« PreviousContinue »
ORIGINAL CRITICISM. ntains no more than the unqualified eulogy pronounced by Mr. I and his friends, contrasted with the indiscriminate condemna. he has thought proper lo pals on those against whom he has. pen.” (PP. 317, 318.) impressive and just remarks, of which the truth and proe questioned by none who have read Mr. O.'s book, ex. True Churchmen” and their faithful adherents. This eslicy, is one continued calumny against the general body h cergy. But his eagerness to criminate has led him into fiftencies. He had formerly accused his opponents of ress upon morality, as to build, in a great degree at least, 'alvation on human merit. The object of this section is hem as enemies to morality in all its branches. As pre- ! his, he is a great pains to instruct us what the church onftituting morals, for, as our author elsewhere truly - has been observed that it is a practice with Mr. O. to. vured densonstrations and defences of the most acknow
with the view, as it should seem, of leading his more Ers 10 believe that the opposers of his particular opinions e al truths." (p. 228.) The clergy are here condemn.
of teaching doctrines equally destructive both of the Hie fecond, tables of the law. They are accufed not f decency, candour, veracity, and Christian charity; ating, and even pleading tor, the violation of the laws - laws of the church, the express condition on which they ; their benefits, [beneficts, we presume), the admonidinary, their oun folemn oath, and every motive that can se or influence the conduct of an honest man." (Ov. p. 255) e in which this mild and moderate Calvinist permiis of his Right Reverend Fathers and his Reverend Brecharge is an indiscriminate one, moft evidently in,
10 all of them who belong not to the tribe of " the en.” Mr. D., however, confines himself prircipally nie. “It requires,” says Mr. D., “the utmost stretch.
Mr. O. baptizes, or his Clerk; whether persons are baptized in the Church or out of it, are points, in Mr. O.'s mind, of no consequence. Thus Mr. O. proves his churchmanship; but " were," says our author, “che Church of England in convocation to fit in judgment on Mr. O.'s book, she could not, consistently with her appointed forms, conlider the title prefixed to it, of " The True Churchmen ałcertained,” to be a title to which Mr. O, had manifested the best preterfions.” (p. 325.)
The passage of the “ Guide," on which the present charge is founded, had been objected to by Sir Richard Hill, as “ dealing out damnation by wholesale.” To the worthy, frank, and well-intentioned Baronet Mr. D. judged an explanation to be due, which was, therefore, given in the c Appendix to the Guide,” and which, from every candid mind, must remove such a false impression. But Mr. O. evidently does not with such false impressions to be removed. He has again brought forward the passage alluded to, without noticing the explanation; and, by way of confirining the impression, he has added to his reference the convenient word passim, iinporting that such is the sentiment which Mr. D. every where maintains: though the “ Guide" itself might have furnished him with abundance of Jecisive evidence to the contrary. On this conduct we extract the author's reflections, which muit, we repeat, make Mr. O. blush, if he be capable of blushing.
« From this specimen the Established Church may know what to expect from the Ministers for whom Mr. O, apologises, (supposing him to be their accredited representative), who, under the guile of candour and falle charity, (for true charity is manifested in uniting, not in dividing, the Church,) thus, in a manner, annihilate her ministry, and furnish a plea for separation from her connection, which the arguments of the best informed divines will attempt in vain to counteract. I dwell no longer on this subject. Let the reader, let Mr. (). say, whether, with the above evidence before him, (and much more might ealily be produced from my writings), attempting to leave such an injurious impression on his reader's mind, relative to my candour and charity, he is acting in conformity with the standard which he has himself set up? Whether he is treating the sentiments of the author of the “Guide,” as favourably as is consistent with what, after proper inquiry, he esteems truth and a good conscience” (p. 328.)
