fructed by his own former mistake, convinced the furgeon, to his very great furprize.

XVI. An abstract of various obfervations on the diforders of the antrum maxillæ fuperioris, or highmorianum. By M. Borde

nave.

This long memoir contains many facts and reasonings on the fubject; more particularly a method, propofed by M. Lamorier, of making an opening into the antrum, without drawing a tooth, by perforating the jawbone, precifely above the third dens molaris; and a more fingular method, propofed by M. Jourdain, of curing diforders of the finus, by injections introduced through the natural foramen, or communication of that cavity with the nose. To any one, who confiders the ftructure of the parts, it must appear extremely difficult to hit this fmall foramen, even with Mr. Jourdain's well-imagined inftruments; as the commiffaries, named by the academy to make trials on dead fubjects, fufficiently experienced. But even fuppofing the operator to find or make a paffage this way into the antrum, through which he may convey his injections; a confideration of the caufes, from whence the diforders affecting that cavity most generally arife, will fhew the infufficiency of this method; and that the profpect of relief from it is not, by any means, equal, much lefs, preferable to that which may be expected from au extraction of one or more of the dens molares, and a perforation made into the finus, in its molt dependant part, as has been formerly practifed; or even to the firft mentioned method of effecting the fame purpofe, propofed by M. Lemorier. In an appendix fubjoined to this memoir, which we fuppofe to be the production of M. Louis, fecretary of the academy, the author endeavours to prove, from a confideration of the diftribution of the blood veffels and nerves of thefe parts, as well as from facts related by him, that an obstruction of the veffe's of the teeth, and the fubfequent caries are, in general, the occa fional cau es of the diforders of the finus maxillaris, as well as of the fwelling of the face and other fymptoms which are we!! known to proceed from them; and that the removal of the dif ordered tooth or teeth ́is an effential step towards a radical cure. Among other cafes, he gives us one, wherein an excfiofis at thé bafis of the lower jawbone, attended with an obftinate ulcer, and followed by exfoliations, was cured, at a time when the application of the actual cautery was propofed, by the fimple extraction of two carious teeth, which according to him, had originally vitiated, and continued to vitiate the neighbouring parts.

XVII. M mir on the operation of the bare-lip, wherein the first principle of the art of healing wounds is eftablished. By M. Louis.

Falfe

Falfe principles naturally lead to wrong conclufions, and these, as unavoidably produce erroneous practices. The operation, which is the fubject of this memoir, feems to have laboured under an original and fundamental error of this fort. It has hitherto been univerfally taken for granted, that, in the harelip, there is a real loss of substance. This idea gave rise to an opinion of the neceffity of employing futures after the operation; particularly the twifted, which is now generally employed. M. Louis, in the prefent memoir, endeavours to fhew that, in the natural hare-lip, there is no lofs, or, to fpeak more properly, want of fubftance whatever; and that the feparation of the edges, which gave rife to that idea, is the effect only of a retraction of the mufcles, fimilar to that which happens in every recent folution of continuity. Among other obfervations, he takes notice of the confiderable approach of the two fides of the hare-lip when the patient purfes up his mouth, and of their increafed feparation when he fmiles or laughs. He next proceeds to fhew that the introduction and detention of needles in the wound, according to the prefent general and approved prac tice, is not only unneceffary, but injurious; particularly, among other reafons, as by the irritation and inflammation which they often occafion, they increase this retractive action of the mufcles. According to this doctrine, it is not against the lips of the wound, which have not, in themfelves, any particular tendency to separate, that the efforts of art ought to be directed, in order to keep them contiguous. The retracting caufe lies behind, and at a diftance. This caufe M. Louis accordingly fuccessfully counteracts by the moderate preffure of a fimple but efficacious bandage, applied to the cheeks, or parts whofe action produces the feparation of the fides of the wound. We obferve, however, that in fome cafes he used a single future, at the bottom of the lip, tied with a furgeon's knot, with a view only of keeping the parts on a level; that is, of preventing one fide from finking lower than the other: trufting, for their reunion, to the efficacy of his bandage. He fpeaks too of our court plaifter, (which we fuppofe to be meant by his lanquettes agglutinatives de taffetas d'Angleterre) as excellently feconding the first of thefe intentions. The Author enters 1.kewife into a minute detail of the advantages and difadvantages attending different methods of operating; in which, not without fome degree of acrimony, he condemns, on indifputable principles, the ufe of fciffars in the removal of the edges of the hare-lip; which is certainly better effected by a fharp biftoury, producing á fmoother, lefs painful, and uncontufed wound; the union of whofe lips may be expected, without the lofs of fubftance atttending the fuppuration, which may be the confequence of

the

the contufed wound, caused by the compreffion of the parts, between the two edges of the blades of the fciffars +. The reafonings in this memoir, the reader must obferve, are not founded on mere fpeculation; but fupported by instances of the fuccefsful practice of the author, who has not only cured harelips by this method of operating, and by bandage, without futures; but, even in wounds of the lip, where there has been an actual and large lofs of fubftance, caufed by the extirpation of fchirrous and carcinomatous tumours, he has, by these means alone, united the fides, without any remaining deformity.

We have been the more particular on this feemingly fimple, and, it may be thought, unimportant operation, as the principles on which Mr. Louis's improvements are founded, not only throw a new and juft light on this particular subject, but are at the fame time applicable to wounds in general; particu larly to those where there is a profpect of healing, by the first intention, as it is commonly called, or on the principle of agglutination.

[To be concluded in a following number.]

