[Footnote 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 schoolboy. To substantiate that assertion, and rescue the disputed word "Britaine" henceforth for ever from the rash tampering of the meddlesome sciolist, I beg to advertise the ingenuous reader that the clause,-- "For being now a favourer to the Britaine,"