It will farther appear, that Dr. Wake considered union in external worship, as one of the best methods of healing the uncharitable dissensions that are often occasioned by a variety of sentiments in point of doctrine, in which a perfect uniformity is not to be expected. This is undoubtedly a wise principle, when it is not carried too far; and whether or no it was carried too far by this eminent prelate, the candid reader is left to judge from the following relation: * In the month of November, 1717, archbishop Wake wrote a letter to Mr. Beauvoir, chaplain to the earl of Stair, then ambassador at Paris, in which his grace acknowledges the receipt of several obliging letters from Mr. Beauvoir. This is manifestly the first letter which the prelate wrote to that gentleman, and the whole contents of it are matters of a literary nature." In answer to this letter, Mr. Beauvoir, in one dated the eleventh of December, 1717, O. S. gives the archbishop the information he desired, about the method of subscribing to a new edition of St. Chrysostom, which was at that time in the press at Paris, and then mentions his having dined with Du-Pin, and three other doctors of the Sorbonne, who talked as if the whole kingdom of France was to appeal (in the affair of the Bull Unigenitus) to a future general council, and who wished for a union with the church of England, as the most effectual means to unite all the western churches.' Mr. Beauvoir adds, that Dr. Du-Pin had desired him to give his duty to the archbishop. Here *The perusal of this letter (which the reader will find among the pieces here subjoined, No. I.) is sufficient to remove the suspicions of the author of the Confessional, who seems inclined to believe, that archbishop Wake was the first mover in the project of uniting the English and Gallican churches. This author, having mentioned Mr. Beauvoir's letter, in which Du-Pin's desire of this union is communicated to the archbishop, asks the following question: 'Can any man be certain that Beauvoir mentioned this merely out of his own head, and without some previous occasion given, in the archbishop's letter to him, for such a conversation with the Sorbonne doctors? I answer to this question, that every one who reads the archbishop's letter of the 28th of November, to which this letter of Mr. Beauvoir is an answer, may be very certain that Dr. Wake's letter did not give him the least occasion for such a conversation, but relates entirely to the Benedictine edition of St. Chrysostom, Martenne's Thesaurus Anecdotorum, and Moreri's Dictionary. But, says our author, there is an &c. in this copy of Mr. Beauvoir's letter, very suspiciously placed, as if to cover something improper to be disclosed.'* But really if any thing was covered here, it was covered from the archbishop as well as from the public, since the very name, &c. that we see in the printed copy of Mr. Beauvoir's letter, stands in the original. Besides, I would be glad to know, what there is in the placing of this, &c. that can give rise to suspicion? The passage of Beauvoir's letter runs thus: They (the Sorbonne doctors) talked as if the whole kingdom was to appeal to the future general council, &c. They wished for a union with the church of England, as the most effectual means to unite all the Western churches.' It is palpably evident, that the &c. here has not the least relation to the union in question, and gives no sort of reason to suspect any thing but the spirit of discontent, which the insolent proceedings of the court of Rome had excited among the French divines. † See the Letters subjoined, No. II. *The other reflections that the author has there made upon the correspondence between archbishop Wake and the doctors of the Sorbonne, are examin ed in the following note. we see a first hint, the very first overture that was made relative to a project of union between the English and Gallican churches; and this hint comes originally from the doctors of the Sorbonne, and is not occasioned by any thing contained in preceding letters from archbishop Wake to Mr. Beauvoir, since the one only letter, which Mr. Beauvoir had hitherto received from that eminent prelate, was entirely taken up in inquiries about some new editions of books that were then publishing at Paris. Upon this the archbishop wrote a letter to Mr. Beauvoir, in which he makes honourable mention of Du-Pin as an author of merit, and expresses his desire of serving him, with that benevolent politeness which reigns in our learned prelate's letters, and seems to have been a striking line in his amiable character.* Dr. *This handsome mention' of Dr. Du-Pin, made by the archbishop, gives new subject of suspicion to the author of the Confessional. He had learned the fact from the article Wake, in the Biographia Britannica; but, says he, we are left to guess what this handsome mention was;-had the biographer given us this letter, together with that of November 27, they might probably (it would have been more accurate to have said possibly,) have discovered what the biographer did not want we should know, namely, the share Dr. Wake had in forming the project of a union between the two churches.' This is guessing with a witness:-and it is hard to imagine how the boldest calculator of probabilities could conclude from Dr. Wake's handsome mention of Dr. Du-Pin, that the former had a share, of any kind, in forming the project of