Dr. W., had Mr. T. quoted from him only one sentence farther. (See Who Wrote, &c. p. 276.) The 33d requires a little special remark. It will be observed, that this parallelism is chiefly historical and argumentative. We do not wish to be unfair in reminding our readers, that the writer of the "Religious and Loyal Protestation" is stated by a witness, as yet uncontradicted, to have taken a copy of the Icôn about the same time that he must have written the Protestation; or, in inferring from hence, that the view of the two publications being so similar, supposing these two books to be from different hands, it was natural for the later writer (Gauden) to have imitated, under such circumstances, the tone and language of the former (the King); a remark, we will just add, alike applicable to all the citations from the Protestation. The last of the parallelisms (numbered thirty-seven by mistake) is obviously of no avail, if the verses, " presumed (by Mr. T.) to be by Gauden," were, in fact, by William Dugard. Having thus enumerated the cases to which we think fair exception may be made; of those which remain (most of which we think of little or no weight, even as regards style), we will select two that appear to us to have the greatest strength:

"20. Laws, which may chase away those owls, and bats, and feral birds, that love darkness, and portend a night wherever they appear."-Gauden, Serm. 1641, p. 26.

"20. My reputation shall, like the sun, after owls and bats have had their freedom in the night and darker times, rise, and recover itself to such a degree of splendour, as those feral birds shall be grieved to behold, and unable to bear."—Icôn, ch. 15. This we consider to be, without exception, the strongest case for Mr. T.'s argument. At the same time, we must state to our readers one fact; viz. that the sermon of Dr. G., from which this extract is made, was preached at the opening of the long Parliament; and was read, we may easily believe (for the sermon attracted very general notice), by King Charles I.; and we will then leave our readers to hold the balance between the two following alternatives; viz. whether the King, after the reading of this discourse, not long before he came to write this particular chapter, adopted (consciously or not, we will not say) this strong imagery, connected with events deeply impressed upon his mind; or whether the parallel passages in both cases were, at the interval of seven or eight years, the offspring of one and the same pen---Gauden's?

" 32. There are but few steps between the prisons and graves of Princes."-Icón, Meditations upon Death.

66 '32. There seems to be but a step between the life of our Sovereign Lord the King, and some violent death.". Gauden, Religious and Loyal Protestation, Pref. sign. A. 2. 6.

Here also we think is a strong similarity of expression; but it is obvious, that if our reasoning respecting the contemporaneousness of the Protestation, and Dr. G.'s taking a copy of the Icôn, be admitted, this parallelism falls to the ground.

We have thus endeavoured to weigh in the balance, as evenly as we have been able, Mr. T.'s instances adduced, which, we repeat, form, in our judgment, the only part of his publication, of any weight. Of those to which we have left any share of force, taken by themselves, we say sincerely, Valeant quantùm valere possunt. But what are they, when placed in comparison and contrast with the multifarious and striking internal evidence on the other side; derived, as it has been by Dr. W., from the sayings, the character, and the writings, of the King; contrasted too occasionally with those of Dr. Gauden?

A very few words must now be said upon the character Dr. Gauden has left behind him, from his own actions and declarations, for veracity. This, indeed, is a painful part of our task, but it must be done. The previous allusion (p. 132) to inconsistencies in the Gauden statement respecting the Icôn itself will not have been forgotten.---Now for what remains. Dr. G. it seems, says of himself, that " by he knows not what sleight of hand, he was shuffled out of (the) Assembly of Divines at Westminster." (Who Wrote, &c. p. 381.) For Essex, where his benefice was when the Assembly met, he could not have been chosen; because his name is not amongst the three Commissioners for Essex; for Cambridgeshire it is highly improbable he was chosen, because he had given up his benefice in that county, when the Assembly sat; at any rate, he could not have been shuffled out, because his removal to Essex would have vacated his seat, had he ever had such. Again: Dr. G. says, he was thus "shuffled out on account of a sermon preached at the first sitting of the Parliament," in which "his judgment was sufficiently declared to be for the ancient and Catholic Episcopacy." Dr. W. says, (Who Wrote, &c. p. 384) of the sentiments thus said to have been delivered, "They are not in the bond. I can assure your Grace, Episcopacy is no topic there." Mr. T. replies, "Another writer (James Nichols, in Calvinism and Arminianism compared, p. cxxiv.) cites from this sermon, and again says, In which, without doubt, his judgment was then sufficiently declared for the ancient and Catholic Episcopacy." The question therefore here is, between the "without doubt" of Mr. Nichols, and the "I can assure your Grace" of Dr. W. For ourselves, after having consulted the sermon, we echo Dr. W.'s words. We can assure our readers, Episcopacy is no topic there. Lastly, (which Mr. T. has not adverted to), Gauden published a book, called the ErparoornλTEVTIKOV, or, Just Invective against those of the Army, and