It is impossible for us to follow our author, step by step, in his exposure of the disingenuous arts by which Mr. O, has, in this section, attempted to degrade the national clergy. Yet, confined as our lic mits necessarily are, we should think ourselves 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 observes, “ to be lamented, that any Minister of the Church of England should have suffered his zeal so far to annihilate his charity, and destroy his judgment, as to have been able to write it. Those gentlemen, whose names are introduced into this section, would think it impertinent in D4
rity to believe any professors of Christianity in a state! '
payes of the Guide to the Church, to which Mr. O.
duly commissioned. The Church says, that " they cism rightly are grafted into the Church;" and that assemblies, or congregations, of the King's born fubof the established Church, may rightly challenge to ame of true and lawful churches." With Mr. O., Es the difference between being rightly and not rightly erence only “ in external matters ;" so that whether
'me to say a fyllable in their defence; knowing that a charge, thus libellously drawn, and thus indiscriminately apfilied, aniwers itself, and can bring disgrace on no one to much as on the perfon who drew it. For my own part,” her adus, in a stile well suited to his known character, “my object, in answer. ing Mr. O.'s book, having been, not to much to defend myteli 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 section would be time thrown away; and, considering that no man can speak long of himself without fin or folly, my reply to Mr. (). on the general subject of this section, thall be comprehended in the following Niort fentence: My writings, my character, and my professional conduct, are before the world. Should the world be iudiíposed to give me that credit for either [any of them] which their intention, at least, should fecure, I thank God, I can look forward, “ through faith and patience,' from this world to the next, unto that Master whole servant I am, and to whom I . stand or fall.” (Pp. 235, 236.)
Mr. O. begins the second section of this Chapter with declaring that, in the opinion of his party, “ good works are neither the merio tórious cause, nor the appointed condition of justification." Enough has been said by us on both parts of this opinion to render any farther oby servations perfe&ily unnecessary. But this sction appears to have been written principally with ihe view of defending Mrs. H. More's position, that the “ duties which grow out of the doctrines of Chriltianity are to be considered as the natural and necessary productions of such a living root;" or, as Mr. O. expresses it, that “ good works are the natural and necessary effect of that faith which justifieth.” To Mrs. More Mr. D. had replied, “ Madam, this is not the language either of ihe 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 scripture, of the church, of reslon, nor of common sense. Mrs. More, we are persuaded, would complain that we wronged her, if we represented her as an AntiCalvinilt; and Mr. O. would join in the complaint. Now, a Calvi. niit believing, as he must do, in the necessary consequences of abfo. luie decrees, muft believe, that he who has once been justified can never fall from his justification. The faith which he once poflessed can never be wholly lost or corrupted. And, as the Church declares in her XIIb arude, that good works do spring out neceffitrily of a true and lively faith, it follows, of course, in the mind of a Cal. vinist, that in che elect, good works are of natural or physical neceffiiy. On this ju jećt we have, at different times, already, very freely delivered our sentiments* If Mrs. More did not intend to teach such neceffay, why does fhe not explicitly disclaim it? Instead of doing this. : Mrs. More, in the late edition of her works, attempting to wrap heredip in that ribe of conlequintial dignity, and contemptuous
See ANTI-JACOBIN REVIEW, Vol. XV. Pp. 280. 387–390.
!!ble in their defence; knowing that a charge, thus libellously Els ca.di criminarely applied, aniwers itself, and can bring disgrace
en as on the perion who drew it. For my own part," he 13 !uited to his known character, “my object, in answerk, having been, not lo much to defend myself against his ack, as tū maintain what I understand to be the genuine Church of England, more particular attention to the contion would be time thrown away; and, coniidering that no lony of himself without fin or folly, my reply to Mr. O. on
ct of this section, llall be comprehended in the following - diy writings, my character, and my professional conduct, vorld. Should the world be iudiíposed to give me that creny of them which their intention, at least, should fecure,
can look forward,' through faith and patience,' from this at, unto that Master whole servant I am, and to whom I, (Pr. 235, 236.) Ens the second section of this Chapter with declaring inion of his party, “ good works are neither the meri=>r the appointed condition of justification." Enough has con both parts of this opinion to render any farther ob-ctly unnecessary. But this fation appears to have rincipally with the view of defending Mrs. H. More's er duties which grow out of the doctrines of Chrisconsidered as the natural and necessary productions of jot;" or, as Mr. O. expreffes it, that “ good works nd necessary effect of that faith which justifieth." To D. had replied, “ Madam, this is not the language upture or of the Church of England;" and, undoubt. ning in which, we are convinced, Mrs. More emje language neither of the scripture, of the church, of numen sense. Mrs. More, we are persuaded, would e wronged her, if we represented her as an AntiIr. O. would join in the complaint. Now, a Calvi.