union now under consideration. For the ingenious guesser happens to be quite mistaken in his conjecture; and I hope to convince him of this, by satisfying his desire. He desires the letter of the 27th (or rather the 28th) of November; I have referred to it in the preceding note, and he may read it at the end of this account. He desires the letter in which handsome mention is made of Du-Pin; and I can assure him, that in that letter there is not a single sył |lable relative to a union. The passage that regards Dr. Du-Pin is as follows: I am much obliged to you (says Dr. Wake, in his letter to Mr. Beauvoir, dated January 2, 1717-18) for making my name known to Dr. Du-Pin. He is a gentleman by whose labours I have profited these many years; and I do really admire how it is possible for one man to publish so much, and yet so correctly, as he has generally done. I desire my respects to him; and that, if there be any thing here whereby I may be serviceable to him, he will freely command me.' Such was the archbishop's handsome mention of Du-Pin; and it evidently shows that, till then, there never had been any communication between them. Yet these are all the proofs which the author of the Confessional gives of the probability that the archbishop was the first mover in this affair. But his grace accepted the party, a formal treaty commences, and is carried on in a correspondence of some length,' says the author of the Confessional. And I would candidly ask that author, upon what principles of Christianity, reason, or charity, Dr. Wake could have refused to hear the proposals, terms, and sentiments of the Sorbonne doctors, who discovered an inclination to unite with his church? The author of the Confessional says elsewhere, that it was, at the best, officious and presumptuous in Dr. Wake to enter into a negotiation of this nature, without authority from the church or the government.' But the truth is, that he entered into no né. gotiation or treaty on this head; he considered the letters that were written on both sides as a personal correspondence between individuals, who could not commence a negotiation, until they had received the proper powers from their respective sovereigns; and I do think he was greatly in the right to enter into this correspondence, as it seemed very likely, in the then circumstances of the Gallican church, to serve the Protestant interest and the cause of reformation. If, indeed, in the course of this correspondence, he had discovered any thing like what Mosheim imputes to him, even a disposition toward a union, founded Du-Pin improved this favourable occasion of || unionis inter Ecclesias Anglicanam et Galliwriting to the archbishop a letter of thanks, canam ineundæ via aliqua inveniri posset: non dated January 31, (February 11, N. S.) 1717-ita sumus ab invicem in plerisque dissiti, ut 18; in which, toward the conclusion, he inti- non possimus mutuo reconciliari. Atque utimates his desire of a union between the Eng-nam Christiani omnes essent unum ovile.' lish and Gallican churches, and observes, that the difference between them, in most points, was not so great as to render a reconciliation impracticable; and that it was his earnest wish, that all Christians should be united in one sheepfold. His words are: Unum addam cum bonâ veniâ tuâ, me vehementer optare, ut upon the condition that each of the two churches should retain the greatest part of their respective and peculiar doctrines, I should think his conduct liable to censure. But no such thing appears in his letters, which I have subjoined to this account, that the candid examiner may receive full satisfaction in this affair. Mosheim's mistake is palpable, and the author of the Confessional seems certainly to have been too hasty in adopting it. He alleges, that Dr. Wake might have maintained the justice and orthodoxy of every individual article of the church of England, and yet give up some of them for the sake of peace.' But the archbishop expressly declares, in his letters, that he would give up none of them, and that, though he was a friend to peace, he was still a greater friend to truth. The author's reflection, that, without some concessions on the part of the archbishop, the treaty could not have gone a step farther, may be questioned in theory; for treaties are often carried on for a long time without concessions on both sides, or perhaps on either; and the archbishop might hope that Du-Pin, who had yielded several things, would still yield more; but this remark is overturned by the plain fact. Besides, I repeat what I have already insinuated, that this correspondence does not deserve the name of a treaty.