of Europe called upon to tremble at the risk they incurred, as set forth in these veracious pages,-(Poor Lord Castlereagh, how pale he will look!) Every preliminary advantage had been gained which could ensure victory; all superiority on the side of the allies had been counterbalanced by the talents of the French general-" All the probabilities of victory were for the French-all was combined-all foreseen. But what can the greatest genius against destiny?-Napoleon was CONQUERED."That's something yet-we were afraid, by the exordium, that we might have reached a worse termination. We would advise General Gourgaud to think over this admission again, when we hope to see him cancel it in a future edition, and adopt a conclusion more worthy of the premises. Why not say he was conqueror? The assertion would sound a great deal better, and surprise no one who had read his account of the previous circumstances. At present, the story comes ill off, and terminates like that of the brave duellist, who took off his hat with the grace of a prince, made his salute handsomely, threw himself into an attitude equally firm and imposing, and-was disarmed at the first pass.

The preface concludes (comme de raison) with a tribute to the misfortunes of Napoleon. Twelve lines and a half of exclamations exhaust all that long Roman, pica, and the whole compositor's box, can do to express his sorrows, and they are followed by a whole host of asterisks,-sable stars, whose fatal influence infers things too horrible for types to explain. The whole is rounded by the pathetic interrogation,

Ah! Napoleon, que n'as tu trouvé la mort à Waterloo!"

We can only reply, it might have been had for little seeking.

(To be continued.)

18 THE EDINBURGH REVIEW A RELIGIOUS AND PATRIOTIC WORK?

WE are aware that our strictures on the political and religious principles of the Edinburgh Review have lately caused much discussion among the readers of that domineering Journal. As far as we can learn, the justice of

those strictures has not been denied, except by the furious or fatuous menials in the service of that establishment; and the sole objection ever made to them by competent and impartial judges has been, that they were expressed with too great vehemence. The majority, however, of the rightthinking and well-informed, have little or nothing to say against us, even on that score; for they see no reason why a tame and feeble courtesy should be observed towards writers, who have, for so long a time, dismissed ordinary decorum from their own attacks, and who have struck terror into the fainthearted by a system of warfare, marked by the most unsparing ferocity. Yet it is piteous to hear the impotent outcries of the hewers of wood and the drawers of water-for never does slavery seem so abject as when the slaves themselves are heard howling in hypocritical sorrow or sympathy with the masters whom they yet hate within their hearts.

The religious principles of the Edinburgh Review have not been severely condemned by us alone, they have been loudly reprobated by many of the highest Intellects in church and state, and long murmured at by the sup pressed voice of almost all the reading population of Britain. We pretend not to have made any discovery-but merely to have given utterance, with boldness and freedom, to an universal feeling; and had we entertained any doubts of the truth of our convictions, they must have been confirmed by the impotent anger of the low-the silent approval of the wise-and the constrained acquiescence of the accused themselves.

It will not be thought by any upright and intelligent mind, that we can have any other motive for calling the attention of the public to the sceptical, and too often infidel, character of the Edinburgh Review, than a sincere desire to benefit the cause of truth. We wish, more particularly, to put young speculative minds on their guard a gainst the delusive subtleties of that insidious infidelity-for nothing has such charms for them as philosophical discussion, especially when it seeks to overthrow ancient prejudices, and invests the stripling student with the proud character of a discoverer. It would be a gross and fatal mistake indeed, to think that, because the

Edinburgh Review may contain but few papers written expressly against the Christian religion, it is therefore not an antichristian work. The age would not have suffered a more open infidelity. But the Edinburgh Review has done its mischievous work by longcontinued scepticism, on every subject connected either with religion, or with religious establishments-by crafty insinuations against the intellectual character of almost all those who have devoted their lives to the service of Christ-by an eternal sneering at priests and priestcraft-by unsparing sarcasms against hypocrisy, bigotry and enthusiasm, qualities most unjustifiably assumed to have been the characteristics of many sincere, learned, and strenuous Christians (while, at the same time, not only was quarter, but praise, given to that which was called liberality, forsooth, and the spirit of true philosophy, but which was too often the mere blundering presumption of ignorance, or the darker treachery of disbelief)by ridiculing almost all efforts to extend the empire of Christianity, and by talking of it, on such occasions, merely as an excellent and rational moral system to be introduced among the nations, only after they had been enlightened by civil polity-by endless eulogies on the genius and erudition of infidel writers, in which the faint censure of their principles shewed how completely those principles were approved-by raising up objections to the truth of revelation, without any attempt to remove them out of the way, but, on the contrary, with an apparent hope, that they might lie as stumbling-blocks to the feet of the rash and unwary-by eager exultation over all the bad reasonings of injudicious or ignorant champions of the true faith-and finally, by the frequent approval of the lowest blasphemies, and most disgusting obscenities of men, who could see nothing in the most awful mysteries of Christi anity, but a subject of licentious merriment and derision.*

