to me." Now it was very neceffary that the ChirurgoMedicus fhould entertain this negative opinion, because he had previoufly faid, "a man must be an ideot who pays any attention to them." We fhall leave the character of reviews to the judgment of the public; and fhall only observe, that, till this avowal of J. Defgenette, C. M., we did not conceive that any author could be found fo devoid of feeling, so enamoured of his own dullness, fo attached to error, as to arm himself with affared indifference against cenfure, which had he not been confcious of deferving, he would not have anticipated. Perhaps he had. never conned a happy line of Pope,

No creature feels fo little as a fool;'

or perhaps he is one of those envious beings to whom • Genius and merit are a fure offence,

And his foul fickens at the name of fenfe.'

In whichfoever predicament he may be, his cafe is hopelefs; the purport of his pamphlet is too obvious to require many words expofing it.

It feems that the Eau Medicinale, patronized by Dr. Jones and Co. is in fufficient demand to excite the cupidity of other profeffional gentlemen; but as the firm fupported by Dr. Jones has got the precedence, Monfieur Degenette begins by infinuating fome doubts of their being in poffeffion of the true Eau Medicinale. He denies that it was difcovered by Huffon, and afferts that it was firft recommended by a medical man of the name of Le Catt, and that the virtues of the herb have been known upwards of a century; he offers however no proof or authority for this ftatement. He then beftows fome pages of abufe on Dr. Jones's account of the noftrum, which we are not disposed to repeat.

An extract in the author's own words will fufficiently explain his chief motive for writing this moft extraordinary treatise. "As to the depôt, established for the fale of the Eau Medicinale, I hope the true article will be fold there with proper directions. If I had been satisfied that all was true that is fold there, I should never have troubled myself to have procured it from France, &c."

This infinuation that the noftrum vended by Befort and Co. is not genuine, is fupported by an appropriate cafe.

"Monfieur Defgenette, gave a patient afflicted with gout two bottles of his Eau Medicinale; the man took the remedy, and got well. In about a month afterwards, having a pain in the knee,

knee, he procured a bottle of the Eau Medicinale from Befort and Co., and Monfieur Defgenette afferts that it produced fuch a violent effect on the ftomach and bowels, that it was fuppofed that he could not poffibly live many hours. For the veracity of this statement we are referred to Monfieur Defgenette's Agent l'

Two other perfons advertise that they are in poffeffion of the true Eau Medicinale. This is perhaps of little confequence to the public; but the queftion of the nature and effects of the medicine is of much. It will be feen that our reliance on it is small, but we do not yet pretend to decide. We only give a warning, which to us appears neceffary, and leave the reft to time and experiment.

6

Before we conclude, we think it right to exprefs our anxious hope, that in our animadverfions on J. Defgenette, C. M. we have not been betrayed into a mistake respecting his identity; for throughout his treatife, the name of another equally refpectable perfonage, continually obtruded itself on our affociative faculty; in fhort, Dr. Richard Reece was never abfent from our thoughts. This may partly be owing to the frong impreffion which a recent perufal of the writings of this induftrious gentleman has left on our "cerebral fyftem." Dr. Richard Reece remarks in the preface to his medical guide, that Phyficians are no more than the appendages of luxury.' Monf. Defgenette, in his introduction, obferves, that in Germany Phyficians are confidered as appendages to luxury.' Dr. Reece mentions that Dr. Latham, in a late differtation, denies that gout is an hereditary difeafe. Monf. Defgenette fays, an English phyfician fometime fince, in a treatife on gout, afferted that the gout is not an hereditary disease.' In both authors we find much filly abuse in nearly identical terms, of regular practitioners; both of them attempt to unite phyfic and furgery in one practice; and both affert that phyficians enter into mercenary agreements with apothecaries and chemists; further they both unite in opinion, that a well-educated apothecary is a better and fafer practitioner than a physician. We might alfo notice fome fmaller coincidences, fuch as, the fame printer delivering the prefs of the lucubrations of both these chemical affociates, and our having within a few weeks, obferved the name of Reece and Co. to decorate that portion of the shop at the corner of Bridge-ftreet, Parliamentftreet, which is now adorned with the firm of Fofter and Co. at which depôt, in fact, the treatife of J. Defgenette is C.c vended

BRIT. CRIT. VOL. XXXVII, APRIL, 1811.

vended. A fmall publication, called the Medical Com pendium, is alfo vended by Dr. Reece, at his Medical Hall, in Henrietta-ftreet; and in the medical intelligence of that work, of which he is understood to be the editor, we find inferted the following interesting article,

"Meffrs. Fofter and Co. Chemifts, the corner of Bridge. ftreet, Parliament-ftreet, have juft received a quantity of the trus Eau Medicinale D'Huffon, for the ufe of the faculty.

Le mafque tombe, l'homme refte.

ART. XIII. Effays on the first Principles of Religion; on the proper Method of establishing found Doctrine from the facred Oracles; and on the Illuftration and fcientific Arrangement of the Chriftian Syftem, by James Smith, Minifter, Dundee. In two Volumes. Vol. 2d. 8vo. pp. 400. Hatchard. 1810.

