ART. XVI.-The British Review, and London Critical Journal. Published Quarterly. Nos. XI. XII. XIII. 1815, 1816. 8vo. Price 6s. each. Baldwin and Co.

A Friend, who makes the circuit of London literature every season, observed, the other day, that the British Review is written by an association of evangelical layers! who by way of guarding against that cooling of their zeal, which is so much to be apprehended in these degenerate times, have chosen a pious lady to preside at their quarterly consultations. He also told us what it could not be altogther necessary to tell us, that the writers are not Judges, that it cannot be supposed that masters in chancery, especially in term-time, should turn masters in Israel, or even that Barristers in full practice would do so; and that the evangelists must of course be looked for among the Barristers elect, or the incalculable host of Attorneys. This was quite enough and more than enough for us to learn of an affair, which, to say the truth, is no concern of ours.

"It is of no consequence to the public, to be informed of the circumstances which interrupted for some time, the regular publication of this third Quarterly journal: but it is an inquiry both of interest and consequence to ascertain the principles on which it is conducted, and to point out the particulars in which it differs from the journals we have already noticed in our preceding numbers.

The Edinburgh Review belongs to the frigid zone of a nominal (and if we may be allowed such an association of terms) a sceptical Christianity. The political creed of its conductors, is as heterodox as their religion. They are philosophers who speculate in many cases, for the sake of speculation-who are fond of experiment and innovation-who would rather look at things as they fancy they might be than as they are--and who, with all their ridicule of a millennial æra, have no portion of optimism in their anticipations, but seem to admit more readily the existence of an evil principle, than the controul of a wise superintending Providence. Their hopes are cheered by no spiritual illumination, and their forebodings are blended with no recognitions of a divine government. They regard only the immediate causes and results of the whirlwind and the storm; and forget who it is that "sitteth in the heavens," to guide their movements and to point their vengence. No mercy gives to their "affliction, a grace," shining behind the dark clouds of their tribulation: they reason as if they were without God in the world!" Their

thoughts and feelings, their fears and hopes, present no indication of the slightest tendency to devotional sentiment; and whatever may be their occasional professions, all the moral effect of an unqualified scepticism pervades their speculations.

The Quarterly Reviewers are far from being without religion; but it is in a great measure exclusive and national. It seems, on some occasions, as if it had been made by acts of parliament: the image and superscription of Cæsar are prominent upon it; and it is surrounded by an atmosphere of secularity, which presents it to the eye as one for which they would not hesitate to fight. If the Edinburgh Reviewers have no religion in their politics; the Quarterly Reviewers have little else than politics in their religion.

It is surely possible to contemplate Christianity in its native attractions, without the charms of its dowry; to profess a supreme regard for its great principles, whatever may be the external circumstances and associations in which they are displayed to the world; and to defend the cause of an ecclesiastical establishment, and to be attached to its interests, on the ground of expediency alone, without identifying religion with the systems which mere human authority has created. It is also possible, nay it would be easy, to prove that religion is not fanaticismnor methodism-nor a principle which, wherever it operates, implies the absence of intelligence, proscribes the enjoyments of taste, or condemns the excursions of genius. It would not be difficult, and it is necessary, to show, that there can be an honourable and permanent alliance between philosophy and religion: not, however, that vague and undefined religion which is any thing but Christianity; but one of that specific form and character, which arises out of the discoveries and representations of the sacred volume. Between this unfashionable religion, and true philosophy, there not only may be there actually is an intimate connexion: and it is of the highest consequence, that such a connection should be elucidated. It is also practicable to exemplify a tone of thinking and feeling, which accords with the highest demands of philosophy, and yet suits the taste and temper of a serious and reflecting mind; which is not afraid to recognize and avow Christian principles on proper occasions; which does not content itself with certain formal and periodical courtesies for the sake of decency, but mingles its pure and heavenly influence with all the habitudes and operations of thought. It is obvious that one feature would be strongly marked in the moral and intellectual character of such thinking;

and that would be an immediate recognition of Christian principles, wherever they might be displayed, and a solemn conviction of their superiority above all other subjects of human inquiry. Hence would result a feeling of brotherhood, on the ground of those principles, and a disposition to indulge in all the social affections which such principles inspire, towards those who maintain them, though in different forms of combination, and in connection with some views and practices which might be unequivocally condemned and renounced. Still, for the sake of those better principles, there would be, to the full extent of their practical influence, a cordial and active co-operation, an interchange of kind offices, and a congeniality of sentiment, which are infinitely more valuable than the mechanical uniformity of party-spirit, whether it be the sectarianism of the conventicle or of the hierarchy, that regulates its operations.

