The genus of Nafmythia is with fufficient reafon feparated from the Eriocaulon, and brought to the clafs of monoecia, as is that of callitriche to polygamia. Among the graffes Mr. Hudson has made many alterations, and, we think; feveral real improvements. Throughout his work there are likewife a number of new fpecies, and particularly among the cryptogamiæ, where the lichens, ulva, and fuci, have received confiderable addition, much greater indeed than we could have expected in a country, fcrutinized by many eminent botanists, with the great Ray at their head.

An Examination of the fifteenth and fixteenth Chapters of Mr. Gib bon's Hiftory of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. By Henry Edward Davis, B. A. 8vo. 45. ferved. Dodfley.

THE

HE author of this work introduces his remarks with the following general obfervations on Mr. Gibbon's performance.

• It has been judiciously observed, that it is not the bufinefs of the hiftorian to profefs himfelf a fceptic in matters of religion.

Machiavel, whofe deteftable principles, in his political works, are well known, found it neceffary to affume a very different character, when he wrote the Hiftory of Florence. And even David Hume, in his Hiftory of England, is content with glancing at Sacred Truth by fome oblique hints.

• It is therefore to be wished, that Mr. Gibbon, fatisfied with. the applaufe due to him as an elegant hiftorian, had not produced himself as an avowed champion for infidelity, in his fifteenth and fixteenth chapters, which have cast a blemish on the whole work.

It does not appear to have been effential to his hiftory to touch at all on "the Rife and Progrefs of Chriftianity," much lefs' to make so long a digreffion, which feems to have been wrought up with fo much art, and care, and ingenuity, that we can easily trace the author's predilection for the fubject. He treats it indeed con amore; which has induced many judicious perfons to fufpect, that the reft of the volume was written to introduce these two chapters with a better grace, and more decent appearance.

However, whether the conjecture be founded on truth, or not; had our author followed his defign as a candid enquiry, which he professes to do, he would have had a better right to our approbation and esteem.

The artful infinuations of fo agreeable a writer, imperceptibly feduce his readers, who, charmed with his ftyle, and deluded with the vain pomp of words, may be apt to pay too

E 2

much

much regard to the pernicious fentiments he means to convey. It is, therefore, abfolutely neceffary that they should be reminded of the unfair proceedings of fuch an infidious friend, who offers the deadly draught in a golden cup, that they may be lefs fenfible of their danger.

The remarkable mode of quotation, which Mr. Gibbon adopts, muft immediately ftrike every one who turns to his notes. He fometimes only mentions the author, perhaps the book, and often leaves the reader the toil of finding out, or rather gueffing at the paffage.

The policy, however, is not without its design and use. By endeavouring to deprive us of the means of comparing him with the authorities he cites, he flattered himself, no doubt, that he might fafely have recourfe to mifreprefentation; that his inaccuracies might efcape the piercing eye of criticism; and that he might indulge his wit and fpleen, in fathering the abfurdeft opinions on the moft venerable writers of antiquity. For, often, on examining his references, when they are to be traced, we shall find him fupporting his caufe by manifest falfification, and perpetually affuming to himself the strange privilege of inferting in his text what the writers referred to give him no right to advance on their authority.

This breach of the common faith repofed in authors, is peculiarly indefenfible, as it deceives all thofe who have not the leifure, the means, nor the abilities, of fearching out the passages in the originals.

Our author often propofes fecond, or even third handed notions as new; and has gained a name among fome, by retailing objections which have been long ago ftarted, and as long fince refuted and exploded.

In fact, fceptics and free-thinkers are of a date fo old, and their objections were urged fo early, and in fuch numbers, that our modern pretenders to this wisdom and philofophy can with difficulty invent any thing new, or discover, with all their malevolent penetration, a fresh flaw. The fame fet of men have been alone diftinguished by different names and appellations, from Porphyry, Celfus, or Julian, in the firft ages of Chrif tianity; down to Voltaire, Hume, or Gibbon in the present.

