gene which was not without its influence on that event as well as the ral refult of the campaign. The fucceding battles in the Low Countries between the French and Germans are mentioned, but with hardly any remark; and we muft fay, that no portion of the military memoirs prefent near fuch a small portion of military inftruction as the campaigns 1793 and 1794 in Germany and the Low Countries. Indeed we cannot fee one leffon in the account of these two years, either of example or of warning, and very important years they are in military hiftory, and through that importance infinitely more important in political history. The operation of the English troops in 1793 and 1794 we do not recollect to have feen once mentioned. Pichegru appears to us to have been a general equal to any, and, except Moreau, far fuperior to any other general that fupported the French revolution. We regret that he is not mentioned. After a fhort sketch of parties at Paris, our author proceeds to the firft Italian campaign of Buonaparté, and very properly paffes unnoticed mere rapidity of movements. Néither does he mention the battle of Lodi, which certainly appeared liker the defperation of phrenzy than the cool intrepidity of a real hero. He attributes fome degree of merit to the ftratagem of that adventurer for escaping from a detachment of Austrians. The expedient, however, of pretending to be followed by a large body of men was quite obvious to invention, and very common in practice. Attending this leader to the close of the campaign we are happy to find the Doctor does not affign his fuccefs to diftinguished ability; but to rapid movement and versatile dexterity. There was another caufe on which we wish he had touched, the want of fidelity among many of the Auftrian officers. Our author does not affert that Buonaparté furmounted great difficulties: we think he had not great difficulties to furmount. He beftows high praise on Moreau; and then proceeds to the fiege of Acre, which he repeats, in a great degree, from his own Annual Regifter. This celebrated operation draws forth very few reflections. The Auftrian and Ruffian campaign of 1799 is alfo sketched, but with little accompaniment of remark. Of the battle of Marengo our author prefents a fhort and impartial account, and clofes his memoirs with the battle of Alexandria. The fcantinefs of remark in the laft nine years of the Memoirs we are far from imputing to want of powers in the author, to deduce from the hiftory of that period as valuable leffons as from any former period. But we are aware of the delicacy of the subject, and make allowances for the peculiar circumftances of the cafe. Nevertheless, without entering into an inveftigation of the defign, plan, or execution, of every military measure that was adopted by Britain and her allies, we muft, on the whole, obferve, that as far as this nation was concerned, without being implicated in the counfels or operations of allies, we were fignally fuccefsful; and Britain, even in her military efforts of the laft war, maintained that fuperiority which Crecy firft proved, and so many fucceeding fcenes have confirmed. We thould not have hesitated to take up British effort, and wish our author had done done the fame. We rather, however, regret the want of what might, and we think would have produced able and valuable remark, than cenfure the omiffion. The Military Memoirs conftitute a performance of combined information and inftruction; always useful, and at prefent peculiarly feafonable and interefting. We have fairly and candidly stated points on which we differ from the author, in the fame fairness we must pronounce our opinion that, on the whole, it is a work of meritorious defign, beneficial tendency, and judicious felection, particularly deferving of the perufal of officers and those who have the appointment of officers. The work is indeed an hiftorical illustration, in military subjects, of the grand maxim of Juvenal, that a rigid adherence to the dictates of wisdom in a great measure controuls the power of fortune. "Nullum numen habes, fi non prudentia desit fortuna." Daubeny's Vindicia Ecclefiæ Anglicana. (Continued from Vol. XVII. P. 371.) ON O's which treats of Original Sin, we find N Mr. O.'s chapter concerning Repentance our author makes no none which we deem of fufficient importance to be laid before our readers. But his ftrictures on Mr. O.'s fixth chapter, which relates to Fuftification, are rich in found criticifm, and in equally found divinity. He begins with obferving that much of what has been written on the fubject has been advanced more with a view to fupport fome pre-established fyftem, than with an eye to the truth. But the real merits of the caufe, he thinks, lie within a narrow compaís.