produced much excellent criticism; but had assumed that higher and more correct tone of morality which distinguished their review of Moore's Poems. Its rival, on the contrary, in contemporaneously reviewing the same work, not only treated with considerable levity an offence which peculiarly demands the critic's lash, the offence of trans-, gressing the bounds of decency; but was itself guilty of a gross and wanton violation of good manners, by raking up from the oblivion to which it had been wisely consigned, and holding up to public admiration, a most impure and licentious effusion of Burns's muse. The articles, however, which appeared in the Quarterly Review on the Missions to the East*, on the Socinian Testamentt, on the Sermons of Sydney Smith, on Miss Edgeworth's Tales of Fashionable Life§, and a few other articles, led us to hope that it would maintain more correct sentiments than the Edinburgh Journal on religious subjects. In this hope, also, we have been somewhat disappointed. With a warm zeal for orthodoxy on some few points of Christian doctrine, it treats others, of equal importance, with neglect, and sometimes with a sneer. This species of religion, we fear, is not unfashionable. It is not uncommon to find a strenuous advocate for the scriptural doctrine of the Trinity, who nevertheless disbelieves, or explains away, all that the Scriptures teach respecting the depravity of our nature, the atonement made on the cross by the Son of God, and the necessity of regeneration through the sanctifying influence of the Holy Spirit. The theological system of the Quarterly Review has something of this complexion. But we would ask, whether the doctrine itself of the Trinity, does not derive much of its importance, much of, its practical application, from those tenets which are thus neglected? When the soul is deeply impressed with a sense of its own corrup tion, and its utter inability either to free itself from past guilt, or to overcome its propensity to evil, will, it not peculiarly feel the value of an Almighty Saviour to atone for its sins, and of the agency of God's, Holy Spirit to create it anew to a life of righteousness? But where there exists no such apprehension of our real state and condition,, the doctrine of the Trinity may be believed as a matter of speculation, and even defended with zeal and sincerity: but it will not (it is to be feared) affect the heart; it will: not make us "walk humbly with God;" it will not render us watchful against temptation, fervent in prayer, serving the Lord as being "bought with a price;" it will not fill us with love, and joy, and peace in believing, as those for whom, "while yet sinners, Christ died" on the cross. That our complaints are wellfounded of the defective, or rather of the erroneous, theology of the Quarterly Review, will be evident on a slight perusal of the article on Worgan's Select Poems, in the sixth number. "It is not improbable," says the reviewer," that the languor of sickness may have given to his mind something of that tone of melancholy moralization which throws a gloom over this short narrative, and which leads him, to plead a degree of sinfulness, which no one would have thought of imputing to him" (p. 434). Is. not this the language of one who has very inadequate ideas of the holiness of God, the corruption of the human heart, and the “exceeding sinfulness of sin?" Worgan, indeed, appears to have been not only exempt from what may be called gross sins, but to have made a very considerable progress in holiness of life and conversation, Still, the most advanced Christian is prone to fall; still does he feel a law in his members, warring against the law in his mind, and bringing him into captivity to the law of sin;" and over this tendency to sin he We shall now notice another pas sage in the same Review, which is still more objectionable. Worgan censures the religion inculcated by Dr. Gregory in his "Father's Legacy to his Daughters," as defective, because it consists merely of "an attendance on public worship, private devotions, and charitable offices," without any thing " of the renewing change in heart and life, which constitute the soul of religion" (p. 434). "Now," say the We mean not the slightest insinuation as to the purity and sincerity both of faith and practice in Worgan himself; we contend only that the principles, which it appears from this and other passages he professed, are frequently perverted by knavery and self-delusion, and that they lead to such results." (pp. 424, 425). We shall not stop to comment on the grammatical accuracy of this passage, but we would ask whether, notwithstanding the salvo introduced at the close, it would not be understood, by the generaiity of readers, as insinuating that We have so often adverted to the subject of theatrical amusements, that we shall not enter the lists on that question with the Quarterly` Review. We shall content ourselves with retorting their own conclusive mode of settling the dispute: "The arguments" for "the drama have been urged again and again, and as often exposed and refuted." Nor shall we now discuss how far dancing