thoroughly furnished practitioner, and his profound researches into the anatomy of morbid parts, are attested by his work on that subject, with its admirable apparatus of exquisite engravings, and by the extensive collection of anatomical preparations which he presented to the College of Physicians. He absolutely made disease picturesque by the extraordinary beauty of the graphic illustrations attached to his work on morbid anatomy; and he established the correctness of the representation by giving permanency to the parts in their diseased condition. His education was highly advantageous. The Hunters were his maternal uncles, and his studies were carefully directed by Dr. William Hunter. In person and manner, Dr. Baillie presented no very remarkable or dignified feature; but there was about him altogether, a marked character of simplicity and strong sense, that gave almost implicit confidence in the soundness of his views. The following characteristic anecdote is given in the present memoir.

• During his latter years, when he had retired from all but consultation practice, and had ample time to attend to each individual case, he was very deliberate, tolerant, and willing to listen to whatever was said to him by the patient; but when in the hurry of great business, when his day's work, as he was used to say, amounted to seventeen hours, he was sometimes rather irritable, and betrayed a want of temper in hearing the tiresome details of an unimportant story. After listening, with torture, to a prosing account from a lady, who ailed so little that she was going to the opera that evening, he had happily escaped from the room, when he was urgently requested to step up stairs again; it was to ask him whether, on her return from the opera, she might eat some oysters: "Yes, Ma'am," said Baillie, "shells and all."

On the whole, though we cannot use very emphatic language in praise of the gold-headed cane,' we have been gratified with its perusal. The idea is much better than the execution; and it is to be regretted that more vivacity and research have not been employed in the composition of a work which might have been so written as to convey valuable information in an attractive form.

Art. VI. 1. Historical Summary of Facts attending the Conversion of His Highness the Prince of Salm-Salm from the Roman Catholic Religion to the Christian Evangelical Worship of the Confession of Augsbourgh, on May 17, 1826. With an Appendix: containing the Motives which induced that Change of Communion. Translated from the Original. By the Rev. W. A. Evanson, M. A. Lecturer of St. Luke's, Old Street. 8vo. pp. viii. 64. Price 2s. 6d. London. 1827.

2. An Authentic Narrative of the Conversion to the Protestant Faith and of the Death of J. A. Cadiot, late Vicar of Gurat and Vaux in the Department of Charente in France. Translated from the French. 12mo. pp. 96. Price 3s. London. 1827.

FOR the appearance of this very interesting memoir re

lating to the conversion of the Prince of Salm-Salm, in an English translation, we are, it seems, indebted to a blundering misconstruction put by Mr. Evanson upon a speech made by the Duke of Montebello, as reported in a newspaper. The words attributed to the Duke were these: We have much ' pleasure in knowing that in other countries are to be found men with whom justice and toleration are something more than mere words. These men are numerous in France. And again: Let me now wish you the blessing of emancipation, not only in my own name, but also in that of my friends, and of all liberal France.' Mr. Evanson seems to have misunderstood this last expression, by which the Duke obviously meant neither more nor less than all liberal men in France, as if it implied the assertion that all France had become liberalized; and he has ingeniously misconstrued the statement, that in that country are to be found numerous friends of toleration, into a hollow boast of liberality on the part of the Roman Catholic Church! Accordingly, struck with the ⚫ extraordinary contradiction' which this Narrative appeared to furnish to the Duke's speech, Mr. Evanson determined to give it immediate publicity in an English translation, in order to expose the inconsistency between the professions and the practice of the Roman Catholic Church.' We are extremely glad that he has given it publicity, inasmuch as the narrative itself is both curious and important; we are only surprised that he should have been determined in the publication by so very inadequate and inferior a motive. The Duke de Montebello could never have meant to attribute liberality to the French priesthood; for scarcely a week passes without some flagrant demonstration of that besotted bigotry and intolerance by which the clergy are taking all possible pains to render themselves odious to the great body of the French nation.

We have yet to learn that the Roman Catholic Church has made any professions of liberality, which can lay her open to the charge of inconsistency. But Mr. Evanson should recollect, that ecclesiastical intolerance and political intolerance are not quite the same thing. The French Government is in some measure controlled and embarrassed by a dark, intolerant, antisocial priestly faction; but it does not deserve to be stigmatised as itself intolerant. In the instance of the Prince of Salm-Salm, the arbitrary and invidious manner in which the alien law was put in force, may be traced to this sinister influence. But such a case of grievance and impolitic injustice on the part of the Minister, does not appear to us to warrant the strong inference which Mr. Evanson would draw from it as to the general character of the French Government, and the nullity of the professed tolerance secured by the Charter. Our own alien law is but little in unison with the spirit of the British Constitution; and we should be very sorry. to have some of the oppressive acts of Lord Londonderry's government, in the exercise of the powers vested in Administration by that law, adduced as specimens of the tender mercies of Englishmen. Besides, as a case of hardship, injus-` tice, and bigotry, the expulsion of the Prince cannot for a moment bear comparison with the persecuting edicts of the Lausanne Protestant Government. It is therefore unwise, to say the least, to fasten upon such an instance of Roman Catholic intolerance, as if the Papists were unprovided with a rejoinder. Such,' says Mr. Evanson, are the tender mercies which Protestants may expect, if Papists be invested with political power in Great Britain.' How easy and obvious the retort, after reading such a case of brutal intolerance as the conduct of the Lausanne Council towards M. Juvet, narrated in our last number-Such are the tender mercies which Papists might expect, were Calvinists invested with political power. And truly, the outcry against intolerance comes with wonderful grace from any man who seems to think, that there is no better mode of maintaining the ascendancy of the Protestant religion than by penal enactments.

