who is nominated by the sovereign to issue | fine, or deeming it impolitic so to do, let us forth licenses to dissenting ministers, is submit to go quietly to prison, but with the competent to the task of judging of their resolution still to preach upon the first natural and acquired abilities, it must still opportunity, and, if possible, to collect a remain a doubtful question whether they church even within the precincts of the are moved to preach by the influences of gaol. He, who, by these zealous exertions, the Holy Ghost; for it is the prerogative of becomes the honoured instrument of conGod alone to 'search the heart and try the verting one sinner unto God, will find that reins' of the children of men. Conse- single seal to his ministerial labours an quently, after every effort of the ruling ample compensation for all his sufferings. powers to assume to themselves the right | In this manner the venerable apostle of the of judging whether a man be or be not Gentiles both avowed and proved his sinqualified to preach, the most essential cere attachment to the cause in which he property of the call must remain to be had embarked:-"The Holy Ghost witdetermined by the conscience of the indi- nesseth, in every city, that bonds and afflicvidual. tions abide me. But none of these things move me, neither count I my life dear unto myself, so that I might finish my course with joy, and the ministry which I have received of the Lord Jesus, to testify the gospel of the grace of God.' "It is further worthy of observation, that the talents of a preacher may be acceptable to many persons, if not to him who issues the license. The taste of a person thus high in office may be too refined to derive gratification from any but the most learned, intelligent, and accomplished preachers. Yet, as the gospel is sent to the poor as well as to the rich, perhaps hundreds of preachers may be highly acceptable, much esteemed, and eminently useful in their respective circles, who would be despised as men of mean attainments by one whose mind is well stored with literature, and cultivated by science. From these remarks, I infer, that a man's own judgment must be the criterion, in determining what line of conduct to pursue before he begins to preach; and the opinion of the people to whom he ministers must determine whether it be desirable that he should continue to fill their pulpit."-(pp. 168173.) The sentiments of Philagatharches are expressed still more strongly in a subsequent passage. "In the early ages of Christianity martyrdom was considered an eminent honour; and many of the primitive Christians thrust themselves upon the notice of their heathen persecutors, that they might be brought to suffer in the cause of that Redeemer whom they ardently loved. In the present day, Christians in general incline to estimate such rash ardour as a species of enthusiasm, and feel no disposition to court the horrors of persecution; yet, if such dark and tremendous days were to return in this age of the world, ministers should retain their stations; they should be true to their charge; they should continue their ministrations, each man in his sphere, shining with all the lustre of genuine godliness, to dispel the gloom in which the nation would then be enveloped. If this line of conduct decision, the cause of piety, of nonconwere to be adopted, and acted upon with formity, and of itinerant preaching, must eventually triumph. All the gaols in the country would speedily be filled; those houses of correction, which were erected for the chastisement of the vicious in the community, would be replenished with thousands of the most pious, active, and useful men in the kingdom, whose characters are held in general esteem. But the ultimate result of such despotic proceedings is beyond the ken of human prescience:-probably, appeals to the public and the legislature would teem from the press, and, under such circumstances, might diffuse a revolutionary spirit throughout the country." "Here a question may arise-what line of conduct conscientious ministers ought to pursue, if laws were to be enacted, forbidding either all dissenting ministers to preach, or only lay preachers; or forbidding to preach in an unlicensed place; and, at the same time, refusing to license persons and places, except under such security as the property of the parties would not meet, or under limitations to which their consciences could not accede. What has been advanced ought to outweigh every consideration of temporal interest; and, if the evil genius of persecution were to appear again, I pray God that we might all be-(pp. 239-243.) faithful to Him who hath called us to preach the gospel. Under such circumstances, let us continue to preach; if fined, let us pay the penalty, and persevere in preaching; and, when unable to pay the We quote these opinions at length, not because they are the opinions of Philagatharches, but because we are confident that they are the opinions of ten thousand hot-headed fanatics, and | The whole of Mr. Fox's life was spent that they would firmly and conscien- in opposing the