* Proposals were made only on Du-Pin's side; and these proposals were positively rejected by the archbishop, in his letters to Mr. Beauvoir. Nor did he propose any thing in return to either of the Sorbonne doctors, but that they should entirely renounce the authority of the pope, hoping, though perhaps too fancifully, that, when this was done, the two churches might come to an agreement about other matters, as far as was necessary. But the author of the Confessional supposes, that the archbishop must have made some concessions, because the letters on both sides were sent to Rome, and received there as so many trophies gained from the enemies of the church. This supposition, however, is somewhat hasty. Could nothing but concessions from the archbishop make the court of Rome consider those letters in that light? Would they not think it a great triumph, that they had obliged Du Pin's party to give up the letters as a token of their submission, and defeated the archbishop's design of engaging the Gallican church to assert its liberty, by throwing off the papal yoke? If Dr. Wake made concessions, where are they? And if these were the trophies, why did not the partisans of Rome publish authentic copies of them to the world? Did the author of the Confessional ever hear of a victorious general, who carefully hid under ground the standards he had taken from the enemy? This, indeed, is a new method of dealing with trophies. Our author, however, does not, as yet, quit his hold; he alleges, that the French divines could not have acknowledged the catholic benevolence of the archbishop, if he made no concessions to them. This reasoning would be plausible, if charity toward those who err consisted in embracing their errors; but this is a definition of charity, that, I fancy, the ingenious author will give up, upon second thoughts. Dr. Wake's catholic benevolence consisted in his esteem for the merit and learning of his correspon dents, in his compassion for their servitude and their errors, in his desire of the reformation and liberty of their church, and his inclination to live in friend ship and concord, as far as was possible, with all that bear the Christian name; and this disposition, so suitable to the benevolent genius of Christianity, will always reflect a true and solid glory upon his The archbishop wrote an answer to this letter, dated February 13-24, 1717-18, in which he asserts, at large, the purity of the church of England, in faith, worship, government, and discipline, and tells his correspondent, that he is persuaded that there are few things in the doctrine and constitution of that church, which even he himself (Du-Pin) would desire to see changed; the original words are: Aut ego vehementer fallor, aut in eâ pauca admodum sunt, quæ vel tu-immutanda velles;' and again, Sincere judica, quid in hac nostrâ ecclesiâ invenias, quod jure damnari debeat, aut nos atrâ hæreticorum, vel etiam schismaticorum, notâ inurere.' The zeal of the venerable prelate goes still farther; and the moderate sentiments which he observed in Dr. Du-Pin's letter induced him to exhort the French to maintain, if not to enlarge, the rights and privileges of the Gallican church, for which the existing diputes, about the constitution Unigenitus, furnished the most favourable occasion. He also expresses his readiness to concur in improving any opportunity, that might be offered by these debates, to form a union that might be productive of a farther reformation, in which, not only the most rational Protestants, but also a considerable number of the Roman catholic churches, should join with the church of England; 'si exhinc (says the archbishop, speaking of the recent commotions excited by the Constitution) aliquid amplius elici possit ad unionem nobiscum ecclesiasticum ineundam; unde forte nova quædam reformatio exoriatur, in quam non solum ex Protestantibus optimi quique, verum etiam pars magna ecclesiarum Communionis Romano-Catholicæ, unà nobiscum conveniant.' Hitherto we see, that the expressions of the two learned doctors of the English and Gallican churches, relating to the union under consideration, are of a vague and general nature. When they were thus far advanced in their correspondence, an event happened, which rendered it more close, serious, and interesting, and even brought on some particular mention of preliminary terms, and certain preparatives for a future negotiation. The event I mean, was a discourse delivered, in an extraordinary meeting of the Sorbonne, March 17-28, 171718, by Dr. Patrick Piers de Girardin, in which he exhorts the doctors of that society to proceed in their design of revising the doctrines and rules of the church, to separate things neCessary from those which are not so, by which they will show the church of England that they do not hold every decision of the pope for an article of faith. The learned orator observes farther (upon what foundation it is difficult to guess,) that the English church may be more easily reconciled than the Greek was; and that the disputes between the Gallican church and the court of Rome, removing the apprehensions of papal tyranny, which terrified the English from the Catholic communion, * See post, note* and the letters subjoined, No. XI. will lead them back into the bosom of the VOL. II.-44 character as a Christian bishop. church, with greater celerity than they for- || them, upon the truth and orthodoxy of the ar`merly fled from it: 'Facient (says he) profecto ticles of the church of England, and did not offensiones, quæ vos inter et senatum Capito- make any concession, which supposed the least linum videntur intervenisse, ut Angli deposito approximation to the peculiar doctrines, or the servitutis metu, in ecclesiæ gremium revolent smallest approbation of the ambitious pretenalacrius quam olim inde, quorundam exósi ty- sions of the church of Rome; he observed, on rannidem, avolârunt. Meministis ortas inter the contrary, that it was now the time for Dr Paulum et Barnabam dissensiones animorum | Du-Pin, and his brethren of the Sorbonne, to detandem eo recidisse, ut singuli propagandæ in clare openly their true sentiments with respect diversis