Now we deny altogether that such a line of conduct as this was worthy of

See, especially, the Review of Wilkes

Correspondence, where one of the most atrocious pieces of blasphemy and obscenity that ever was written and that by a father to his daughter-is talked of as "a harmless piece of pleasantry,"

Philosophers. If the Edinburgh Reviewers disbelieved Christianity, they should have scorned to shew that disbelief, except by the utterance of high argument addressed to the intellect of speculative men. They might think Christianity false-but they could not but think it still glorious-and they should have scorned to imitate or applaud the baseness of those who feared that Chistianity might be true, and who assailed it only because its faith was too lofty to suit their grovelling natures, and its precepts too pure to be reconciled with their grovelling lives.

The great talent displayed in the Edinburgh Review-and the personal respectability of its chief conductorssunk many minds into unconscious prostration, whom nature might have destined for freedom and independence. It became fashionable among young men of imputed talents to be sceptical on all matters of religion-and while they denied the infallibility of the Pope, they willingly acknowledged the infalli bility of Mr Jeffery. None but a dull, common-place, plodding man would, as they thought, accept the gift of belief at the hands of others—and it shewed spirit to be in the minority, even in Religion. The consequence has been, that a shameful ignorance of the evidences of Christianity distinguishes secular men of education in Scotland-and that they who manifestly have made up their minds to think revelation a happy imposture, could, in five minutes conversation, be made laughing-stocks by the merest Tyro in theology. Other causes have undoubtedly contributed to produce this effect so disgraceful to our national character-but it cannot be denied, that much of the evil lies with the conductors of the Edinburgh Review.

It might not have been easy to calculate the extent of this evil, had the Scotch been really a literary people, Had there been any number of original minds who adopted these cold heresies, and that cheerless unbelief, the fatal poison might have been diffused incurably through the very life-blood of the nation. It has been fortunate, that though the Edinburgh Reviewers are men of great talents, they are, with the exception of the Editor and Professor Leslie, men of no geniusand it is still more fortunate, that the few men of genius which Scot

and has lately produced have not been corrupted by their pernicious principles. Had any popular writers arisen-like Scott or Campbell, for example-who, having command over the sympathies, the affections, the passions, the imaginations, and consequently the opinions, and judgments, and belief of their countrymen, had at the same time been disciples of that spurious philosophy, there is no saying how widely the infection might have spread, and how low the deterioration of moral character might, by the wide-spread influence of their writings, have descended among the people. Genius seems rarely to hold, in our days at least, any alliance with infidelity.

The evil done by the irreligion of the Edinburgh Review has therefore been limited by the powers of its supporters. They seem to have done all the harm they could-all the harm they durst. That the poison has not sunk into the vitals of the nation, has been owing to the doses having been hurriedly and irregularly, and even fearfully administered-to the constitution of the nation having been sound and strong, and all its habits healthfuland to the steady and conscientious attendance of humane and skilful physicians, whose antidotes have been knowledge and religion.

Were it in our power to separate the character of the writers in the Edinburgh Review, from the Edinburgh Review itself, most gladly would we do so, and more especially that of the distinguished person on whom the responsibility of the Editorship is supposed to lie. He, we believe, is safe in his genius and his virtue-in his feelings and his imagination-from that scepticism which may sternly assail dark, or creep by stealth into colder, spirits. We have never heard it hinted, that any of his own masterly disquisitions have been liable to such a charge. But all we can do is to speak of the work itself, and its general spirit, when treating of, or alluding to Religion. If the other writers in that work-if its other conductors do indeed believe Christianity, they have, for nearly twenty years, been acting with an inconsistency for which no human ingenuity can account, and have brought suspicion over all who have countenanced their invidelity-if they do not believe Chris

