letters deserve mention. A hundred and forty-seven of these, written, some to members of his own family, some to other near relatives or intimate friends; some to public bodies or to persons in official sta tions, and nearly all penned in haste and evidently not intended for publication, have recently been given to the world by Thos. Carlyle.* What do we find in these letters? Does hypocrisy betray itself in any one of them? No. After a thorough perusal of them all, I affirm that those which were written to his most intimate friends, and obviously with the least caution, are the letters in which the Christian spirit is the most conspicuous, whilst they are all without exception in perfect keeping with the tenor of his public profession. His let ters to his wife and to his children are all marked with the same habitual reference to the providence and will of God, the same cheerful yet solemn sense of the divine presence-in short, with the same religious fervour which we find him exhibiting in addresses and communications of a more public and less confidential nature.

These letters throw a flood of light on many important points in his history, hitherto either entirely unknown or the subjects of gross misrepresentation. They exhibit him in the interesting relations of private as well as of public life-as a husband, a father, a neighbor, and a professor of Christianity, as well as an actor in scenes where he was exposed to the scrutinizing gaze of the world. Indeed, no person should now feel qualified to pronounce an intelligent judgment upon the religious character of Cromwell, who has not thoroughly read both the letters and the speeches-which are published in the volumes of Carlyle and examined them too with a careful reference to the dates and all the circumstances, and especially to the views and the prevailing spirit of the Christian world in the age when he lived. In the light alone of such an examination, may any person of ordi nary capacity see how a thousand insinuations and charges against the sincerity of Cromwell are set aside, as not only not proved, but disproved.†

*Were Carlyle "an infidel," his testimony in favor of Cromwell and the Puritans, whom infidels have been so much in the habit of abusing, might be regarded as an important concession, and as such, possessing an additional element of credibility. When a hater of religion, like Hume, maligns the fervent piety of religious men, he speaks in accordance with his prejudices; but were he to praise such piety, he must do so in spite of his prejudices. But whilst I do not object to Hume as a historian solely or mainly on account of his infidelity, I lay no stress on Carlyle's testimony as the concession of a foe to all religion. That Thomas Carlyle should not be confounded with Richard Carlile-who, for blasphemy, was fined and imprisoned, in the city of London, in the year 1819, and as late as the year 1826 continued to glory in his punishment and in "his shame," is perhaps sufficiently evident at least to all men who are conversant with the current literature of the age. Thomas Carlyle was born at Ecclesham, in Scotland, in the year 1795. He was devoting his energies to the German literature, in those years when Richard Carlile was undergoing prosecution and punishment for retailing the blasphemy of Thomas Paine and others of a like spirit. Thomas Carlyle commenced his career as an author by his "Life of Schiller" in 1825. (See Sup. Vol. of Encyc. Am.) That he is not "a blasphemer," might be inferred from the mere fact that he has been an admired contributor to such periodicals as the Edinburgh Review, Fraser's Magazine, the Foreign Quarterly Review, the Examiner, and the London and Westminster Review, for twenty years, as well as from the respectful manner in which several of his works have been noticed within a few months past, in some of our most ably and cautiously conducted religious newspapers and reviews. That he is not an infidel, in any received sense of the term, will be evident to any person who shall be at the pains to read through his article on Voltaire, his "French Revolution," or his "Letters and Speeches of Oliver Cromwell."

The war against the good name of Cromwell has been carried on mainly by means of abusive epithets, by innuendoes, by the grouping of facts or what purport to be facts, without regard to dates or explanatory circumstances, and by gathering up all the idle or malicious reports of his sayings, either garbled or misconstrued, as if they deserved to be received as the

