The sentiments of Philagatharches are expressed still more strongly in a subsequent

passage.

trine, 'commanded them not to speak at all, he ministers must determine whether it be nor to teach in the name of Jesus,' these apos- desirable that he should continue to fill their tolical champions of the cross undauntedly pulpit.”—(168—173.) replied, 'Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye: for we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard.' Thus, also, in our day, when the Holy Ghost excites a man to "Here a question may arise-what line of preach the gospel to his fellow sinners, his conduct conscientious ministers ought to purmessage is sanctioned by an authority which issue, if laws were to be enacted, forbidding 'far above all principality and power; and, consequently, neither needs the approbation of subordinate rulers, nor admits of revocation by their countermanding edicts.

"3dly. He who receives a license should not expect to derive from it a testimony of qualification to preach.

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 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 fine, or deeming it impolitic so to do, let us submit to

"It would be grossly absurd to seek a testimony of this description from any single individual, even though he were an experienced veteran in the service of Christ; for all are fallible; and, under some unfavourable prepossession, even the wisest or the best of men might give an erroneous decision upon the case. But this observation will gain additional force when we suppose the power of judging transferred to the person of the magistrate.go quietly to prison, but with the resolution We cannot presume that a civil ruler understands as much of theology as a minister of the gospel. His necessary duties prevent him from critically investigating questions upon divinity; and confine his attention to that particular department which society has deputed him to occupy; and hence to expect at his hands a testimony of qualification to preach would be almost as ludicrous as to require an obscure country curate to fill the office of Lord Chancellor.

"But again-admitting that a magistrate who is nominated by the sovereign to issue forth licenses to dissenting ministers, is competent to the task of judging of their natural and acquired abilities, it must still remain a doubtful question whether they are moved to preach by the influences of the Holy Ghost; for it is the prerogative of God alone to search the heart and try the reins' of the children of men. Consequently, after every effort of the ruling powers to assume to themselves the right of judging whether a man be or be not qualified to preach, the most essential property of the call must remain to be determined by the conscience of the individual.

"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

still to preach upon the first opportunity, and, if possible, to collect a church even within the precincts of the gaol. He who, by these zealous exertions, becomes the honoured instrument of converting one sinner unto God, will find that single seal to his ministerial labours an ample compensation for all his sufferings. In this manner the venerable apostle of the Gentiles both avowed and proved his sincere attachment to the cause in which he had embarked: The Holy Ghost witnesseth, in every city, that bonds and afflictions 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.'

"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 godli ness, to dispel the gloom in which the nation would then be enveloped. If this line of conduct were to be adopted, and acted upon with decision, the cause of piety, of nonconformity, 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 replen ished with thousands of the most pious, active, and useful men in the kingdom, whose cha

CHARLES FOX.*

[EDINBURGH REVIEW, 1811.]

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.

THOUGH Mr. Fox's history was, of course, | written by Sir Patrick Hume, an ancestor of as much open to animadversion and rebuke as any other book, the task, we think, would have become any other person better than Mr. Rose. The whole of Mr. Fox's life was spent in opposing the profligacy and exposing the ignorance of his own court. In the first half of his political career, while Lord North was losing America, and in the latter half, while Mr. Pitt was ruining Europe, the creatures of the government were eternally exposed to the attacks of this discerning, dauntless, and most powerful speaker. Folly and corruption never had a more terrible enemy in the English House of Commons-one whom it was so impossible to bribe, so hopeless to elude, and so difficult to answer. Now it so happened that, during the whole of this period, the historical critic of Mr. Fox was employed in subordinate offices of government;-that the detail of taxes passed through his hands;—that he amassed a large fortune by those occupations ;-and that, both in the measures which he supported, and in the friends from whose patronage he received his emoluments, he was complete-existence of Mr. Samuel Heywood, serjeantly and perpetually opposed to Mr. Fox.

Sir Patrick was the progenitor, and Mr. Rose was the friend and sole executor, of the Earl of Marchmont; and therefore, says Mr. Rose, I consider it as a sacred duty to vindicate the character of Sir Patrick, and, for that purpose, to publish a long and elaborate critique upon all the doctrines and statements contained in Mr. Fox's history! This appears to us about as satisfactory an explanation of Mr. Rose's authorship as the exclamation of the traveller was of the name of Stony Stratford.

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

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.

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 The life of Mr. Rose has been principally him in the public estimation,-no service so employed in the painful, yet perhaps neceslikely to be well rewarded-so eminently grate-sary, duty of increasing the burdens of his ful to those of whose favour Mr. Rose had so fellow-creatures. It has been a life of detail, often tasted the sweets, and of the value of onerous to the subject-onerous and lucrative whose patronage he must, from long experi- to himself. It would be unfair to expect from ence, have been so thoroughly aware. one thus occupied any great depth of thought, or any remarkable graces of composition; but we have a fair right to look for habits of patient research and scrupulous accuracy. We might naturally expect industry in collecting facts, and fidelity in quoting them; and hope, in the absence of commanding genius, to receive a compensation from the more humble and 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 require an abridger. He has not the talent of saying what he has to say quickly; nor is he aware that brevity is in writing what charity is to all other virtues. Righteousness is worth nothing without the one, nor authorship without the other. But whoever will forgive this little defect will find in all his productions great learning, immaculate honesty, and the most scrupulous accu

