— 
800.] Explanation of Reclu 2, ¢.— Mr. Comber on Archd. Blackburn. 19 
obtained the liberation of Eurydice, and 
conducted her in fafety through every op- 
pofing obftacle to the terreftrial regions, 
Reftitit ; Eurydicenque fuam jamluce fub 
ipf{a, 
Immemor, heu ! VICTUSQUE ANIMO, re- 
Jpexit. VirGIL, Georg. iv.” 
The preceding remarks, if not defti- 
tute of force, directly lead to the folution 
of Mr. Weiley’s difficulty, and enable us 
to affign the reafon for the fact, that the 
-meaning of the word reclufus is in diame- 
trical oppofitionto the Englifhterm reciufe. 
The latrer word (derived ot re and clau- 
fus) will, in exact confittence with the pre- 
ceding principles, imply entirely /hut up ; 
and the former, the reflex effect of clau/us, 
which is open. 
Such, Mr. Editor, are my fentiments 
on the queftion propofed by Mr. Welley. 
T truft, I am not fo fara bigot to my ideas 
on this or any other fubjeét, as not to be 
induced to refign them with thankfulnefs 
and pleafure, in favour of any other hypo- 
thefis, which has fuperior pretenfions to 
reafon and probability. I remain, Sir, 
Your’s very refpectfully, 
Dec. 10th, 1799+ R. PERKINS, jun. 
The Conigex, near Gloucefter. 
i 
To the Editor of the Monthly Magazine. 
SIR, 
S you have inferted in your Maga- 
zine for July, 1799, p. 461, fome 
fhort anecdotes of the late Mr. Arch-Dea- 
con Blackburne, I cannot doubt of your 
readinefs in common \juftice to admit 
my remarks thereon; as well as my fub- 
fequent letter, refpefting fome of his lateft 
fentiments, which I wrote fome time ago 
to afriend. Efpecially, as I think myfelf 
intitled to attention; having been firlt 
coufin to the Arch-Deacon; having had 
an intimacy with him, from my early days 
to the end of his life; and preferving a 
grateful refpect for his memory. 
Your correfpomlent fays, ** The Arch- 
Deacon acquired a great fhare of celebrity, 
about thirty yearsago, by the publication 
ofa work, to which he gave the name ofthe 
Confeffional..,—- And from hence your 
correfpondent coneludes, ‘‘ that he was a 
Puritan.’’ Now, I afk, if the oftenfible ob- 
ject of the Confeffional be not ‘* an inquiry 
concerning the utility and legality of re- 
quiring fubfcriptions from candidates for. 
orders?” As this requifition, therefore, 
is only a condition for admiflion into an 
_ office in the: church; and not a general 
term of communion required of all mem- 
bers, his fentiments on shat fubjest, what. 
ever they were, were furely no proof that 
he thought the epifcopal form of church- 
government in general unlawful, and con- 
{equently is no proof that he was purita- 
nical. 
On the contrary, his not objecting to his 
fon’s taking orders; his even promoting 
my taking orders ; to which I am well fa- 
tisfied he would have objected, from his 
great regard to me, ifhe had thought [could 
not enter into that profeffion, without vi- 
olating my conicience; his not refigning 
his preferment and dignity in the church 5 
his perfonally executing the laborious, and 
by no means lucrative, office of Arch-Dea- 
con, by virtue, and in fupport of Epifco-. 
pal authority; nay, and his acceptance, 
Jate in life, of another office, in the execu- 
tion whereof he aéted as ecclefiaftical 
judge, and inflicted church cenfures ; though : 
he was of a generous and difinterefted dif- 
pofiticn ; and though I had it from his own 
mouth, that, if he found he could not exe= 
cute his functions with perfect fatisfaction 
of mind, he would refign and retire; which, 
from my long intimacy, could not but 
lead me to give him full credit for his in- 
tegrity and honour in his clerical conduét. 
Your correfpondent adds, ** He affected 
to be alarmed at the progrefs of Popery in 
this kingdom.’” And from hence liké- 
wife infers, that he was ‘¢ puritanical ;’’and 
as proof thereof fays, ‘* He publifhed an 
$vo volume, in which he heaped up a num- 
ber of anecdotes on the abfurdities and 
cruelties of the Roman Catholics.”” How 
would this argument look, if it were ap- 
plied to prove a worthy anceitor of fthe 
Archdeacon’s and mine (Dr. Comber, 
Dean of Durham, at the conclufion of the 
laft century) to have been a puritan; 
whofe labours in defence of our church 
were fo exemplary ! ' 
But (till your correfpondent will have 
it, that he was “¢ a Puritan in politics.” To 
this I fhall only anfwer, from my own 
knowledge, that in the active part of his 
life he was a fteady adherent to the fup- 
porters of the happy Act of Settlement ; 
and in his retirement, he was fo cautious 
of aiding to introduce any innovation in 
the civil conftitution, that he did «not 
choofe to concur in an attempt at what 
was called a Reformation of Parliament; 
though many of whom he hada good opi- 
nion did embark therein. 
But it feems rather ahard meafure, that 
the Arch-Deacon fhould not only be ac- 
cufed as a “* Puritan ;’’ but as an “* Arian 
or Socinian 3” characters feemingly fo op- 
pofite. 
Of the former I have already cleared 
C2 him ; 