OF

F the former volume of thefe Effays, as well as of their author, the reader will find fome account in our 31ft volume. We there mentioned, on the moft unquestionable authority, fome prior efforts of Mr. Smith in the cause of true religion, which appeared to us entitled to the approbation of the Church to which he belonged; and we ventured to exprefs our hope that the Effays then before us. would be equally approved by that Church, and procure general refpect to him by whom they were written. We cannot let ourselves fuppofe that these hopes have not been realized; though it appears from fome pathetic complaints fcattered through the volume now under our review, that a prodigious outcry was raifed against the author for some of the doctrines taught in his firft volume. This was indeed. nothing more than he had reafon to expect from that party (if there be fuch a party) in the Church of Scotland, which he calls fanatical Calvinifts. Such Calvinifts every where accufe of the groffeft herefy, the man who attempts to ascertain the precife meaning of undefined terms, reconcile the peculiar doctrines of revelation to the moral atttributes of God; or who prefumes to lay afide a favourite phrafe for another lefs liable to abufe, though of the fame. import. The enlightened part of the Church of Scotland must however have approved, we think, of the author's intention, even when they could not approve of some of his

or to

opinions;

opinions; and have admitted the correctnefs of thofe rules which he laid down for the interpretation of facred fcripture, as well as for the establishing of a fyftem of fcriptural doctrines or principles, though they might think that in his practice he had fometimes deviated from his own rules.

A fimilar fate undoubtedly awaits the volume before us; though it will be vain for that party, which, from analogy,we are inclined to call Prefbyterian true Churchmen, to raise again an outcry against an author, who cannot hear it. Mr. Smith, we are informed, has gone to give an account of his miniftry to the Divine Mafter, whom he seems to have ferved with fincerity, and with what to himself appeared to be the truth. This, while it fhould filence the tongue of obloquy, may likewife induce the candid to purchase a work, which is certainly worth the reading; and of which the fale must be an object to a family, which, as it cannot be supposed to have been left in affluence, 'will probably be neglected by thofe zealots, whofe refentment cannot now reach its original object. To contribute what we can to pro mote fo good a purpose, we fhall give a fair view of the con tents of the volume before us-nothing extenuating, nor fetting down aught in malice"-perfectly convinced that it is finful to talk or write deceitfully even for a good end.

Our readers fhould know that this second volume is the third part of Mr. Smith's propofed work, to which by the bye he has not given exactly the fame title in this as in the former volume. It was there called Essays on the first Prin ciples of Chriflianity, &c., and has here the mor compre. henfive title of Effays on the firft Principles of Religion, &c., but the third part of the work is here called hat it was there promised to be, A Theological Syftem, to which are prefixed four preliminary Effays. Thefe are: 1. On the causes of different theological opinions among Chriftians. 2. On the principal errors of popular fyftems, especially the fyftem of Calvin. 3. On what the author calls Nominal Calvinifts; and the oppofite extremes of Arminianifm and Calvinism: and 4. On rules for establishing a fyflem of doctrines from the Scriptures, which are here more fully explained, he says, than in the former volume.

We cannot, with truth, fay that these preliminary Effays are of much value. Of the caules, affigned in the firft, for the different theological opinions prevalent among Chriftians, the laft only is at once real, and accurately expreffed. It is not true that the Fathers of the first century endeavoured to defend their religion upon the principles of a falfe philofophy; unless by Fathers Mr. Smith meant Cerinthus and

Cc 2

the

error;

"

זי.

the other Herefiarchs of that century; for the few Fathers, Clement, Ignatius, and Polycarp, whose writings have come down to us, feem to have been ftrangers to the philofophy of the age in which they lived *. It is very true, as the author fays, that "the prejudices and paffions of human nature are a fertile fource of theological controversy and but this can be information to no man, who has ever read any thing on the theory of religion; and the only thing worthy of difcuffion, is how fuch prejudices can be eradicated from the mind. When the author gives as a third reafon for the prevailing diverfity of theological opinions; that though the human mind were divefted of prejudice, the grand and deep fubjects of revelation are above the comprehension of man in his prefent flate," we are not fure that we understand him. There are certainly many things revealed in Scripture which we cannot fully comprehend; but there can be nothing in that volume, or any where else, of which it is our duty to form the fame opinion, at the very time that we cannot form of it any opinion. When the author fays, that "the doctrines of Chriftianity muft be tried by their conformity to the revealed will of God, and not by their fuitableness to the dictates of human wifdom," he expreffes himself very improperly; for the doctrines of genuine Chriftianity are themfelves the revealed: will of God. His meaning, probably, is, that the doctrine laid down in the confeffions of particular churches must be tried by their conformity to the revealed will of God; and this is an unquestionable and most important truth. The laft caufe which he affigns for the great diverfity of theological opinions, is, to a certain degree, undoubtedly real.

It is the imperfection of language. "Words," as he obferves," are the arbitrary figns of natural objects; but the Scriptures employ them as figns, or figures, of spiritual things," and for this purpose they must be employed in an analogical fenfe. But, though thefe difficulties be great, they are not," as he truly adds, "infurmountable; and while they account for diverfity of opinion among Chriftians, they point out to the ftudent of theology, how much

* We do not quote Barnabas or Hermas, because the learned are not agreed whether the epiftle attributed to the former, and the Paftor or Shepherd of the latter, be altogether spurious or only corrupted. In the Epiftle there is much allegorical interpretation of Scripture, and in the Paftor many vifions, real or pretended; but in neither is there any thing like philofophy, either falfe or true,

diligent