profligacy and expostiously be acted upon. ing the ignorance of his own court. Philagatharches is an instance (not In the first half of his political career, uncommon, we are sorry to say, even while Lord North was losing America, among the most rational of the Pro- and in the latter half while Mr. Pitt testant Dissenters) of a love of tolera- was ruining Europe, the creatures of tion combined with a love of persecu- the Government were eternally extion. He is a Dissenter, and earnestly posed to the attacks of this discerning, demands a religious liberty for that dauntless, and most powerful speaker. body of men; but as for the Catholics, Folly and corruption never had a more he would not only continue their pre- terrible enemy in the English House of sent disabilities, but load them with Commons- one whom it was so imevery new one that could be conceived. possible to bribe, so hopeless to elude, He expressly says, that an Atheist or a and so difficult to answer. Now it so Deist may be allowed to propagate happened, that during the whole of this their doctrines, but not a Catholic; period, the historical critic of Mr. Fox and then proceeds with all the custom-was employed in subordinate offices of ary trash against that sect which nine Government ;-that the detail of taxes schoolboys out of ten now know how to passed through his hands; that he refute. So it is with Philagatharches; amassed a large fortune by those occu-so it is with weak men in every sect. pations; and that, both in the meaIt has ever been our object, and (in sures which he supported, and in the spite of misrepresentation and abuse) friends from whose patronage he reever shall be our object, to put down ceived his emoluments, he was comthis spirit to protect the true interests, pletely and perpetually opposed to Mr. and to diffuse the true spirit of tolera- Fox. tion. To a well-supported national Establishment, effectually discharging its duties, we are very sincere friends. If any man, after he has paid his contribution to this great security for the existence of religion in any shape, choose to adopt a religion of his own, that man should be permitted to do so without let, molestation, or disqualification for any of the offices of life. We apologise to men of sense for sen-vour Mr. Rose has so often tasted the timents so trite; and patiently endure the anger which they will excite among those with whom they will pass for original. CHARLES FOX. Again, it must be remembered, that very great people have very long memories for the injuries which they receive, or which they think they receive. No speculation was so good, therefore, as to vilify the memory of Mr. Fox,nothing so delicious as to lower him in the public estimation, - no service so likely to be well rewarded - so eminently grateful to those of whose fa sweets, and of the value of whose patronage he must, from long experience, have been so thoroughly aware. We are almost inclined to think that we might at one time have worked ourselves up to suspect Mr. Rose of being actuated by some of these motives:-not because we have any reason to think worse of that gentleman than A Vindication of Mr. Fox's History of the of most of his political associates, but early Part of the Reign of James the merely because it seemed to us so very Second. By Samuel Heywood, Serjeant-probable that he should have been so at-Law. London, Johnson and Co. 1811. influenced. Our suspicions, however, THOUGH Mr. Fox's history was, of were entirely removed by the frecourse, as much open to animadversion quency and violence of his own proand rebuke as any other book, the task, we think, would have become any other person better than Mr. Rose. testations. He vows so solemnly that he has no bad motive in writing his critique, that we find it impossible to withhold our belief in his purity. But from one thus occupied any great Mr. Rose does not trust to his protes- depth of thought, or any remarkable tations alone. He is not satisfied with graces of composition; but we have a assurances that he did not write his fair right to look for habits of patient book from any bad motive, but he in- research and scrupulous accuracy. We forms us that his motive was excellent, might naturally expect industry in col-and is even obliging enough to tell lecting facts, and fidelity in quoting us what that motive was. The Earl of them; and hope, in the absence of Marchmont, it seems, was Mr. Rose's commanding genius, to receive a comfriend. To Mr. Rose he left his manu-pensation from the more humble and scripts; and among these manuscripts was a narrative written by Sir Patrick Hume, an ancestor of the Earl of Marchmont, and one of the leaders in Argyle's rebellion. Of Sir Patrick Hume Mr. Rose conceives (a little erroneously to be sure, but he assures us he does conceive) Mr. Fox to have spoken disrespectfully; and the case comes out, therefore, as clearly as possible, as follows. ordinary qualities of the mind. How far this is the case, our subsequent remarks will enable the reader to judge. We shall not extend them to any great length, as we have before treated