arguments do not appear satisfactorily to meet what has been advanced on the opposite side. This observation is particularly applicable to that division of the evidence which arises out of the conduct of Clarendon; but I find it would be impossible for me to allege what might be advanced in opposition to the Reviewer, without greatly exceeding the limits which you can afford for the farther discussion of this question. I shall therefore confine my observations to three points.

First, the evidence produced to shew that Charles the First was in possession of the Icon at Carisbrook, before the period at which, according to the statement of the Gaudens, their copy could have been conveyed to him, you take upon the representation of Dr. Wordsworth; and it must be admitted, that if that representation were capable of being supported, the King's cause would be greatly advanced-perhaps would triumph. It is true, as you observe, that Mr. Todd's publication offers no contradiction to the evidence thus supplied, viz. the evidence of Hammond, Levet, Mildmay, and others; but this will not justify the conclusion that the evidence in question is therefore unassailable. In a publication which you appear not to have seen, it is shewn, that, by a vote of both Houses, permission was given to the King's friends, so early as August the 21st, to communicate with their Master, who was not removed from Carisbrook before the 8th of the following month at the soonest†. Is not, therefore, the whole effect of the evidence in question annulled, seeing that what Dr. Wordsworth builds upon is this-that the King had the book in his possession at a period when it could not have been conveyed to him by Dr. Duppa and the Marquis of Hertford?

Secondly, the conclusion in Gauden's favour, to be drawn from the parallelisms between his acknowledged publications and the Icôn Basilikè, appears to be too firmly compacted to be overthrown by your observations upon this singular concurrence. The Reviewer does not seem to do perfect justice to the industry and ingenuity with which Mr. Todd has confronted these hitherto unnoticed specimens of resemblance, nor to the forcible argument hence arising against Dr. Wordsworth.

The writer of the "Letter to a Friend" has also produced instances of parallelism more than accidental, though I do not perceive that he has in any instance fixed on the same with Mr. Todd. This circumstance surely evinces how abundant such resemblances to the Icón must be in the works of Gauden. But the Reviewer would obviate the effect of this by two considerations, viz. " that several of the parallelisms adduced are from publications of Gauden, issued either shortly after his copying out the Icon, on the one hand, or about the time he was preparing to bring forward his claim, on the other."

"A Letter to a Friend touching the Question Who was the Author of Eikov Baσikikn?' by W. G. Broughton, M. A. Curate of Hartley Wespall, Hants." (See p. 32.)

+ Among his Majesty's "Messages for Peace," there is one "concerning the time of the Treaty, and for two Doctors of the Civil Law to attend his Majesty," dated Carisbrook, September 7, 1648. Reliquia Sacr. Carolin. p. 142.

But, let me inquire, is this a correct statement? This would confine the parallelisms to works issued by him in 1648-9 or 1659-60. But of the several writings of Gauden, from which he gives extracts, Mr. Todd gives the dates, (Letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury, p. 57), and these dates extend from 1640 to 1662. The publication in which perhaps the greatest resemblance to the Icon, both in subject and expression, is observable, is the Hieraspistes, published in 1653. This certainly was not shortly after his copying out the Icôn; nor can I believe that any man of Gauden's sense, or indeed of common sense, would at that time (1653) be laying a plot to obtain the credit of having written the Icon Basilikè, when a successful piracy of the King's book could only bring him into the hazard of sharing the King's fate.

But let us view these parallelisms in another light. They are found in Gauden's earliest publications-his Sermons of 1641 and 1642— and therefore the theory of your Reviewer obliges him to surmise that the King read this discourse not long before he came to write the "Meditations upon Death," in the Icon, and adopted either by design or accident the strong imagery which Gauden had introduced into a Sermon published seven years before. The imagery is indeed, remarkable; but the supposition, that the King near the close of his life should employ himself in reading and imitating that production of Gauden, which had procured for him from the Parliament the "donum honorarium" of a silver tankard, appears to be still more remarkable in every point of view. That Charles might have his attention attracted by the Sermon, on its first appearance, is highly probable; but that, after an interval of seven years, he should bear in mind the actual expressions with such accuracy as to quote them word for word, or that he should at that late period refresh his memory by referring to a discourse sanctioned by such auspices, are both of them very bold and extravagant hypotheses. But let this pass.

