he might have explained more clearly, between non resistance and passive obedience. Does he not take non-resistauce in the sense rather of non-compliance when he says, and says well, of it, contrasted with passive obedience,

"The former attaches itself to every thing that is great and excellent; the latter, to what is mean and grovelling. The former prohibits the shedding of human blood; the latter permits us to shed it in torrents. The former is consistent with liberty, civil and religious; the latter is the handmaid of slavery and moral degradation. The former teaches us to obey God rather than man; the latter, to obey man rather than God."

We conclude with expressing our admiration of the philanthropic and Christian spirit which dictates Mr. Thrush's zeal in disseminating "the doctrine of peace." We entirely agree with him, that Christianity does not permit its votaries" to dedicate themselves to what is called the profession of arms, and make it a trade to live by." Whether man is on no occasion justified in resisting evil with his physical powers, is a question to which we cannot consider him as having given a conclusive reply.

ART. II.-Sunday Lectures. By Mrs.
Ives Hurry.
London, Rainford.
Pp. 134.

THIS little volume contains thirteen brief lectures on well-chosen subjects. We insert the address to her pupils which Mrs. Hurry has prefixed to them, not only because it indicates the occasion of their composition, but also on account of its so indicating the good sense and good feeling of the writer as to supersede any occasion for further recommendation.

"You are returning to your homes, to the land of your forefathers, and my adoptive character of mother ceases.You have often assured me you would not forget me: I doubt not the sincerity of your intentions, when these promises were made; but time and absence are sometimes fearful trials of youthful attachment. Yet should even a personal remembrance wear away; let but my precepts influence your future conduct, and I shall still have subject for heartfelt satisfaction! I address to you the following Lectures, which, as you know, were written for, and read on, those Sundays when bad weather prevented our attending public worship. I flatter

The Editor expresses his opinion that there is still "room for a manual of devotion brief in its forms, simple and fervent in its language, and perfectly scriptural in all its expressions." His publication has, we think, well supplied the want. With the single exception of those beautiful effusions of filial devotion, the "Prayers for the use of Families by the late Rev. Pendlebury Houghton," we have not seen any publication of this class to be compared with the one now before

us.

With that, the comparison can only be imperfectly made, as Mr. Hutton's plan is by far the most comprehensive. The two forms of worship for the Lord's day "when the family cannot, from distance, inclement weather, or other impediments, attend the House of Prayer," are particularly excellent. The first of them is a very happy adaptation of the Liturgy. There is a "Table of Select Portions of the Old Testament adapted to Christian Worship," which may be found very convenient. If in any thing we feel disposed to take an exception to a work of such uniform excellence and utility, it is to the "Prayer of the Soldier," p. 157. We cannot get over the incongruity of a man's hiring himself out to fight in any cause, and yet praying the Lord to prosper the righteous cause." It is profane to pray not to be led into the temptation to which we have voluntarily exposed ourselves; and is not this his case who chooses the profession of arms, and yet prays, "Whilst I wield the instruments of war, let me not lose the feeling of humanity and the love of peace"? Again, as to the following petition-"And if at any time, O God, I should, through ignorance, be the means of shedding innocent blood, I beseech thee to pardon my offences,"-it may be asked, What defines the innocence, or the guilt, of the blood which it is the soldier's business to shed? If the very fact of being a soldier does not constitute

No. XIX.

can be harmonized.

ART. IV.- The Character of a Good Servant: a Funeral Discourse on occasion of the Death of Ann Mayo, delivered in the High-Street Chapel, Warwick, on Sunday Evening, 30th November, 1828. Sharpe, Warwick; Simpkin, London.

ALTHOUGH the name of the author does not appear on the title-page, there is no doubt of our being indebted for this useful Discourse to the worthy minister of the chapel in which it was preached, the Rev. W. Field; and it is pleasant to behold the friend and biographer of Dr. Parr in what the world may deem the

more humble character of the funeral eulogist of departed merit in one of the lowlier walks of social life. There is no inconsistency, but there is much that is really honourable and useful, in this employment of the pen that has so recently been occupied by a topic of so much more literary dignity. The death which occasioned this Discourse was, literally, that of a Servant, and as literally, judging from the delineation of her character

which it contains, that of a Good Servant. The author addresses himself chiefly to persons of the same condition in life as the deceased; inculcating, and recom mending by her example, the duties of diligence, fidelity, frugality, kiudness, and religion; and displaying their appropriate recompence, here and hereafter; at the same time not forgetting to demand for that example, as a just tribute, "the admiration of all who, in every station, are capable of admiring and honouring moral worth in humble life." The Sermon is indeed an excellent Christian Tract; and it well illustrates the rule for estimating character laid down in the motto from Dr. Young:

"Who does the best that circumstance allows,

Does well, acts nobly; angels could no

more!"

ominous reports and surmises, the WestAFTER Considerable delay, and many minster Review has at length reappeared, and in a form which demands the warm greetings of its old friends and supporters, while it bids fair to increase their number extensively and rapidly. Whatever may be the precise nature of the new arrangements which are announced to have taken place, we may, judging by their fruits, augur from them most propitiously for the success and utility of the work. It seems as if temporary retirement were sometimes good for books as well as men. The Westminster Review, at least, has improved marvellously during its seclusion from the public gaze. It has the same political character and principles, but they are combined with an amenity of manners in which it used to be deficient. It has lost nothing of the fortiter in re, but gained much of the suaviter in modo. It pursues the same great objects of Utility and Reform, but pursues them in a more benignant spirit.

Another alteration for the better is the infusion of more literature and variety in the other Quarterly Journals in this parits contents. It now as far surpasses all ticular as it used to be surpassed by them. The light reading of the Westminster is a joke no longer. Its severer articles were always no joke. There is one other feature which we advert to with strong gratification. The Number just published affords no indication of the adoption of a party theology, but it does indicate, by the critique ou Dr. Channing's last Sermon, the occasional notice of religious publications, and the respect which is due to divine revelation. We shall not but it was incumbent on us to point out discuss the merit of particular articles, to our readers these material improvements in a work which always had great claims, and has now greater claims than ever, on the support of the friends of truth, freedom, and improvement.

A Defence of Napoleon.

To the Editor.

SIR, January 2, 1829. Of all the characters which the world has produced, either in ancient or modern times, none have appeared more conspicuous than Napoleon. His actions are known to the world, and it is probable that there is not a spot on the globe, inhabited by man, where his name and his deeds have not been heard. As might be expected, truth and falsehood have been blended together respecting him; and the whole form such an immense mass, that it becomes difficult, amidst contending prejudices, to separate the one from the other, and to do full justice to that extraordinary man. During the period of his power and splendour, the world teem ed with libels against him of the foulest nature, and the windows of booksellers' and printsellers' shops were nearly darkened with the most disgusting and hideous caricatures. Even after his fall the same spirit of hostility was manifested, and much was both written and said to damn him to everlasting fame. The "Voice from St. Helena" by Dr. O'Meara, and the Journal of Count Las Casas, produced a considerable reaction upon the public mind, and staggered numbers whose prejudices and enmity were the strongest. At length Sir Walter Scott's "Life of Napoleon Bonaparte" made its appearance. From the distinguished talents of the writer, his Life of Napoleon was eagerly expected and read with considerable avidity. Doubtless it has satisfied many of the Baronet's admirers, and induced them to regard Napoleon as the character whom he has represented. But many of the enlightened part of the public have concluded that his Life is partial and defective, and therefore one which cannot be depended upon as correct. We must, however, say, in justice to Sir Walter Scott, that, all things regarded, he has done well; and that, considering his political views and Tory connexions, we do not so much wonder that he has failed in several important points, as that he has softened down many groundless charges, and set in a just and favourable light many shades in his hero's character. In several respects his book will serve as a ground-work for a more impartial his. torian, but uever as an unerring guide.

The publication of Sir Walter Scott's

Life, led to a review of it by Dr. Channing, of North America, a gentleman well known in this country by the liberality of his religious views, as well as by several Sermons and Essays, the productions of his pen. This review the Doctor terms an Analysis, which has not only been published in America, but reprinted in this country in periodicals, newspapers, and as a separate work both in London and Liverpool. We have read it, we must confess, with much pain. It has all the faults of Sir Walter Scott's book, without any of its redeeming qualities. He greatly exceeds the Baronet in vituperation, and has lowered himself in our estimation by his uncalled-for exaggerations and bitterness of spirit. Our regard for truth, and even for Dr. Channing, makes us deeply regret that he should have written and given it publicity. His friends and admirers may applaud it for its eloquence, but we must condemn it on account of its misrepresentations; and farther add, that eloquence can only be lovely when it supports the cause of truth and justice: if it be employed in the propagation of error, it is no longer the glorious sun which cheers, warms, and vivifies us by its rays, but the horrid glare of a frightful meteor passing wildly over the earth, producing little besides disgust and terror, and suddenly leaving all in darkness and solitary gloom.