is consistent with a profession of Christianity*: but we cannot pass over without censure such a passage as the following: Dawes Worgan believed in "mira- the divine commandments by such culous calls and supernatural visits;" works as Christianity requires. that his devotion was of a nature not apt to "lead to practice," but "to evaporate in the ravings of a troubled imagination;" that he did not sufficiently bear in mind the scriptural doctrine of men being judged by their works; and that he perverted the "doctrine of a particular conversion?" Now nothing of all this appears in the passage which gave rise to this tirade; but, on the contrary, Worgan insists on the necessity of a "renewing change in heart and life," as constituting the soul of religion:" and, as we have not been able to discover those other passages," in which this unexplained "baneful error" is supposed to lurk, we cannot but consider such representations as very unfair and uncandid. It is true, that Worgan held the "doctrine of a particular conversion;" that is, he believed that each individual, to be admitted into the kingdom of heaven, " must be born again," and that no one can be saved by the general conversion of the nation to which he belongs: but we are not aware, that he in any manner perverted this doctrine; he no where maintains that the renewing change, for which he contends, must be "sudden." What, then, are the principles, which it appears from this and other passages that he professed," which are frequently perverted by knavery and self-delusion," and which yet, it seems, may consist with "purity of faith and practice?" This the reviewer has left unexplained: but if our readers desire to know what were Worgan's religious sentiments, they may turn to our number for April last, where they will find them summed up in his own words: "Man is a sinner, and, as such, deserved both present and future misery, but, through the atonement which was made for our offences by the death of Christ, we may be reconciled to Heaven, if we forsake our sins, and labour to fulfil Were we to see a few young ladies threading the mazes of a cotillon to the sound of the harp, we should feel no violent inclination to go and preach to them; nor should we sit down to agitate the casuistical doubt, whether dancing were an occupation befitting a person who was destined for eternity." (p. 436). Whether dancing is universally to be condemned, or whether, under proper limitations, it may not be an innocent recreation, of which a Christian may without scruple partake, was certainly a fair subject for discussion; and we might not have altogether concurred with those who carry the severity of condemnation on this point to its extreme bounds. But eternity, an eternity in which our state of immeasurable happiness or misery is irrevocably fixed, is a subject too solemn for a witticism: levity on such a topic betrays either lamentable frivolity of mind, or secret disbelief; and to sneer at a serious regard for the concerns of eternity, is folly in a sceptic, and in a professed believer wickedness. We have selected this quotation as a specimen of that daring lightness of spirit on sacred subjects which is too often mistaken for wit, and in which the Quarterly Review, we are sorry to find, seems On the subject of amusements generally, we beg to refer the reader to our vol. for 1805, pp. 234 and 306. sometimes to vie with its rival. This spirit is particularly conspicuous in another article of the Sixth Number, the review of the "Residence at Tongataboo." But we refrain from any quotations, and will substitute a word of advice. We would say, then, to the conductor of the Quarterly Review; We acknowledge the ability, the increasing ability*, with which your work treats subjects of general science and literature; we acknowledge the services which on more than one occasion you have rendered to the cause of Christianity; but we would caution you against levity on religious topics. We do not object to the free and temperate discussion of any question which is fairly open to controversy; but whenever religion and eternity are mentioned, they should be mentioned with that seriousness which their supreme importance so imperiously demands. We are unwilling to close this article without adverting to an act of injustice on the part of the Quarterly Reviewers, for which we had hoped that candour would have long since led them to make some reparation; and we expected this the more confidently, as the misrepresentation had been pointed out, and could not be denied. In the review of the History and present State of America, by Dr. Holmes, in their Fourth number, after condemning with proper severity the cruel persecution of the Quakers in New England, they proceed to make the following reflections: "These are not times when any palliation of such intolerance is to be lightly passed over, or noticed An article has lately appeared, we mean the review of Gifford's Life of Pitt, in the Seventh Number, which may fairly vie in point of talent with any production of the same kind which we have yet seen. It was no small gratification to