour the lawless King exerted his fuppofed difpenfing power, as he did in many other inftances. Lift of books which Obadiah Walker was permitted to print, by a licenfe from King James II. May 1686. Our readers will cafily judge of what kind

these books were.

King James the Second's licenfe, difpenfation, and pardon for Edward Sclater of Putney, Surry, clerk.' License, difpenfation, and pardon for John Mafley, M. A. Felow of

Merton

Merton College, late appointed Dean of Chrift-Church, Oxford.'

• Princess of Orange's letter to Archbishop Sancroft. Copy of Abp. Sancroft's anfwer. Probably never fent.' Two letters to the Archbishop from Dr. Stanley, in Holland, relating to the measures employed by the King, to gain over the Princefs of Orange to the church of Rome, and her firmness to the Proteftant cause, with other particulars.

• Matter of fact: by the E. of CI Concerning the King's difpenfing power and the Teft act.' Audacious, attempts of Popish feducers in King James's reign.'

A number of fhort letters to and from the Archbishop and Bishops, followed by the petition againft diftributing and reading his declaration for liberty of confcience; conferences with the King thereupon, and the warrant committing them to the Tower: Several other letters on this fubject; inftructions for the Bishops relative to their trial; fpeeches prepared by fome of them, and proceedings at Westminster Hall on the 29th and 30th of June, 1688, when they were, on a unanimous verdict, honourably and joyfully released.

No. 59. Articles recommended by the Archbishop of Canterbury to all the Bishops within his Metropolitan jurisdiction, the 16th July, 1668.' This contains a number of pious, judicious, candid, and ufeful directions. Inftructions to the Judges itinerant in fummer 1668, together with Justice Allibon's charge at the aflizes at Croydon.' No. 60, 61, are of a different kind, and, under a fpecious appearance, labour to reconcile people's minds to thofe methods which the King wished to employ, and those principles he would have established.

Copy of an addrefs to King James II. from the Bishops,' prefenting feveral articles of complaint worthy their station and character. An account of fome of the Bifhops presenting an addrefs to the King, with ten advices.'

The laft number we fhall particularly fpecify is the 71ft, A journal of what paffed between the King and fome of the Bifhops, concerning an abhorrence of the defigns of the Prince of Orange, 1668. With fome original letters.' This is a va luable part of the Collection, but will not admit of extracts. Befide the general account, we have particular relations of the conferences given by the Bishops of Rochefter and of Peterborough. The volume concludes with a vote of thanks from the House of Commons to the clergy who have preached and written against Popery, and refused to read the King's decla ration for toleration, in oppofition to the pretended difpenfing power claimed in the late reign of King James II and

have opposed the ecclefiaftical commiffion: dated 1ft February 1688.'

On the whole, this is a useful and entertaining publication. We were rather furprized that it should contain fo many papers which have before appeared in print; and particularly fome concerning the Revolution, that have been publifhed in the Appendix to the State Letters and Diary of Henry Earl of Cla

rendon.

It is a pity that Mr. Gutch, the Editor, was not better acquainted with former collections of a fimilar kind: the publie are, however, certainly obliged to him for fome truly valuable pieces which he has communicated to them in the prefent mifcellany.

(An account of the 2d Volume in our next )

ART. VIII. An Answer to Dr. Prieffley's Letters to a Philofophical Unbeliever. Part I. 8vo. 2 5. No publisher's name.

1782.

Be it

HE writer of this letter is an avowed atheist; and left his fimple declaration fhould not be credited, he wears to the truth of it. But what doth he fwear by? Whom doth he appeal to? not to God: for he believes there is none. And as he thinks he can fwear by nothing greater, he fwears by his-HONOUR! As to the question, whether there be fuch an exiftent being as an atheift, to put that out of all manner of doubt, I do declare upon my honour that I am one. therefore for the future remembered, that in London, in the kingdom of England, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty one, a man has publicly declared himself an Atheist,'-Was ever honour fo pledged! When it "fell among gamblers, it was ftripped and wounded, and left half dead." It remained only for the atheist to finish the date of its Thame and wretchedness

The writer, who calls himself William Hammon, feems to be one of thofe needy adventurers for fame, who, unable to procure attention in any reputable walk of publication, Aatters himself with the hopes of exciting it by a daring attack on the common fenfe and opinions of mankind; and thus, by the worft fpecies of novelty, create a name which he would have in vain fought for by more liberal purfuits in the accustomed tracks of fpeculation, or by any original investigations which required vigour of genius, or depth of difcernment. Mr. Hammon, in the advertisement prefixed to his performance, difavows all intentions to overthrow revealed religion. The question here handled (Tays he), is not fo much, whether a deity and his attributed excellencies exift, as whether there is any natural or moral proof of his exiftence and of thofe attributes? Revealed religion is not defcanted upon; therefore Chriftians at least need RAV. Feb. 1783.

K

take

If

take no offence.' This low fubterfuge in bafe equivocation, leaves us in doubt whether to defpife his meanness, or deteft his infincerity. He cannot be fo ignorant as not to know, that an attack on natural religion eventually, as far as it is effectual, injures revelation. A man undermining a foundation may as well pretend that he hath no defign on the fuperftructure, as this man of honour may declare, that though he attempts to prove that there is no evidence of the being of a God from nature, yet that revelation hath nothing to fear from the proof. In reality it hath nothing to fear from his attempts. But it owes no thanks to his good-will. Revelation supposes the existence of a Firft Cause. It is a poftulatum in nature; and reason is fufficient to fettle this point without any fupernatural illumination; or any fupernatural evidences, internally bestowed by grace, or externally displayed by miracles. this be denied, all the proofs to corroborate revelation must be unfubftantial and delufive. We will for a moment fuppofeand it will be only the chimæra of a moment-that this writer's arguments have fo far overcome our accustomed fentiments, as to force from our minds the belief of a God, and really produced the effects they were intended to have on our mode of fpeculation on nature. If the proofs from nature fail, and if every evidence already given were ineffectual to work conviction, what could convince us? Revelation.'But how can revelation convince us? By the power of miracles.' And what are miracles? Evidences of the existence of the Deity given out of the common and ordinary courfe of nature.' But if the general fyftem of nature doth not eftablish the proof of his existence, how can it be proved by any partial deviations from its ordinary laws? If these laws in their full and conftant operation cannot prove it, is it not abfurd to appeal to their occafional aberrations Can one wonder have fo much weight, and ten thousand have none.- -We should. not be convinced even if one was to rife from the dead—for as atheifts, reasoning like the prefent writer, we should fay, "There is fome wonderful power in nature (though not dif"tinct from it), which makes it to be that which it is; and that alfo which it hath been from eternity. Changes very "wonderful and to all men unaccountable have happened. We believe that power, whatever it is, may have something "folded up in it, that may at times produce thofe changes"thofe deviations from the common and apparent order of "the general fyftem which fome efteem miraculous. But we

do not believe that a being diftinct from the universe causes "thofe changes, any more than we believe that such a being "caufed, in the beginning, the order which univerfally takes place in the great fyftem of nature. We cannot account

h

" for