It is not our intention, at present, either to review Sir Walter Scott's Life of Napoleon, or to analyze Dr. Channing's Analysis, but merely to consider certain charges brought forwards by the latter against the late French Emperor. In doing this we shall contine ourselves to such charges as are really worthy of notice. We omit several; such as his association with the Jacobins-the massacre at Jaffa-the poisoning of his men-the supposed murder of Wright and Pichegru

the disgracing of his own brothersand his not permitting his mother to sit in his presence. Most of these carry their own contradiction; no well-informed person, in the present day, believes them to be true; and we have too high an opinion of Dr. Channing's mental euergies and means of information to suppose for a moment that he believes them himself.

Napoleon has been accused not only as being deficient in humanity, but even as a ferocious monster delighting in blood,

coolly sacrificing his men in order to obtain his ambitious purposes, and riding or driving over the wounded on the field of battle. This charge has been made so often, aud repeated in such a variety of ways, that there was a time when it obtained general credit, and there are persons still sufficiently weak to believe in its correctness. Nothing, however, can be more false; and we venture to affirm, that there never was a man, a soldier, or a sovereign, more humane, or that possessed kindlier feelings, than the late French Emperor. In support of this statement we advance the following proofs: In all the marches directed by Napoleon, the combats in which he was engaged, and the great battles which he decided, we find him particularly careful of and kind to his men, adopting every precaution to preserve and save his soldiers. Of this we could produce a thousand instances. His humanity procured him the love and warm affection of his troops. Had he been the unfeeling general or ferocious monster described, uselessly sacrificing his men and coolly riding over the wounded on the battle field, there is not a soldier in the French army that would have obeyed him, nor a wounded man on the field who would not have felt his exhausted strength renewed, even in the agonies of death, to pull a trigger at him and terminate his existence. Contrary to this, all the soldiers loved him as their father, their protector; and they did so because he was kind to them, and that between him and them there was a kindred feeling. In the bivouaques he often sat with them by their fires, shared in their ratious, heard their various little tales, protected them from injuries, and raised them in the army according to their merit. Owing to this kindness they fought so well, preserved their warm attachment to the last, and even with their parting breath continued to shout vive l'Empereur! How different was his conduct in this respect from that of many other chiefs! It is also now well known that Charles XII. was killed by one of his own men; it is also understood that and fell by their own soldiers; and we have never yet heard either an officer or soldier say any thing in favour of the

at

at

humanity. Had Napoleon acted like these, he would have experienced the same fate, and been either shot or exposed to the hatred of the army. Consider farther the conduct of the French people. We believe, and upon VOL. III.

P

good authority, that no enlightened nation, either in ancient or modern times, ever did so much for its sovereign as the French. Had it been otherwise, they would not have supported him as they did in their tremendous struggles against combined Europe; they would not have left their homes and rushed over their mountains on his return from Elba, spreading out their arms, and hailing and cheering him as their legitimate sovereign, saviour, and friend; nor would they have preserved, as they still do, such feelings of reverence and respect for his memory. A stranger may be easily misled among the saloons of Paris, composed of Jacobius aud Bourbonists; but the moment he gets into the country and questions the people, he will find that the name of Napoleon is still dear. This fact speaks volumes, and fully proves that the memory of him who still reigus in all hearts truly French must have been really kind and humane. In addition to these facts, consider the statements of those who knew him best, and who have, since his death, honourably published their respective testimonies relative to his humanity, when they knew that such statements could be of no personal advantage to themselves, but would, on the contrary, greatly incense the Holy Alliance, impudently so named, against them, on account of their honest attestations. Such witnesses as the Count Las Casas, Count Rapp, first Aidde-camp to Napoleon, and Savary, Duke de Rovigo, are quite sufficient to satisfy every unprejudiced mind, that no man was ever more kind, more humane, more generous, than Napoleon.