he must do, in the necessary consequences of abfo. I believe, that be who has once been justified can s justification. The faith which he once possessed di loft or corrupted. And, as the Church declares Je, that good works do spring out neceffarily of a
filence, which, wherever her character or writings are concerned, affects to wear, but which fits upon her with an aukward grace, c tents herself with coolly observing, that “ she conceives herself to h been misunderstood," and with funply repeating the words of XIIth Article, as a sufficient ground of her justification. Mrs. M was not ignorant of the principle on which Mr. D. differed from h She very well knew, that about the words of the article there was dispute; and that the only question was concerning their meaning. Yet the has neither the courage with frankness to avow the Calvi. stic sense of them, nor the candour to consider Mr. D.'s objectio But we must rake the liberty to tell. Mrs. More, that, whatever h own pride and felt importance, or the flattery of her evangelic friends, may suggest, Mr. DAUBENY is the last antagonist whom i ought to have treated with disrespect : and we must have leave to ad that the method which the has been plealed to adopt of waiving ti controversy can do her no honour in the eyes of a discerning and in partial public. It has, in truth, more the appearance of mean ar -Shuffling artifice, than of honest good faith and regard for truth.
[To be concluded in our next.]
An Excursion in France, and other parts of the Continent of Europe, from
the Celation of Hostilities in 1801, to the 13th of December, 1802 * Including a Narrative of the unprecedented Detention of the Engli
Travellers in that Country, as Prisoners of War. By Charles Mac lean, M. D. I Volume, 8vo. Pp. 304. Longman and Rees
1804. THE author of this excursion has formed an hypothesis that mala.
1 dies, ulually called pestilential, are not contagious. He says that he has established this position by an induction of reasoning, and only wishes to prove it by experiment; what kind of induction on a medical, or any other physical subject, he can have employed ante. cedent to experiment, we cannot cunceive. This mode of expression, however, may probably be owing to an imperfect acquaintance with logical terms. Induction is that process of reasoning, which, from a number of particulars, examined by observation and experiment, draws a general conclusion either of fact or principle, in
Our author, confident of his theory, applied to several potentates in order to procure an opportunity of intpecting epidemic diseases. His firit wish was to make a voyage to the Levant, and take Italy in his way; but arriving at Vienna, in summer 1800, he found the French had made such progress that it was impracticable to visit Italy. He applied to the Spanish Ambassador at the Austrian court for leave to repair to Cadiz, where an epidemic fever then raged, but did not succeed. He then wrote to the Duke of Portland requesting he might be permitted to go to Egypt: the Duke's answer was, that the ar
aith, it follows, of course, in the mind of a Cala
elect, good works are of natural or physical neceffity. ohise, at different times, already, very freely deli145* If Mrs. More did not intend to teach such Es he not explicitly disclaim it? Instead of doing 'n che lare edition of her works, attempting to wrap ribe of consequential dignity, and contemptuous
COBIN Review, Vol. XV. Pp. 280. 387_-390.
Tangements 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 million to the Levant from the Consular government, but again found himself disappointed. Meanwhile he pitched his abode at Paris; and there he began his ob. fervations 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 statements and remarks, however, both on the state of France and the character of Buonaparté, are extremely trite and superficial. 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, bro.. thers and fifters; but without any force or poignancy. He narrates several facts, all tending to shew the dreadful iniquities practiled in the administration of justice.
In summer, 1802, he tries to mark the progression of French hor. tility; but presents only some detached facts, without demonstrating their series and connection. In August the Conful prohibited the English newspapers, except Bell's Messenger. 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 digresses to the character of Talleyrand, which he dismisses in an anecdote or two. On the Moniteur he repeats the common obfervations, and mentions several anecdotes to shew that the French press is not free. This was a fact not unknown before, and indeed vouched by much stronger instances 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 arrestation was promulgated.' The execrable iniquity, treachery, and fraud of this detention, require a much more vigorous and glowing pencil to represent them in the appropriate colours than Doctor Maclean possesses. That writer, however, makes the best of it he can, and annexes a list of the persons detained, which appears to us the most satisfactory part of the publication. Doctor Maclean mentions a curious piece of finesse practised by the French government,-io make quotations from the Argus, an Engl.th confuJar paper in France, appear as quotations from English newspapers publithed in London. Our author now introduces various names, with a remark or two on each, which he presents as the characters of the persons in question. Among these we find one novelty, the here. tofore Director La Reveilliere Lepaux is celebrated for good intentions. Here, on recollection, we must correct ourselves : the Anti- Jacobin newspaper in 1798 mentions various persons that combined. in praisi ing Lepaux. It seems the widow and children of Brissot 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 estimate from Doctor Maclean, of the services of that republican, we do not so
e for that expedition did not admit of new military Peace being concluded between England and France, ris in hopes of procuring a million to the Levant Et government, but again found himself disappointed. tened his abode at Paris; and there he began his ob.