Probably no man living has more thoroughly investigated all the documents which unfold the real history of Cromwell than Thomas Carlyle. This writer expresses his admiration of the straightforwardness and prudence with which he pursued his way through so many difficulties and temptations without being guilty of "one proved falsehood." Encompassed with enemies, the most unscrupulous that the world ever saw, he did, indeed, often leave men "uninformed," but there is no evidence that he ever left them "misinformed." He was unquestionably sagacious and far-sighted; and he, no doubt, knew well, when to speak and what to speak. And the same is true and must be true of every man fit to be intrusted with the management of public affairs. It was certainly a characteristic of our own Washington. He too possessed much of what some one has styled "the great talent for silence." Cromwell had studied the book of Proverbs, and knew that "a fool uttereth all his mind," but that "a wise man keepeth it in till afterwards." That he never dissembled, is more than ought to be affirmed. Exposed, as he was, to such fear. ful trials of integrity, as few public men were ever called to meet, he must, by the transparency of his life, have surpassed all the statesmen, heroes, and patriots whose names adorn the pages of history, never to have been guilty of an act of dissimulation for which "he was to be blamed.” Yet I feel constrained, in view of the whole tenor of his life, of his letters, his real conversations, his speeches, and his habitual deportment,—to declare my unwavering conviction that dissimulation did not characterize him. The symbol which truly represents him is not the fox, but the lion. His magnanimity and daring frankness have extorted acknowledgment even from his defamers. When in the tremendous struggle of the civil war, many

unchallenged statements of well authenticated history, instead of being treated as "the cast off slough" of a shameless partisan literature. The character of Cromwell has suffered on the whole much less from extended narratives than from short sketches. In the former, the force of epithets and insinuations is, in a considerable degree, neutralized by facts which show them to be absurd or ridiculous; in the latter, there is all of the poison with much less of the antidote. His character, as exhibited or rather as half-darkened in the pages of such writers as Hume, is inexplicably mysterious, not to say incredibly unreal. Had a writer of fiction conceived such a character, all readers would have exclaimed, "How grossly improbable." The following are some of the elements of that character, as described by Hume. "Rustic buffoonery" vein of frolic and pleasantry," "he himself was at bottom as frantic an enthusiast as the worst of" "the military fanatics," whose "ignorance and low education exposed them to the grossest imposi tion""uncontrolable fury of zeal,' ""cruel policy." "The murder of the king, the most atrocious of all his actions, was to him covered under a mighty cloud of republican and fanatical illusions; and it is not impossible but he might believe it, as many others did, the most meritorious action that he could perform." "His extensive capacity enabled him to form the most enlarged projects." "In proportion to the increase of his authority, his talents always seemed to expand themselves; and he displayed every day new abilities, which had lain dormant till the very emergency by which they were called forth into action." "A friend to justice." "His magnanimity undervalued danger." "He was carried by his natural temper to magnanimity, to grandeur." Eminent dexterity." "Signal military talents." Hume himself seems a little stag gered at a compound made up of such uncombinable ingredients, and admits that Cromwell's character "does appear extraordinary and unusual by the mixture of so much absurdity with so much penetration," and "by his tempering such violent ambition, and such raging fanaticism, with so much regard for justice and humanity." Had Hume been half as eager in this instance as he was in some others, to reject the "unusual" and the "extraordinary," he would not have hesitated to add, "It is less improbable that historians should falsify than that a character so contrary to the course of human nature should ever have really existed,"

A remarkable example of grouping facts or pretended facts, without regard to dates and cir cumstances, and of gathering up from their hiding places, stale and loathed calumnies, which were sinking into oblivion, may be found where many would least expect to find it, in that spitefully uncandid work entitled the Life of Oliver Cromwell," contained in Forster's "Statesmen of the Commonwealth of England." And yet the American editor of that book speaks of him as "the devout, God-fearing and strong-hearted Cromwell."

resorted to the flimsy legal fiction, that they were making war against the king "for the king," he astonished feebler spirits by saying openly, "If the king should meet me in battle, I would as soon fire my pistol in his face as in that of any other man." They were really at war with the king, and Cromwell's magnanimous spirit would not stoop to impertinent trifling with truth and fact. And this was characteristic. If he spoke at all, he spoke boldly-often vehemently. Indeed, it is worthy of remark, that the very writers who say so much respecting the duplicity and cunning of Cromwell, accuse him of great violence of manner in his conversations and speeches, and even make mention of his "uncontrolable fury of zeal."

