to the faints was not left to be better understood and taught in the prefent age, than it was in the primitive times, by thofe who received it immediately from the apoitles. It is, indeed, no wonder that the adverfaries of the catholic faith, inftead of having an eye to thefe, the best interpreters of the holy fcriptures; inftead of enquiring for the old paths wherein the first Chriftians walked, fhould affect to thew contempt of the primitive fathers, and, in order to propagate this contempt, grofly mifreprefent their character and writings. And when once the very entrance to thefe good old paths is by them thus obstructed and hid, it is not ftrange their deluded and blinded followers fhould continue wandering, and at length be loft, in endless mazes!"

This divine coincides in opinion with Dr. Waterland, that Athanafius was not the author of this Creed, and that its authority depends little on his moral character; and agrees with that learned and indefatigable writer, in afcribing it to Hilary, Bishop of Arles, in France, and fuppofes it to have been written by him about the year 430. As the author chose to conceal his name, it was called or entitled, only "the Catholic Faith," till the year 570, when Athanafius recommended and adopted it in oppofition to the Creeds of Arius, Sabellius, and other heretics. Mr. C. clearly diftinguishes thefe fchifmatics, and exposes their perverfion of several paffages of fcripture, which they have tortured to ferve their own preconceived notions. Thus, relative to the doctrine of atonement, when mifbelievers would perfuade us, that the words of St. Paul to the Romans την καταλλαγήν ελαβομεν, το not fignify, as we render them, received the atonement, or reconciliation; but fhould be tranflated, have obtained a converfion unto God, he obferves

"Thus they would deprive our Redeemer of his priestly office, and regard him only as a teacher and lawgiver; as if there needed no. more to reconcile us to God, than the efficacy of our repentance and imperfect obedience for the future. But it is certain that the word xaraλλayn fignifies primarily, as its derivation proves, nothing but a commutation or exchange between contracting parties of one perfon or thing inftead of another; and hence it comes to fignify a reconciliation. The abfurdity therefore of the Socinian interpretation of these words of St. Paul is very evident and flagrant."

And, again, relative to the perfonality of the Holy Ghost (P. 139) he concludes the head of his 7th difcourfe:

"I fhall conclude this head of my difcourfe with pointing out one very remarkable circumftance in the words of my text, which, to the learned reader of the New Teftament, muft feem itself a decifive proof of the perfonality of the Holy Ghost, viz. of joining the word Пva (which is of the neuter gender) to Exitros a pronoun of the

mafculine

mafculine; Ὅταν δὲ ἔλθῃ Εκεινα τὸ Πεῦμα ; the fenfe of which can be only, When HE, (that perion) the Spirit. Agreeably to this, St. Paul, in his epittle to the Ephefian,*, writes, Пeupati ös esi "Agçaßar.

Thefe fermons contain a brief fummary of the arguments of Bull, Pearfon, and Waterland, and ftrongly prove the neceflity of retaining the Athanafian Creed in the liturgy of the church of England.

ART. V. Report of the Committee of the House of Commons, in Confequence of the feveral Motions relative to the Treatment of Prifoners of War; including the Whole of the Examination taken before the Committee; the Correfpondence relative to the Exchange of Prifoners; the Inftructions of Colonel Tate, &c. &c. 8vo. Pp. 133. Wright. 1798.

WE

E are indebted for these valuable and neceffary documents, to the profligate falfehoods propagated by the Directory in France, and by their agents and advocates in England, refpecting the relative treatment of the prisoners of war in the two countries. The refult of the examination, by a committee of the Houfe of Commons, was fuch, as every unprejudiced man must have expected-the establishment of British honour, and the expofure of French villainy.

