the conclusion of the War. By John Bowles, Esq." 8vo. Pr. 18. 6d. Rivingtons. 1802.

THE pamphlet from which these excellent " Remarks" are selected was reviewed by us, on its first appearance; and we are now happy to see this feparation of the moral from the political reflections of the author. This little tract contains many useful admonitions, and many melancholy truths. The fubject difcuffed in it is of the highest importance to fociety, and, on this account, it cannot be too generally circulated, nor too deeply studied.

REVIEWERS REVIEWED.

A Letter to a Sound Member of the Church, with a Supplement, containing Two Letters sent to the Editors of the "Christian Observer," with an Address to the Readers of that Miscellany, on a gross Misrepresentation of a Passage in the Appendix to the Guide to the Church. By the Rev. Charles Daubeny, Author of the Guide and Appendix, &c. Fellow of Winchefter College, and Minifter of Chrift Church, Bath. 8vo. Pr. 66. Riving

HE grofs mifreprefentation of Mr. Daubeny's opinion, on an important fubject, which gave rife to this publication, appeared in the "Chriftian Obferver" for the month of march laft; and would certainly have been duly noticed by us had we not been early apprized of Mr. Daubeny's determination to defend his own caufe; and, affuredly, no Chriftian champion was better qualified for attacking the enemies, or for defending the friends of our pure establishment. It was perfectly confiftent with the plan of the Chriftian Obferver, who meant to establish the Calvinittic doctrines of Mr. Overton as the true ftandard of Chriftian perfection, to make every attempt to depreciate the writings of Mr. Daubeny, and to lower them in the publie eftimation, because they fupply every member of the church with incontrovertible arguments, to oppofe and to confute thefe very doc trines. Fortunately, led away by that headstrong impetuofity, that uncontroulable arrogance, and that boundlefs confidence, which peculiarly mark the Schifmatic in the church, they betrayed the cloven foot too foon, and, not content with proceeding by the flow procefs of sapping and mining, endeavoured to carry the citadel by ftorm. When preted, however, by Mr. D. they fhuffled, thifted their ground, and had recourfe to the most paltry and most diflioneft fubterfuges and evasions. That our readers may be enabled to form a juft eftimate of their conduct, we fhall lay before them the two letters which Mr. Daubeny addressed to them, and which they did not find it expedient to publish.

"First Letter sent to the Editor of the Christian Observer.'

"SIR,-A friend has juft favoured me with a fight of your Chriftian Obferver' for March, 1802, on account of my name having been introducedinto it in your review of the Anti-Jacobin Review. Were I to form a general judgment of your publication from the fpecimen here given of your manner of quoting from authors, I might perhaps do it injuftice. I therefore wave all general judgment, and confine myfelf to that particular subject, to which I am competent to speak with decifion.

G 4

" After

6

"After having obferved that Unbelievers have condemned, as abfurd and hypocritical, all regard for Christianity, except as a mere external thing; that men of the world have practically denied all that is spiritual in religion; and that Diflenters, with a view to depreciate the Eftablishment, have intinuated that our religion chiefly contitis in Forms,' you proceed to fay, with a view of conveying a fimilar idea to the reader, that Mr. Daubeny has maintained that the fpirituality of divine worship is not essential to the being of the Church of Chrift.' From thefe premifes the reader is led to the conclution, that in the opinion of Unbelievers, of Men of the World, of Diffenters, and of Mr. Daubeny, the religion of our Church is a religion of form rather than of spirit. On this ground you proceed to draw a long parade of circumftantial evidence for the purpofe of proving a position, which, it is prefumed, no intelligent Minister of our Church ever really meant to contradict; namely, that God as a Spirit must be worthipped in fpirit and truth; and that (mutatis mutandis) the circumcifion of the heart, in the fpirit, and not in the letter, marks the real character of the Chriftian, as it heretofore did that of the Jew; and confequently, that every other kind of religion, but spiritual, is not only defective but ruinous.'

"Such, Sir, being my decided opinion, I was a little furprized to fee my authority adduced in apparent contradiction to it. But as infallibility does not belong to man, it is poflible that my language may not always convey the precife idea of my mind. In all fuch ca'es I feel obliged to any one who furnishes me with an opportunity for explanation: more particularly when the idea conveyed, or fuppofed to be conveyed, refpects the effentials of religion. And this, I prefume, muft be the fentiment of every man whofe object is truth. Thus thankful to receive candid information from any quarter, I expect that treatment to which every writer, open to conviction has a claim; namely, that equity of conftruction fhould always accompany the animadverfions of my reader. And to this end I must neceffarily be read, as I have written.

Whether fuch has been the cafe in the publication to which my attention has been directed, I cannot take upon myfelf pofitively to affirm; becaufe for want of your having-marked the page from which your quotation is taken, I feel myself at fome lofs to decide upon its authenticity. Still, Sir, as the paffage is to be met with in page 482 of the Appendix to the Guide,' is the only one I can find after much fearching, that bears refemblance to your quotation; I fhall proceed on the prefumption that it is to that part of my writings that reference has been made.

