these remarks, rather for the benefit of others than for any elucidation of our own principles. Let all who ever write remember, that nothing will ever succeed in the shape of men-pleasing. Those who would do good, either to themselves or others, must speak out and speak truly: let the consequences answer for themselves. Now, therefore, let us return to the subject of reviewing and reviewers.

The first evil that resulted from the invention arose from the accessibility of the periodical writers to undue influence in various ways. Sometimes direct bribery, sometimes political patronage, sometimes the more allowable effect of personal friendship, sometimes a reciprocation of similar services. Now, if individuals, of comparatively humble position and moderate literary pretensions, be placed in the post of reviewers, all these causes must operate to a very large extent. The first kind of reviewing was naturally that which had in view solely the primary objects for which the art was invented. It analysed books, gave from their pages a sufficient quantity of extracts to serve as specimens of the author's style, and informed the public how he treated the subject under discussion. But as the number of books printed multiplied, systems multiplied with them; and though the systems in question were often as idle and vague as it was possible for a system to be, it was yet found, that whenever a man forms a system, it will actuate him, even unconsciously, in far greater matters than those which occasioned its formation. So uniform is truth, that error in one branch of knowledge or philosophy will be sure to reproduce itself in another. The man who entertains incorrect views on political subjects, will be found also to be more or less incorrect also on topics connected with religion, metaphysics, ethics, and not unfrequently even in physical science. We say "not unfrequently," because we would not wish to make a rash assertion; but we think we might deliberately aver that no infidel ever did entertain thoroughly sound views on physical subjects.

The multiplication, therefore, of systems could not-cannot, but be attended with evil; and that for the very obvious reason, that while there are a thousand forms of error, there is but one of truth, and every variation from that one form must be more or less dangerous. We have a remarkable instance of the evil influence of infidel opinions, even on points of physical science, in the work of M. Eusebe Salverte on the "Occult Sciences" —a book in which he attempts, in a way for which the merest tyro in science would deserve flogging, to show that the miracles of Moses and Elijah were juggling tricks: he extends the same very philosophical theory to the New Testament history also.

Now to review a book like this, it would be evidently insufficient to point out the wrong statements of the author; it would be necessary to review the animus, as well as the assertions, of the writer, and to trace that animus to its true cause. But to do this the writer must be a Christian. Again, there are many who would unhesitatingly declare, and with a certain degree of consistency, that the right of private judgment allows each man to form and to publish his own opinions, whatever those opinions may be; and thus we have a further qualification made necessary in order to review one book out of thousands-viz., that he should be a Churchman, for a Churchman only is in the position to condemn this book-one in the highest degree wrong and mischievous. But if in a treatise, which professes only to regard one branch of physical investigation, it is necessary to have a Churchman to act as a competent reviewer, surely it is far more so in cases where politics are concerned, and still more obviously where religion is the matter under discussion. We are quite aware that we may be told that a Dissenter may condemn an infidel work as well as a Churchman. So he may; but it will be immediately replied to him-that is your opinion, mine happens to be the contrary; and my opinion is as good as yours. So far as every man's opinion is to be his rule, so far this objection will be fatal, and the poor Dissenter who stands up for what he wrongly considers the right of private judgment, is restrained from judging the works of others. Infidels will not judge them unfavourably, and they will go unreproved were there not a Church to administer the necessary rebuke.

We have already alluded to the multitude of systems arising out of the multiplication of books. This circumstance gave rise to another kind of reviewing, one which less regarded the literary merit of the work than the class to which it belonged-which entirely disregarded the cant of candour, and adopted the motto, "not measures, but men -a motto as sound as that celebrated one "Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes." This principle appeals not to the theoretical perfections of an ideal state, but to the existing corruptions of frail and fallen humanity. Nor is it an uncharitable one; for our Divine Master himself, while he commands us to be "harmless as doves," enjoins upon us also to be "wise as serpents.' This circumstance then gave rise to a species of reviewing, which considered the literary merit of a work as to be considered only with reference to its effect in furthering or stopping the progress of a system—the object, purpose, and tendency (these are all different things), are first noticed, and then the power and ability with which that purpose is endeavoured to be attained. The first Review which was

ever established in this country on the principle which we are now discussing was the Edinburgh. It was avowedly to support and propagate the doctrines of pure Whiggism that that powerful periodical was set on foot. The sarcastic power of Brougham, the acuteness of Jeffery, the inimitable fun of Sydney Smith, the astute semi-philosophism of Macaulay, with the varied talent of many others, whose names are all, or nearly all, known to fame, were employed in this undertaking. And now let us pause for a moment and attempt to define, pace tantorum virorum, what pure Whiggism is. It is not democratic; for there are no aristocrats so insolently haughty in their deportment as the professed Liberals. It is not republicanism; for it is quite possible for a "true old Whig" to avow his determination "to stand by his order." It is not open irreligion; for a "true old Whig assents to the truths of Christianity for the most part. But it is an amalgamation of all that is high and ennobling with a sufficient portion of practical infidelity to taint and corrupt it, to bring down principle to the level of expediency. It makes national religion a piece of state machinery, and individual religion "a good example to the lower orders." It regards man as an animal to experiment upon, with respect to diet and education— useful in factories and at elections; and it looks upon politics as the act of attaining and keeping place. Patriotism, in its system, is but a word, and God but an abstract idea. Perfectly in accordance with this system is the notion which the Whig entertains of the Church-of her rites and of her rights; the one sufficient vice of the theory is the supposition that the intellect is the highest faculty of man, and that the "right of private judgment," as they phrase it, is his most glorious privilege. We are by no means disposed to deny that there are good men— meritorious men-patriotic men-religious men, who are Whigs; but then these are good, virtuous, patriotic, not in consequence of, but inconsistently with, their politics. Hence we shall not be accused of supposing that the object of a periodical, like the Edinburgh Review, is to establish such results as those to which we have pointed as the natural consequences of Whiggism; but we may freely assert, that we do consider that its tendency is to do so. And we name the highest and ablest of Whig organs, simply because if what we have said be true of it, it must also be true of all those periodicals which take up the same views.

