Mr. O. baptizes, or his Clerk; whether perfons are baptized in the Church or out of it, are points, in Mr. O.'s mind, of no confequence. Thus Mr. O. proves his churchmanfhip; but "were," fays our author, "the Church of England in convocation to fit in judgment on Mr. O.'s book, fhe could not, confiftently with her appointed forms, confider the title prefixed to it, of "The True Churchmen afcertained," to be a title to which Mr. O. had manifefted the best pretenfions." (p. 325.)

The paflage of the "Guide," on which the prefent charge is founded, had been objected to by Sir Richard Hill, as "dealing out damnation by wholetale." To the worthy, frank, and well-intentioned Baronet Mr. D. judged an explanation to be due, which was, therefore, given in the "Appendix to the Guide," and which, from every candid mind, muft remove fuch a falfe impreffion. But Mr. O. evidently does not with fuch falfe impreffions to be removed. again brought forward the paffage alluded to, without noticing the explanation; and, by way of confirming the impreffion, he has added to his reference the convenient word paffim, inporting that fuch is the fentiment which Mr. D. every where maintains: though the "Guide" itself might have furnished him with abundance of decifive evidence to the contrary. On this conduct we extract the author's reflections, which mult, we repeat, make Mr. O. bluth, if he be capable of blufhing.

"From this fpecimen the Established Church may know what to expect from the Minifters for whom Mr. O. apologifes, (fuppofing him to be their accredited reprefentative), who, under the guife of candour and falle charity, (for true charity is manifefted in uniting, not in dividing, the Church,) thus, in a manner, annihilate her miniftry, and furnith a plea for feparation from her connection, which the arguments of the best informed divines will attempt in vain to counteract. I dwell no longer on this fubject. Let the reader, let Mr. O. fay, whether, with the above evidence before him, (and much more might eatily be produced from my writings), attempting to leave fuch an injurious impreffion on his reader's mind, relative to my candour and charity, he is acting in conformity with the standard which he has himself fet up? Whether he is treating the fentiments of the author of the "Guide," as favourably as is confistent with what, after proper inquiry, he esteems truth and a good conscience?" (p. 328.)

It is impoffible for us to follow our author, step by step, in his expofure of the difingenuous arts by which Mr. O. has, in this fection, attempted to degrade the national clergy. Yet, confined as our li mits neceffarily are, we should think ourfelves highly deficient in our duty, if we omitted to lay before our readers Mr. D.'s final judgment with regard to it; a judgment in which we cordially, and entirely, agree.

"It is," he obferves, "to be lamented, that any Minister of the Church of England fhould have fuffered his zeal fo far to annihilate his charity, and destroy his judgment, as to have been able to write it. Thofe gentlemen, whofe names are introduced into this fection, would think it impertinent in

me to fay a fyllable in their defence; knowing that a charge, thus libellously drawn, and thus indiscriminately applied, antwers itself, and can bring difgrace on no one fo much as on the perfon who drew it. For my own part," her adds, in a stile well fuited to his known character, "my object, in anfwering Mr. O's book, having been, not fo much to defend mytelf against his uncharitable attack, as to maintain what I understand to be the genuine doctrines of the Church of England, more particular attention to the contents of this fection would be time thrown away; and, confidering that no man can speak long of himself without fin or folly, my reply to Mr. O. on the general subject of this section, thall be comprehended in the following fhort fentence: My writings, my character, and my profeffional conduct, are before the world. Should the world be indifpofed to give me that credit for either [any of them] which their intention, at least, fhould fecure, I thank God, I can look forward, through faith and patience,' from this world to the next, unto that Master whole fervant I am, and to whom I stand or fall." (Pp. 235, 236.)

