f. 431.) On both these subjects, the Dialogue before us gives fore ftrong and excellent remarks. "It is not very decent in any one, without ftrong proofs to support the affertion, to fay that the Clergy do not preach what they are exprefsly ordained, and have fo folemnly undertaken to do; that they are a fet of hypocrites, promifing one thing and doing directly the reverfe. A man fhould be pretty well able to make good his charge, before he ventures to bring a railing accufation against any one individual clergyman; but much more fo when he accufes the whole body of the Clergy of fuch grofs ignorance, prevarication, or neglect.” P. 35. On the expreffion, Evangelical Clergyman, the Country Gentleman thus interrogates his Neighbour. "Co. Gent. Do you know, Matthew, what Evangelical means? "Matth. No, I can't fay that I know any more of it than that it means one of the right fort. "Co. Gent. You are very right, Matthew. It means in their eftimation one of their own fort. It is an invidious diftinétion which they find very convenient to throw an odium upon the established Clergy, and lead the public to believe that they do not preach the truth as it is in Jefus. It is a cant word that carries with it a great deal of meaning. It is intended to convey in one word what it requires many fully to exprefs, and which every one has not the courage to fay in direct terms, that the Clergy do not preach the Gospel; and that it is only they who do. It is an artful contrivance to make you believe, Matthew, that your Clergy are heathens, and they alone believers in Christ. In its true meaning every Chriftian Minister is an Evangelical one; that is, he is a Minifter of the Glad tidings or Gospel of Chrift: and it is not only a breach of good order, and a great want of decency, to calt fuch a reflection upon a public body, even by implication, as this is intended to do, but it is as unjuft as it is indecent. The Clergy, I venture to affert, do preach the Gofpel; and though, as I before faid, they do not rant and rave like your extemporary preachers, nor are they always haranguing upon one or two points of the Gofpel, to the neglect of others which they think of importance to their hearers, they do and with great judgment, in my opinion) fo divide the word of truth, as to give to every part the portion of attention which its relative importance, and the opinions and circumftances of their hearers demand; blending Faith with Practice, the doctrinal with the practical parts of Christianity, and teaching not only what we are to believe, but what we muft do, to be faved." P. 37. Before the Dialogue concludes, fome useful remarks are made on the propriety of the Laity occafionally co-operating with the Clergy, in the manner of the Country Gentleman who is here introduced. "I do think the higher orders are not fo active as they might be in this refpect. They leave all to the clergy. They know very well how capable they are of doing what the laws of God and of their country bave entrusted to their care; and that it must be every man's own fault if he be not well informed of all which concerns his falvation. But they fhould confider, that the Clergy cannot do impoffibilities. They will do their part, if others will come to hear thein; but if thofe for whofe benefit they are appointed to mini.ter will not come within the reach reach of their admonitions, what good can they do them? If their flock are scattered about, fome here and fome there, fome wandering of their own accord, through idle curiofity, after ftrange preachers, others feduced away by the artifices and delufions of interested or enthufiaftic pretenders to greater gifts, how are the ends of their ministry to be anfwered? how, rather, are they not defeated?" P. 51. We have thus given, in fucceffion, a few of the most striking paffages of this judicious and well-conducted Dialogue; but the larger part, which we have of neceflity omitted, is, in general, of little lefs value than the parts we have felected. Let us add, that our praife is perfectly free from perfonal confiderations refpecting the author, as we know not to whom the church is indebted for this fpirited and able defence. ART. 31. A Dialogue between a Churchman and a Methodist, in which the Grounds of Communion and Separatim are fully examined, and the principal Points of Difference fairly difcuffed, with a Reference to Scripture. 12mo. 61 PP. Is. Rivingtons. 1801. This is a Dialogue in fome refpects fimilar to the former; but goes much more deeply into doctrinal difcuffions. It is written with judg ment and force, and contains an able abftract of the principal matters in difpute between the minifters of the Church of England, and thofe who profefs to be more evangelical, and more ftrict adherents to the faith of the church. It deferves attentive and general reading. a 12mo. ART. 32. Familiar Inftru&lions for Young People, relating to the Holy Festivals of the Church of England. By Clergyman. 4d. Rivingtons. 