that none such as those I have pointed out, is now living to be offended or alarmed."—Vol. i. pp. 333-4.

Mr. Landor would pass for a hater of despots,-his feeling, we suspect, is rather personal jealousy than a just enmity; whichever it is, what shall we say of one whom it can lead into such folly or wickedness? But in estimating his capacity for thinking reasonably and justly, we are entitled to look at what is said by others beside himself. Not only because plainly his characters often are merely his mouth-pieces, uttering what he believes, but also because when what they say is to sustain their part in the conversation, Mr. Landor is responsible for, and may be justly judged of by it-for it is his own gratuitous invention, and his choice of it rather than of something else, for illustrating his characters, affords a pretty good index to that of his own mind. But, moreover, notwithstanding his having disclaimed the opinions of his speakers, it would be imputing too much laborious trifling to him to believe that he had not some higher aim than the display of his literary powers, in composing this huge mass of dissertative and controversial discussion.

It is not our intention to mention all that has struck us in the doctrines and sentiments of his Dialogists. We will confine ourselves to one subject, of which, next to literature, he thinks oftenest and speaks most-we mean religion. This is a topic which fascinates him; he eagerly takes it up when it is in his way, and often goes out of his way to vent his feelings regarding it. What those feelings are it is not, in our opinion, difficult to describe. They seem to be simply a state of animated hatred of the religious ideas and usages of all Christendom. In one place (vol. i. p. 327) he praises or objects to Christianity that it enjoins more kindness than is practicable; but he neither, that we can discover, expressly professes or expressly disclaims it. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we presume him to profess the Christian faith, but pronounce him with some confidence to be as mere a sciolist in this branch of knowledge as we have ever encountered. He has picked up just so much information concerning Christianity as enables him to speak about it; he employs this in manufacturing invectives and sneers at the opinions and practices of other Christians, not excepting, if we rightly understand what we read, those of Christ himself. That, in the sort of fury in which he rages through this subject, he should deal wounds to persons and things deserving reprehension is to be expected. But his abuse, even when falling on the fittest objects, such as Popery and priestcraft, offends and is rendered useless by its generality and intemperance. And on many occasions it seduces him into such

weak inventions as to be truly pitiable. We must justify these hard sayings by facts. There is a series of conversations between the Emperor of China and Tsing-Ti his minister, who, having been sent on a mission to Europe, recounts to the Emperor, on his return, the professions and practices of the people he visited. The object is to show that the one was at variance with the other-which is effected by making Tsing-Ti fall into mishaps and offences, from his observing exactly the laws and maxims professed in the country. This idea is, we all know, not original, neither is it here happily executed, the incidents being throughout incredible caricatures, entirely destitute of that ludicrous probability which constitutes the sting and charm of this species of satire. Tsing-Ti represents the English "as having wholly rejected Christianity, and being ashamed of following the plainest and easiest ordinance of Christ." Of this he gives such illustrations as these. On the first Sunday after his arrival he thought he would follow the example of King David, where he says, "I will sing unto the Lord a new song." "Resolved to do the same to the best of my poor ability, I too composed a new one, and began to sing it in the streets. Suddenly I was seized and thrown into prison."-P. 119. On another occasion "having read in my Bible, if any be merry let him sing psalms,' and thinking that a peculiarity in pronunciation is disguised more easily in singing than in talking, I began to sing psalms through the streets. The populace pelted me; the women cried, 'scandalous;' the boys, 'let us have some fun,'" &c.-P. 134. Again, being in a court of justice, he saw some men punished for " capturing wild animals, birds, and fishes," in other words, for poaching-more severely than some others for stealing; of which disproportion he supposes the reason was, that the poachers "had followed the law of Christ."

"Tsing-Ti.-Christ ordered men never to reap, never to sow, because the fowls did neither. Emperor.-Tsing-Ti, I love thee from my soul, but beware, let no man utter this in China. Tsing-Ti.-He ordered men to take no thought of what they put on, and, indeed, not to clothe at all, assuring them that God would clothe them as he clothed the grass of the field, and would much rather clothe them than the grass.-Matthew, vi. 30. Interpretation of what is commanded is less censurable in its strictness than in its laxity. Those who obeyed God's word undoubtingly-those who obeyed it to the letterthose who obeyed it both because it was his, and because he had condescended to give his reasons for their obedience, in the birds, namely, and the grass, were strangely persecuted. I saw a man tortured for taking as little care as the grass did about his raiment; and I am assured if he had gone into a corn field and had satisfied his necessities as the birds satisfy theirs, his religion would have led him into greater difficulties."-P. 141.

This will suffice for sane readers, and yet we assure them, that we leave unquoted even more strange specimens of what our author no doubt thinks is wit and humour, but others will set down as puerilities or senilities. There is another dialogue deserving of notice, that between Lucian and Timotheus; the former the heathen satirist, the latter his Christian cousin. With the topics natural to such speakers, a writer of a fair mind and sound head, and of a genius for such compositions, might have constructed a Dialogue of surpassing interest. What an event he had for description in the internal and external growth and development of Christianity, of which they were witnesses! What a field for philosophic imagination in picturing how educated heathens were affected by its differences from the ancient religion, and among these, by the antipathy to doctrinal error with which it was inspiring mankind! And what a worthy task for a wise philosophy, to unfold the cause of this distinction between it and paganism, and estimate fairly the good and evil to society of this newly instilled zeal for the possession and propagation of truth! But how does Mr. Landor proceed? His Timotheus is silly, and of few words. His Lucian is authoritative and loquacious. And the miserable design of the conversation seems to be not even to show the manner of Lucian, but to detract from Christianity and from Plato; which Lucian does with singular zeal. He impeaches the evidences and the reasonableness of Christianity. He impeaches even its utility, blind (how dark such blindness!) to what its worst enemies have confessed, the development which it caused of man's purer and tenderer affections, the sanctity with which it clothed woman, the honourable station to which it raised the poor, the preciousness and the dignity with which it invested the whole nature and lot of man. He apologises for idolatry; he paints in black colours the character and practices of the Christians, and declares Epicurus, Carneades, Zeno, and other heathen worthies to have been virtuous beyond any Christian example. The hideous portrait of Christianity has not one redeeming feature. It amply attests the disgust and hatred of its author. But disgust to be sympathetic must be that of a reasonable man; while Lucian or Mr. Landor makes out no title to consideration, except the fervour of his disgust. He lays down indeed what seems his general cause of quarrel with Christianity," that it is the most unphilosophical thing in the world to call away men from useful occupations and mutual help, to profitless speculations and acrid controversies." But no proposition more vapid is possible; unless it be meant that all speculations respecting truth are profitless; and that there should be no controversy, although men's opinions differ. But if Truth