Mr. Charretié, a Frenchman, who had refided fome years in this country, was appointed by the French government, in December 1795, their agent for the care of French prifoners; -a tafk which he feems to have difcharged in a manner highly pleafing to his employers: he appears to have been ftudious to devife grounds of complaint against the government; and conftantly to have converted the moft infignificant trifles into ferious fubjects for difpute. It is worthy of remark, that while the French prifoners were making frequent complaints, not one was made by the Spanith or Dutch, whofe treatment was precisely the fame. The following extracts from the report of the committee will convey to our readers an adequate idea of the treatment of prifoners, by England and France refpectively :—

"On the 4th of September a revolution in France took place, and fince that period it feems to have been the object of the French government to irritate the minds of their countrymen against Great Britain, by mifreprefentations of the treatment which the prifoners:

underwent in this country. A paragraph appeared in The Poftillion de Calais of Octocter 16, giving a falfe account of the prifoners in Porchefter Caftle: this was contradicted by the agent at that place, as well as by a certificate from the English and French furgeons employed there; and M. Charretié himself, being called upon by the Tranfport Board to refute this calumny, acknowledged the falfchood and impropriety of the paragraph.

"Mr. Charretié, however, appears to have wifhed to fecond thefe views of the French government; for in November he wrote to the Commiffion of Exchange at Paris, ftating, that at Norman Crofs prifon, out of nine thoufand prifoners confined there, three thoufand were fick for want of clothes and other neceffaries. This reprefentation produced a strong effect on the public mind in France against this country; but upon the British agent enquiring into the truth of the statement, Mr. Charretié was induced to contradict his own affertion. From the evidence of Captain George, firft Commiffioner of the Tranfport Board, and the certificates of the furgeons at Norman Crofs, it appears that the prifon at that place was not capable of containing even fix thoufand prifoners; that there were at that time about five thousand two hundred; and that the fick then amounted to one hundred and ninety-four, including twenty-four nurfes, and never had amounted to above two hundred and fixty. It must be obferved, that Mr. Charretié had the means of knowing all this, and that previous to fending this account to France, he did not apply to the Board on the fubject, though he was actually in London at the time. He acknowledged that he was furnished with a lift of perfons confined at each prifon, whenever he required it, fo that he might eafily have afcertained the faljehood of his affertion.

"Your committee fee, with much concern, the newfpapers of this country lending themfelves to the views of the enemy. They muft recal the attention of the Houfe to the paragraph which appeared in THE COURIER of January 20th, relative to the treatment of the prifoners at Liverpool, which produced an investigation by the Mayor and Magiftrates of that town, and a report, in the highest degree fatisfactory to the feelings of the perfons concerned. It was with the fame object of irritating the French against this nation, that papers were stuck up in different towns of France, as appears in evidence before your committee, afferting that the prifoners in England were fed with dead cats and dogs; and that when a perfon at Nantes, who was lately returned from imprifonment in England, contradicted this account, he was ordered to hold his tongue, and not difpute the affertion of his government." Pp. 4-5.

The allowance granted to all French prifoners, we are told, while provided by our government, was equal to that of British foldiers. We fhall now fhew what a different treatment English prisoners experienced in France:—

"The first paper relative to the treatment of prifoners before the committee, in a letter from a merchant at Dunkirk to Mr. Swinburne,

gives a melancholy account of the perfons imprifoned at Air; he ftates, that forty fick were pent up in a fmall room with the prifoners in health, without permiffion to enjoy the benefit of the fresh air, and that numbers died daily from the filth and ftench. From fubfequent papers and documents, it appears that the treatment of British prifoners in most of the prifons was bad. At Dunkirk few blankets could be obtained for them, and at Amiens none at all.-At the Latter place the Britith agent found it neceflary to order bedsteads of rough planks, raifed from the ground, to protect the prifoners from the damp, and the expence of which was defrayed by the British government. At Pontanezan prifon, near Breft, fixty mafters of merchant fhips and paffengers were confined with about nine hundred feamen; they were not allowed to go into the open yard, and their confinement was aggravated by the brutal behaviour of the commiffary, and by a want of provifions and neceffaries.