tianity, then we grant that they and their friends may be angry with us for exposing their errors, to call them by no harsher name,but we must likewise think, that their irritation is far from being any proof of our injustice, and that it can scarcely be so culpable in us to charge unbelievers with their unbelief, as it is in them to seek to destroy the belief of others. Much misery have the Edinburgh Reviewers inflicted, as they well know, on many meritorious and pious Christians-and a most antichristian and persecuting spirit have they often exhibited towards those whose religious faith was different from their own. It must be painful, indeed, to a true Christian, to hear his religion assailed-but we cannot see why it should necessarily be painful to an Infidel, to have that infidelity acknowledged by others, which he himself has been constantly exhibiting, either in open display or half concealed insinuation. It is at least certain, that to attack Christians, either openly or covertly, is far more culpable, than it can be to attack, in any way whatever, a body-corporate of Unbelievers.

Were the Edinburgh Reviewers to be asked to give a decision on this subject themselves, they would be forced to acknowledge that they had not been true friends to Christianity. They would confess that, though their of fences were overcharged in our indictment, they were yet of the kind therein laid,—they would own that they had rarely, if ever, spoken of Christianity as the self-appointed guardians of Truth ought to have spoken of it (admitting Christianity to be truth,)— and they would be forced to allow that the Spirit of Belief of this age, if looked for in their volumes, would appear decidedly hostile to Revelation.

Indeed, it would seem that the moment a man writes in a sceptical journal, he unconsciously becomes sceptical. The spirit of the work changes and overmasters his own-he is subdued" to the very quality of his lord." He feels that a certain strain of sentiment and opinion is dictated to him by the ruling character of the volume in which his disquisitions are to be enrolled, he seeks to avoid, not all offence to truth, but all offence to the dogmas that have reigned there,-he unwittingly compromises the pecu

liarities of his own opinions, that they may square with those established beforehand by writers in all respects different from himself,-and if he were to reflect a little, he would be surprised to find that he had, in order to preserve an apparent consistency with his ill-associated co-adjutors, made by far too great a sacrifice of the very life and spirit of his own faith. It is thus that a sceptical or infidel journal goes on progressively in error. All the contributors are expected to write up to a certain mark, and no farther, there is a silent compact entered into between the conductors and the occasional contributors,certain subjects must either be avoided altogether, or treated in a philosophical manner,— and thus have we seen clergymen, the pride and boast of the church, and the fearless and triumphant defenders of Revelation, absolutely banded together, without any apparent sense of guilt or degradation, with men whose opinions they, nevertheless, on all other occasions, condemn with a severe and a righteous indignation.

But while the staunchest friends of this Journal either give up its religion altogether, or confess that it is liable to many unanswerable and fatal objections, perhaps they are willing to let it stand or fall by the character of its Politics. And if sheer talent and acuteness be all that political discussions require, those in the Edinburgh Review may often be pronounced excellent. During war-times, when the whole soul of Britain was passionately turned to the fluctuating drama acted on the Continent of Europe, the loud and vehement voices of the Edinburgh Reviewers were often listened to with a feverish and dreamy perturbation. Great events succeeded each other so rapidly, and often so unexpectedly, that unfulfilled prophecies were soon forgotten, and the credit of the seer was but little impaired by the failure of his predictions. Those who had been deceived once and again, could not withdraw their faith, even strong suspicions of imposture; while fresh crowds continued to be driven on by the impulse of a thousand passions, to consult the Oracle, into the falsity of whose responses they had no leisure to inquire, and which they believed to be divine, because of the number of its worshippers. Then too, as of old, VOL. IV.

on

the responses delivered from the shrine, were capable of a twofold explanation; nor were there wanting adherents bold enough to deny, when events seemed to shame the Oracle, that any such responses had ever been delivered,-or, if that were impossible, to affirm that events which had contradicted them in word and in spirit, had given them ample and decided confirmation. The fugitive and ephemeral nature of their work was the cause of preserving their reputation. Who recollected-who cared whether the Edinburgh Reviewers were in the right or the wrong-had been false or true prophets,-when kingdoms were overrun and thrones subverted, and rumour travelled on all the winds of Heaven, "with fear of change perplexing monarchs ?” Whatever their prophecies were, more dread and more magnificent realities passed in procession before our eyes,and it was no time to heed the changes, the follies, the falsities of a periodical journal, when Mutability seemed the ruling power on earth, and all ancient institutions were being fast trampled into the dust. It would seem that those political wizards were well aware of the nature and essence of the peculiar power which they possessed. They saw that the craving desires of excited spirits demanded direful predictions-that fear was as eager to be fed as hope-and that nothing was so dear to the imaginations of many as visions of shame and of ruin.