actual state of France. We do not exactly learn Maclean's principles; in one point he agrees with Buonaparté. His statements and remarks, however, of France and the character of Buonaparté, are exuperficial. Doctor Maclean is not the Opie that ly picture of the devil. He, indeed, tries a family the common anecdotes of the mother, wife, brobut without any force or poignancy. He narrates nding to thew the dreadful iniquities practiled in the
2, he tries to mark the progression of French hole
only some detached facts, without demonstrating Inection. In August the Consul prohibited the , except Bell's Messenger. Our Doctor touches erformance that was popular among the enemies of
fed and protected its proprietor. Thence he diter of Talleyrand, which he dismisses in an aneche Moniteur he repeats the common observations, I anecdotes to shew that the French press is not fact not unknown before, and indeed vouched by ices than Mr. Maclean adduces. e of Lord Whitworth, the French journals daily the English quit France ? yet, in a few days, rrestation was promulgated. The execrable ini1 fraud of this detention, require a much more g pencil to represent them in the appropriate coaclean possesses. That writer, however, makes and annexes a list of the persons detained, which 7 satisfaclory part of the publication. Doctor curious piece of finesse practised by the French ke quotations from the Argus, an English confuappear as quotations from English newspapers
Our author now introduces various names, on each, which he presents as the characters of
readily admit the charge of ingratitude, nor can we see what hig claim to munificent recompence can be alleged for the agent of the Gir nd its, wio promoted the massacre of the loyalists, 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. Rovespierre and all the dreadful convulfins of France. Doctor Maclean next proceeds to his own escape; which was effected by obtaining a passport for Anerica, to sail from Bourdeaux. We now have a journey from Paris to Bourdeaux, wherein twenty-five pages are taken up to detail the common occurs rences, and describe the common travellers, in a stage coach, About cighty pages more are devoted to the city of Bourdeaux, where it seems there are gaming houles, wherein a novice may be fleeced; allo 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 reltaurateurs, at whose houses you may dine apart, and order what you please, 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 said eighty pages. He found a private opportunity of obtaining a passage in a ship for Deal; seventeen pages more bring him to the Hoop and Griffin Inn, in that sea-port, where, together with a German, the Doctor made a more comfortable breakfast than he had made at sea. 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 Balinghall-Itreet. As he says nothing to the contrary, we trust he arrived without any accident: Here our Doctor closes a narrative, from which, to the best of our ability, we have extracted the fubftance.
Betore we deliver any critical opinion on the merits of this production, we shall fimply state to our author and readers what we should have expected, in a volume of this size, upon the present subject :an accurate and Ariking view of the situation of the English detained in France; a connected sketch of the government, judicial, execuo torial, and legislative, marking the pretended privileges and real slavery of the French: a few cursory and detached stories are not sufficient for this purpose. We should have expected an elucidation of the present manners of the French, and their dispositions towards Buona. parté; also somne account of the army, both in respect to force and inclinations. We should have expected some view of the pealantry and general face of the country, to enable us to form a judgment of the domestic effects of the Consular usurpation. We should have expected, especially at Bourdeaux, an account of French commerce, with the effects of war in diminishing or precluding that blefling. We should have expected much valuable information that we have not received.
1. Among these we find one novelty, the hereveilliere Lepaux is celebrated for good intentions. , we must correct ourselves : the Anti- Jacobin entions various persons that combined. in prais: the widow and children of Brisfot are not in
This fact is mentioned by our author as a titude. We certainly will not be accused of virtue; but having formed a different estimate of the services of that republican, we do not fo