6

Mr. O. begins the fecond fection of this Chapter with declaring: that, in the opinion of his party, "good works are neither the meritorious caufe, nor the appointed condition of juftification." Enough has been faid by us on both parts of this opinion to render any farther ob fervations perfectly unneceffary. But this fction appears to have been written principally with the view of defending Mrs. H. More's pofition, that the "duties which grow out of the doctrines of Chriftianity are to be confidered as the natural and neceffary productions of fuch a living root;" or, as Mr. O. expreffes it, that "good works are the natural and neceffary effect of that faith which juftifieth." To Mrs. More Mr. D. had replied, "Madam, this is not the language either of the Scripture or of the Church of England;" and, undoubtedly, in the meaning in which, we are convinced, Mrs. More employed it, it is the language neither of the fcripture, of the church, of reaton, nor of common fenfe. Mrs. More, we are perfuaded, would complain that we wronged her, if we reprefented her as an AntiCalvinift; and Mr. O. would join in the complaint. Now, a Calvinist believing, as he must do, in the neceffary confequences of abfolute decrees, muft believe, that he who has once been juftified can never fall from his juftification. The faith which he once poffeffed can never be wholly loft or corrupted. And, as the Church declares in her XIIth article, that good works do spring out neceffarily of a true and lively faith, it follows, of courfe, in the mind of a Calvinift, that in the elect, good works are of natural or phyfical neceffity. On this iu ject we have, at different times, already, very freely delivered our fentiments*. If Mrs. More did not intend to teach fuch neceffity, why does the not explicitly difclaim it? Instead of doing this, Mrs. More, in the late edition of her works, attempting to wrap hericlp in that robe of confequential dignity, and contemptuous

See ANTI-JACOBIN REVIEW, Vol. XV. Pp. 280. 387-390.
Vol. XVI. p. 52.

filence,

filence, which, wherever her character or writings are concerned, fhe affects to wear, but which fits upon her with an aukward grace, contents herself with coolly obferving, that " fhe conceives herself to have been mifunderstood," and with fimply repeating the words of the XIIth Article, as a fufficient ground of her juftification. Mrs. More was not ignorant of the principle on which Mr. D. differed from her. She very well knew, that about the words of the article there was no difpute and that the only queftion was concerning their meaning.Yet he has neither the courage with franknefs to avow the Calviniftic fenfe of them, nor the candour to confider Mr. D.'s objections. But we must take the liberty to tell Mrs. More, that, whatever her. own pride and felt importance, or the flattery of her evangelical friends, may fuggeft, Mr. DAUBENY is the laft antagonist whom the ought to have treated with disrespect and we must have leave to add,. that the method which he has been pleated to adopt of waiving the controverfy can do her no honour in the eyes of a difcerning and impartial public. It has, in truth, more the appearance of mean and fhuffling artifice, than of honeft good faith and regard for truth. [To be concluded in our next.]

An Excurfion in France, and other parts of the Continent of Europe, from the Ceflation of Hoftilities in 1801, to the 13th of December, 1803. Including a Narrative of the unprecedented Detention of the English Travellers in that Country, as Prifoners of War. By Charles Maclean, M. D. 1 Volume, 8vo. PP. 304. Longman and Rees. 1804.

THE author of this excurfion has formed an hypothesis that mala

dies, ufually called peftilential, are not contagious. He fays that he has established this pofition by an induction of reafoning, and only wishes to prove it by experiment; what kind of induction on a medical, or any other phyfical fubject, he can have employed antecedent to experiment, we cannot conceive. This mode of expreffion, however, may probably be owing to an imperfect acquaintance with logical terms. Induction is that procefs of reafoning, which, from a number of particulars, examined by obfervation and experiment, draws a general conclufion either of fact or principle.

Our author, confident of his theory, applied to feveral potentates in order to procure an opportunity of intpecting epidemic difeafes. His firit with was to make a voyage to the Levant, and take Italy in his way; but arriving at Vienna, in fummer 1800, he found the French had made fuch progrefs that it was impracticable to vifit Italy. He applied to the Spanish Ambaffador at the Auftrian court for leave to repair to Cadiz, where an epidemic fever then raged, but did not fucceed. He then wrote to the Duke of Portland requesting he might be permitted to go to Egypt: the Duke's anfwer was, that the ar

rangements

rangements made for that expedition did not admit of new military appointments. Peace being concluded between England and France, he repaired to Paris in hopes of procuring a miffion to the Levant from the Confular government, but again found himself disappointed. Meanwhile he pitched his abode at Paris; and there he began his obfervations on the actual state of France. We do not exactly learn what are Doctor Maclean's principles; in one point he agrees with us: he execrates Buonaparté. His ftatements and remarks, however, both on the state of France and the character of Buonaparté, are extremely trite and fuperficial. Doctor Maclean is not the Opie that can draw a masterly picture of the devil. He, indeed, tries a family groupe, and gives the common anecdotes of the mother, wife, brothers and fifters; but without any force or poignancy. He narrates feveral facts, all tending to fhew the dreadful iniquities practised in the adminiftration of justice.

