nor do we think that his own merits, which, better regulated, would be considerable, counterbalance the violation of every principle: for we must be excused in saying that his is not the brave neglect of a transcendent genius, but an affected and elaborate outrage against nature, simplicity, and truth. Even that primary and indispensable excellence, which arises from the 005, (we studiously adopt the Greek word,) as far as it is displayed in the work itself, is wanting in Mr. Irving. Far from creating a favourable impression of himself, his book commences, and we lament to say, proceeds, in a tone of self-sufficiency, we had almost written arrogance, which not all the piety of Taylor, nor the theologic depth of Barrow, not the conscious strength of Horsley could excuse; but here, with nothing to yindicate it beyond the erudition of a school boy, and a theology so indistinct and inconsistent, as to appear to take refuge from the detection of its unsoundness in its redundant and confused language; it is not merely in itself offensive, but destroys the effect of that boldness, which otherwise all would admire, with which many fashionable follies and vices are assailed. 'In this Christian country (says the Preface) there are perhaps nine tenths of every class who know nothing at all about the applications and advantages of the simple truths of revelation, or of revelation taken as a whole; and what they do not know, they cannot be expected to reverence and obey. This ignorance, in both the higher and the lower orders, of religion, as a discerner of the thoughts and intentions of the heart, is not so much due to the want of inquisitiveness on their part, as to the want of a sedulous and skilful ministry on the part of those to whom it is entrusted.' Now we do not scruple to assert that this contemptuous depreciation of the labours not merely of the Church of England, but likewise of all the dissenters, not only of the national system of education, but the weekly and Sunday schools of all descriptions, is directly false. We can only compare this assertion with the customary phrase which ushers in the recommendation of some inestimable secret, where the want of success in the regular faculty, long consulted in vain,' adds irrefragable weight to the testimony in favour of the new cordial panacea. To correct this evil, and here we fully coincide with him, Mr. Irving would imbue the literature of the country with the spirit of religion: but he must be as ignorant of the real state of the press in this country, as of the religion, if he supposes that others have not acknowledged, and endeavoured to act upon this principle before his appearance amongst us. His remedy, as far as the pulpit is concerned, is not quite so clear from the preface, and must be gathered from the work itself. His system seems to be, not to confine religious advice to topics of religion alone, but to introduce every sub

ject

ject which may occur, either literary or political, in the way of digression and illustration. The sermon is to be made as amusing as possible; no longer to restrict itself to the exposition of scripture, the unfolding of points of doctrine, or exhortation to Christian duty, but the preacher is to add to his office those of pamphleteer, journalist, and reviewer. But has not Mr. Irving the good sense to perceive that to admit matters of taste and opinion into the pulpit, however attractive at first, must invalidate its authority, and detract from that religious reverence, which the sanctity of the place and the priestly character ought to ensure? It is dangerous for a preacher to give his audience an opportunity of differing from him with justice and propriety. If they question the truth of his discourses on these points, they will suspect his authority on those which are more important. If he is a bad critic in their estimation, they will naturally doubt his being a good divine. There is, however, a more serious charge. We cannot endure the liberty of the old Grecian comedy being assumed in the pulpit. Mr. Irving introduces personal allusions to the authors of the day, and even attacks them by name. We must reprobate a practice so irreconcilable with the charity, and which may lead to consequences degrading to the dignity of the pulpit. Be the merit or demerit of Mr. Southey's Vision of Judgment what it may, with this we have nothing to do; but does not Mr. Irving perceive, that in his attack on that gentleman, he himself incurs a suspicion of not being exempt from the influence of political animosity? At all events, what could the effect of such a passage be upon those among his hearers, honestly if you will, opposed to Mr. Southey's principles? Could it be a charitable, devotional, Christian feeling? must it not have been a triumphant satisfaction at this authoritative condemnation of their adversary? Surely Mr. Irving must have discovered his error, not without shame and regret, if he noticed the avidity with which the passage in question was transferred to all the radical journals. We repeat that with the justice of the literary decision, we have nothing to do: what we assert is, that it was misplaced in a discourse from a Christian pulpit. In another place, we have an eulogy on Mr. Wordsworth, as turgid as the satire was coarse. The good sense of this gentleman, we hope, will value at its real worth, the assertion' that he hath heard, in the stillness of his retreat, many new voices of (God's) conscious Spirit.' But is admiration of Mr. Wordsworth's poetry to be a test of Christianity? are those who differ from Mr. İrving on this point to be accused of an unchristian spirit because they have smiled at what they honestly consider his hallucinations? This more nearly touches those brethren of our craft, who are usually considered as opposite in opinion to ourselves; but we