If it be possible to conduct a literary journal on these principles, and with an invariable regard to these objects-it is unquestionably desirable that there should be such a journal. It is desirable for the sake of all parties both in Church and State; for infidel reviewers, for high-minded ecclesiastics, for unbending nonconformists, and for all your mere men of literary pretensions, who believe in the impossibility of being clever, and yet devout and at the same time not unacceptable to men of talent and research, who are humble enough to admit and contend for the self-denying and mortifying truths of revealed religion. It would be, clearly, a practical benefit to all these classes of readers and thinkers, that there should be such a tribunal of criticism to appeal to. It might be expected that candour and benevolence would pervade the spirit and temper of such a tribunal-that those who preside in it, would exemplify the healing tendencies of conciliation and good-will-and be infinitely more concerned about the great objects of their judicial authority, than any inglorious interests, however magnified by passion, or distorted by bigotry or fanaticism. It might be hoped that its talents would vindicate its religion, and its religion consecrate its talents.

We are by no means prepared to say that such absolutely are the principles and objects of the conductors of the British Review. But as far as our recollections of the first numbers extend, and from a perusal of the last three numbers, (which may be considered as a new series of the work,) we are disposed to think that while its conductors and contributors are as loyal as they ought to be, and as decided too in their attachment to the established church, they are liberal, enlightened, and not unphilosophic. But we consider it as the primary excellence of their NO. XI. Aug. Rev. VOL. II. X.

journal, that they are "not ashamed of the gospel of Christ," and can unite with their literary and political disquisitions, a firm and confident assertion of their religious convictions.

This general estimate of the British Review, must not however be understood as implying an acknowledgment of their unvarying and unqualified excellence. Their ability is not equally sustained; and on some subjects, they are rather declamatory and discursive than accurate and profound. The style of their articles is often marked by its diffuseness. Their diction is deficient in point, terseness, and vigour; and they seem to aim at an expansion of their thoughts, which tends greatly to weaken their effect. But these are minor blemishes which time may remove, and which affect not the substantial basis of their fame.

Having so frankly expressed our favourable opinion of the journal before us, we shall not be accused of a censorious disposition, if a particular investigation of some articles should now or hereafter lead us to qualify, and occasionally to withdraw our commendations.

Seldom has a higher gratification been allotted us, than we enjoyed in perusing the first article in the first of these numbers. It is on the late Bishop Horsley's Translation of the Psalms. We do not accede to the principle of interpretation, in all its length and breadth, which the learned Prelate has applied to this interesting portion of Scripture. He appears to consider almost every psalm as applicable to the Messiah, and in this respect agrees with the divines of the Hutchinsonian school, at the head of whom was the excellent and pious Bishop Horne. In this sentiment the Reviewer coincides with these episcopal authorities. We are aware that much may be pleaded in its favour; but we think it is a principle which ought to be received with more limitation than either Horne or Horsley have observed in their use of it. That the Messiah is the person who speaks in many of the psalms is unquestionably true. But how are we to distinguish in this case? It is the difficulty of accurate discrimination, that affects most seriously the exclusive application of some psalms and the application at all of the penitential psalms, to the "holy one of God." The question is this.--Because some of the psalms, and some parts of almost all the psalms are, on the best authority, applicable to the Messiah in his vicarious and mediatorial character; are we authorised to apply all and every part of these compositions to the same character? Are there to be no exceptions? Must not a forced, unnatural, and in some cases, a dangerous system of interpre tation, arise out of this principle? However well supported

it may be, in the general admission of it, it is certainly liable to a great perversion of construction, when under the guidance of an ill-governed imagination; and we wish the vigorous mind of Horsley had fairly met the question, as to the limitation of the principle, and attempted, at least, the establishment of some general rules on the subject.

We have mentioned the pleasure which the article on Horsley imparted; and freely confess that it arose from the rich combination of devotional feeling with accurate and candid criticism which so happily pervaded the composition. The harp of the son of Jesse was not polluted by their touch; and the heart of the writer was attuned to its inspirations!

The subsequent articles in the XIth number, have nothing in them, that does not demand and deserve our commendation, excepting two towards the close of the series. These are however of so important a nature as to require a particular notice. They are on subjects widely different from each other; the one being metaphysical, and the other political. We shall at present attend only to the former, and advert to the latter, when glancing at the political disquisitions of the remaining numbers.

The elaborate metaphysical dissertation is occasioned by the appearance of the second volume of "Stewart's Philosophy of the Human Mind." A great part of the article respects the philosophy of Dr. Reid, and his outrageous attack on the pyrrhonism of Hume and Berkeley. We are far from possessing that veneration for the system of Reid, which would lead us to an implicit adoption of all his sentiments (though we think he has rendered essential service to the cause of truth, and has greatly simplified and improved the science of mind). He is at times however incautious and precipitate; and is specially vulnerable in multiplying to an unwarrantable extent, the number of what he calls, "instinctive principles." The able and enlightened Reviewer has pointed out several instances of hasty and gratuitous reasoning. And one just occurs to our own recollection. In his valuable inquiry into the "active powers," Essay III. Ch. ii. p. 110. he enumerates two classes of actions as instinctive, neither of which result from that mysterious principle. "In advanced life," says he, "we have need of instinct, "when the action must be so frequently repeated, that to intend "and will it every time it is done, would occupy too much of our "thought, and leave no room for other necessary employments "of the mind." The only proofs in illustration of this assertion, adduced by him, are the act of respiration,' and the 'closing of the eye-lids in order to preserve the lustre of the eye.A