their Abettors, who murthered King Charles I. "This, he tells us, in the title page, was written on the 10th of February, immediately after the murder" (Who Wrote, &c. p. 368); but not published, he states in the preface, till 1660, and then anonymously, under a different title, by Dugard, who had kept it in his hands till then. It was afterwards republished, with Gauden's name, under his sanction, in 1662. This work, we repeat, is stated by Gauden, to have been written in 1648. Dr. W. argues, and, we think, satisfactorily proves, from contrasting it with another publication of Gauden's, "barely a month before" this alledged date, and, from passages and modes of expression in the book itself, that the whole is " redolent of the Restoration, and of nothing but the Restoration. The Invective is a subsequent forgery" (Who Wrote, &c. pp. 395, 399); that is, not written at the time (Feb. 1649) at which Gauden says it was written, but ten or eleven years after. Alas! alas! if disbelief in his powers of fabrication is the ground on which the truth of his claim is built, does not this sandy foundation totter under us?

After all these considerations, in trying the question between the two controversialists in this case, we must give our verdict (impartially, we hope,) for Dr. Wordsworth. The Master of Trinity, indeed, we believe, writes not for victory, but for truth. Both, however, we think, are on his side.

Still we will not dismiss this article, without once more throwing the question open, and proposing to our readers two dilemmas, accompanied with their respective inferences.

First,--either Dr. Gauden wrote the Icôn, or he did not. If he wrote it, the individuals most about the King's person during his captivity, as well as the witnesses to the Naseby copy, must be pronounced false, a chain of coherent testimony must be shivered to atoms, and the evidence of three very inconsistent, two very interested witnesses, must in the main be received as indubitable. If Dr. Gauden did not write it, a departed Bishop of our Church is, indeed, convicted of a base and infamous falsehood (though upon either hypothesis we cannot see how this conclusion is to be evaded), but the King's honour remains unsullied, and the truth of the faithful companions of his person and captivity, unshaken.

Now for the other dilemma.-Either King Charles wrote the "Royal Portraiture," or he did not. If he did not, what

• We feel constrained to dismiss the middle hypothesis of a divided composi tion (between Charles and Gauden) either as given by Dr. W. from Bishop Kennett, (Who wrote, &c. p. 147-150,) or in any other shape, for the three following reasons. First, Dr. Gauden's own claim is directly opposed to it ;"This book and figure was wholly and only my invention, making, and design." Secondly, as Dr. W. has observed, so say we; "there is in (our) judgment a total absence of evidence, (for Mr. T.'s parallelisms we cannot allow to amount

ever degree of credit may be given to its being the vile fabrication of Gauden, inasmuch as it appears to us next to impossible from the contents, and under the circumstances, of the work, to detach the King from all share either in its composition or publication, (See Who wrote, &c. p. 341 and p. 134---146,) then, upon this hypothesis, we know not at what point to stop short of the conclusion that King Charles was not an honest man. If, however, on the other hand, we are impelled, by the foregoing evidence, to come to the opposite conclusion, and to say it is the King's work; then we have no hesitation in avowing our unfeigned opinion, that next to the Holy Bible and Common Prayer Book in our own tongue, and to the word of God alone in any other*, there is no book whatever extant, possessing equal claims with this, on our respect, affection, and veneration. The spectacle of a Christian King suffering death at the hands of his subjects, under the semblance of law, is not common; of one who suffered for views connected with his religion, still less common; and we believe the present to be a singular instance in the history of the world of so minute and detailed a record of the motives and opinions, for the fruits of which a monarch thus suffered.