Already has it been remarked that Cromwell, soon after his mar. riage, became a professor of religion according to the faith of the Puritans. This may require some explanation; for possibly it may appear to some to be tantamount to accusing him of gross fanaticism and bigotry. Morose, fanatical, austere, are terms which have been in large use in a certain class of books relating to the Puritans, which many read more than they do the authentic history of that people. These epithets are, to be sure, ordinarily employed with a very pru. dent omission of the particulars in which their moroseness and fanaticism were exhibited. Having had some suspicion as to the propriety of the application of these terms to the Puritans, I have looked into a few of the books where I supposed due information might be found— I mean into books written by the enemies of the Puritans. Keight ley says that the Puritans, in the reign of James I., "had been gradually converting the Christian Lord's day into a gloomy, sullen day of hearing sermons and shunning all innocent recreations." "The Catholics naturally took occasion to censure the reformed religion for this gloom and morosity; and the king and his clerical advisers thinking differently from the Puritans on the subject, a procla mation was issued, forbidding any one to prevent the people from having, after divine service, dancing, archery, leaping, vaulting, and other manly and harmless recreations, as also maypoles, may-games, Whitsunales and morris-dances." *

Let it be observed that opposition to such sports-after Divine ser vice on the Lord's day-as are here named, is the only specification which this writer gives under the sweeping charge that the Puritans "were harsh and morose, inquisitorial and censorious, absurdly scrupulous about trifles, and the enemies of all pleasure and innocent recreation." +

You are all aware that a poem called Hudibras, intended to hold up the Puritans to ridicule, was published in the time of Charles II, and greatly admired. Dr. Johnson, in his "Life of Butler," the author of this poem, lauds it in high terms-for no doubt it gave joy to his

* History of England, Vol. II, p. 40.

It must not be supposed that all the members of the Church of England denounced the Puritans for endeavoring to prevent the Christian Sabbath from being perverted into a demoralizing holiday. Then, as now, there were two manner of people' in that Church. The good Archbishop Abbot strongly sympathized with the Puritans, and forbade King James'' Book of Sports' to be read in his presence at Croydon.

high-tory spirit to see the political as well as the religious principles and peculiarities of such a people caricatured and exposed to contempt and declares that "much of that humor which transported the seventeenth century with merriment is lost to us, who do not know the sour solemnity, the sullen superstition, the gloomy moroseness and the stubborn scruples of the ancient Puritans." For the purpose of enlightening our ignorance touching their fanatical peculiarities, Dr. Johnson, himself the hero of the Cocklane ghost-hunt-the sage who once for several weeks, while in Scotland, refused to enter any of the houses of worship, because they had not been consecrated by a bishop; and who commended the piety of a man for no better reason than because he took off his hat while passing a church-kindly mentions the following particulars: "We have never been witnesses of animosities excited by the use of mince-pies and plum-porridge; nor seen, with what abhorrence those who could eat them at all other times of the year, would shrink from them in December. An old Puritan who was alive in my childhood, being, at one of the feasts of the Church, invited by a neighbor to partake of his cheer, told him that if he would treat him at an ale-house with beer brewed for all times and seasons, he should accept his kindness, but would have none of his superstitious meats or drinks." Now any person who will attentively read 1 Cor., VIII, may see the ground of the old Puritan's scruples. It is evident from Dr. Johnson's own statement, that the Puritan regarded the drinking of ale and the eating of mince-pies as, in themselves, matters of perfect indifference; but that when he saw them converted into a religious observance,-into an unauthorized and therefore superstitious service, subversive of the purity and scriptural order of Christian worship he would not countenance them as such. And what enlightened, evangelical Christian even at this day would? The only other specification of their fanatical peculiarities, furnished by the strong memory of Dr. Johnson, is in the following words. "One of the Puritanical tenets, was the illegality of all games of chance.*

* In connection with the above specifications, the Doctor does indeed attempt to convict the Puritans as a body of gross stupidity and ignorance. He asks: "What can be concluded of the lower classes of the people, when in one of the Parliaments summoned by Cromwell, it was seriously proposed that all the records in the Tower should be burnt,' &c? But he seems to have forgotten that no such silly proposition was adopted, or would have found favor with one in a thousand of the Puritans, even if it had been, by some strange freak, passed by a majority in Parliament. That was an age of discussion and of great freedom in declaring individual opinions. There were undoubtedly hanging upon the skirts of the Puritan party a few fanatics, a few levelers,' a few fifth-monarchy men, a few men of a wild, destructive spirit; but to say that these constituted the great body of the Puritans in general, or of the Independents in particular, is just about as near to the real truth of authentic history as it would be, two hundred years hence, to say that in 1843, the Congregationalists of New England were Millerites, or in 1846, Fourierites.

