1847.] Reason and Faith.^ 343 dence of the Gospel history, are subjects which need to be investigated anew, and presented in a new light. No answer to Strauss, as good as could be wished, has as yet appeared even in Germany, where no less than four editions of his work have been issued. The best work called forth by its publication is probably Neander's "Life of Jesus," of which a translation has been promised at Edinburgh. But we need something better than a translation of the work of Neander. We have better writers and thinkers among us than the distinguished historian of the Church, in whom liberality of spirit and extent of research are more apparent than vigor of intellect or clearness of views. All that is wanted is learning, time, and talent devoted to the subject, in order to have a better work for our community than any foreigner can produce. A critical Life of Jesus, or a critical Commentary on the Gospels, having in view the questions raised by Strauss, though not necessarily discussing them in a controversial way, is at present the great desideratum in our theology. We want no work on the subject which is not the product of learning, of talent, and of time. Let those who condemn critical studies as worthless tell us, if they can, how such a work is to be produced. Let them tell us, too, how long it is desirable that the most elaborate exposition of the life of the Founder of Christianity should be the production of one who denies the divinity of his mission.* There can be no real antagonism between reason and faith. It is not by a timid and arbitrary retreat to an old church or an old system, or by clinging with an intense effort of the will to present views, or by the mere exercise of the Christian spirit and the influence of good living, as some, pushing a correct principle to an extreme, have seemed of late to maintain, but by constant and persevering progress in rational inquiry, that a genuine and vigorous Christian faith can arise from the present chaos of unsettled opinions in the Christian world. Long enough, too, have Christians tried to arrive at a visible unity by Councils and Conventions, arbitrarily adopting formulas of faith. The only means for gaining the consummation, so devoutly to be wished, when A learned friend, in whose judgment I have great confidence, has expressed to me the opinion, that I have overrated the talent of Strauss and the importance of his writings. If this be the case, I hope the greater weight will be allowed to what I have said in opposition to his views. "all shall be one," is a more general and vigorous application of reason to religious subjects, united with a larger measure of the Christian spirit, and a more comprehensive and constant charity. But I feel that I am beginning to exceed the proper limits of a discourse. It is impossible, however, to close, without recalling the image of him who, at our last anniversary, with his feeble voice, too surely foreboding the loss which we now deplore, but with his usual affluence of thought and beauty of language, illustrated the subject of the influence of character compared with that of mere official dignity or sanctity. Having detained you so long, I cannot undertake to delineate the character of Dr. Peabody. For our own admonition and excitement, I will remind you of only one characteristic of his ministerial course. He was a signal example of a clergyman, who, while he brought to his own pulpit, from which he was seldom absent, a very uncommon number of original and well-written discourses, and was faithful to the private calls of ministerial duty, and adorned the Christian name by his pure and gentle spirit, forgot not the claims of literature, and even of science, upon his active and fertile mind. Who can doubt that his influence as a Christian teacher, even among his own people, was increased by the various and long-continued contributions to our periodical literature which came from his pen? Alas, how ill can we afford to lose so bright an ornament to our profession! Let us learn from him, that our influence as clergymen should be bounded by no parish lines, but only by our ability and our opportunity; and be reminded how much may be accomplished by the quiet and assiduous employment of our talents and our time in the work which God has given us to do. ART. III. EVELYN'S LIFE OF MRS. GODOLPHIN.* A LITTLE more than twenty years since, a posthumous work by John Milton was first published, and was shortly after The Life of Mrs. Godolphin. By JOHN EVELYN of Wootton Esq. Now first published and edited by SAMUEL Lord Bishop of OXFORD Chancellor of the Most Noble Order of the Garter. New York: D. Appleton & Co. 1847. 12mo. pp. xvi. and 151. 1847.] Editor's Negligence. 345 noticed at some length in this journal. This little volume, by a contemporary of Milton and the patron of Jeremy Taylor, is also now printed for the first time. Thus are we the first to read and pass judgment upon two works, which, though known to exist, were alike inaccessible to our fathers. One quietly slumbered amidst the forgotten rubbish of the StatePaper Office, and was at length generally supposed to be lost; the other almost as quietly rested among the Evelyn manuscripts. Like Milton's Treatise on Christian Doctrine, the volume before us acquires an interest from the circumstances under which it is published, that it would not otherwise possess. For, in truth, it has little historical value, and throws no new light upon that important period in which Mrs. Godolphin lived. Its great charm lies in its delineation of a virtuous life passed amidst the moral degradation and corruption of the most licentious reign that has ever stained the annals of England. There is always an interest about such a life, even when unmarked by great intellectual power or political importance; and when virtue becomes as rare a sight as it was during the reign of Charles the Second, we may well bestow some degree of admiration upon it. But besides the general interest which we feel in the book on this account, we are led to examine it more carefully from