We are next required to suppose that, as the King, on one or two occasions, borrowed from Gauden, the latter repaid the obligation by copying largely from the Icón, in all which he wrote subsequently to its appearance. This in the abstract might be regarded as not impossible (though with what motive Gauden should persist in it during so many years, is not very apparent); but I must submit it for consideration, whether he could copy from the King such peculiar forms of expression as the King does not appear ever to have used. Not to be tedious, I will confine myself to two instances. Mr. Todd adverts to a very peculiar use of the word "also," in the writings of Gauden, (Letter to the Abp. p. 158); and the author of the "Letter to a Friend" (p. 58), points out a remarkable predilection for the phrase "not that," not but that." All these idioms are equally prevalent in the Icón; but I have examined with some care the King's undoubted compositions in the Reliquiae Carolina, without meeting any trace of a similar particularity. If, therefore, resemblance of style is to have any weight in deciding the controversy, the Icon must be adjudged to Gauden, and not to Charles.

or

66

My third observation will relate to an apprehension entertained by the Reviewer, that if Gauden's claim be admitted, we cannot "" stop short of the conclusion that King Charles was not an honest man.'

The

Truth must not yield even to this consideration; but, to confess my own sentiments, I should be not more scandalized than surprised if the pursuit of truth ever reduced me to so hateful a conclusion as this. On the contrary, after a careful and repeated perusal of the entire evidence, I adhere to the conclusion of Mr. Broughton, that "The Martyr is here without reproach. It too plainly appears, that a desire for the Monarch's preservation betrayed his friends into a departure from the strict line of honesty; but no fear of consequences, however fatal, could influence him who was to be the chief sufferer. There is not the slightest reason to believe that he ever contemplated, much less that he ever sanctioned, the publication of his fictitious meditations. The sentiments and devotions he acknowledged and adopted; nor in this assumption did he demean himself unworthily. character pourtrayed in the Icon Basilikè is invested with the truest heroism-that of patience under unmerited persecution; and in its chief lineaments exhibits a model of Christian perfection. Whatever of a solemn and almost sacred character has been attached to this book, by all who could sympathize with virtue and greatness in affliction, it may still in a great measure retain. Those sentiments of piety, resignation, and forgiveness-those moving acknowledgments of great unworthiness-those humble yet animated supplications for forgiveness—were actually placed before the eyes, adopted by the heart, and uttered by the lips of Charles the First. Whatever delusion, on the other hand, may be implicated with the contrivance and publication of the work, the King is plainly acquitted from all participation and connivance." (Letter, p. 91.)

For a proof that the King must have lent at least some aid to the deception, the Reviewer refers to page 341 of Dr. Wordsworth's work, where the appearance of "a court secret" in the Icon, is urged to shew that Gauden could not have written it. In reply, I utter but one word-Duppa: what more probable than that Charles should unbosom himself to his chosen friend, the tutor of his son, or that Duppa should supply the key to Gauden, in his zeal to exhibit in its true light the apparently most questionable of his Master's actions? I am, Sir, yours, &c.

SYNERGUS,

ON THE TENTH CHAPTER OF ISAIAH.

MR. EDITOR,-In my last I gave you some reasons why the prophecy in the 10th chapter of Isaiah could not be fulfilled by the destruction of Sennacherib; I have now further to say, that Ezekiel, after Sennacherib's death, (ch. xxxi.) prophesied of the Assyrian in these words,* "Foreigners shall cut him off," whereas Sennacherib had been cut off by his own sons already. Ezekiel represents the Assyrian as a stately

* Our Bible has it "have cut him off;" St. Jerome writes shall. Poole's note says, it should be have, and not shall, since shall could not stand with his interpretation; yet still he was cut off by his own sons, and not by foreigners, which is what I meant to prove.