regionibus fidei felicius insudaverint to the superstition and tyranny of that church; sigillatim, quam junctis viribus fortasse insu- that it was the interest of all Christians to undassent.' This last sentence (in which Dr. mask that court, and to reduce its authority to Girardin observes, that Paul and Barnabas its primitive limits; and that, according to the probably made more converts in consequence fundamental principle of the Reformation in of their separation, than they would have done general, and of the church of England in parhad they travelled together, and acted in con- ticular, Jesus Christ is the only founder, source, cert,) is not a little remarkable; and, indeed, and head of the church. Accordingly, when the whole passage discovers rather a desire of Mr. Beauvoir had acquainted the archbishop making proselytes, than an inclination to form with Du-Pin's having formed a plan of union, a coalition founded upon concessions and some his grace answered in a manner which showed reformation on the side of popery. It may, that he looked upon the removal of the Galliperhaps, be alleged, in opposition to this re- can church from the jurisdiction of Rome as mark, that prudence required a language of an essential preliminary article, without which this kind, in the infancy of a project of union, no negotiation could even be commenced. "To whatever concessions might be offered after-speak freely (says the prelate, in his letter of wards to bring about its execution; and this may be true. fered for such a union, as alone is requisite, between the English and Gallican churches. But, till the time comes that the state will enter into such a work, all the rest is mere specu the 11th of August, to Mr. Beauvoir,) I do not think the regent (the duke of Orleans) yet Åfter the delivery of this discourse in the strong enough in his interest, to adventure at Sorbonne, Dr. Du-Pin showed to Girardin a separation from the court of Rome. Could archbishop Wake's letter, which was also com- the regent openly appear in this, the divines municated to cardinal de Noailles, who admir-would follow, and a scheme might fairly be ofed it greatly, as appears from a letter of Dr. Piers de Girardin to Dr. Wake, written, I believe, April 18-29, 1718. Before the arrival of this letter the archbishop had received a second from Dr. Du-Pin, and also a copy of Gi-lation. It may amuse a few contemplative rardin's discourse. But he does not seem to have entertained any notion, in consequence | of all this, that the projected union would go on smoothly. On the contrary, he no sooner received these letters, than he wrote to Mr. Beauvoir (April 15, 1718,) that it was his opinion, that neither the regent nor the cardinal would ever come to a rupture with the court of Rome; and that nothing could be done, in point of doctrine, until this rupture was brought about. He added, that fundamentals should be distinguished from matters of less moment, in which differences or errors might be tolerated. He expresses a curiosity to know the reception which his former letter to DuPin had met with; and he wrote again to that ecclesiastic, and also to Girardin (May 1, 1718,) and sent both his letters toward the end of that month. The doctors of the Sorbonne, whether they were set in motion by the real desire of a union with the English church, or only intended to make use of this union as the means of intimidating the court of Rome, began to form a plan of reconciliation, and to specify the terms upon which they were willing to bring it into execution. Mr. Beauvoir acquaints the archbishop, in July, 1718, that Dr. Du-Pin had made a rough draught of an essay toward a union, which cardinal de Noailles desired to peruse before it was sent to his grace; and that both Du-Pin and Girardin were highly pleased with his grace's letters to them. These letters, however, were written with a truly Protestant spirit; the archbishop insisted, in men of learning and probity, who see the errors of the church, and groan under the tyranny of the court of Rome. It may dispose them secretly to wish well to us, and think charitably of us; but still they must call themselves Catholics, and us heretics; and, to all outward appearance, say mass, and act so as they have been wont to do. If, under the shelter of Gallican privileges, they can now and then serve the state by speaking big in the Sorbonne, they will do it heartily: but that is all, if I am not greatly mistaken." Soon after this the archbishop received DuPin's Commonitorium, or advice relating to the method of re-uniting the English and Gallican churches; of the contents of which it will not be improper to give here a compendious account, as it was read in the Sorbonne, and was approved there, and as the concessions it contains, though not sufficient to satisfy a true Protestant, are yet such as one would not expect from a very zealous papist. Dr. Du-Pin, after some reflections, in the tedious preface, on the Reformation, and the present state of the church of England, reduces the controversy between the churces to three heads, viz. articles of faith,-rules and ceremonies of ecclesiastical discipline, and moral doctrine, or rules of practice; and these he treats, by entering into an examination of the XXXIX articles of the church of England. The first five of these articles he approves. With regard to the VIth, which affirms that the Scripture