egress from within." (p. 174.) Natural instincts being supposed to be divine in themselves, are made to take the place of regenerating grace. CHRIST's divinity is not denied, but it is represented as being after all only an uprising in one person of that underlying tide of divinity which might have found egress equally well in any other person. It is true the objective idea of the atonement is maintained, but it is destroyed by the subjective idea of justification. The sacrifice of CHRIST is made to be of value as awaking the moral consciousness of man, but since, without some divine acceptance, the moral consciousness must die out, it leaves us only where we were before. We have not thus become "dead to sin" by union with Him Who died, nor are we made "the children of GOD" by any new gift imparted from Him Who rose again. Our union with CHRIST, if it is to profit us, must depend upon something stronger than our moral consciousness. We must be “ one with Him," not by natural endowments, but by supernatural infusion of grace. The spirit which is in us can never rise to a conscious unity with the Spirit which is in Him; but we must be made one with Him "by His Spirit which He giveth us.' The restoration of man is not the development of powers which were paralyzed, but it is a new creation.

The author of the present treatise would probably be less mystified by modern philosophy if he would be content to read his Bible with simplicity of heart, and put down his thoughts with more simplicity of language.

THE BOSCOBEL TRACTS.

The Boscobel Tracts relating to the escape of Charles the Second after the Battle of Worcester and his subsequent adventures. Edited by J. HUGHES, Esq., A.M. William Blackwood and Sons, Edinburgh and London.

WE Confess to having always had a liking for the Twenty-ninth of May. It is a day connected in our boyish recollections not so much with the Restoration of the Monarchy under Charles II., as with the memory of an event, which, though it did not happen on the same day, was generally combined in celebration with it. We allude to the surprising escape of the King by hiding himself in an oak tree, under which his pursuers passed without observing him. The commemoration of this occurrence was forcibly taught to us, when, at a very tender age, we were launched into one of our great public schools. We well remember being saluted one morning with the to us unintelligible command, "Show oak," and being

cuffed unmercifully because we were unable to produce a leaf of the royal tree. Before dinner-time we had secured the desired emblem, but were terribly disappointed on being cuffed as much as ever on the plea that it was unlawful to "show oak" after twelve o'clock. We cast away our leaves, and learned our first lesson in the impossibility of pleasing all parties. Ever since that memorable time we never passed an oak tree in May without gravely speculating whether Charles could have found concealment among its sheltering foliage. Any one who has observed will remember that the leaves are never sufficiently forward on the Twenty-ninth to hide a boy of moderate size, much less to secrete two grown men. But this difficulty was easily surmounted by supposing that in those good old times the seasons were more advanced than now; and it was many years before it struck us that the event in question could not have taken place in May, but belonged to a much later period of the year. The exact date of Charles's concealment, as we learn from the very interesting work which stands at the head of this notice, was Saturday, Sept. 6, 1651.

Mr. Hughes informs us that he was induced to undertake the elucidation of this portion of the life of Charles II. by the express recommendation of Bishop Copleston, a letter from whom, suggesting the plan of the work, forms the ground-work of the introduction.

The materials for a complete history of the King's escape are tolerably abundant. First, there is Charles's own narrative dictated by him to Pepys, and published in the last century by Lord Hailes from the authentic MS. in the library of Magdalen College, Cambridge. Secondly, a tract in two parts by Thomas Blount, a Roman Catholic Lawyer, entitled "Boscobel; or, the compleat History of the most miraculous preservation of King Charles the Second after the Battle of Worcester, to which is added Claustrum regale reseratum; or, the King's concealment at Trent." Thirdly, a narrative, written by Mr. Whitgreave, of Moseley Hall, where Charles was for a time concealed. Fourthly, a letter of Captain W. Elledson, or Ellison, to the Earl of Clarendon, published in the Oxford folio edition of the Clarendon State Papers (1773). And lastly, a "Letter from a Prisoner at Chester," found in the same work. All these Mr. Hughes prints unabridged. A minute account of all the circumstances of the escape is also given by the Jesuit Père d'Orléans, in his Histoire des Revolutions d'Angleterre.1 Some other tracts are mentioned, but their authority is doubtful, -and cannot be held to overthrow any statements contained in those enumerated above. From these various authorities Mr. Hughes has compiled a diary of the circumstances which transpired from the march into England, previously to the Battle of Worcester, up to the final escape of the King and his arrival at the French court. He has added pedigrees and memoirs of the actors in the different

scenes which he brings before the reader, and such details of the houses and localities visited by the distressed monarch as can be procured at this distance of time. While giving the author great praise for his indefatigable research (and industry in collecting materials, we regret that he has not more attended to the graces of style and diction. Of a decidedly romantic episode in history he has given the prosiest possible narration, which, although it perhaps thereby gains in solid matter of fact, yet loses half its interest and effect. It might be said that a diary does not admit of anything except the plainest statement of facts; but, granting this for the moment, we find that our author has by no means confined himself to any such limits, but becomes prolix on the subject of the houses and families referred to in the course of the narrative, and therefore may well have vented some of his superabundant energy in embellishing a story so capable of affording the highest pleasure without compelling the historian to deviate from the truth. Sir Walter Scott, in his romance of Woodstock, has recklessly sacrificed facts to the necessities of his plot, and in introducing Charles hiding from his pursuers in the secret chambers of the old mansion there, has offered a slight to tradition for which there is no excuse. Every minute detail of Charles's adventures is preserved; and we know that he was never, in all his journeyings, within many miles of Woodstock. "I may be forgiven," says Bishop Copleston, (Introd. p. 3,)" for expressing something like vexation at the recent tale of the King's adventures at Woodstock."