+ Among thofe,' fays our fpirited author, with, perhaps, a little too much felf-confequence, who have seen me operate, and who could not but be fenfible of the facility and advantages of this method, there are fome, who have fince taught their pupils to operate, and have caused them to perform the operation, in my prefence, (en ma presence) with fciffars. This was done indeed upon dead fubjects; but was intended as a leff n, to be practised on the living. It is unfortunate that the inftruction of youth fhould be in the hands of fuch masters, mox daturos progeniem vitiofiorem.' Mr. Louis exempts, however, from this reproach, his collegues, the royal profeffors in the schools of furgery.

B-y.

Conclufion of Mr. Blackburne's Confiderations on the prefent State of the Controverfy between the Proteftants and Papifts of Great Britain and Ireland. See our laft, p. 229.

UR prefent controverfy with the Papifts, the Author obferves, does not turn as heretofore, so much upon theological points which distinguish the Proteftant from the Popifh religion, as upon the merits of a particular queftion, namely, whether, on Proteftant principles, the Roman Catholics, as they affect to ftyle themfelves, are not intitled to as full and free a toleration in Great Britain, as other fects or churches, who diffent from the ecclefiaftical establishment? Now, the author remarks, and in our opinion very juftly, that the grand objection to the toleration of Popery, is merely of the civil kind,

O thofe

that

i

that is to fay, the tendency of its tenets to fubvert the civil as well as the religious rights of mankind in general, and in particular the fecurity we of this country have for our civil and religious liberties, under thofe laws on which the proteftant fettlement of our prefent government depends.

If this could be proved to be a mere prejudice, and if it could' be fhewn that the doctrine and difcipline of the Church of Rome had no fuch tendency; but that, on the contrary, a good Papift was bound by his religion to be as obedient and peaceable a subject to a proteftant as to a popifh government, the great proteftant principle of tolerating all fects, wh fe doctrines do not interfere with the peace and order of the civil government, mult take place, the archdeacon fays, with respect to Popery, equally as with respect to any other fect.

His fentiments upon this fubject are liberal and generous ;Though it is impoffible, fays he, from any propotals that have been offered by the various writers who have pleaded the caufe of Popery within the last two or three years, to see what fecurity the Papifts of Great Britain and Ireland can give to a Proteftant government for their dutiful fubjection to it, more e pecially along with that abfolute deference they pay to the Pope, yet, if any means could be found which might enfure the public fafety against the treasonable, exterminating principles of their religion, and at the fame time permit them the free and unmolefted exercise of their worship, they would not find an advocate more ready to plead their caufe than myself.'

As the Papifts are fetting up pretenfions to toleration which may, not improbably, make impreffions upon thofe who meet with a new argument in favour of a popular error, when and where the refutation of it is not at hand, our author thinks it cannot be unfeasonable to take a cursory view of these pretenfions. And as the Papifts ground their claim to be tojerated in this country upon Protestant principles, he begins with examining into the grounds of the doctrine of Toleration, as it is expounded and profeffed among Proteftants, fuch of them, at least, as adhere to their original principles of reformation. Part of what he advances upon this head, we fhall lay before our readers.

In these later times, fays he, the doctrine of religious liberty has been more generally understood and more kindly entertained than heretofore; and though it cannot be denied that there are still remaining, in fome Proteftant communities, many unwarrantable reftraints and incumbrances upon Proteftant diffenters from the cftablished fyftem, yet it must be acknowleged, that the original Proteftant principle of mutual toleration hath recovered its credit, particularly in our own country, to a greater degree than could have been expected. And though

this

this principle hath not yet operated to the full and effectual relief of all thofe confcientious Diffenters who are intitled to it; yet it must be allowed, that the liberty they now enjoy of profeffing and practifing their respective opinions and discipline, iş fuch as they who contrived the bulwarks of ecclefiastical establishment in Proteftant ftates, vehemently condemned, and, had they lived in thefe times, would have oppofed with all their power and interest.

The notion that mifled our forefathers in this matter was, that, if more than one form of religion should be tolerated in a country where only one form of civil government was establifhed, fome diforder and confufion would enfue, pernicious to the peace and welfare of civil fociety; and no wonder, where the civil magiftra:e was fo perfuaded, that fuch an apprehenfion fhould make deep impreffions upon him.

• Churchmen indeed went upon other principles. Taking the word, CHURCH, in a certain fenfe, they concluded, it muft have authority to judge and cenfure erroneous opinions, under the name of herefy; differing herein from the popish doctrine on this head, in nothing but in their account of the conflitution of the church to which they afcribed this authority, and fuch limitation of her powers, as excluded infallibility, rather perhaps in words and declarations, than in reality. On another hand, they imagined that fchifm, with respect to matters of difcipline, was fo precife and obvious an idea, that they made no fcruple to clafs it at the head of thofe immoral of fences which were understood to be the proper objects of eccleLiaftical correction.

. With these reafons, alledged by the ecclefiaftical powers for referving to themselves the punishment of herefy and fchifm, the civil magiftrate had little to do, fo long as civil fociety did not fuffer by thefe fuppofed offences. But being perfuaded, by artful and ambitious ecclefiaftics, that herefy and fchifm were crimes which ftruck at the foundations of civil government, as well as at the peace and profperity of the church, and having no experience of the benefits arifing to the fate from the free toleration of opinions and modes of worship which had no evil influence upon the commerce of civil fociety, the civil magifarate interpofed, and gave his fanction to the claims of church authority to inflict penalties and centures on heretics and fchifmatics; and had herefy and fchifm been the dangerous frightful things to civil government they were reprefented to be, he would have rightly interpofed. But this was not the cafe, nor indeed could it be a priori that it ever would be the cafe, till fome overt acts of herefy or fchifm had disturbed the civil peace and order of the community under his protection, which however he would have no reafon to fear, while no religious fociety pre tended

6