The first three chapters, including the greater part of the first volume, are introductory, intended to prepare the reader for beginning the history with the reign of James the Second. The first chapter contains a rapid sketch of English history from the earliest times to the Restoration, or accession of Charles the Second. He dwells a little more at length on the contest between Charles and the parliament, the Civil War, the administration of Cromwell, and the Restoration.

The second chapter is devoted to the reign of Charles the Second, a knowledge of which is indispensable to a good understanding of the reign of James, and of the revolution which hurled the Stuarts from the throne of England, and condemned them to perpetual exile.

The third chapter contains a description at length of the times when the crown passed from Charles the Second to James, and a comparison between that and its present condi tion. It contains a view of the very great advance which has been made in almost all the particulars thought most desirable in national prosperity and the well-being of individuals, including a high degree of physical, moral, and intellectual improve

ment.

This description has been mentioned as being out of place in a history, but we think it the most important as well as entertaining in the whole work, the one we should be most unwilling to spare. Voltaire justly complains that "the history of Europe in his time was grown to an endless register of marriages, genealogies, and disputed titles, which render the narrative obscure and unentertaining, at the same time that they stifle the memory of great events, together with the knowl edge of laws and manners, objects more worthy of attention." Whatever may be the defects of his historical productions, Voltaire has the great merit of leading the way in the attention now commonly paid by historical writers to laws, manners, and customs, to the progress of the liberal and useful arts, and especially to the condition of the people. The attention of the reader is no longer exclusively directed to kings and princes, ministers, ambassadors, and generals, as if all the rest of the world were of no consequence to the historian or reader.

Mr. Macaulay has on the whole, we think, been very successful in this account, and has given a very picturesque description of the condition of England one hundred and sixty years ago, and a very favorable one of England at present. We are not disposed to call in question the general fidelity of

these pictures, but we think the former is somewhat overcharged, and the latter may, perhaps, be deemed a little flattering. Indeed, we think it must be apparent to most readers, that some exaggeration in description is not very uncommon with Macaulay. We do not mention this as detracting from the general merit of the work, and if there is occasionally any exaggeration in his descriptions, or error in his conclusions, we think that the author, by a full and accurate statement of all the facts that can be ascertained, generally affords the intelligent reader the means of forming a correct opinion for himself. Some traces are occasionally visible of the rhetori cian and of the eloquent debater in the House of Commons; sometimes he discusses questions in the style of an advocate for one party, but in these the decision is commonly that of the calm and impartial historian.

The following is the character of Cranmer, the principal founder of the English church and one of its chief martyrs, and considered the leader of the Protestant party.

"The man who took the chief part in settling the conditions of the alliance which produced the Anglican Church was Thomas Cranmer. He was the representative of both the parties, which, at that time, needed each other's assistance. He was at once a divine and a statesman. In his character of divine he was perfectly ready to go as far in the way of change as any Swiss or Scottish reformer. In his character of statesman he was desirous to preserve that organization which had, during many ages, admirably served the purposes of the bishops of Rome, and might be expected now to serve equally well the purposes of the English kings and of their ministers. His temper and his understanding eminently fitted him to act as mediator. Saintly in his professions, unscrupulous in his dealings, zealous for nothing, bold in speculation, a coward and a time-server in action, a placable enemy and a lukewarm friend, he was in every way qualified to arrange the terms of the coalition between the religious and the worldly enemies of popery.

"To this day, the constitution, the doctrines, and the services of the Church retain the visible marks of the compromise from which she sprang. She occupies a middle position between the churches of Rome and Geneva. Her doctrinal confessions and discourses, composed by Protestants, set forth principles of theology in which Calvin or Knox would have found scarcely a word to disapprove. Her prayers and thanksgivings, derived from the ancient Liturgies, are very generally such that Bishop Fisher or Cardinal Pole might have heartily joined in them. A controversialist who puts

an Arminian sense on her articles and homilies will be pronounced by candid men to be as unreasonable as a controversialist who denies that the doctrine of baptismal regeneration can be discov ered in her Liturgy.

"The Church of Rome held that episcopacy was of divine institution, and that certain supernatural graces of a high order had been transmitted by the imposition of hands through fifty generations, from the eleven who received their commission on the Galilean Mount to the bishops who met at Trent. A large body of Protestants, on the other hand, regarded prelacy as positively unlawful, and persuaded themselves that they found a very different form of ecclesiastical government prescribed in Scripture. The founders of the Anglican Church took a middle course. They retained episcopacy, but they did not declare it to be an institution essential to the welfare of a Christian society, or to the efficacy of the sacraments. Cranmer, indeed, plainly avowed his conviction that, in the primitive times, there was no distinction between bishops and priests, and that the laying on of hands was altogether unnecessary."

This view of the doctrines and services of the church reminds one of the saying of Lord Chatham, that "the Church of England has a Calvinistic creed, an Arminian clergy, and a Popish Liturgy." According to Bishop Hare, the principal difference between the Church of Rome and the Church of England is, that "the one is infallible, and the other never in the wrong." In respect to the divine origin of Episcopacy and the apostolic succession, the English church now ap proaches nearer to that of Rome than in the days of Cranmer.