assure

assure them, that if they consider this to be in itself idle rhodomontade, and something worse, as delivered in a sermon, we shall give them the full benefit of our hearty concurrence. Even where

the charge is direct immorality, we doubt the wisdom of introducing names from the pulpit; we allude to those whom, with as much classical novelty as Christian propriety of expression, Mr. Irving styles Priests of the Cyprian Goddess.'

If our readers expect us to give a clear and detailed summary of Mr. Irving's Discourses, we must confess our total disability. Having gone through a sermon, we in vain attempt to collect the result. We have been struck by many original thoughts, startled by many rash and extravagant assertions; we have been in a state of alternate wonder at the greatness and the meanness of his conceptions, at the richness and poverty of his language; delighted by many clear and liberal, we will not say views, but glimpses of Christian truth, perplexed by confused and unintelligible sentences; captivated with ease and abundance, disenchanted by coarseness of illustration; hurried away by force and energy of writing, wearied with repetitions of the same thought in cumbrous phraseology, from which we labour through a whole page to extricate ourselves; disgusted with vulgar idiom and false grammar. The effect of the whole is confusion in the intellect, dissatisfaction and lassitude. There is little sensible, tangible, practical. We have been in a state of mental intoxication; we remember a mass of things but nothing distinctly! In fact, Mr. Irving has plunged headlong into the extravagance of the age; he has caught its irregular fantastic and disorderly spirit. His is not a prudent, dexterous, and partial morigeration (to use a word of Milton's) to the age, for the purpose of usefulness, but a willing adoption of all its wildest incoherence, its unprofitable excitation, its misty and indefinite style of writing.

Mr. Irving has been most fortunate, we should perhaps say, judicious, in the selection of his subjects. The excellence of the scriptures, and the Last Judgment, are not only in themselves most attractive and awful topics, but admit of as much splendid declamation, as any points of Christian theology. The first sermon, as far as we can collect its meaning, is occupied in remonstrating against the want of awe and devotion with which the sacred volume is studied. In explaining the common pre-occupations of the mind, which alienate it from the right performance of this duty, many thoughts occur both just and beautiful. But the general tone is so exaggerated, rhapsodical and devoid of good sense, that we fear few will be able to derive real improvement from such instruction. Mr. Irving complains that we do not receive the oracles of God with feelings like those of the Apostles, to whom they were

new,

new, and revealed with manifest and miraculous communications of the divine power. But it will naturally occur, that it cannot be expected that we should be so affected; and it would be the highest presumption, were we to pretend to apostolic extasies and raptures without those visitations which were vouchsafed to the apostles. In a short time we find the preacher inveighing against the Catechism, as pre-occupying the mind with notions hostile to the reception of the simple gospel. How far this may apply with justice to the subtleties of the Scottish form, we know not; but in favour of our own, we must plead that, instead of filling the mind with scholastic prejudices, it appears to us admirably adapted for its purpose, the presentation of a brief and intelligible summary of Christian faith and practice to those who cannot yet read the Scripture; a condensation of the elementary truths of Christianity, which are scattered through the large and difficult volume of the Bible, suited to the young, and those who are yet unable to search the scriptures' for themselves. In fact Mr. Irving seems to leave the understanding of the scriptures entirely out of the question, and would commit the whole of religion to the heart and the affections. Now we have great authority for remonstrating against the separation of zeal and knowledge; and we must doubt the wisdom of neglecting to enforce, in the most earnest manner, that, without which, from experience, we have learnt, that the word of God is not merely ineffective, but degraded into a text-book and authority for the darkest bigotry and most intolerant fanaticism. But this is perpetually the case with whatever is most striking in Mr. Irving; it will not bear a calm and dispassionate analysis; as it is not grounded on sober reason and truth, it will not endure being searched and examined with severe and logical accuracy.