In fummer, 1802, he tries to mark the progreffion of French hoftility; but prefents only fome detached facts, without demonftrating their feries and connection. In Auguft the Conful prohibited the English newspapers, except Bell's Meffenger. Our Doctor touches very lightly on a performance that was popular among the enemies of the country which fed and protected its proprietor. Thence he digreffes to the character of Talleyrand, which he difmiffes in an anecdote or two. On the Moniteur he repeats the common obfervations, and mentions feveral anecdotes to fhew that the French prefs is not free. This was a fact not unknown before, and indeed vouched by much stronger inftances than Mr. Maclean adduces.

After the departure of Lord Whitworth, the French journals daily exclaimed, why do the English quit France? yet, in a few days, the decree for their arreftation was promulgated. The execrable iniquity, treachery, and fraud of this detention, require a much more vigorous and glowing pencil to reprefent them in the appropriate colours than Doctor Maclean poffeffes. That writer, however, makes the beft of it he can, and annexes a list of the perfons detained, which appears to us the most fatisfactory part of the publication. Doctor Maclean mentions a curious piece of fineffe practifed by the French government,—to make quotations from the Argus, an English confular paper in France, appear as quotations from English newspapers published in London. Our author now introduces various names, with a remark or two on each, which he prefents as the characters of the perfons in queftion. Among these we find one novelty, the heretofore Director La Reveilliere Lepaux is celebrated for good intentions. Here, on recollection, we must correct ourselves: the Anti-Jacobin newspaper in 1798 mentions various perfons that combined. in praifing Lepaux. It feems the widow and children of Briffot are not in affluent circumstances. This fact is mentioned by our author as a proof of French ingratitude. WE certainly will not be accused of exaggerating French virtue; but having formed a different eftimate from Doctor Maclean, of the fervices of that republican, we do not fo

readily

readily admit the charge of ingratitude, nor can we fee what high claim to munificent recompence can be alleged for the agent of the Grandits, who promoted the maffacre of the loyalifts, and the downfall of order in August 1792, who was the father of the French convention, and by his own unprincipled ambition, and total want of wildom, paved the way for Robespierre and all the dreadful convulfions of France. Doctor Maclean next proceeds to his own escape; which was effected by obtaining a paflport for America, to fail from Bourdeaux. We now have a journey from Paris to Bourdeaux, wherein twenty-five pages are taken up to detail the common occur rences, and defcribe the common travellers, in a stage coach. About eighty pages more are devoted to the city of Bourdeaux, where it feems there are gaming houtes, wherein a novice may be fleeced; alfo girls of the town in various parts; but as likely to be met with at the theatre and masquerade as any where. They have ordinaries at Bourdeaux, and allo reftaurateurs, at whofe houfes you may dine apart, and order what you pleafe, whereas if you go to an ordinary you muft take up with the fare that is provided, and make one of the company; and these are among the most valuable communications which our author imparts concerning Bourdeaux in the faid eighty pages. He found a private opportunity of obtaining a paffage in a fhip for Deal; feventeen pages more bring him to the Hoop and Griffin Inn, in that fea-port, where, together with a German, the Doctor made a more comfortable breakfast than he had made at fea. From Deal three pages more bring the Doctor and the German to London, in a stage coach. When they entered the city the German took a hackney coach for a tavern in Wapping, whereas Doctor Maclean himself proceeded to his brother's in Bafinghall-ftreet. As he says nothing to the contrary, we truft he arrived without any accident: Here our Doctor clofes a narrative, from which, to the best of our ability, we have extracted the fubftance.

Before we deliver any critical opinion on the merits of this production, we shall fimply ftate to our author and readers what we should have expected, in a volume of this fize, upon the prefent fubject :an accurate and ftriking view of the fituation of the English detained in France; a connected sketch of the government, judicial, executorial, and legislative, marking the pretended privileges and real flavery of the French a few cursory and detached ftories are not fufficient for this purpose. We should have expected an elucidation of the prefent manners of the French, and their difpofitions towards Buonaparté; alfo fome account of the army, both in refpect to force and inclinations. We should have expected fome view of the peasantry and general face of the country, to enable us to form a judgment of the domeftic effects of the Confular ufurpation. We fhould have expected, especially at Bourdeaux, an account of French commerce, with the effects of war in diminishing or precluding that bleffing. We fhould have expected múch valuable information that we have not received.