us to find that the mind which was capable of so powerful an effort, was richly imbued with scriptural literature, and manifested a tone of moral feeling in unison with scriptural truth. only with contempt. There is too We will not now stop to inquire into the justice of the charge brought against the Society for the Suppression of Vice, as we mean to consider at some length, in a future number, the arguments by which that society has been attacked. Neither do we mean to undertake the defence of the English Methodist who has defended the burning of Servetust. Our business is with what follows, respecting Mrs. More: and certainly we have no hesitation in saying, that a more wanton and unjust attack was never made on the well-earned fame of any indiviWe have looked carefully dual. Quarterly Review, No. IV. p. 327. + We wish the reviewer kad named the obnoxious author, because the only work we have any recollection of, and which can be brought under the description of the reviewer, is one in which, not the burning of Servetus is defended, but Calvin is vindicated from having had a share in the perNow this, it petration of that atrocity. will be seen, is a quite different thing from what the reviewer would insinuate; for it would indicate that the English Methodist is as great an enemy to the burning of Servetus as the Reviewer himself. through every part of Mrs. More's writings, in order to discover, not where she had expressed the sentiments attributed to her, for that we knew to be impossible, but whence the words were extracted which could, even in their isolated state, give colour to so monstrous a perversion of her meaning; and we take it upon us, after this search, to affirm if we are wrong we will submit to the reviewer's correction that the following is the passage in Mrs. More's writings which he had before him when he penned his critique. It occurs in her Hints to a Princess, vol. ii. p. 311. "The wisdom and moderation of the founders of our church," says Mrs. More," were equally conspicuous in the whole of their proceedings; never strenuously contending for any points, not even in that summary of Christian doctrines which was to be the established standard, but for such as affected the grand foundations of faith, hope, and charity. How honourable to our reformers, and to the glorious work in which they so successfully laboured, that, in the very first formation of the English church, that care to distinguish between essentials and non-essentials should be so strictly exercised, which the brightest philosophical luminary in his own, or perhaps in any age, some years after so strongly recommended and so beautifully illustrated! We see Moses,' says Lord Bacon, when he saw the Israelite and the Egyptian fight, he did not say, Why strive ye? but drew his sword and slew the Egyptian. But when he saw two Israelites fight, he said, Ye are brethren, why strive you? If the point of doctrine be Egyptian, it must be slain by the sword of the Spirit; but if it be an Israelite, though in the wrong, then, Why strive you? We see of the fundamental points, Christ penneth the league thus, He that is not for us, is against us; but of points not fundamental thus, He that is not against us, is with us.' To the an eternal praise then of our reformers, as well as with the deepest gratitude to God, be it said, that, in their concern for matters of faith, in which concern they yielded to none of their contemporaries, they intermingled a charity in which they have excelled them all." Thus far Mrs. More. It is impossible to read this passage in the most cursory manner, without seeing that Mrs. More's object is to enforce lenity and forbearance, and not severity, towards those who may differ from us. And with respect to the particular expression which has alarmed the Reviewer, and which, by the way, is not Mrs. More's, but Lord Bacon's, it is plain he did not understand it, Lord Bacon meant to say, that where errors in doctrine are essential, they must be confuted from Scripture; "they must be slain by the sword of the Spirit," which all who read their Bibles know to be "the word of God:"-but that, with respect to unessential differences, it was the wise and Christian course not to contend at all; " Ye are brethren, why strive ye?" Now we can easily suppose the Reviewer to have been sufficiently ignorant of Scripture to have fallen into an error on this point, and we should at once have candidly admitted this ignorance as his excuse, if he had only quoted his author fairly; but he has given us, under inverted commas, a sentence which, though plainly taken from Mrs. More, is yet so modified, as to make her speak a totally different language from what she intended. This will more strikingly appear when the passages are placed in juxta-position. "Egyptian points of doctrine," quotes the Reviewer, "which are to be cut off by the edge of the sword."-" If the point of doctrine be an Egyptian," says Mrs. More, or rather Lord Bacon. " it must be slain by the sword of the Spirit." This is certainly far beyond the licence of fair criticism, and we leave the reviewer to account for it. |