1822. 
On the first article, the “ Life of 
Cromwell,” there is not much room tor 
observation : it is enormously long, but, 
on the whole, a judicious compilation 
from several volumes lately published, 
illustrative of the life of the Protector, 
and the facts selected are drawn up 
with great fairness, exhibiting the cha- 
racter of Cromwell with that mixture 
of good and bad qualities—of genero- 
sity, bravery, love of justice, hypocrisy, 
buffoonery, and comprehension of mind 
—which had always made him with 
us, and, we suppose, with others, an 
interesting subject of admiration and 
aversion. We do not, however, agree 
with the reviewer, in thinking that one 
of the works reviewed, ** Cromwell and 
his Times,’ does not contain internal 
evidence that the author is a descendant 
of the Protectoral house: the writer, 
we believe, is a young man, and in 
turning over the pages of his work, and 
also the work of the late Mr. Oliver 
Cromwell, we confess we were struck 
with some points of resemblance, which 
we fancied we discovered in style and 
arrangement, between them, and the 
luminous harangues of their great Pro- 
genitor. It isa point, however, not of 
much consequence. Mr. Southey, 
whom we take to be the writer of this 
article, does well to recommend the 
history of the civil war to particular at- 
tention, as full of useful instruction on 
the evils of fanaticism and anarchy, and 
of the desperate lengths to which men of 
** good hearts and laudable intentions” 
may be drawn, when plunged in the 
vortex of power, and faction. So far 
his advice is good ; but there is another 
portion of our history, illustrating an 
opposite class of evils, not less edifying, 
and which we also beg to recommend 
to consideration,—we mean the period 
following the Restoration. We there 
learn the incurable nature of princes 
brought up in mistaken notions of pre- 
rogative—the mischief of substitutin 
hypocrisy in place of real ec micas | 
the calamities which overwhelm a 
country, when the monarch himself is 
a noted example of viceand profligacy, 
and his court the general refuge of 
kept mistresses, unprincipled writers, 
and abandoned statesmen. There is 
much to be learnt in both cases—with 
this difference ; that, in one, we have to 
deplore the venial errors of “ good 
hearts and laudable intentions,” in the 
other, the deliberate wickedness of un- 
bridled power and licentiousness. 
We had almost forgotten to remark, 
Quarterly Review, No. L. 21 
on a note attached to this article, in 
which the writer raises some doubt 
whether Dr. Gauden was the author of 
“ Eicon Basilike.’’ But we thought 
the question was settled by the publica- 
tion of the Supplement to the Claren- 
don State Papers. They were publish- 
ed for the first time in 1786, and it was 
an ignorance of them that inclined 
Hume to ascribe the Eicon to Charles. 
But of the real author now there can be 
no doubt. In the Supplement, Gauden’s 
letters to Clarendon and others, claim- 
ing preferment on account of being the 
author of the Eicon, are preserved ; and 
it was from the circumstance of being 
the author, though otherwise obnoxious 
to the court party, that he was success- 
ively created bishop of Exeter and 
Worcester. 
The “ Apocryphal New Testament’ 
forms the second article. If it evince 
simplicity in an anthor to complain of 
his reviewer, or a culprit of his judge, 
it is not less so for the professors of a 
faith “ founded ona rock,” tocomplain 
of those who attempt to throw light on 
its origin. It is error, not truth, that 
can be endangered by enquiry. With 
such an obvious principle before them, 
the rage of the Quarterly is absurd and 
inexplicable: had they lived by impos- 
ture, and the secret been betrayed by 
which they got their bread, they could 
not have betrayed more bitterness of 
spirit. Whereas the offence of collect- 
ing the spurious gospels—if any at all 
—is of the most venial kind. We can 
see no more danger in an apocryphal 
New, than in anapocryphal Old Testa- 
ment ; the last it has long been usual 
to bind up with the sacred volume. 
In like manner, we apprehend, the 4po- 
cryphal New Testament would be power- 
less against the canon of our faith, and 
nothing can render it efficient, unless it 
be the absurd fear of enquiry shewn by 
some of itsindiscreet defenders. As to 
the abuse on ourselves—for the indiscri- 
minate rage of the reviewer has dragged 
our name into his contest with Mr. Hone 
—we have very little to say. However 
the world may improve, we have no hope 
that all mankind will ever live in entire 
peace and charity ; there will be always 
some classes with obvious reasons for 
reviling and prosecuting each other. 
This arises from the very constitution 
of society. Men, thriving by injustice 
and delusion, naturally hate those who 
expose their delinqueucies ; and on this 
principle, we apprehend, we shall 
always be obnoxious to the Quarterly. 
There 