In order to counteract these principles, the Quarterly Review was established, and it would be difficult, if possible, to ascertain the amount of benefit derived to the public from that periodical. At a later period, many other Quarterlies have been been started;

but of these, the following only are now existing besides our

own:

The Westminster--the organ of the Radicals, or rather of the extreme Whigs-revolutionary, not in design, but in principle. The British Critic, which, after many changes, is now the avowed organ of the Oxford Tractarians, and holds, therefore, all their religious as well as political opinions. The British and Foreign Review, the tendencies of which are somewhat between those of the Westminster and those of the Edinburgh, while it deals more in notices of continental and colonial works than either; and the Foreign Quarterly. All these are conducted on the same principle that of supporting a certain system; and the mode in which this design is accomplished is by essays on the topics. chosen by authors, illustrated by their works, and not usually by analytical reviews of the books noticed. This species of reviewing is not unfair to authors, as some suppose; for as correct an idea of a book may be conveyed by such means as by an analysis. If the essay be well written, the reviewer's opinion is expressed as decidedly, and the tendency of the work as clearly exhibited. The last named publication is one which will require more notice than the rest, because we mean to prove all our positions from the pages of the July number, and to show that no man is qualified to be a reviewer, save a Churchman. Until April of the present year, this periodical was the property of Messrs. Black and Armstrong, and of late it has been edited by the Rev. Dr. Worthington; but at that period it fell, as a property, into the hands of Messrs. Chapman and Hall; and as an organ, we apprehend, into those of the Useful Knowledge Society-a society of whom we once observed that we hardly knew whether to call it the Society for the Confusion of Useful Knowledge, or the Society for the Diffusion of Mischievous Ignorance? We are apt to think that the latter would be the more appropriate title. And regarding the Foreign Quarterly, under its present aspect, as in alliance with the society aforesaid, we shall say a few words on its position. We do not mean to assert that it is an official organ of the Society, but simply that it adopts the same views and supports the same system. It is our intention to review, at some length, before much time has passed, the productions of the Society for the Diffusion of Useful Knowledge, and the present may therefore be considered the first instalment. We shall, first, therefore, remark on the irreligious spirit which the Foreign Quarterly displays. What can be said of such a passage as the following. Speaking of such a state of society as that which prevails in this country at present, the reviewer says:

2.

"In this state of things, then, we are sure to find-1. An endless repetition of moral and religious commonplaces for practical use. An infinite bustle of political discussion, adapted to the comprehension of all, and therefore to that of the least comprehensive. 3. Scientific inquiries into "matter and motion," such as can be at all connected with money-making. 4. Frivolous literature, in a perpetual succession of novelties, made for to-day and gloriously independent of to-morrow. But under none of these heads could we expect to find any thing deeper in meaning or wider in survey than an enlightened public can relish. Little could be hoped of true and energetic originality. And genius itself, which comes from Heaven and cannot be prevented by the happiest mechanization of man, would hardly break out, except either in some loose and loud subserviency to the multitude, or with faint-hearted dishonest adherence to the letter of what is orthodox; or by mad revolt, as in melodious Shelley, against nature and necessity, no less than laws and men."

Again, speaking of the revolutionary wars under Charles I.—

"Those puritan wars were only the fierce transition to the orderly, stiff, prosaic, aldermanic form of national life, which has prevailed in this country ever since.".

Nor is what follows at all better in its consequences. The law under discussion is the law by which all serious human action may be governed :

"But mere practical life only seeks to have this law made as definite as possible, and enforced by the extremest sanction; and hence rejects as dangerous all scientific enquiry into human duties and destinies, and shuns all question of the coherence and completeness of its creed, provided only that it be applicable and positive. We must take into account also the political weight of what is once established; and hence the repugnance, on the part of constituted authorities, to intellectual movement, except within a very definite sphere."

This passage is politically objectionable also, as well as theologically. We need hardly be surprised after this to find a kind of apothesis of the wretched infidel Rousseau :

"We must own that he combined in his wonderful genius the most impassioned affection and the most earnest reason; and, with all his faults, was more than any man the precursor and representative of the great intellectual revolution which had begun in Germany before his death, and has extended more or less to all Europe."

But we shall now go on to show what kind of a land is that which has had the advantage, in so pre-eminent a degree, of M. Rousseau's "earnest reason and most impassioned affections," viz., not France, but Germany.

"Taking up our former enquiry into the history of the German mind-what seems most peculiar to that nation, among all those of