« 이전계속 »
in the columns of the New-York Tribune. This journal puts in ever a great claim to the merit of fairness and neutrality in respect to theological opinion and discussion. Sometimes, in answer to the complaints of correspondents, it takes a position which, when viewed in connection with the facts, is absolutely ludicrous. “We cannot have our columns,” it often says, “occupied with matters of theology or the discussion of controverted religious points.” Now, is it possible that any one could have read the New-York Tribune for years, and yet have been ignorant of the length, and breadth, and depth, and real nature of its theology? Does the editor imagine that by such declarations of neutrality, there can be kept out of sight what is so perfectly transparent as the religious opinions which are known to find favor in his journal, and which he has so long, and so indefatigably, and under so many appearances, and in so many modes of conveyance, been infusing into the public mind? There are many newspapers which we might read for years, and yet be ignorant of anything beyond the political, and literary, or scientific opinions of their conductors. But who is ignorant of the theology of the Tribune 7 What reader can be so simple as not to know—and that, too, judging solely from its daily perusal—that this theology is the same with that of Parker and the Roxbury associationists, and the Harbinger, and Ralph Waldo Emerson, and George Sands, and Charles Fourier, and that whole class, who, with some shades of difference, do all unite in discarding the supernatural character of the Bible as conclusive authority in any social or moral question ? This journal has been unable to conceal either its likings or its dislikes, its prompt and lauding reception of all new and startling ideas at war with the old faith of the churches, or its hearty and unrelaxing enmity to what the great mass of believers regard as evangelical Christianity. It has made no coarse and railing assaults, but its constant and most adroitly managed influence has been ever steadily in favor of the one, and against the other. Wherever it has been continuously read from year to year, this unvarying prominence given to certain aspects of theology (without the alarm that might have been excited by the use of plain and open language) must have told powerfully on the minds of the young. The children of pious parents who have for a long time been permitted to read such a journal, must have had their faith insensibly weakened in the Scriptures and creeds of their fathers, and unless divine grace restore them, cannot hereafter look upon the Bible in the same light as though their unformed opinions had never been subjected to this hostile influence.
It is, too, among just such a class of readers that peculiar circumstances have given it a most extensive circulation. Commencing as the organ of a large and most respectable party, it found its way into thousands of families it would never have reached, had all the marked features of its subsequent course appeared plainly and frankly set forth in the original prospectus; if it had openly said in the start, We intend to devote much of our space to the advocacy of the doctrines of Charles Fourier; we mean to be zealous for the right of tenants to treat as feudal tyranny the performance of their stipulations with their landlords; we mean always to make room for every atheistical tirade of Robert Owen, whatever may be its length; we mean warmly to advocate some of the most ultra and unconstitutional measures of abolitionism.
But not to dwell on its connection in other respects with almost all the radicalism and infidelity of the day,+what right, we ask, had it to open its columns for so long a time, for the spreading of these abominable tenets of Charles Fourier's What right had it to present this infidel philosophy to the children of those who had taken it for so very different a purpose, and who composed in the main a portion of the community inclined, professedly at least, to conservative views both in politics and theology? It is all trifling to say that this was a separate concern, a private matter of dealing with the Fourier lecturer. All who are known to be in the habit of reading the journal, and on whose patronage it was expected to depend, had an interest in such a contract. A man publishes a bad book on his own responsibility. People may buy it or not as they choose. But the known circle of readers of a daily journal, especially if they had been induced to take it on well-known grounds of a political nature, have certainly some right to a voice in the question, whether or no it shall be the vehicle of what they must regard as a daily stream of infidelity. As well might a clergyman, pretending to be orthodox, claim the right of permitting an infidel or a Universalist to occupy his pulpit every afternoon, or, at least, in the evening, if the regular occupant had punctually discharged his duties during the day; with as much justice might he tell those who complained of such a proceeding, to leave, or stay away from, the church, as the editor of such a journal to assume that his highly respectable circle of readers—a very large portion of them serious and religious men—or the numerous party of which it professed to be the organ, had no right to find fault with any such private sale and arrangement of his columns. The forbearance of the readers of this paper has been astonishing. It has doubtless been caused by a strong conviction that its editor has many redeeming qualities, both of mind and heart, which tend to palliate the mischief of his false philosophy. They justly give him credit for talent of the highest order, for honesty of purpose, and a sincere feeling of philanthropy. Surely, in gratitude for this, he is bound to keep from his columns whatever may offend the religious feelings of that large class of serious men by whom such forbearance has been so long and so kindly exercised.
ART. III.-History of the English Revolution of 1640, commonly called the Great Rebellion : from the Accession of Charles I. to his Death. By F. Guizot, the Prime Minister of France. New-York: D. Appleton & Co., 200 Broadway. 1846.
The Letters and Speeches of Oliver Cromwell, with Elucidations. By Thomas CARLYLE. New-York: Wm. H. Colyer, No. 5 Hague-street. 1846.