of

Suppose that some member of our National Legislature should propose a measure equally absurd with that mentioned by Dr. Johnson, would this prove that there is no wisdom in our Congress, and would it be fair to conclude that the mass of the people of our country are fools? Those who desire to learn what were really the distinguishing principles and usages the Puritans, would do well to read Hall's excellent work on that subject; Neal's History; Vol. I. of Bancroft's Hist. of U. S.; De Tocqueville's Democracy in America,' especially Chap. II.; and Bacon's Historical Discourses-particularly the second discourse, in which the author most clearly and eloquently exposes not merely the falsity but the ridiculousness of the charge that the Puritans were an illiterate people and the enemies of learning. Those who have derived their views or impressions of the Puritans from sources like Butler's Hudibras, or some of Sir Walter Scott's Novels, or certain works styled histories but dealing largely in fiction,such as Peter's 'History' of Conn., containing the real original-not copy-of the famous code of "blue-laws"may be surprised to learn that Lightfoot, Gale, Selden, Pym, Hampden, Owen,

The uninformed would, surely, expect to learn that all others who lived in England in the age when this amazing fanaticism was rife, were comparatively free from everything savoring of bigotry or of absurdity in the things of religion-that they dwelt, in fact, in the unfailing sunshine of good sense and sober truth. How this really was, may be conjectured from a few sentences extracted from the diary of that distinguished luminary, Archbishop Laud, the exceed. ingly influential and potent "Primate of all England" during the reign of Charles I. Noting from day to day the events which most deeply impressed his lofty mind as worthy of record, this clear-headed leader of those who were afterwards transported with merriment at the remembrance of Puritanical fanaticism, tells us how his picture fell down and how fearful he was lest the fall should be an omen; how he dreamed that King James walked past him; that he saw Thomas Flaxage in green garments and the Bishop of Worcester with his shoulders wrapped in linen. Early in the year 1627, the sleep of this great light-bearer was disturbed-if we may credit the solemn notices in his diary-repeatedly. Do not understand me as blaming him for dreaming. As it was at that season of the year when his holy Christmas mince-pies had doubtless been receiving many proofs of his august regard, these night visions could not well be helped. But that such a man should tell us on paper what he dreamed that he should inform us how he dreamed he saw the Bishop of Lincoln jump on a horse and ride away-that he gave the king drink in a silver cup and the king refused and called for a glass, is, indeed, surprising :-especially is it strange that he should make the following record. "I dreamed," says he, "that I had the scurvy; and that forthwith all my teeth became loose. There was one in especial in my lower jaw, which I could scarcely keep in with my finger till I had called for help." I will not ask in the style of Dr. Johnson, what can be concluded of the lower classes of the people, when a dignitary so much venerated as Archbishop Laud, was thus sunk in superstition, but inquire if it would not be well for all those at least who dwell in this land, which is so much indebted to the Pilgrims, and others of like spirit and principles in the old world, to learn what were the exact grounds on which the Puritans were charged with austerity and moroseness?

In the age under review, they were the great reforming party, both in Church and State. If they were scrupulous about some things which are now considered trifles, it should be remembered that the Puritans themselves viewed them as intrinsically unimportant, and as calling for their stern opposition solely on account of the superstitious consequence attached to them by persecuting prelates and kings. If they were rigorously exact in their observance of the fourth Com

Howe, Baxter, Charnoch, and Milton, were all Puritans, and true representatives of the different phases of the Puritan mind.

Bancroft says that the Puritans "founded national grandeur on universal education," and that "of all contemporary sects they were the most free from credulity, and, in their zeal for reform, pushed their regulations to what some would consider a sceptical extreme. So many superstitions had been bundled up with every venerable institution of Europe, that ages have not yet dislodged them all. The Puritans at once emancipated themselves from a crowd of observances. They established a worship purely spiritual." (Hist. of the U. S., Vol. I., p. 461—8.)