on the same subject in our review of Mr. Rose's work. Our great object at present is to abridge the observations of Serjeant Heywood. For Serjeant Heywood, though a most respectable, honest, and enlightened man, really does Sir Patrick was the progenitor, and require an abridger. He has not the Mr. Rose was the friend and sole exe- talent of saying what he has to say cutor, of the Earl of Marchmont; and quickly; nor is he aware that brevity therefore, says Mr. Rose, I consider it is in writing what charity is to all as a sacred duty to vindicate the cha- other virtues. Righteousness is worth racter of Sir Patrick, and, for that pur-nothing without the one, nor authorpose, to publish a long and elaborate ship without the other. But whoever critique upon all the doctrines and will forgive this little defect will find in statements contained in Mr. Fox's his- all his productions great learning, imtory! This appears to us about as maculate honesty, and the most scrusatisfactory an explanation of Mr. pulous accuracy. Whatever detections Rose's authorship as the exclamation of Mr. Rose's inaccuracies are made in of the traveller was of the name of this Review are to be entirely given to Stony Stratford. him; and we confess ourselves quite astonished at their number and extent. Before Mr. Rose gave way to this intense value for Sir Patrick, and resolved to write a book, he should have inquired what accurate men there were about in society; and if he had once received the slightest notice of the existence of Mr. Samuel Heywood, serjeant-at-law, we are convinced he would have transfused into his own will and testament the feelings he derived from that of Lord Marchmont, and devolved upon another executor the sacred and dangerous duty of vindicating Sir Patrick Hume. The life of Mr. Rose has been principally employed in the painful, yet perhaps necessary, duty of increasing the burdens of his fellow-creatures. It has been a life of detail, onerous to the subject onerous and lucrative to himself. It would be unfair to expect have preferred that red-hot iron should | Rose's accusation, however, is still to have been secretly thrust into his en- come. "If such high praise," says trails?—or that he should have disap. that gentleman, "was, in the judgment peared as Pichegru and Toussaint have of Mr. Fox, due to Cromwell for the disappeared in our times? The periods publicity of the proceedings against of the Edwards and Henrys were, it the King, how would he have found is true, barbarous periods: but this is language sufficiently commendatory to the very argument Mr. Fox uses. All express his admiration of the magnanithese murders, he contends, were im-mity of those who brought Lewis the moral and bad; but that where the Sixteenth to an open trial?" Mr. manner was the least objectionable, Rose accuses Mr. Fox, then, of approvwas the murder of Charles the First-ing the execution of Lewis the Sixbecause it was public. And can any teenth: but on the 20th December, human being doubt, in the first place, 1792, Mr. Fox said, in the House of that these crimes would be marked by Commons, in the presence of Mr. less intense cruelty if they were public, Rose,— and, secondly, that they would become less frequent, where the perpetrators incurred responsibility, than if they were committed by an uncertain hand in secrecy and concealment? There never was, in short, not only a more innocent, but a more obvious sentiment; and to object to it in the manner which Mr. Rose has done, is surely to love Sir Patrick Hume too much,-if there can be any excess in so very commendable a passion in the breast of a sole exe cutor. Mr. Fox proceeds to observe, that "he who has discussed this subject with foreigners, must have observed, that the act of the execution of Charles, even in the minds of those who condemn it, excites more admiration than disgust." If the sentiment is bad, let those who feel it answer for it. Mr. Fox only asserts the fact, and explains, without justifying it. The only question (as concerns Mr. Fox) is, whether such is, or is not, the feeling of foreigners; and whether that feeling (if it exist) is rightly explained? We have no doubt either of the fact or of the explanation. The conduct of Cromwell, and his associates, was not to be excused in the main act; but in the manner, it was magnanimous. And among the servile nations of the Continent, it must naturally excite a feeling of joy and wonder, that the power of the people had for once been felt, and so memorable a lesson read to those whom they must naturally consider as the great oppressors of mankind. The most unjustifiable point of Mr. VOL. I. 666 The proceedings with respect to the royal family of France are so far from being magnanimity, justice or mercy, that they are directly the reverse; they are injustice, cruelty, and pusillanimity.' And afterwards declared his wish for an address to his Majesty, to which he would aad an expression, of our abhorrence of the proceedings against the royal family of France, in which, I have no doubt, we shall be supported by the whole country. If there can