For what reason Mr. Irving has dignified the nine concluding discourses with the significant title of argument, we are unable to discover; with the exception of the first, in which the responsibility of man to God is argued' in a most inconclusive and unsatisfactory manner from his responsibility in the other relations of life, we find little which can pretend to the praise of reasoning. In one place, indeed, we have a discussion of the subject of everlasting punishment, in which, however, the real difficulties of the question are by no means fairly grappled with, but the inquiring mind is overpowered and, as it were, stunned, by a succession of terrific images, and stern assertions. We fully conclude with Mr. Irving, that nothing in Scripture is in the least conclusive in favour of the contrary opinion, and therefore that it would be dangerous to preach the temporary duration of punishment after death. By dwelling upon this topic constantly, sin drops its heinousness, the law loses its strength, the future is disburthened of its fear, and life goes on

just

just the same as if God had overlaid it with no rule, and required of us no account.' p. 421. Here also we must do Mr. Irving the justice to observe, that, however vaguely expressed his opinions on those other points which have divided the Christian world, he invariably appears to lean to the more mild and charitable and, we add, without fear, to the wisest side. Not merely is Mr. Irving no Calvinist, but he takes every opportunity of protesting against the more gloomy and harsh articles of the Genevese creed. This we acknowledge with unfeigned pleasure, and add in devout sincerity, talis cum sis, utinam noster esses! Would to heaven that the same wisdom, wisdom in its highest sense, derived from a sober study of God's revelation in his works and in his word, pervaded the whole course, and tempered the whole character of his religious instruction! We return, with unwillingness and repugnance, to the defects of Mr. Irving. His manner of distributing and arranging his subjects by no means fails in comprehensiveness; but it is so perplexed with digressions, and encumbered by intermingling the separate heads, sometimes anticipating what is to come, or reverting to what he has exhausted, that we find it difficult to discover with what part of the plan we are occupied; and after all the care with which our journey has been laid down and mapped, we find ourselves wandering in an inextricable wilderness. His style and diction are still more perversely inconsistent and contradictory. His prose is elaborate, and at the same time singularly deficient in rhythm; a sentence cast in the prolix mould of the ancient pulpit is succeeded by a smart epigram; the full and turgid flow of his great model, Dr. Chalmers, is suddenly broken up into short quaint clauses. For the singularity of his language we cannot permit him to plead his country. It would be the very insolence of pedantry, should we affect to make allowances to the countrymen of Hume, Robertson and Dugald Stewart, for national peculiarity and for incorrectness of writing. But the dialect of Mr. Irving is neither Scotch nor English, neither ancient nor modern; it is sometimes so forced and strained as to be unintelligible, strange words used in still more strange senses; sometimes it is familiar even to vulgarity: one moment inflated to the highest poetry, the next sinking to the language of the streets. We e are almost ashamed of our perpetual antithesis; but, in fact, the faults and merits of Mr. Irving are so strangely balanced and contrasted, so much in opposite extremes, that we know no other way of expressing our opinion with perspicuity and decision.

Is then Mr. Irving eloquent? If he is, the prize of eloquence must be awarded with greater frequency, and may be obtained with greater facility, than such writers as Aristotle, Cicero, and Quintilian supposed.. Who may not be eloquent, that is endowed