A second charge against Napoleon is, that he was fond of war, and that it is owing to him Europe now suffers so much from the effects of war. This charge is a serious one; but before we examine it, we beg a moment's attention to the following things: Some deny the lawfulness of war in any respect, and assert that it is directly opposed to the generous and merciful intentions of God, the design of prophecy, and the spirit of genuine Christianity. War is, doubtless, productive of many evils; but as God, who has power, wisdom, and goodness, sufficient to prevent it, has thought proper to permit it, we cannot but regard his permission as equivalent to his appointment. When the advocates for peace can prove that the plague, famine, earthquakes, hurricanes, volcanic eruptions, and such things, are inconsistent with Divine love and mercy, then, upon

the same principle, we will admit the unlawfulness of war. All these are under the controul of the Deity; all are productive of many and dreadful evils, as well as war, but all are necessary and even right in the Divine plan, because they exist. When Dr. Channing, therefore, inveighs so fiercely against war and warriors, he should be told that by means of the scourge which he thus deprecates, the Independence and Liberty of his country were secured. In that affair the sword of Washington, with all its evils, was as necessary as the pen of Paine and the counsels of Franklin.-War has been divided into offensive and defensive, but this is often a distinction without a difference. No doubt, one party must be the aggressor; but circumstances fre. quently arise, through the course of events, to enable the power attacked to assume offensive operations, and to reduce its opponent to stand on the defensive. Suppose, then, an attacking power to publish a declaration of war, or to raise, equip, and march its forces as secretly and as rapidly as possible to invade another's territories -has the power thus threatened a right to assume the offensive, by immediately passing its own frontiers and carrying the war into the heart of the enemy's country? Upon this question there cannot be two opinions; for if war, in any case, be lawful, the power threatened has an unquestionable right, if it possess the meaus, and circumstances permit, of opposing the hostile intentions of the other, and destroying instead of being destroyed. To remain literally and invariably upon the defensive is absurd. Such a procedure will frequently compromise your army and endanger the independence of the country. With these remarks we turn to Napoleon and observe, that in all the wars in which he was engaged he was never the aggressor; that the coalition against him always existed either secretly or openly; that the secret of its being a war of life was openly avowed at the close of the affair; and that, being constantly attacked in one form or another, he had an undoubted right to repel force by force. The charge so often brought against him, that he was fond of war, is more easily made thau proved. He fought because he was compelled to it; he invaded others' territories under pain of being invaded by them; but his spirit was naturally gentle, and he loved better to be employed in making roads, bridges, canals, harbours, and in encouraging and promoting agriculture, the

arts and sciences, and the happiness of his people, than in directing the marel of armies and deciding the fate of battles. The third charge against Napoleon is, that he murdered the Duke d'Enghien. As this charge is a very serious one, it will be necessary to take a brief survey of the circumstances. Upon the rupture of the peace, or rather truce, of Amiens, the enemies of France and Napoleon had two objects in view; first, the assassina tion of the First Consul, and second, a counter revolution, which would necessarily lead to a recall of the Bourbons. In order to carry these measures into effect, Lieutenant or Captain Wright landed a band of assassins in France, among whom were Pichegru and Georges. These wretches and their associates, among whom was Moreau, conferred in Paris and made their arrangements; and whilst some were to murder Napoleon, others were to seize upon strong places marked out, and to raise rebellion in different places, among which were La Vendee and Provence, to the latter of which the notorious Willot was sent. The Duke d'Enghien arrived at Ettenheim, about three leagues from the French frontiers, so that he might encourage the desperadoes and march upon Paris as soon as his agents had prepared the way. To give vigour and effect to the whole, we are sorry to say, that official reports announced two Englishmen as entering warmly into the conspiracy, and as furnishing large sums of money. Uuder these circumstances what ought Napo-leon to have done? Was his life of no value and his blood mere ditch-water? Was he to remain passive-and leave the Bourbons to triumph by treading upon his corpse? Were they, their allies and agents, to effect all the mischief in their power both to him and to France, whilst he and the French people were coolly to sit still and wait to be butchered? We answer, No. Napoleon was perfectly right in arresting, trying, and shooting, the Duke d'Enghien; and though Sir Walter Scott calls it murder, and Dr. Channing seems horrified with it, we are satified that, had either or both of them been placed in the First Consul's situation, they would have done exactly the same thing. We tell these gentlemen farther, that if this act of Napoleon's were murder, that of hanging Major Andre by the American chiefs was murder, and the shooting and decapitation of so many of the adherents of the Stuarts, in 1715 and 1745, in this country, were murder also. But as long as