a conviction that Mrs. Godolphin was little like most women. Different and apparently discordant elements seem to have been blended in her character. These circumstances have caused the publication of this volume to be looked for with a good deal of interest. We think there has been, however, a general feeling of disappointment, similar to that which was felt on the publication of Milton's book. Before we proceed to a brief notice of Mrs. Godolphin's life and character, we have a word to say on the manner in which the editor has performed the duty assigned him. The "Life" was not written until several years after her death, when Evelyn was more than sixty years of age, and never received the benefit of his final corrections. After his death, which happened in 1705, the title was found upon a list of "Things I would write out faire and reform if I had the leisure." The manuscript has remained in his family until very recently, when it was confided to the present editor for publication by the Archbishop of York, a descendant of Mr. Evelyn. The editor has prefixed a very objectionable Introduction, and added a number of valuable notes, for - which he informs us he is indebted "to the accurate and well-furnished pen" of Mr. Holmes of the British Museum. These notes are confined, with a few exceptions, to biographical notices of the various persons mentioned in the text, and are deserving of a degree of commendation which we cannot bestow on those parts that seem to have been under the particular supervision of the editor himself. He has not given that careful attention to the correction of the text which it was incumbent upon him to bestow, in view of these facts respecting the unfinished state of the manuscript. His labors seem to have been confined to correcting the spelling in a few instances, and inserting a few words which were needed to complete the sense. There are, however, several mistakes of the biographer, in regard to facts of some importance, of which no notice whatever is taken. For example, on page 27, Mr. Evelyn says: "Wee will now then looke vpon her as att Whitehall, whither she came from St. James to waite vpon her Majestye, after the death of the Dutchess, when she was not above sixteene." And a few pages before (p. 6) we are told : "Thus pass'd she her tyme in that Court till the Dutchess dyed, dureing whose Sickness, accompanyed (as it was) with many vncomfortable circumstances, she waited and attended with an exterordnary sedulity, and as she sometymes told me, when few of the rest were able to endure the fatigue." These statements are alike irreconcilable with each other and with well-known facts; but the explanation is quite simple. Evelyn had no personal knowledge of these facts, for his acquaintance with Mrs. Godolphin did not begin until some time after, and his memory was probably confused when he wrote the account, after many years had elapsed. The principal mistake, as we conceive, lies in confounding Mrs. Godolphin with her sister, Henrietta Maria Blagge, who was afterwards married to Sir Thomas Yarborough. Margaret was transferred to the Queen's service some years before the death of the Duchess of York; for in 1669 we find only one "Mrs. Blagge" among the maids of honor to the Duchess. This was either Mary Blagge, a sister of whom little is known, or Henrietta Maria, who figures in Count Grammont's Memoirs, and who was certainly quite the reverse of Margaret. If Mrs. Godolphin attended upon the Duchess of York, as stated by Evelyn, she is deserving of the more praise, as she was evidently not then in the service of the Duchess. Anne Hyde, Duchess of York, 1847.] Her Childhood. 347 was a Catholic, and died in the spring of 1671, when Mrs. Godolphin was in her nineteenth year. There are some other errors of a similar character; but we pass to the subject of our notice. Margaret Blagge was the daughter of a respectable family, which was ardently devoted to the cause of the Stuarts during the whole of the Revolution. She was born at a time when that cause seemed to be hopelessly lost, a few months before Cromwell marched down to the House of Commons with his "files of musketeers" to destroy the liberties of his country, and Whitelocke presented the Rev. Hugh Peters's (6 huge dogge" to Queen Christina of Sweden, then at the height of her power, but soon to withdraw to more congenial scenes in Rome. Before she had attained her eighth year, things had changed vastly. Cromwell was dead, and his son Richard had vainly endeavoured to follow in his father's career; the Commonwealth had been crushed by the trimmers, under the guidance of Monk and Anthony Ashley Cooper, and the Stuarts had been recalled. On the twenty-ninth of May, 1660, Charles the Second entered London, amidst general rejoicings. "This was also his birth-day," says Mr. Evelyn in his Diary, "and with a triumph of above 20,000 horse and foot, brandishing their swords and shouting with inexpressible joy; the ways strewed with flowers, the bells ringing, the streets hung with tapestry, fountains running with wine; the mayor, aldermen, and all the companies in their liveries, chains of gold, and banners; lords and nobles clad in cloth of silver, gold, and velvet; the windows and balconies all set with ladies; trumpets, music, and myriads of people flocking, even so far as from Rochester, so as they were seven hours in passing the city, even from two o'clock in the afternoon till nine at night." The chronicler adds: "I stood in the Strand and beheld it, and blessed God." As Margaret saw this pompous procession pass, she doubtless smiled with childish admiration and delight; but she was soon to become accustomed to such scenes. She did not, however, live to see the end; twentyfive years later, Evelyn himself was to record the end of that monarch for whose restoration he had blessed God. In the winter of 1685, he wrote: "I can never forget the inexpressible luxury and profaneness, gaming, and all dissolute-ness, and as it were total forgetfulness of God (it being Sunday evening) which this day se'nnight I was witness of, |