It is grievous to think of great talents thus employed in the service of despotism, and against the glory of our country. The energies of those deluded men might have found high and noble employment in sustaining the spirit of the nation during times of darkness and jeopardy. The voice of their counsel had not in that case, as now, been suffered to sleep neglected, or recalled to mind only with contempt and indignation; and they might now have been honoured by their countrymen as patriots, and as sages, instead of being at the best, with difficulty forgiven as men betrayed by partyspirit into an abandonment of the most sacred interests of Britain.

These troubled and changeful days are gone by, and men are beginning to have leisure to reflect upon them and all their pageants. They endeav2 G

our to review the causes of events, as well as the events themselves; and it is not going too far to assert, that the unanimous conviction of the people of Britain is, that had the counsels of that party, of which the Edinburgh Review was the organ, prevailed, Europe had at this hour been prostrate, chained, and benighted.

It is not because its prophecies have been so often falsified, that the political credit of the Edinburgh Review is irretrievably ruined. It is the spirit in which these prophecies were delivered, that causes "the deep damnation" of the prophets. Grant that many of the successes which crowned the measures of the Ministry were such as no foresight could anticipate, grant that their blunders were all felicitous, and that fortune or fate gave at last a glorious issue to a system often marked by ominous imbecility, make all these large deductions, aye, and larger still, from the merits of Ministers,-and after that, set them, with all their admitted misdeeds, and all their doubtful wisdom, by the sides of the Whig Party and the Edinburgh Reviewers, and then ask the people of England, which men they consider best entitled to their respect and gratitude? The Opposition did not cry out with the lofty voice of true prophetic warning. It was not with them,

"Though dark and despairing my sight I may seal,

Yet man cannot cover what God would reveal."

They were not melancholy seers cursed with the second-sight of the ruin of their country; but they were, it is impossible to deny it, an angry, irritated, unpatriotic, despot-loving band of disappointed partizans, alike destitute of wisdom and of magnanimity.

The consequence has been, that the Opposition Party never stood so low as at present in the confidence of the people. The people look back to long years of hardship and privation, during which they supported, not without some natural discontent, a prodigious weight of taxation; but they feel an honourable pride in having submitted, on the whole, with a manly cheerfulness to those sacrifices which could alone have enabled the government of their country to carry through that system of polity which has ulti

mately proved the salvation of Europe. True, that they might have thought the Whigs their best kind friends, when everlastingly preaching to them about the needless miseries of taxation, and the folly and madness of a hopeless war against the omnipotence of Buonaparte. But such exhibitions of friendship were not deserving of a very lasting gratitude. Ordinary men are not greatly to be blamed, though they make success the measure of wisdom. It would require a greater power of reflection than we can fairly expect in them, to enable them to perceive how those who have been always in the wrong, may very probably be wiser than those who have been almost always in the right. When they once see that the party whom they esteemed, have been less wise than they imagined, it is a very short and a very easy step to suspect, that they may likewise have been less honest. The "Party,” therefore, are exceedingly unpopular, and now that all the first men, Whitbread, Ponsonby, Horner (the most honourable and the ablest man of them all), and Romilly are no more, there are no illustrious names to throw a splendour over a decaying cause, or to mitigate the contempt felt towards a discomfited party, by associations connected with the character of its most eminent chieftains.

It has been said, and perhaps truly, that the English nation is too fond of war. Certain it is, that nothing is so odious in their eyes as a dastardly administration. Now, the present Ministry shewed that they could depend upon the heroic spirit of England, and that they saw at last no security for other nations which was not to be purchased by the generous blood of the free. The last ten years will be important indeed to the character of ages yet unborn. They have been crowded with victories, and "a world of bright remembrances" will be added to the imaginations of our unconquerable youth. But the Opposition was evidently a dastardly Opposition. All their counsels were conceived in the cold shivering fits of fear; and they forgot that they 66 were sprung of earth's first blood," when they so over-rated the power of despotism in Buonaparte, and so undervalued the power of freedom in the British people. Paying taxes and receiving wounds