Taken in this point of view, therefore, to the whole Christian world this book reads a solemn lesson; but to none is that lesson of deeper interest, than to those of our own country, be they of the governors or the governed. To our governors it suggests the awakening considerations, that the eye of temporal power should be kept steadily and constantly fixed on the throne of the "King of Kings, and Lord of Lords;" as well as on the vicegerency of that supreme dominion established within every man's own breast; or, as it is expressed in words far better than we can supply, "I see it a bad exchange to wound a man's own conscience, thereby to salve state sores: to calm the storms of popular discontents, by stirring up a tempest in a man's own bosomt." To those of us amongst the governed, on the other

to an exception) whether external or internal, of any thing like a conjugation of labours, a joint authorship in the performance.' (Who wrote, &c. p. 151.) Thirdly, we are strongly inclined to believe this hypothesis has grown mainly out of a charitable, but to us not sufficiently warranted, regard for preserving the fame of two parties, one of which, we will allow, must fall a sacrifice to the arguments established, of undivided composition, and a wish to get over certain difficulties, whilst it raises up others, equal to, if not greater than, those it seems to clear away. It is a very happy circumstance in this question, that it is now narrowed into an inquiry respecting two claimants; for, as Mr. Todd quotes from a biographer in terms of commendation, "a later writer has very acutely and justly remarked, If, &c.—the matter would be determined at once, as there is no third claimant."-Todd's Letter, p. 80, Note.

* "Volumen, quo post Apocalypsin divinius nullum," is part of the inscription on Bishop Earle's monument in the Chapel of Merton College, Oxford.

+ Icon Basilikè, London Ed. 1824, p. 8.

hand, this writing of King Charles (if such it be) invites the important considerations,-how much the burden of public government may be relieved, by a suitable degree of confidence on the part of the governed in the integrity of those at the helm, -that it is as possible for a public person to be honest, as it is for a private one to be indiscreet,---and that in stations of high responsibility, even where the judgment may not always be complete, there is yet in man a principle, capable, if honestly consulted, of sustaining him under the severest reverses of fortune,-CONSCIENCE.

Five Discourses on the Personal Office of Christ; and of the Holy Ghost; on the Doctrine of the Trinity; on Faith; and on Regeneration: preached in the Parish Church of Berwick-upon-Tweed. By the Rev. W. PROCTER, Jun. A. M. Fellow of Catherine Hall, Cambridge, and Lecturer of Berwick. Edinburgh: Constable and Co. London: Rivingtons. 1824, 12mo. pp. 197.

It is always to us a subject of peculiar gratification, to witness the noble and munificent institutions of our ancestors in full operation and effect; and their appointments properly filled by men of adequate talent and character, dispensing all the benefits to the community which they were instituted to diffuse. Considerations of this nature have led us to notice the little volume whose title we have just given. The author has not long been appointed to an important station, that of lecturer upon an ancient endowment in the patronage of the Mercers' Company in London, originally left for the purpose of supplying the want of preaching, in former times seriously felt in the northern counties. The first-fruits of his labours in this situation, are presented to the public in the volume before us, and appear equally creditable to the author, and worthy of the station he fills. We do not, at the same time, mean to hold them up as of any very preeminent merit, but can strongly recommend them to the general reader as very sound and plain expositions of some of the leading doctrines of Christianity.

The subjects of the discourses are sufficiently apparent from the title. The third discourse deserves particularly to be mentioned as containing a very simple scriptural statement of the mystery of the Holy Trinity. The author argues very plainly and forcibly from our ignorance of things around us, as to the arrogance of pretending to penetrate into the hidden things of heaven.

The sermon on regeneration, we particularly recommend to the attention of the reader, as well calculated to meet the fanatical errors on that subject. We extract the following passage,