— Our venerable reformers laboured to eradicate the grofs and profitable error which had long prevailed in the Church of Rome with regard to the doctrine of human merit. · "Whoever, therefore, confiders Chrift to be the only meritorious cause of man's falvation, and works as requifite to determine the quality of that faith which can alone be inftrumental to the falvation of the party, will believe every thing necellary to be believed on this important fubject. He will fee that works, the fruit of faith, while, to make ufe of the language of our reformers, they are decidedly fhut out from the office of justifying,' must fill be present in the juftified party, (in all cafes where works are poffible) as the sine qua non,, without which he will not finally be saved. . For without holine's (we are told) no man fhall fee the Lord.' This neceffary dif crimination between man's title to falvation, and his personal qualification for it, contains the whole pith of the argument employed on this much, though in my judgment, unneceffarily, controverted fubject." (Pp. 233-235.) Mr. O., in order to prejudice his readers against those who talk of two juftifications, a firft and a final, invidiously afcribes the diftinction Taylor the Socinian." But if the diftinction be a true one, it is to " not not to be rejected becaufe held by a Socinian. Or must we renounce the doctrine of the Trinity because it is held by the Church of Rome ? This mode of arguing, or rather of biafling the reader's mind, is infinitely difgraceful to those who adopt it. But Mr. O. can by no means allow that to be baptized" and "to be juftified" are of the fame import, though the Homily on Salvation employs them as fynonymous. We wonder not at this; for his fcheme excludes the notion that justification is annexed to baptifm. Mr. O. is a strenuous advocate for the literal fenfe of our public ftandards, when their language fuits his purpose. But, in the prefent cafe, because Dr. Hey allows that the word "juftification" is feldom or ever ufed as fynonymous with "baptifm," except in our article and homily, Mr. Ó. thinks it "highly improbable that it is fo ufed there." "This," fays Mr. D. 66 appears to be ftrange reasoning. For, upon this principle, the articles and homilies, which are appealed to as the ftandard for the church doctrine, are not to be received according to the letter, but according to the fense [which] Mr. O. thinks proper to affix to them." (p. 238.) But our reformers, when they joined the words "juftified" and "baptized" as fynonymous, really meant what they faid: for they lay it down, as a fundamental position, that " infants, being baptized, and dying in their infancy, are by Chrift's facrifice, washed from their fins, brought to God's favour, and made his children, and inheritors of his kingdom of Heaven." (Hom. of Salv. p. 17.) But this, we prefume, Mr. O. himself will allow to be a good defcription of perfons juftified. The paffage of the homily which we have here produced is alfo produced by Mr. O.; but, to guard, we suppose, against the " iniquity of quotation," he has given it in a form which, inftead of teaching what it actually does teach, the juftification of infants by baptifm, makes it applicable to Chriftians in general. This was eafily done. Nothing more was required than to fupprefs the words "infants, being baptized, and dying in their infancy," and to fubftitute the fimple pronoun we. Had," fays Mr. D. " the author of a 'Guide to the Church' thus quoted, he certainly would not have been spared." (p. 242.) On this momentous fubject our author appeals, as we had alfo done*, to the rubric at the end of the baptifmal fervice, and to the reference made by the XIth article to the homily on falvation. The argument drawn from these inconteftible authorities we venture to prophesy that neither Mr. O., nor any of his "regular Evangelical Minifters," will ever dare to meet. On this point they have only one alternative, which is either to relinquish the doctrines of Calvin, or their new defignation of "the True Churchmen." But, fays Mr. O." the notion" that juftification is fynonymous with baptifin, ❝is overthrown by their own hypothefis; namely, that it fuppofes < men to do their part faithfully,' and that we are then only put in a *See ANTI-JACOBIN REVIEW, Vol. XV. P. 130—264. way way of being eternally happy, if all things go on well; but that we may lofe our way." That a perfon once juftified can lofe his way is a doctrine which Mr. O., we know, like a good Calvinist, regards as abfurd. It is nevertheless the doctrine of the Church, as we have unanswerably proved in another place*. For our reformers, as Mr. D. obferves, held the doctrine of affurance of falvation only fo far as infants dying in their infancy were concerned; whilft, in all other cafes, they confidered baptifm as the conveyance of benefits fubject to contingency, as an admiffion into a state of falvation which might afterwards be loft." Of this question the judgment pronounced by the Church with regard to the penitent thief is decifive. But, argues Mr. O. if it be true that juftification may be loft, and alfo that it is the fame as baptifm, then, in order to regain it we must be rebaptized. If Mr. O. thought that this confequence followed, he was grofsly ignorant of the doctrine both of the Church of England, and of the Primitive Church. His favourite Auguftine taught a very different leffon. "Semel perceptam," fays that father, "parvulus gratiam non amittit, nifi propriâ impietate, fi ætatis acceffu tam maJus evaferit. Tunc enim etiam propria incipiet habere peccata, quæ non regeneratione," or a repetition of the facrament of baptifm, "auferantur, fed alia curatione fanentur." (Ad. Bonif. Epift. 