be valuable, as it is, indeed, the most so of human possessions, it should be sought after; and if men are not isolated savages, those who find it will try to make their erring brethren receive it; and this will breed controversy, and controversy will breed acridity; though rarely indeed so much and so cankerous as flows through the pages of this intolerant apostle of charity and turbulent pleader for peace.-But, perhaps, the article in which Mr. Landor renders most conspicuous his incompetency to deal reasonably with his subject, is the conversation between Calvin and Melancthon. Of course, his hero is Melancthon; of whom he seems to have heard that he was milder in temper, and milder in his views of Christian doctrine than some others of the Reformers. On this foundation our author builds; and, with an air of confidence that is very ridiculous, turns the man who thought in theology most orthodoxly, as well as most luminously, precisely, and systematically, into an inflated and doctrine-hating mystic. Take a specimen.

"Calvin. Hath not our Saviour said explicitly, that many are called, but few chosen? Melancthon. Our Saviour? Hath he said it? Calvin. Hath he, forsooth? Where is your New Testament? Melancthon. In my heart. Calvin. Without this page, however. Melancthon. When we are wiser and more docile, that is, when we are above the jars and turmoils and disputations of the world, our Saviour will vouchsafe to interpret what, through the fumes of our intemperate vanity, is now indistinct or dark. He will plead for us before no inexorable judge. He came to remit the sins of many; not the sins of a few, but of many; not the sins of many, but of all."-Vol. ii. p. 221.

The

What follows is of a piece with this; as full of the shallow commonplaces of a superficial rationalism, and as violently in contrast with all that Melancthon ever thought or spoke. object of the conversation is to bring into discredit the doctrine of the future punishment of the wicked, and of salvation from final misery by Christianity alone. To effect this, he makes Melancthon palliate the sinfulness of false religions, represent the notion of vindictive justice as dishonouring to God, and utter the usual jargon about the disputableness of texts, and the possibility of mistaken interpretations. Having exhausted which topics, Melancthon thus speaks :

"Calvin! I beseech you, do you who guide and govern so many, do you (whatever others may) spare your brethren. Doubtful as I am of lighter texts, blown backward and forward at the opening of opposite windows, I am convinced of one grand immovable verity. It sounds strange. It sounds contradictory. Calvin. I am curious to hear it. Melancthon. You shall. This is the tenet. There is nothing on earth divine beside humanity."-Vol. ii. p. 225.

We might ask what is meant by "humanity?" the affection for our kind? or the human nature? If the former, (which we suppose) why make this pompous paradox out of so simple a saying as that men ought to be humane? With this rhodomontade the conversation worthily closes.-Calvin's treatment throughout is even worse than Melancthon's. He opens his mouth to do little more than plead guilty to the charge of so interpreting the Bible as to make it "tell people not only that they may go and be damned, but unless they are lucky they must inevitably," and to provoke by a series of very silly remarks, victorious replications from his antagonist. We shall not delay to draw out at length the inferences fairly deducible from Mr. Landor's composing and publishing such a conversation, regarding his own mental and moral constitution. This only will we say, that the Calvinistic theory of Christianity, with its proofs and supports in revelation and reason, is plainly quite beyond the province of his mind; which has neither the depth, nor the comprehensiveness, nor the exactness, nor the patience, nor the purity necessary for understanding it. genius, indeed, belongs to quite a lower sphere than that of men like Calvin-the mighty intellects which have discovered, seized upon, and rendered cognoscible by other men, by arranging in a system, and enduing with language, the fundamental ideas and laws of religion, or philosophy, or government. And yet this writer, whose range is among the secondary notions and opinions which suffice for the common body of men, and whose highest achievements are to express some pleasing sentiment, expose some prejudice, give a prudent advice, fabricate a metaphor, or detect a solecism in language, must elevate his crest and distend his nostrils with disdain of these grand luminaries of intellect, and directors of the thoughts of mankind.

His

While Mr. Landor's opinions are such as we have described, the reader is apt to be deceived in their quality, and think them truths derived from a deep philosophy, by the form in which they are stated. Generally speaking, it is the aphoristic. These pages are studded with aphorisms and apothegms, as the sky is with stars: Solomon himself, who spake three thousand proverbs, has not outnumbered Mr. Landor. Now, the aphorism is the form in which mighty sages are wont to put the concentrated results of wide observation, and much meditation; and to such hands, generally speaking, the use of it should be confined, because, as it presents only the final inferences deducible from many ideas, but not the ideas themselves, it is essential to its being understood and received, that it should contain a truth; and a truth of a kind which, although ordinary men could not by their own strength reach it, their minds bear witness, and assent to,