Such is the plan of our author. It must be mine to obviate and oppose it. In order to which, I have felected several of the more notorious inftances of his mifreprefentation and error, reducing them to their refpective heads, and fubjoining a long lift of almoft incredible inaccuracies, and fuch ftriking proofs of fervile plagiarism, as the world will be surprised to meet with in an author who puts in fo bold a claim to originality and extenfive reading.'

In fupport of this heavy charge the examiner lays before his readers a great number of paffages, in which the hiftorian has mifreprefented Diodorus Siculus, Juftin, Dion Caffius, Jo-fephus,

fephus, Tertullian, Sulpicius Severus, Clemens, Irenæus, Cyprian, Origen, Ignatius, Eufebius, Juftin Martyr, Optatus, Lactantius, Epictetus, Marcus Antoninus, Pliny, Orofius, Gregory of Tours, Le Clerc, F. Paolo, Bayle, Fabricius, Grotius, Mofheim, Boffuet, Dupin, Tillemont, Pagi, Lyttelton, and the authors of the Univerfal History; and produces many paffages, in which he has been guilty of plagiarifm from Middleton, Barbeyrac, Daillé, Beaufobre, Dodwell, Lardner, Abauzit, and Tillemont.

In these instances the reader will obferve, that there are various degrees of mifrepresentation and plagiarism; and that some of them may be excufable in an extenfive work, through which it is hardly poffible to preserve an unremitted attention.

It will likewise be urged, in favour of Mr. Gibbon, that the examiner alleges a fimilarity of thought, as a proof of plagiarism. To this objection he replies:

If we confider that Mr. Gibbon's talents fhine moft confpicuously in the elegance of language, we muft naturally imagine, that he would not conftantly adopt the very words of the author, as he could fo eafily fet off the fentiments in new and more graceful expreffions, which would, at the fame time, ferve to disguise the plagiarifm. Befides, it being my intent to prove to the Chriftian world, that our author has, in fact, produced no new objections against our religion, and that his boasted attack is made with arguments and reflexions long ago exploded; to convict him of a fimilarity of fentiment fully anfwers this purpose.'

This writer however does not reft in a mere exhibition of fimilar paffages. He produces inconteftible evidence; and particularly fhews, that Mr. Gibbon's plan of accounting for the progrefs of Chriftianity from fecond caufes is a ftale infidel topic, urged and confuted long fince,' as the reader will find in bishop Atterbury's Sermons, vol. i. ferm. 3. On this occafion Mr. Davis fubjoins the fentiments of the learned and judicious Mr. Mofheim.

. When we confider the rapid progrefs of Chriftianity among the Gentile nations, and the poor feeble inftruments by which this great and amazing event was immediately effected, we must naturally bave recourse to an omnipotent and invifible hand, as its true and proper cause," &c.

"Such then were the true caufes of that amazing rapidity with which the Chriftian religion fpread itfelf upon the earth; and those who pretend to affign other reafons of this furprifing event, indulge themselves in idle fictions, which muft difguft every attentive obferver of men and things." Sect. 8. 10.

This is a warm and fpirited attack on the literary character of Mr. Gibbon, and fupported with indefatigable industry, accurate investigation, and extensive reading.

E 3

Medical

Medical Cafes, felected from the Records of the Public Difpenfary at Edinburgh; with Remarks and Obfervations. By Andrew Duncan, M. D. 8vo. 5. boards. Murray.

THE

HE ufefulness of medical cafes, when thofe are faithfully related, and judicioufly treated, is too obvious either to admit of doubt, or require commendation. It is by accurate registers of this kind that the practice of phyfic has been fo much improved within the prefent century; and every benevolent mind muft feel pleasure at the growth of fuch inftitutions, as are calculated not only to relieve the immediate diftreffes of the fick, but to extend the bounds of fcience, by pathological obfervations. It appears that a difpenfary has lately been opened at Edinburgh, under the direction of Dr, Duncan, the author of the treatife before us; and the cafes which he now prefents to the public, are thofe of fome patients who had been committed to his care, in this department. The history of the patients and their diseases, however, though indifpenfibly fubfervient towards elucidating the method of cure, form the leaft confiderable part of this voJume, which confifts chiefly of the obfervations delivered by the author in his clinical lectures, to the ftudents who at tended him.