"You fay, Sir, Mr. D. has maintained that fpirituality of divine worfhip is not essential to the being of the Church of Chrift.In the foregoing apparent quotation from my writings, the word essential is printed in italics, as the word to which the eye of the reader is meant to be directed; and from which the reader is led to infer, that the fpirituality of divine worship in Mr. D.'s opinion is not a matter of primary importance in the Christian Church. At leaft fuch, it is conceived, is the conclufion to which a fentence thus conftructed would lead the generality of readers.

"We will now, Sir, with your leave, examine how far fuch a conclufion can be drawn from the paffage, as it ftands in my book.-One of the principal objects in view in the 8th Letter of the Appendix, from whence, it is prefumed, your quotation has been made, was to counteract the loofe notions that are now induftriously propagated respecting the unity of the Church, on the ground that wherever an allembly of perfons is to be

7

found

found worthipping God in the spirit, there is the Church. This idea, it was renaked in an early part of this Letter, favoured ftrongly of the old puritan doctrine of letting up the purity of the Church against the establishment of it; as if they were two things not to be found together." Whereas unity of doctrine (as you read in page 469 of this fame Letter) is certainly an essential ingredient' necellary (if we may fo fay) to the compolition of the unity of the Church; but it is not the only ingredient. There must be allo added to it unity in worthip, and unity in diicipline. Without a combination of all thefe feveral circumitances, the Church cannot be faid to be at unity in itfelf.

Following the fame train of reafoning, and with the fame object in view, I fay, page 476, that a doctrine that cries up purity to the ruin of unity, ought to be rejected; because the Gofpel calls for unity as well as, purity; and all the found Members of the Etablished Church in this country, worship God in the spirit.'-Still with the view of pointing out the falle diftinction which has been attempted to be made between the national Church of this country and the Church of Chrift, I proceed to tay, page 480, that placing the bishop in oppofition to the collection of believers, by which is meant the Government of the Church in oppofition to the Doctrine of it, is unneceflarily to put asunder what God has joined together.'

"Proceeding with my argument on this important fubject, with the view of pointing out the established Conftitution of the Church, as the divine provision for the prefervation of evangelic Truth in the world, I arrive at the important page, 482; from whence, it is prefumed, the partial extract has been taken; where I fay, in refutation of the fame abfurd idea of setting up the purity of the Church against the conftitution of it; That the fpirituality of divine worship is effential to the very Being and Constitution of a Church, is more than will be granted.'-In this fhort fentence, on the fuppofition that your quotation bears on this particular point; (and if it does not, I will thank you to let me right) I discover not lefs than three particulars, in which your edition of my language departs from the original.-In the first place, the word very prefixed to Being, and the word Constitution are omitted in your quotation; whilft the fignificant italics, which in the original are confined to the words very Being and Constitution, you have transferred to the word essential; by which alteration it will be perceived by any intelligent reader, that the particular meaning, defigned to be conveyed by the fentence before us, is totally changed.-Still, Sir, had you proceeded with the fentence, the meaning of the author on this occafion, eould not poffibly have been miftaken. The reafon why the fpirituality of divine worthip cannot be admitted to be ellential to the very Being and Constitution of the Church is, as I proceed to fay, plainly this, because the Church of Chrift has, at different times, been permitted to exift without it.' -It is for you to inform the public, why the latter branch of a sentence, evidently defigned as an explanatory comment on the former part of it, has been omitted in this cafe. It is for me to fay in juftice to myself, that had my language been reported by you as it was delivered by me to the public, it could not have ferved your purpose. It could not, by any mode of conftruction you might think fit to adopt, have authorized you, in the judgment of any intelligent and candid reader, to have drawn an opinion from me, that could in the leaft degree correspond with that which, you fay, infide's, worldlings, and diffenters, entertain of the worthip in the Chriftian Church,

• By

90

6

"By the word essential, in the general acceptation of it, is understood, either what is neceffary to the conftitution and existence of any thing; or what is principal and important in the highest degree. The fpirituality of divine worship, I fay then in the first place, is not effential to the very being For were this the cafe, the Church could and constitution of the Church. never exist without it. But the contrary is the fact. I inftance in the Church of Rome at prefent, in which the fpirituality of divine worship has in a great degree been superseded, by the opus operatum of mere form. Still the Church of Rome exists. I inftance alfo in the Church of Sardis of old; which, as you fay, from the very beft authority, had a name to live and was dead. In this condition the fpirituality of divine worthip must be fupposed to have departed from it. The Church, however, was ftill permitted to remain in Sardis; because in this state of corruption, the was exhorted to remember, how the had received and heard, and to repent.' Therefore the fpirituality of divine worship, is not effential to the very Being and Constitution of the Church. But in the fentence immediately fubjoined to that from which your extract is taken, my words are thefe: Had you faid, that the fpirituality of divine worship was effential to the perfection of a Church, you would have faid no more than what would have been univerfally admitted.' The fpirituality of divine worship then, though not effential to the constitution of a Church, is nevertheless effential to the perfec tion of it. It is that which is principal and important in the higheft degree; that, without which, the end for which the Church has been established, cannot, fo far as the cafe applies, be effectually anfwered. Without it the Church may exift in any place, fo long as it be the will of Heaven that the fhould; but, under fuch circumstances, the exifts in corruption.