1801. This is a very useful companion to the Catechifm, in which the first origin and occafion of the feftivals of the church are briefly and perfpicuoufly explained. Such a publication is by no means unneceffary, as it often appears that catechumens are grofsly ignorant of the meaning of Advent, Epiphany, Whitfunday, and the other great pe riods of obfervance. ART. 33. A few Words on the Unreasonableness of not attending to the Chriftian Religion. 8vo. 6d. Rivingtons. 1801. Upon a fubject fo often and fo powerfully difcuffed, on which the moft exalted talents, the profoundeft erudition, and the brighteft genius, have alternately been exercifed, what novelty can poffibly be expected? Yet we are friendly to all who efteem this great and noble caufe worthy of their diligence; and may truly affert of this publication in particular, that it is a rational and forcible appeal to the understanding of every candid and unprejudiced reader. A fhort Appendix points out where the beft information may be obtained refpecting the evidences of Chriftianity; viz. from the Bishop of London, Mr. Paley, Dr. Doddridge, &c. The Bishop of Lincoin fhould have been added. ART. ART. 34. Principles of Chriftianity, as profeffed by the Eftablished Church, for the Ufe of Schools. By the Rev. Samuel Sayer, M. A. of Corpus Chrifti College, Oxford. The Second Edition. Rivingtons. 1800. 12mo. 25. This performance is of the fame defcription as that which immediately precedes, and is certainly entitled to the fame praise. The great, and indeed a serious, objection is, that the former, containing very nearly as much matter, may be had for fixpence, whereas for this two fhillings must be given. Thofe publications which are intended more immediately for the benefit of the uninftructed, and as this is profeffedly, for theufe of fchools, fhould have a moderate price fixed to them, or their end and object run a great risk of being frustrated on the threshold. POLITICS. ART. 35. Remarks on a late Publication, filed the Hiftory of the Politics of Great Britain and France, Sc. Sc. By William Belsham. 8vo. 133 pp. 3s. 6d. Robinsons. 1800. In our account of the public-fpirited and able work of Mr. Marsh, we obferved, that "it contains, not a political argument, but a clear and diftinct narrative of facts, fupported by the completeft documents." To the truth of this remark the oppofition writers, in general, have borne a ftrong though unwilling teftimony for we have not hitherto met with any one of them who ventures to controvert the facts; and scarcely one, excepting the author before us, who difputes any of the inferences contained in that publication. As our limits will not permit us to enter at large into the difcuffion of this extensive subject, we will briefly notice fome of the principal arguments in the pamphlet before us, and add a few of thofe remarks which naturally arife from them, leaving the tafk of more completely reviewing his antagonist to Mr. Marth himfelf; who, we think, has fully and fairly performed it in the fucceeding article. After a fhort Introduction, in which Mr. B. afferts, that the British minifters were "the grand and original aggreffors in this fatal quarrel," though he admits that "the French government bears its fhare of blame," he proceeds to mention the "agreement or convention," as he terms it, fupposed to have been entered into between the Emperor and King of Pruffia at Pilnitz. To his mode of stating this tranfaction we will not object (though it appears to us by no means a fair one) fince the author adinits that Great Britain was not a party to it. He adds, in this part of the tract, fome ftriking inftances of the infolence of the ruling party in France, and pacific temper of the king and minifters of Great Britain, Thus the writer before us proceeds, acquit *See Brit. Crit. vol. xv. p. 1700 BRIT, CRIE, VOL. XVIII, NOV. 1801. ting ting Great Britain of an original difpofition to hoftility (although he has afferted that our administration were the "grand and original aggrors") and admitting, one inftance excepted, the offenfive conduct of the French National Affembly, till May 1, 1792, when he fets forth the letter of the King of France to his Majefty, fuggefting the expediency of an alliance between the two kingdoms. This he is pleafed to confider (on what grounds he has not condefcended to inform us) as a moft "glorious opportunity of advancing to a height before unknown, and of eftablishing on a broad and folid bafis the great and permanent interefts of mankind." He does not, however, dwell much on the non-compliance with this propofition, as an accufation againft the British minifters. But the true fpirit of the democratic writer foon afterwards appears: for, though no blame is imputed to the Proclamation against feditious writings, yet when he comes to the infidious propofal (for we can give it no better term) made in the name of the unfortunate Louis XVI, by his "virtuous and patriotic minifters," of the Briffotine faction, that our Sovereign fhould interpofe his mediation between France and the allied powers, his Majefty's anfwer, declining that office, unlefs defired by all parties, excites the vehement indignation of this author. It incurred, we find, the cenfure of " that moft able writer and ftatefman, Philip