contains all things necessary to salvation, he expresses himself thus: "This we will readily grant, ordaining any thing that is contrary to the word of God; but he says, it must be taken for granted, that the church will never do this in matters which overturn essential points of faith, or, to use his own words, ‘quæ fidei substantiam It is in consequence of this notion that he remarks on the XXIst article, that general councils, received by the universal church, cannot err; and that, though particular councils may, yet every private man has not a right to reject what he thinks contrary to Scripture. provided that you do not entirely exclude tra- || With respect to the XIth article, which contains the doctrine of justification, he thus expresses the sentiments of his brethren: "We do not deny that it is by faith alone that we are justified, but we maintain that faith, charity, and good works, are necessary to salvation; and this is acknowledged in the following article.† Concerning the XIIIth article, he observes, "that there will be no dispute, since many divines of both communions embrace the doctrine contained in that article," (viz. that works done before the grace of Christ are not pleasing to God, and have the nature of sin.) He indeed thinks "it very harsh to say, that all those actions are sinful which have not the grace of Christ for their source;" but he considers this rather as a matter of theological discussion than as a term of fraternal communion.t On the XIVth article, relating to works of supererogation (undoubtedly one of the most absurd and pernicious doctrines of the Romish church,) he observes, "that works of supererogation mean only works conducive to salvation, which are not matters of strict precept, but of counsel only; that the word, being new, may be rejected, provided it be owned that the faithful do some such works." He makes no objections to the XV, XVI, XVII, and XVIIIth articles. His observation on the XIXth is, that to the definition of the church, the words, under lawful pastors, ought to be added; and that though all particular churches, even that of Rome, may err, it is needless to say this in a confession of faith. He consents to the decision of the XXth article, which refuses to the church the power of * The original words are: Hoc lubenter admit temus, modo non excludatur traditio, quæ articulos fidei novos non exhibet, sed confirmat et explicat ea, quæ in sacris literis habentur, ac adversus aliter sapientes munit eos novis cautionibus, ita ut non nova dicantur, sed antiqua nove.' †The original words are: Fide sola in Christum nos justificari, quod articulo XImo exponitur, non inficiamur; sed fide, charitate, et adjunctis bonis ope: ribus, quæ omnino necessaria sunt ad salutem, ut articulo sequenti agnoscitur.' † De articulo XIIImo nulla lis erit, cum multi theologi in eadem versentur sententia. Durius videtur id dici, cas omnes actiones quæ ex gratia Christi non fiunt, esse peccata. Nolim tamen de hac re dis ceptari, nisi inter theologos.' As to the important points of controversy contained in the XXIId article, he endeavours to mince matters as nicely as he can, to see if he can make the cable pass through the eye of the needle; and for this purpose observes, that souls must be purged, i. e. purified from all defilement of sin, before they are admitted to ce lestial bliss; that the church of Rome does not affirm this to be done by fire; that indulgences are only relaxations or remissions of temporal penalties in this life; that the Roman catholics do not worship the cross, or relics, or images, or even saints before their images, but only pay them an external respect, which is not of a religious nature; and that even the external demonstration of respect is a matter of indifference, which may be laid aside or retained without harm. He approves the XXIIId article; and does not pretend to dispute about the XXIVth, which ordains the celebration of divine worship in the vulgar tongue. He, indeed, excuses the Latin and Greek churches for preserving their ancient languages; but, as great care has been taken that every thing be understood by translations, he allows, that divine service may be performed in the vulgar tongue, where that is customary. Under the XXVth article he insists that the five Romish sacraments be acknowledged as such, whether instituted immediately by Christ. or not. He approves the XXVIth and XXVIIth articles; and he proposes expressing the part of the XXVIIIth that relates to Transubstantiation (which term he is willing to omit entirely,) in the following manner: "That the bread and wine are really changed into the body and blood of Christ, which last are truly and really received by all, though none but the faithful partake of any benefit from them." This extends also to the XXIXth article. With regard to the XXXth, he is for mutual toleration, and would have the receiving of the communion in both kinds held indifferent, and liberty left to each church to preserve, or change, or dispense with its customs on certain occasions. He is less inclined to concessions on the XXXIst article, and maintains that the sacrifice of Christ is not only commemorated, but continued, in the eucharist, and that every communicant offers him along with the priest. He is not a warm stickler for the celibacy of the clergy, but consents so far to the XXXIId article, as to allow that priests may