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 of most of his political associates, but merely because it seemed to us so very probable that he should have been so influenced. Our suspicions, however, were entirely removed by the frequency and violence of his own protestations. 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 Mr. Rose does not trust to his protestations alone. He is not satisfied with assurances that he did not write this book from any bad motive, but he informs us that his motive was excellent,—and is even obliging enough to tell us what that motive was. The Earl of Marchmont, it seems, was Mr. Rose's friend. To Mr. Rose he left his manuscripts; and among these manuscripts was a narrative

* A Vindication of Mr. Fox's History of the Early Part of the Reign of James the Second. By SAMUEL HEYWOOD, Serjeant-at-Law. London. Johnson & Co. 1811.

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 and condemned without existing law, to which he was personally amenable, and even contrary to laws that did actually exist, but the degrading circumstances of his imprisonment, the unnecessary and insulting asperity with which he had been treated, the total want of republican magnanimity in the whole transaction, (for even in that House it could be no offence to say, that there might be such a thing as magnanimity in a republic,) added every aggravation to the inhumanity and injustice."

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.

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 September, nearly nine months afterwards. It may appear frivolous to notice such 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; they prove that such a writer will be exact only when he thinks the occasion of importance, and as he himself is the only judge of that importance, it is necessary to examine his proofs in every instance, and impossible to trust him anywhere.

Mr. Rose remarks that, in the weekly paper entitled Mercurius Rusticus, No. 4, where an account is given of the disinterment of Cromwell and Ireton, not a syllable is said respecting the corpse of Blake. This is very true; but the reason (which does not seem to have occurred to Mr. Rose) is, that Blake's corpse was not touched till six months afterwards.. This is really a little too much. That Mr. Rose should quit his usual pursuits, erect himself into an historical critic, perch upon the body of the dead lion, impugn the accuracy of one of the greatest, as well as most accurate men of his time,-and himself be guilty of such gross and unpardonable negligence, looks so very much like an insensibility to shame, that we should be loth to characterize his conduet by the severe epithets which it appears to merit, and which, we are quite certain, Sir Patrick, the defendee, would have been the first to bestow upon it.

Non simul cuiquam conceditur, amare et sapere. The next point upon which Sergeant Heywood attacks Mr. Rose, is that of General Monk. Mr. Fox says of Monk, "that he acquiesced in the insult so meanly put upon the illustrious corpse of Blake, under whose auspices and command he had performed the The next passage in Mr. Fox's work obmost creditable services of his life." This jected to is that which charges Monk, at the story, Mr. Rose says, rests upon the authority trial of Argyle, "with having produced letters of Neale, in his History of the Puritans. This of friendship and confidence to take away the is the first of many blunders made by Mr. life of a nobleman, the zeal and cordiality of Rose upon this particular topic: for Anthony whose co-operation with him, proved by such Wood, in his Fasti Oxonienses, enumerating documents, was the chief ground of his exeBlake among the bachelors, says, "His body cution." This accusation, says Mr. Rose, was taken up, and, with others, buried in a pit rests upon the sole authority of Bishop Burin St. Margaret's church-yard adjoining, near to net; and yet no sooner has he said this, than the back door of one of the prebendaries of he tells us, Mr. Laing considers the bishop's Westminster, in which place it now remaineth, authority to be confirmed by Cunningham and enjoying no other monument but what it reared Baillie, both contemporary writers. Into Cunby its valour, which time itself can hardly ningham or Baillie Mr. Rose never looks to efface." But the difficulty is to find how the see whether or not they do really confirm the denial of Mr. Rose affects Mr. Fox's assertion. authority of the bishop; and so gross is his Mr. Rose admits that Blake's body was dug up negligence, that the very misprint from Mr. by an order of the king; and does not deny Laing's work is copied, and page 431 of Baillie that it was done with the acquiescence of is cited instead of 451. If Mr. Rose had really Monk. But if this be the case, Mr. Fox's po- taken the trouble of referring to these books, sition that Blake was insulted, and that Monk all doubt of the meanness and guilt of Monk acquiesced in the insult, is clearly made out. must have been instantly removed. "Monk Nor has Mr. Rose the shadow of an authority was moved," says Baillie, "to send down four for saying that the corpse of Blake was rein- or five of Argyle's letters to himself and others, terred with great decorum. Kennet is silent promising his full compliance with them, that upon the subject. We have already given the king should not reprieve him."-Baillie's Serjeant Heywood's quotation from Anthony Letters, p. 451. "He endeavoured to make Wood; and this statement, for the present, his defence," says Cunningham; "but chiefly rests entirely upon the assertion of Mr. Rose; by the discoveries of Monk was condemned of and upon that basis will remain to all eternity. high treason, and lost his head."-CunningMr. Rose, who, we must say, on all occa-ham's History, i. p. 13. sions through the whole of this book, makes Would it have been more than common dethe greatest parade of his accuracy, states that cency required, if Mr. Rose, who had been apthe bodies of Cromwell, Ireton, and Blake, prised of the existence of these authorities, had