te 2: See Haweis's _Sermons on Evangelical Principles and Practice_:
Lond. 1763, 8vo.; _The _True_ Churchmen ascertained; or, An Apology for
those of the _Regular_ Clergy of the Establishment, who are sometimes
called _Evangelical_ Ministers: occasioned by the Publications of Drs.
Paley, Hey, Croft; Messrs. Daubeny, Ludlam, Polwhele, Fellowes; the
Reviewers, &c._: by John Overton, A. B., York, 1802, 8vo., 2nd edit. See
also the various memoirs of Whitfield, Wesley, &c.; and Sir J. Stephens
_Essays_ on "The Clapham Sect" _and_ "The Evangelical Succession."]

[Footnote 3: It is not so very "singular," when we remember that the
bishops were what Lord Campbell and Mr. Macauley call "_judiciously_
chosen" by William. On this point a cotemporary remarks, "Some steps have
been made, and large ones too, towards _a Scotch_ reformation, by
suspending and ejecting the chief and most zealous of our bishops, and
others of the higher clergy; and by advancing, upon all vacancies of sees
and dignities, ecclesiastical _men of notoriously Presbyterian, or, which
is worse, of Erastian principles_. These are the ministerial ways of
undermining Episcopacy; and when to the _seven notorious_ ones shall be
added more, upon the approaching deprivation, they will make a majority;
and then we may expect the new model of a church to be perfected." (Somers'
_Tracts_, vol. x. p. 368.) Until Atterbury, there were few High Church
Bishops in Queen Anne's reign in 1710. Burnet singles out the Bishop of
Chester: "for he seemed resolved to distinguish himself as a zealot for
that which is called _High Church_."--_Hist. Own Time_, vol. iv. p. 260.]

[Footnote 4: Of Izaak Walton his biographer, Sir John Hawkins, writing in
1760, says, "he was a friend to a hierarchy, or, as we should now call such
a one, a _High Churchman_."]

* * * * *

CONCLUDING NOTES ON SEVERAL MISUNDERSTOOD WORDS.

(_Continued from_ Vol. vii., p. 568.)

Not being minded to broach any fresh matter in "N. & Q.," I shall now only
crave room to clear off an old score, lest I should leave myself open to
the imputation of having cast that in the teeth of a numerous body of men
which might, for aught they would know to the contrary, be as truly laid in
my own dish. In No. 189., p. 567., I affirmed that the handling of a
passage in _Cymbeline_, there quoted, had betrayed an amount of obtuseness
in the commentators which would be discreditable in a third-form