"A declaration, figned by three refpectable perfons, confined for four months, in the beginning of 1797, in Pontanezan prifon, ftates the daily allowance froin 10th January to have been fixteen ounces of bifcuit, of a bad quality, full of vermin and mouldy, and two ounces of rotten falt beef or pork.-(This allowance ought to have been two pounds and a half, but a mefs for feven perfons has been known to be only fifteen ounces, and of that nearly half bone). Their peas-foup confifted of hot water with a few horfe-peas. From February 20th, in lieu of fixteen ounces of bifcuit, about four ounces of rice were delivered out, together with ten ounces of black bread, and during that time many were ill and fome died, which was attributed to the copper veffels, in which the rice was boiled, not having been properly cleaned. From February 1ft, in lieu of falt meat, fresh meat was allowed, which was nothing but carrion.---The foup was made with the meat before it was given out.-No vegetables of any defcription were delivered out to the prifoners, and, during the above period of four months, at least two hundred perfons died, chiefly of the fcurvy, arifing from the badness of the provifions. From nine hundred to a thoufand were confined in a room thirty feet wide, and from three to four hundred feet long; one hundred daily were allowed to go into the open air. Accounts of fimilar treatment have been repeatedly received.

"Remonftrances were made to the commiffion of exchange on the feanty allowance of provifions; and the agent was anfwered, that If the fituation of the finances of the republic did not admit of the prifoners receiving the whole of what the law allowed them, it was not lefs true, that they experienced in that respect the benefits of the folicitude of government.'

"This evafive language affords ftrong ground to suspect that the diftreffed fituation of the British prifoners was not without an object on the part of the French government; and this fufpicion is confirmed by its appearing, from evidence delivered in to your committee, that every effort was made to induce the British feamen to go on board the French fleet, particularly at the time of the expedition

againft

against Ireland. The provifions allowed were purpofely bad and fcanty, the confinement rigorous; and during this ftate of fuffering the paffions of the men were inflamed, by being told that their own country had given them all up for the fake of one man, (Sir Sidney Smith, and that till he fhould be liberated, the British government would not confent to an exchange of prifoners. All efforts were used to inveigle them; they were frequently threatened to be starved, and at other times liquor was given to them, and advantage was taken of them when in a ftate of intoxication.

"When the combined force of all thefe various temptations and incitements is fairly confidered, it cannot be matter of wonder, that the conftancy and courage even of British feamen fhould have fometimes yielded. Many were induced to enter into, the French fervice, under the hope and promife of being landed in Ireland; and feveral applied to their own officers (prifoners with them) for leave to enter, but were refufed. Three or four hundred were debauched into the scheme, under the expectation of being fent home for exchange.

"It might, perhaps, be imagined, that this arbitrary and unprin cipled measure had arifen from the neceffity of the moment, and the want of feamen in the French navy, had it not appeared that it is a part of the fyftem of France to force fubjects to ferve against their own countries. And here your committee cannot forbear referring to the inftructions given by General Hoche to Colonel Tate, previous to his landing on the coaft of Wales, in the beginning of 1797 (and which were found on his perfon) as tending to explain the conduct of the French towards their prifoners. Colonel Tate was ordered to encourage all deferters and prifoners to enter into the new companies (which were to be commanded by French officers); fhould fuch prifoners refufe, he will have their head and eyebrows, and if they are taken again in arms they are to be fhot.'

"The fyftem of ill treating and of oppreffing prifoners, was not confined exclufively to the English who were in the prifons of Pontanezan, Nantes, and elfewhere, but was extended to the officers who were on parole in the interior parts of the country."

Again-" It appears that they (the prifoners) were at the mercy of the French agents, and (among other hardships) when their provifions were delivered out to them, the liver, lights, jaws, and part of the horn, and even the offals of bullocks, were included in their allowance."

After the arrival of Captain Cotes, who fucceeded Mr. Swinburne, in September, 1797, as the English Commiflary at Paris, the prifoners were to be removed to different places of confinement; and though Captain Cotes was not allowed to visit them until they had been removed, their removal did not take place till the first week in March, 1798. On this fubject we have the following obfervations, with which we fhall conclude our account of the book, which we recommend to the attentive perufal of every Englishman :

NO. VII. VOL. II.

Ε

"It