Mr. Evanson would have done well, we think, to leave alone the subject of Catholic Emancipation; and, indeed, had he sent out the narrative unaccompanied with either note or comment, the publication would have lost nothing of its instructive character. Our detestation of intolerance, under any form or from any quarter, is, we imagine, as sincere and warm as his own can be; nor are we disposed to say a word in extenuation of the proceedings of either the ecclesiastical or the civil authorities in this business. Still, it is but fair to remark, VOL. XXVII. N.S. 2 P

that the Prefect said to the Prince among other things: If you were not a prince, there need nothing be said on the 'subject.' If this was truly said, it would go far to prove, that a commoner would have met with no obstacle or disturbance from the Government, in renouncing the Roman Catholic faith for the Protestant. The ordonnance of the King of France was professedly founded on the peculiar circumstances of the case, the convert being a foreign Catholic prince.' Had he been a native of any rank, it does not appear that his conduct would have been cognizable by the State. That the Prince was most unfairly dealt by in being treated as an alien, must be admitted; but the having recourse to such an expedient, as well as the reasons assigned for the act, prove, that whatever intolerance may exist in certain high quarters, that spirit is laid under restrictions both by the laws and by the spirit of the times and the state of public opinion. In this point of view, some consolation is to be derived from the illustration which such a case affords, of the progress of tolerant principles in countries where neither the Church nor the Government is supposed to favour them.

་

The conduct of Professor Haffner and M. Steinbach, in endeavouring to dissuade the Prince from his noble purpose, though evidently dictated by a feeling of kindness, and certainly disinterested, betrayed a miserably defective notion of Christian rectitude. Remain as you are,' they said, 'according to your convictions, which are conformable with ours; you will equally attain happiness hereafter. Have regard to 'the health of your wife, whose affection for you is so tender; do not purchase at such a price the exterior forms of our 'Church. It is not the least singular feature in the transaction, that the Princess, herself a Protestant, alarmed for the consequences to herself and family, exerted all her influence to induce her husband to change, or, at least, to defer his purposes; but in vain. The temporizing policy recommended to him by the Protestant pastors, he rejected with abhorrence, and their language drew from him a cutting rebuke. You ⚫ wish then a person to be nothing-to have no form of worship -and not to adhere fearlessly to that which he recognizes as the most conformable to the Church founded by Jesus Christ and his apostles. Well, let us say no more on the subject.' Pastor Steinbach, who has the candour to state the arguments he used, and the rebuke he met with, in a letter to the Princess, acknowledged in reply, that he could not but approve of his Highness's sentiments, adding: I certainly never thought that 'you ought to appear any thing but what you really are: I am as much an enemy as your Highness to every species of hypo

crisy, and I dare no longer reject the request you have made of being admitted into our Church.'

Towards the close of this letter, M. Steinbach, addressing the Princess, says: As a genuine Protestant, you utterly detest the spirit of proselytism.' A detestation of this spirit, and a fear of incurring the charge of being actuated by it, seem to have united with a regard for the feelings of the Princess, in leading the Strasburg pastor and professor to act the part they did. But while this serves to account for their conduct, nothing can excuse their placing obstacles in the way of an individual's obeying the dictates of his conscience, and openly renouncing a corrupted faith. It is grievous to think, that the principles of Protestantism should be no better understood by its professors; and still more painful to know, how intimately connected this false candour, and morbid hatred of proselytism, and ultra liberality are with a latitudinarian creed and a deficient sense of the vital importance of the great points at issue. But Mr. Evanson somewhat too hastily assumes, that this conduct on the part of the Professor, is an infallible indication of heterodoxy, or that such Protestants are to be found only in Germany. If we may rely upon the statements in our public journals, very high and orthodox personages of another Church, have declared themselves to be equally opposed to Protestant proselytism, and undesirous of Protestant conversions. Such opinions are none the better, in our esteem, for being held by an English_prelate, however great his learning or undoubted his piety. They appear to us mistaken and highly reprehensible,-a pseudo Protestantism, against which we must ever protest. But let it not be taken for granted, that a man must needs be a Socinian, because he errs upon this point of Christian duty, or that a want of proper and enlightened zeal is never associated with doctrinal orthodoxy.

Mr. Evanson refers to a remarkable observation made by the prefect of police to the Prince, as a further argument to dissuade him from his purpose: The Protestants are not Chris⚫tians at all, because they deny the divinity of Jesus Christ.

Did he learn this from M. Haffner's preface? or did he only state what is generally known abroad, though attempted to be denied in England; viz. that the Christianity of the Continent is not even a pure Deism; that under the name of Neology, reason usurps the place of Revelation, and the Holy Scriptures are degraded below the subtleties of Leibnitz, or the mysticisms of Kant?'

From what source the worthy police-officer derived his information, we cannot say. Professor Haffner's preface, cer