98.) This other cure confifts in repentance, and renewed obedience. By employing this cure the perfon baptized retains the benefit of his original baptifm, which needs not be repeated. "And in this fenfe," adds our author," though not in the fenfe in which it is ufed by fome modern teachers, the maxim once regenerate and always regenerate' is a true maxim in Chriftianity, and was an established one in the Primitive Church." (P. 247.) We are far, however, from being of opinion that Mr. O. believed in the juftness of his own inference from juftification's being fynony nous with baptifm. We obfervedt, as Mr. D. alfo does, that he produces, from the homily on falvation, a paffage which renders his own reafoning ridiculous. We faid that we fuppofed that he intended to be witty. But, perhaps, we fhould have been nearer the truth if we had faid that this was one of his meanest attempts to confound the question, and to puzzle his readers. " Mr. O. however, talks of baptifm as "a bare admiffion into the Chriftian religion, (p. 180.); and the doctrine of the Chriftian Obferver is that Baptifm is only the outward fign of an admiffion into the Church, adminiftered by fallible men, and may or may not be accompanied by the inward and fpiritual grace of juftification, which is the act of God alone.” (Chris. Obf. July 1802.) Mr. C. too, having laid it down that a man is juftified only when he rightly believes (p. 179.), very evidently difbelieves that infants are justified by baptifm. Thus do Mr. O. and the Christian Observer, to use the words See ANTI-JACOBIN REVIEW, Vol. XV. Pp. 279, 280. of of our excellent author, "in direct contradiction to the exprefs doctrine of our Church, think-the former, that perfons under age cannot be juftified by baptifm; the latter, that the inward and fpiritual grace may or may not accompany the outward and vifible fign; whift both, with the XXVth and XXVIIth articles, as it were, ftaring them in the face, which tell them that baptifm is not only a sign of profesfion, but also a fign of regeneration; by which, as by an inftrument, the promifes of God are vifibly figned and fealed' to the baptized party, appear to be equally agreed in confidering baptifm as only the outward fign of admiflion into the Church;' or, in Mr. O.'s words, the bare admiffion into the Chriftian religion." (p. 255.) But the Chriftian Obferver has farther difcovered that the facrament of bapt.fm may be ineffectual, becaufe it is adminiftered by fallible men. Is the Chriftian Obferver, then, a believer in the Roman Catholic princ ple, that the intention of the Minifter is neceffary to the validity of the facrament? Or does he think that the weakness of the inftrument employed can make void the pofitive inftitution of Chrift? So, at leaft, we are certain, thought not St. Paul. " We have," he fays, "this treafure in earthen veffels, that the excellency of the power may be of God, and not of us." (2 Cor. iv. 7.) The fentiments of our Church, on this momentous fubject, are no less explicit, and are fully explained in her XXVIth article. We have no hesitation, therefore, whatever, to ftile, with our author, thefe pofitions of Mr. O. and of the Chriftian Obferver, downright herefy; and moft heartily do we concur in the following weighty reflections: Sorry am I to think that fuch erroneous opinions, relative to a facrament of our Church, fhould conftitute part of that new fyllem of divinity, now induftriously circulated by thofe of our Clergy who, in their zeal for the honour of God, feem to be attempting to reform upon the reformation; a fpecies of divinity fuited to felf-conflituted Minifters, who know no commillion but that of their own assuming; but certainly unfuited to the character of clergy who have a divine commiffion to produce for the office [which] they undertake. To depreciate the facraments of the Church, on the score of the fallibility of the Minifter, whofe office it is to difpenfe them; and thereby to lead ferious people to look for immediate communications from Heaven, which they will not fail to do if they are taught that the fallibility of the Minifter may prevent their receiving benefit from his miniftry, is to fet afide the plan on which Chrift thought fit that the affairs of his kingdom fhould be tranfacted; an effect which, if not counteracted, must ultimately terminate in the annihilation of Christ's vifible church on earth. The pofition, that baptized perfons may or may not be justified, certainly correfponds with the Calvinistic doctrine of election, according to which justification is the exclufive portion of certain chofen individuals; in which cafe it must be admitted, that the facrament of baptifm can make no alteration in the cafe of parties whofe condition had been previoully and irrevocably determined. This may be found doctrine with divines of the Genevan fchool; but certainly it bears no affinity to that of the Church of England, which, after the example of her Divine Head, is no refpecter of perfons in this cafe. All properly admitted within her pale by baptifm, NO, LXXI. VOL. XVII. D are |