The Protector: a Vindication. By J. H. MERLE D'AUBIGNE, D. D. New-York: Robert Carter, 58 Canal-street. 1847.
Although two articles, written with distinguished ability, have already appeared in this Review on the subject of Oliver Cromwell and the revolution with which his name is connected, yet, as no portion of English history has been so studiously misrepresented, or is of deeper interest to the present generation, it is not, perhaps, presumptuous in the writer to think that the subject is still unexhausted, and will bear to be brought to the attention of the reader again.
After the death of Cromwell the reins of government fell back into the hands of the Stuarts, and the task of giving to posterity a record of the events connected with his administration devolved on those who were interested to heap indignity and disgrace on his memory. Hence the stream of history has been polluted, and the character of the Protector comes down to us distorted by the prejudiced and malicious colorings of Hume and Clarendon.
The professed object of the volumes quoted at the head of our article is to correct these errors, and to set Cromwell right before the world. The work of M. Guizot is incomplete, the present volume being only a prelude to the History of the Commonwealth, which is yet to be published. It takes us down only to the death of the king, and breaks off when the story is at the height of its interest. The author has sought out his facts diligently, but he has discriminated badly in the choice of his authorities, and has followed too much in the beaten track of English history. He does not appear to have properly understood or appreciated the character of Cromwell. The book of Mr. Carlyle is of a very different character. That original and extraordinary genius has discarded altogether the colorings of prejudiced historians, and, collecting together the letters and speeches of Oliver, has enabled us to judge of him by his own words and acts, without the comments of infidelity or the prejudiced insinuations of royalty. His book completely rescues the character of Cromwell from the odium which has been attached to it, and awards to him the place in history to which his great abilities and his distinguished services entitle him. It is worthy of the eminent man whose name it bears. The work of D'Aubigne is more unpretending than either of the others, and better calculated for popular use. The author follows in the track which Carlyle marked out before him, and has drawn his facts almost entirely from the work of his industrious predecessor. It is written in a neat and flowing style, and cannot be read without producing a strong impression in favor of the Protector. Indeed, the character of the work is well described by its title. That portion of English history brought under review in these volumes possesses a very peculiar interest in this country, and indeed wherever true liberty is cherished. The great battle between Charles and his subjects—between despotism and freedom —between the dead formulas of an established church and the fundamental essentials of a spiritual religion—was fought for no single generation, for no isolated land; but its fruits have been particularly abundant and glorious in the broad and beautiful country which we are proud to call our own. Popular liberty was at this time almost quenched in every country in Europe. In the strife between the great barons and the crown, during the earlier days of the feudal system, the people held, as it were, the balance of power, and, being courted by both of the contending parties, grew gradually into consequence, and exercised a large influence in the government. It was during this period that parliaments were established; and the principle of popular representation was introduced to check the power of the nobles on the one hand, and of the king on the other. But, as the barons lost their power, and sunk quietly under the shadow of the sovereign, the motive for allowing the people to share in the government was greatly diminished, and the whole power of the state fell into the hands of the sovereign.
This retrograde revolution—a revolution in favor of despotism, and adverse to liberty—was, at the period of the Rebellion, accomplished in all the nations of the continent, and royalty, freed from its ancient trammels, had become well nigh absolute. The pomp of courts, the lust of conquest, the perpetuation of wars, the discontinuance of popular assemblies, the passive obedience of the people, all proclaimed the strong preponderance of royal power. England was among the last to yield to these adverse influences. She had, many years before, wrung from King John the Great Charter, and she had continued to maintain a representation in the government through the House of Commons; but these did not prevent her from ultimately falling into the same current with her continental neighbors; and every successive reign seemed to gain some new advantage over human rights, till the last remnant of liberty was nearly extinguished. Under the haughty tyranny of the last Henry the royal prerogative was scarcely questioned. Parliament was still called together, but it was only the pliant instrument of the king's despotism. The courts of law, the ministers of religion, the haughty nobility, and the obsequious commons, all strove which should be beforehand with the others in ministering to the king's capricious desires. In the height of his arrogance he quarreled with the pope, and caused his parliament to set up an independent religious establishment, and to proclaim him “the only supreme head of the Church of England on earth.” The Reformation under Luther had prepared the way for this daring measure, and a new and powerful element was thus introduced into the state, which was destined to shake the arbitrary power of the throne, and re-establish the rights of the subject. To give success to his daring measures, the king was obliged to countenance the disciples of Luther, foster the great Reformation, and expose the practices of Rome. The public mind, aroused from the stupor of so many years, and released from the powerful superstitions under which it had bowed itself, plunged at once into a sea of bold and daring speculations, in pursuing which it neither consulted the new head of the church, nor the spiritual authorities which he had established. Henry was alarmed, and proclaimed the fundamental principles of his new faith, beyond which his subjects were not to pass: but although he persecuted Catholics and Protestants alike, piling up fagots for the one, and building scaffolds for the other, yet he could not restrain the minds of men from rioting in that freedom which he had been instrumental in bestowing. His subjects willingly