marry, where the laws of the church do not prohibit it. In the XXXIIId and XXXIVth articles, he || dually; that it was not probable that they acquiesces without exception. He suspends his judgment with respect to the XXXVth, as he never perused the homilies mentioned therein. As to the XXXVIth, he would not have the English ordinations pronounced null, though some of them, perhaps, are so; but thinks that, if a union be made, the English clergy ought to be continued in their offices and benefices, either by right or indulgence, 'sive ex jure, sive ex indulgentiâ ecclesiæ.' would renounce all their follies at once; but And He admits the XXXVIIth, so far as relates to the authority of the civil power; denies all temporal and all immediate spiritual jurisdiction of the pope; but alleges, that, by virtue of his primacy, which moderate, (he ought to have said immoderate) Church-of-England-men do not deny, he is bound to see that the true faith be maintained; that the canons be ob-ed not to submit either to the direction of served every where; and, when any thing is done in violation of either, to provide the remedies prescribed for such disorders by the canon laws, 'secundum leges canonicas, ut malum resarciatur, procurare.' As to the rest, he is of opinion, that every church ought to enjoy its own liberties and privileges, which the pope has no right to infringe. He declares against going too far (the expression is vague, but the man probably meant well) in the punishment of heretics, against admitting the in- || quisition into France, and against war without a just cause. The XXXVIIIth and XXXIXth articles he approves. Moreover, in the discipline and worship of the church of England, he sees nothing amiss, and thinks no attempts should be made to discover or prove by whose fault the schism was begun. He farther observes, "that a union between the English and French bishops and clergy may be completed, or at least advanced, without consulting the Roman pontiff, who may be informed of the union as soon as it is accomplished, and may be desired to consent to it; that, if he consents to it, the affair will then be finished; and that, even without his consent, the union shall be valid; that, in case he attempts to terrify by his threats, it will then be expedient to appeal to a general council."* He concludes by observing, "that this arduous matter must first be discussed between a few; and, if there be reason to hope that the bishops, on both sides, will agree about the terms of the designed union, that then application must be made to the civil power, to advance and confirm the work," to which he wishes all success. It is from the effect which these proposals and terms made upon archbishop Wake, that it will be most natural to form a notion of his sentiments with respect to the church of Rome. It appears evident, from several passages in the writings and letters of this eminent prelate, that he was persuaded that a reformation in the church of Rome could only be made gra * Unio fieri potest aut saltem promoveri, inconsulto pontifice, qui, facta unione, de ea admonebitur, ac suppliciter rogabitur, ut velit ei consentire. Si consentiat, jam peracta res erit: sin abnuat, nihilominus valebit hæc unio. Et si minas intentet, ad concilium generale appellabitur.' Dr. Du-Pin, or to that of the Sorbonne, in relation to what was to be retained, or what was to be given up, in the doctrine and discipline of the two churches; nor to treat with the church of Rome upon any other footing, than that of a perfect equality in point of authority and power. He declared, more especially, that he would never comply with the proposals made in Du-Pin's Commonitorium, of which I have now given the contents; observing that, though he was a friend to peace, he was still more a friend to truth: and that, "unless the Roman catholics gave up some of their doctrines and rites," a union with them could never be effected. All this is contained in a letter written by the archbishop to Mr. Beauvoir, on receiving the Commonitorium. This letter is dated August 30, 1718; and the reader will find a copy of it subjoined to this appendix.* About a month after, his grace wrote a letter to Dr. Du-Pin, dated October 1, 1718, in which he complains of the tyranny of the pope, exhorts the Gallican doctors to throw off the pa pal yoke in a national council, since a general one is not to be expected; and declares, that this must be the great preliminary and fundamental principle of the projected union, which being settled, a uniformity might be brought about in other matters, or a diversity of sentiments mutually allowed, without any violation of peace or concord. The archbishop commends, in the same letter, the candour and openness that reign in the Commonitorium; entreats Dr. Du-Pin to write to him always upon the same footing, freely, and without disguise or reserve; and tells him he is pleased with several things in that piece, and with nothing more than with the doctor's declaring it as his opinion, that there is not a great difference between their respective sentiments; but adds, that he cannot at present give his sentiments at large concerning that piece.† Dr. Wake seems to have aimed principally, in this correspondence, at bringing about a se||paration between the Gallican church and the court of Rome. The terms in which the French divines often spoke about the liberties of their |