As no general account of the work can convey fo clear an idea of its nature as a specimen, we fhall lay before our readers one entire lecture, curtailing only the introductory narra tive, which the length of the quotation will not allow us to prefix. But to fupply the deficiency in fome measure, it may be neceffary to obferve that the difeafe which is the fubject of this lecture, was an enlargement of the abdomen, and that the principal remedies prefcribed by Dr. Duncan were small dofes of cream of tartar, frequently repeated, and fquill pills. Here follows a copy of the lecture.

The difeafe of this patient, in my opinion, is not altogether without ambiguity. There are, indeed, many fymp toms here, which are confidered as the characterizing marks of a dropfical affection, And, from the fwelling of the abdomen, the difficulty of breathing, the thirst, and scarcity of urine, we might conclude, that he is fubjected to afcites. I am inclined to think, that this is really the cafe. But here a very effential circumftance is wanting, With this fwelling of the belly, there is no evident fluctuation, a circumftance which is almost conftantly observed where an enlargement of the abdomen depends. ppon water; or even where any other liquid, fuch, for example, as blood, pus, or the like, is depofited in the cavity of the abdomen. The want of fluctuation, then, would naturally

lead

lead us to inquire, how far there is reafon to fafpect, that the fwelling here depends on any other caufe And there is the rather room for fuch an inquiry, as there is no appearance of effused water in any other part of the fytem. Pure afcites, indeed, may, and frequently does exift; yet, for the most part, it is conjoined with other dropfical affections.

There are two other fuppofitions refpecting the cause of this fwelling, which here naturally prefent themfelves. It fometimes happens, that fwellings, in appearance, fimilar to the prefent, depend upon a folid matter. But, to this fuppofition," there are here two unfurmountable objections. The first may

be drawn from the progrefs of the difeafe. Where the enlarge ment of the abdomen depends upon a folid matter, it very ge. nerally begins at a particular fpot, and from thence it is gradually extended to other parts of the abdomen. But, in the prefent cafe, although the increase has been gradual, yet, it has been uniformly extended over the whole, and no particular local hardness has ever been discovered. Befides this, fwellings depending on a folid matter, are not liable to fudden changes. With our patient, however, fuch changes manifeftly occur. Hence, for the fuppofition of the fwelling depending on folid, there is little foundation.

Another fuppofition is, that the fwelling here occurring maydepend upon air; that is, that our patient may be subjected to tympanites. But, of this affection alfo, fome of the chief fymptoms are wanting. No found is obferved to be emitted on per cuffion of the abdomen, nor is any relief afforded on the dif charge of wind. Upon the whole, then, I reckon it at least the moft probable fuppofition, that it does depend on water. The want of fluctuation may arife from different circumstances. It may depend upon the state of the integuments; it may arife from the condition of the vifcera; or it may proceed from the water being contained in hydatides. And, I confider the thirt and carcity of ur ne, as giving ftrong prefumption of a dropfical affection; yet I fhall not be furprised to find, that it turns out of a complicated nature, neither entirely depending on water nor air, but partly on both.

With this uncertainty, I am not here difpofed to give a very favourable prognoftic. The youth of this patient is indeed fomewhat in her favour; and, it is ftill more fo, that the has received, at least, temporary relief. from the quantity of her urine being increased. But, thefe circumftances excepted, moft others are againk our patient. While we have much uncertainty refpecting the nature of the difeafe, we have at leaft fome reafon to dread a local affection; and, from the pain of the belly of which fhe complains, we can prognofticate nothing favourable. From the continuance of her difeafe. alfo, we may conclude it to be of a stubborn nature. For, although the be but eight years old, her affection has been obferved for no lefs than five of these. And there are even fome indications of its E 4 being