The present orthodox belief of the high churchmen we believe to be, that the Church of England, with its hierarchy, its Archbishops, Bishops, Deans, and inferior clergy, affords the nearest resemblance to the primitive church in the time of the apostles.

The Church of England has been always strongly attached to the sovereign, its supreme head. The extravagance of this attachment and the slavish doctrines taught by the clergy are thus stated by Macaulay.

"The Church of England was not ungrateful for the protection which she received from the government. From the first day of her existence she had been attached to monarchy; but, during the quarter of a century which followed the Restoration, her zeal for royal authority and hereditary right passed all bounds. She had suffered with the house of Stuart. She had been restored with that house. She was connected with it by common interests,

friendships, and enmities. It seemed impossible that a day could ever come when the ties which bound her to the children of her august martyr would be sundered, and when the loyalty in which she gloried would cease to be a pleasing and profitable duty. She accordingly magnified in fulsome praise that prerogative which was constantly employed to defend and to aggrandize her, and reprobated, much at her ease, the depravity of those whom oppression, from which she was exempt, had goaded to rebellion. Her favorite theme was the doctrine of non-resistance. That doctrine she taught without any qualification, and followed out to all its extreme consequences. Her disciples were never weary of repeating that in no conceivable case, not even if England were cursed with a king resembling Busiris or Phalaris, who, in defiance of law, and without the pretence of justice, should daily doom hundreds of innocent victims to torture and death, would all the estates of the realm united be justified in withstanding his tyranny by physical force. Happily, the principles of human nature afford abundant security that such theories will never be more than theories. The day of trial came, and the very men who had most loudly and most sincerely professed this extravagant loyalty were, in almost every county of England, arrayed in arms against the throne."

"The restored church contended against the prevailing immorality, but contended feebly, and with half a heart. It was necessary to the decorum of her character that she should admonish her erring children. But her admonitions were given in a somewhat perfunctory manner. Her attention was elsewhere engaged. Her whole soul was in the work of crushing the Puritans, and of teaching her disciples to render unto Cæsar the things which were Cæsar's. She had been pillaged and oppressed by the party which preached an austere morality. She had been restored to opulence and honor by libertines. Little as the men of mirth and fashion were disposed to shape their lives according to her precepts, they were yet ready to fight kneedeep in blood for her cathedrals and palaces, for every line of her rubric, and every thread of her vestments. It is an unquestionable and most instructive fact, that the years during which the political power of the Anglican hierarchy was in the zenith, were precisely the years during which national virtue was at the lowest point."

The immorality, profligacy, and total want of principle among the higher classes, in the reign of Charles the Second, and especially of the most active and leading politicians, seem almost incredible. We have a striking, and, we suppose, a pretty correct description of the general character of the public men in England at the Restoration, which, to a great extent, was applicable for more than half a century afterwards.

"Scarcely any rank or profession escaped the infection of the prevailing immorality: but those persons who made politics their business, were perhaps the most corrupt part of the corrupt society; for they were exposed not only to the same noxious influences which affected the nation generally, but also to a taint of a peculiar and most malignant kind. Their character had been formed amid frequent and violent revolutions and counter-revolutions. In the course of a few years they had seen the ecclesiastical and civil polity of their country repeatedly changed. They had seen an Episcopal church persecuting Puritans, a Puritan church persecuting Episcopalians, and an Episcopal church persecuting Puritans again. They had seen hereditary monarchy abolished and restored. They had seen the Long Parliament thrice supreme in the state and thrice dissolved amid the curses and laughter of millions. They had seen a new dynasty rapidly rising to the height of power and glory, and then, on a sudden, hurled down from the chair of state without a struggle. They had seen a new representative system devised, tried, and abandoned. They had seen a new House of Lords created and scattered. They had seen great masses of property violently transferred from Cavaliers to Roundheads, and from Roundheads back to Cavaliers. During these events, no man could be a stirring and thriving politician who was not prepared to change with every change of fortune. It was only in retirement that any person could long keep the character either of a steady Royalist or of a steady Republican. One who, in such an age, is determined to attain civil greatness, must renounce all thoughts of consistency. Instead of affecting immutability in the midst of endless mutation, he must always be on the watch for the indications of a coming reaction. He must seize the exact moment for deserting a falling cause. Having gone all lengths with a faction while it was uppermost, he must extricate himself from it when its difficulties begin; must assail it, must persecute it, must enter on a new ca reer of power and prosperity in company with new associates. His situation naturally develops in him to the highest degree a peculiar class of abilities and a peculiar class of vices. He becomes quick of observation and fertile of resource. He catches without effort the tone of any sect or party with which he chances to mingle. He discerns the signs of the times with a sagacity which to the multitude appears miraculous; with a sagacity resembling that with which a veteran police officer pursues the faintest indications of crime, or with which a Mohawk warrior follows a track through the woods. But we shall seldom find, in a statesman so trained, integrity, constancy, or any of the virtues of the noble family of Truth. He has no faith in any doctrine, no zeal for any cause. He has seen so many old institutions swept away, that he has no reverence for prescription. He has