Francis, Efq." in his "Queftion as it ftood in 1798." We know not in what terms to characterize this uncandid and prepofterous inference of a hoftile difpofition to one party, from the refufal to interfere in a difpute, without the leaft right, to judge the conduct of independent ftates, and incur the hazard of war on the one hand, or contempt and difgrace on the other, in order to flatter a fet of upftart demagogues, manifeftly hoftile to our government and country. Such would have been the conduct of minifters, had they acceded to the propofal of fuch a partial and unjuft mediation. The arguments by which this opinion is fupported appears to us as fophiftical as the opinion itfelf is extravagant and abfurd. The next proceeding of minifters noticed in the pamphlet, is the recal of Earl Gower immediately after the maffacres of the 10th of Auguft, 1792 (inftigated by the virtuous and patriotic friends of this author) the depofition of the French King, and the abolition of all regular and legal government. As this charge is, in our opinion, fully and fatisfactorily anfwered by Mr. Marfh, we will only teftify our indignation at the unneceffary (in this place) and audacious calumny refpecting the injured Louis XVI; a calumny, to which all the fophiftry and mifreprefentation, all the fraud and falfehood of his enemies, at his trial, could not give even the semblance of truth. The next remarkable statement in this pamphlet is that of the Addreffes by the Patriotic Societies (as the author terms them) of England to the National Convention. Thefe, he admits, were filled with bold, infolent, and feditions expreffions: he alfo admits that answers were returned to them in a congenial spirit, and he fets forth the famous, or rather infamous, decree of the 19th November, adding, that "on the * See Brit, Crit, vol. xiii. p. 440. 28th of the fame month, the Prefident of the Convention, in reply to "that the moment no a feditious address from England," declared, doubt approached in which the French would bring congratulations to the National Convention of Great Britain." After this strong but juft ftatement, what fhall we fay to the writer, who informs his readers, that *Parliament was fummoned, no one could tell why the militia called out to fight, no one could tell whom an explofion hourly expected, no one could tell where," &c. &c. &c.? When a writer has given fuch decifive evidence of aggreffion on the part of France, and of a plot formed against the British government by foreign enemies and domeftic traitors united (not to mention other proofs) what but the blindest infatuation, the most violent party zeal, can condemn those measures of precaution which alone, in the opinion of every unprejudiced and reflecting mind, preferved the country? The Alien Bill, the bill to prevent fwindling by means of affignats, &c. are next condemned, of courfe but the chief topic of the author is the negotiation, or correfpondence, between Lord Grenville and M. Chauvelin. Here too the writer's inferences, in a great degree, contradict some of his own admiffions; and, where they do not, have been often combated and refuted. We are indeed furprised that a diplomatic intercourfe could continue fo long when one of the parties, in the outset, denied all force to the most folemn guarantees, and contradicted the moft undoubted principles of the law of nations. Much reafoning of the fame kind follows: but thefe are, we trust, fufficient fpecimens of Mr. B.'s arguments. We now advert to his opponent's reply. : ART. 36. The Hiftory of the Politics of Great Britain and France vinBy Herbert dicated from a late Attack of Mr. William Belfbam. Marsh, B. D. F. R. S. and Fellow of St. John's College, Cambridge. 8vo. 136 pp. 35. Stockdale. 1801. Our opinion of Mr. Belham's Remarks, to which this publication is a reply, may be collected from the preceding article; but we took notice of a few only of that writer's statements and reasonings, leaving the remainder to be difcuffed by his able antagonist, Mr. March. To this yindication is prefixed an Introduction, recapitulating the principal facts proved in Mr. Marfh's Hiftory; after which, Mr. M. obferves, "unlefs an adverfary can prove that the facts themselves are unfounded, it feems ufelefs to perfift in denying the confequence." Mr. Belfham, he adds, is fo far from having done this," that he has made many conceffions in regard to points on which the gentlemen of his party ufed very ftrenuously to infitt." Thefe conceffions are enumerated, and they clofe with the remarkable one, that "had France uniformly acted upon a system of moderation and difcretion, it would indeed have been extremely cafy, as M. Dumouriez juftly affirms, to have avoided a war with England." The inference drawn by Mr. Marth, that it was the immoderation and indifcretion of the French rulers that gave birth to the prefent war," appears to us incontrovertibly juft. Equally well-founded is his cenfure on the concluding affertion of his adverfary, "that the British minifters ftand charged before God and conteft;" their country for precipitating the nation into a deltructive and ruinous Nnz |