66

cedar in Lebanon, with a lofty top and spreading branches, but Sennacherib does not answer this description by any means, nor could there be any reason why Lebanon should mourn for him, for he had taken no root thereon. The Jews were not restored upon his fall as they are to be on the fall of the Assyrian, (ch. x. 17.) which last circumstance, among many others, seems a pretty strong reason why the Assyrian must be in existence in the latter days, or days of the Messiah, even till God shall have accomplished to scatter the power of his holy people. Again,* Thus saith the Lord God of Hosts, (evidently at his second coming), "O my people that dwellest in Sion, be not afraid of the Assyrian, he shall smite thee with his rod yet a very little while, and mine anger shall cease in their destruction." Again, Isaiah xxx. 31. "Through the voice of the Lord shall the Assyrian be beaten down which smote thee with the rod,”-in all which passages the Assyrian appears to be a living personage. In my former letter I observed, that God's whole work upon Mount Sion and Jerusalem could not be completed till he should have accomplished to scatter the power of his holy people; and, therefore, the punishment of the Assyrian could not take place till then, but then will he be cut off when at the height of his boasted power, and trampled under foot upon God's holy mountain, ch. xiv. 24, 25. It appears therefore pretty clear, that my reader must look for the Assyrian among the living potentates of the world, and not among the tombs of the dead. Let him look to the description given of him in Isaiah, ch. x.t-his enmity to images and idols,- the triumphant looks of his haughty eyes and proud heart,-his high sounding titles, boasting that he is God and the disposer of all earthly kingdoms,--his unmerciful cruelty to other nations, and rapaciousness in the extreme towards his own subjects; encouraging his bashaws to make a general gathering of the riches of the earth day by day, as a woman gathereth her new laid eggs, and when they have filled their baskets they are swept off with nests and eggs together, submitting to the bowstring without a peck of the beak, or chirrup of complaint. This description will point out to him, no doubt, the great Mahometan powert. The king of the north of Dania, who hath planted the tabernacles of his palace between the seas in the glorious holy mountain, where, like the stately cedar, he has taken firm rooting, extended far and wide his branches and overtopt all the trees of the forest, but "Lebanon shall fall by a mighty hand!" MILLENARIUS.

*Is not this gracious and consolatory admonition addressed to a part of his Christian flock of the Eastern church? The Jews were not yet returned, v. 21. † It is remarkable that he is to be delivered over to the mighty one, and to be driven out, not for idolatry like other kings, but for his wickedness.- Ezekiel

xxxi. 11.

After the fall of the second star or Eastern church into idolatry, the four angels bound in the river Euphrates had a charge from God to invade the Roman empire and to slay a third part of men, yet they did not repent of their deeds that they should not worship stocks and stones, &o.-Rev. ix. See also Isaiah ch. viii. 8.-"His wings shall fill the breadth of thy land, O Immanuel! "

ARCHDEACON BOUYER.

In a former number, we gave a sketch of the character of Archdeacon Bouyer: we now gladly present our readers with a preçis of his life, sent us by a friend. If every circumstance connected with the lives of our naval and military heroes is carefully recorded, surely we should not neglect those who have fought in a better and nobler cause.

Short notice of the Venerable Reynold Gideon Bouyer, LL.B. Archdeacon of Northumberland, Prebendary of Durham and of Salisbury, and Official of the Dean and Chapter of Durham.

The family of the above were driven from the principality of Orange, when the French expelled the Protestants from that province, and, abandoning considerable property, took refuge in Holland. His father was educated for the church, in Holland, and came from thence to England, being appointed to the French Protestant church in Spitalfields, London. He married an English lady, and died when his son, R. G. Bouyer, was six years of age, leaving this his only son and two daughters.

On

R. G. Bouyer was born in London, on the 6th January, 1742. the death of his father, he was taken by an aunt, the sister of his father, to the Hague, under whose care he was educated, and remained till he was sent to the University of Leyden, in the year ... He was afterwards, for a short time, at Lausanne, being invited to Switzerland by another sister of his father who had settled in that country.

At the age of 18 or 19, he returned to England, and entered at Trinity College Cambridge, from whence, on the invitation of Doctor Carroll, then Master of Jesus College (who had had some acquaintance with his father), he removed to the latter College. Upon the application, however, of the Duke of Ancaster to undertake the private tuition of his son, the Marquis of Lindsey, he, with great reluctance, acceded to the advantageous proposals made by his Grace, gave up his prospects at the University, which were very flattering, and without waiting till he could take his degree of Bachelor of Arts, quitted Cambridge, and accompanied his noble pupil to Eton. This engagement with the Marquis terminated when that young nobleman set out on his continental tour,-Mr. Bouyer having stipulated that he should not attend him on his travels.

He was ordained

He took his degree of LL. B. in the year 1769. Deacon, in 1764, by the Bishop of Norwich, and was licensed to the curacy of Burwell, near Cambridge, in October of the same year. He was ordained Priest, in .... His first preferment was the perpetual curacy of Edenham, in Lincolnshire, (in which parish Grimsthorpe Castle, the seat of the Ancaster family, is situated) being then Chaplain

to his noble Patron.

In March, 1771, he was inducted to the rectories of Willoughby and Theddlethorpe, in Lincolnshire, on the presentation of the Duke of Ancaster, for the holding of which together, a dispensation was obtained.

In 1772, he married Miss Ponton, of Little Ponton, Lincolnshire. About the year 1783, and for successive years, he was actively en