"The position confequently fairly deducible from my words taken together, if I understand myfelf, conveys, as I conceive, a fenfe the very oppofite to that apparently meant to be drawn by your readers from that mutilated quotation, on the ground of which you have felt yourself justified in ranking the author of a Guide to the Church,' with unbelievers, worldlings, and diffenters; whofe object it is, in your words, to depreciate the Eftablishment.'-I fay, Sir, that the fpirituality of divine worship is effential to the perfection of the Church; fo far from Chriftianity being an external thing, or a mere form, as you would give your reader from me to underftand, I confider that the fpirituality of it is that thing of primary im portance, which the Being of the Church was defigned to preferve; that fo fay, of which the Conftitution of the Church is valuable kernel, if 1 may

the shell.

"Having thus laid the fubject at iffue between us (I truft fairly) before you, I leave the judgment with the public.

"I fhall only take leave to obferve in conclufion, that whenever an author is quoted on a fubject by which his reputation may be affected, the page from which the extract is made should be marked, for the purpose of giving the reader an opportunity of comparing and judging for himself. A pailage, generally fpeaking, depends fo much on its context, that a partial extract ofttimes exhibits a very falfe, or at least imperfect image of an author's mind. By quoting only one branch of a connected fentence, and by adopting the method you have thought fit to adopt on this occafion, of leaving out, and putting in, ad libitum, the Bible itself may be made to fpeak blafphemy. I would obferve further, that every quotation by which the fentiments of an author, or an important fubject, ftand committed,

thould

fhould be literally correct. Every mutilation of fenfe, every omiffion or even tranfpofition of words, or alteration of mark, by which the meaning origi naily intended to be conveyed may be altered, is a fpecies of polemical difhonefty, which can do no credit to any caufe; and to which, it might be hoped, Members of the Eftablished Church would never have recourse.

"This Letter, as you perceive, has been written on the prefumption that I am not mistaken in the paliage alluded to on this occafion. But fhould it to happen that your attention has been directed to fome other paffage, which, literally taken, juftifies the conclufion you appear to have drawn; I fhall think myself obliged, if you would give me an opportunity of correcting incautious language, which has fuggefted an idea to foreign to my decided fentiments. In the other cafe, Sir, I call on you as a Mem ber of the Eftablished Church, to do juftice to a Minifter of that Church, by inferting this Letter in your next number; leaving you to account for your milconception of my meaning in the way you may judge moft credit able to your publication. I am, Sir, &c. &c.

"Bath, April 20, 1802." "CHARLES DAUBENY." "The information communicated in the fucceeding number of the "Christian Obierver," that the above Letter had arrived too late for infertion in it, and that the pallage (supposed to have been a quotation from my writings) certainly ought not to have been marked with inverted commas,' and therefore was not to be understood as fuch; but that the editors of the " Christian Obferver" were still of opinion that the representation given in it of my sentiments was correct; drew after it the following Letter.'

"Second Letter sent to the Editor of the " Christian Observer.”

"Sir,-In the fuppofed extract from my writings in your number for the month of March, I am made to maintain, that the fpirituality of divine worship is not essential to the being of the Church of Chrift.'-In my Letter fent to you for infertion in the course of last month, I fay, in decided oppofition to the conclufion obvious to be drawn from the above fuppofed extract," that the fpirituality of divine worship is essential to the perfection of the Church; fo far from Christianity being an external thing, or a mere form, I confider that the fpirituality of it is that thing of primary importance, which the Being of the Church was defigned to preferve; that valuable kernel, if I may to lay, of which the conftitution of the Church is the shell; and, confequently (to make ufe of your own words on the fubject) that every kind of religion but spiritual is not only defective but ruinous.'

"In your acknowledgments to Correfpondents in your number for the month of April, you fay, in direct contradiction to the above decided declaration on my part, that you are still of opinion, that the representation given of my fentiments,' in the fuppofed extract here alluded to, is correct.' "As a Minifter of that Established Church, of which you profefs yourfelf to be a Member, I have to expect, therefore, that you will do juftice to me, to yourself, and more efpecially to the caufe of truth, (of which, it is prefumed we would both be confidered honeft advocates,) by pointing out expressly, by way of Appendix to the infertion of my Letters in your next number, that part of my writings, which will authorize the reprefentation you have given of my fentiments; and thereby furnish me with an opportunity of publicly and effectually counteracting the prevalence of that moft fatal delufion, into which unguarded language may have been inftrumental in leading my readers. I am, Sir, your moft obedient Servant,

Bath, May 11, 1802."

CHARLES DAUBENY."

"Conclusion