be any means suggested that will be better adapted to produce the unanimous concurrence of this House, and of all the country, with respect to the measure now under consiany person for his better suggestion upon deration in Paris, I should be obliged to the subject.' Then, after stating that such address, especially if the Lords joined in it, must have a decisive influence in France, he added, 'I have said thus much in order to contradict one of the most cruel misrepresentations of what I have before said in our late debates; and that my language may not be interpreted from the manner in which other gentlemen have chosen to answer it. I have spoken the genuine sentiments of my heart, and I anxiously wish the House to come to some resolution upon the subject.' And on the following day, when a copy of instructions sent to Earl Gower, signifying that he should leave Paris, was laid before the House of Commons, Mr. Fox said, 'he had heard it said, that the proceedings against the King of France are unnecessary. He would go a great deal further, and say, he believed them to be highly unjust; and not only repugnant to all the common feelings of mankind, but also contrary to all the fundamental principles of law."-(pp. 20, 21.) On Monday, the 28th January, he said, "With regard to that part of the comР Two days afterwards, in the debate on the message, Mr. Fox pronounced the condemnation and execution of the King to be -"an act as disgraceful as any that history recorded: and whatever opinions he might at any time have expressed in private conversation, he had expressed none certainly in that House on the justice of bringing kings to trial: revenge being unjustifiabie, munication from his Majesty which related | Monk," that he acquiesced in the into the late detestable scene exhibited in a sult so meanly put upon the illustrious neighbouring country, he could not suppose corpse of Blake, under whose auspices there were two opinions in that House; he and command he had performed the knew they were all ready to declare their abhorrence of that abominable proceeding." most creditable services of his life." -(p. 21.) This story, Mr. Rose says, rests upon the authority of Neale, in his History of the Puritans. This is the first of many blunders made by Mr. Rose upon this particular topic: for Anthony Wood, in his Fasti Oxoniensis, enumerating Blake among the bachelors, says, "His body was taken up, and, with others, buried in a pit in St. Margaret's churchyard adjoining, near to the back door of one of the prebendaries of Westminster, in which place it now remaineth, enjoying no other monument but what is reared by its valour, which time itself can hardly efface. But the difficulty is to find how the denial of Mr. Rose affects Mr. Fox's assertion. Mr. Rose admits, that Blake's body and does not deny that it was done was dug up by an order of the King, with the acquiescence of Monk. But if this be the case, Mr. Fox's position, that Blake was insulted, and that Monk acquiesced in the insult, is clearly made out. Nor has Mr. Rose the shadow of an authority for saying that the corpse of Blake was reinterred with great decorum. and punishment useless, where it could not operate either by way of prevention or example; he did not view with less detestation the injustice and inhumanity that had been committed towards that unhappy monarch. Not only were the rules of criminal justice-rules that more than any other ought to be strictly observed-violated with respect to him; not only was he tried even in that House it could be no offence to That Mr. Fox had held this language in the House of Commons, Mr. Rose knew perfectly well, when he accused that gentleman of approving the murder of the King of France. Whatever be the faults imputed to Mr. Fox, duplicity and hypocrisy were never among the number; and no human being ever doubted but that Mr. Fox, in this instance, spoke his real sentiments: but the love of Sir Patrick Hume is an overwhelming passion; and no man who gives way to it can ever say into what excesses he may be hurried. Non simul cuiquam conceditur, amare et sapere. The next point upon which Serjeant Heywood attacks Mr. Rose, is that of General Monk. Mr. Fox says of Kennet is silent upon the subject. We have already given Serjeant Heywood's quotation from Anthony Wood; and this statement, for assertion of Mr. Rose; and upon that the present, rests entirely upon the basis will remain to all eternity. Mr. Rose, who, we must say, on all occasions through the whole of this book, makes the greatest parade of his accuracy, states, that the bodies of Cromwell, Ireton, and Blake, were taken up at the same time; whereas the fact is, that those of Cromwell and Ireton were taken up on the 26th of January, and that of Blake on the 10th of SepIt may appear frivolous to notice such tember, nearly nine months afterwards. errors as these; but they lead to very strong suspicions in a critic of history and of historians. They show that those habits of punctuality, on the faith of which he demands implicit confidence from his readers, really do not exist; |