"You know what my opinion is of the genius and talents of the author, of whom I thus presumed to complain. It is the sense of that genius which enhances my regret. Whenever his pen is employed in filling up the vacant outlines of historical truth, in clothing the bare skeleton of recorded facts with natural and probable circumstances, in giving warmth of colouring to the portrait of personages long since deceased, and introducing to our familiar acquaintance those stately characters who must always wear some degree of stiffness in the hands of the historian, I feel, as all the world does, the highest admiration of his enchanting powers. But the transaction of which I am speaking, would not admit of the exercise of these powers, even if the authority of history had been respected. For the truth is here preserved in its minutest details. It is not paucity of materials, but confusion and inaccuracy, that we have to complain of. The fertility of invention would, in this case, have been thrown away. It should be transferred to some barren region, where the landmarks are bold and definite, but the general surface bare."-Pp. 3, 4.

The real facts of Charles's escape are but little known generally. The outline given in Hume's History is tolerably correct as far as it goes, but is altogether wanting in detail, and omits many of the most curious parts of the story; while Lord Clarendon's account is much fuller and more complete, but fails proportionably in a

THE BOSCOBEL TRACTS.

strict adherence to truth. Mr. Hughes has reprinted the most material portion of Clarendon's narrative of these events, for the sake of comparison with the authentic documents enumerated above; such comparison exhibiting many important variations, in which, without doubt, the tracts give the true version.

It was on the 22nd of August, in the year 1651, that Charles, having suddenly embraced the resolution of marching into England, arrived before the loyal town of Worcester with a force of infantry and cavalry estimated at about 11,000. He had hoped to have been joined by his friends immediately upon his appearance; but whether from fear of the Protector, acquiescence in the existing state of things, or dislike of the Scottish Covenanters who composed the King's army, the expected adherents kept discreetly aloof, and the army which made its triumphal entry into the old episcopal city was scarcely at all superior in numbers to that which left Scotland. The issue of the battle which ensued is well known. Charles, hemmed in by a superior force, and not seconded by his cavalry, which was commanded by Leslie, maintained for some time an unequal combat against the troops of the Protector; but seeing at length that the battle was lost beyond hope of recovery, he left the town by S. Martin's gate in company with his main body of horse. His first thought was to make for London before the news of his defeat could reach there; but being dissuaded from this by his friends, he determined to go northwards towards Scotland. Being too many in number to escape observation, and too few to offer any successful opposition to the parties of the enemy whom they might expect to encounter, the King, with about sixty of his most trusty adherents, turned off from the main road which was followed by the main body of fugitives, and taking the way towards Kidderminster, reached Kinver Heath, about five miles from that town. Halting here, they held a consultation as to what was to be done. It was decided at length to escort the King to Boscobel House," a sequestered spot in the neighbourhood of Brewood and Cannock Chase, and situated on a wild hilly common, in the centre of extensive woods," (Diary, p. 34,) and which had already afforded shelter to the Earl of Derby after his defeat at Wigan by the Parliamentary force under Colonel Lilburn. Their first halt was at White Ladies, a house belonging to the Giffard family, about twenty-six miles from Worcester. Here occurred the introduction of William and Richard Penderell, who lived in the neighbourhood, being retainers of the Giffards, and whose subsequent conduct is the theme of many a story. It is not necessary to follow Charles in all his wanderings: any one who wishes to pursue this subject will find full satisfaction in Mr. Hughes' pages, and to recount the material points in his adventures would be to reprint the Author's Diary. We shall only here notice two or three of the most remark

stances which go to prove that Charles was capable of generosity sometimes, and what was the then state of his religious opinion with respect to Roman Catholicism.

The concealment in the oak took place, as we said above, on Saturday, September 6th. The tree stood in an open space, about a furlong from Boscobel House, and having a wood in its immediate neighbourhood was less likely to be suspected of harbouring fugitives. It had been, as the king tells us, (p. 159,) "a great oak," but "had been lopt some three or four years before; and being grown out again very bushy and thick, could not be seen through." It was at the suggestion of Major Carlis, who had been at the battle of Worcester, and "had seen the last man killed there," escaping himself with great difficulty, that Charles availed himself of the protection of the tree. It seemed tolerably certain that the house would be searched by some of the many parties of soldiers who were patrolling the country; nor was the wood more secure. Indeed the concealed monarch and his companion saw more than one armed body of the enemy approach their immediate neighbourhood, and were often in imminent danger of being discovered. Notwithstanding their peril they made themselves tolerably comfortable in their necessarily cramped position, the Penderells having supplied them with bread and cheese, and "a cushion for his majesty to sit on," (Boscobel, p. 229,) and “the colonel humbly desired his majesty (who had taken little or no rest the two preceding nights), to seat himself as easily as he could in the tree, and rest his head on the colonel's lap, who was watchful that his majesty might not fall. In this oak they continued most part of the day; and in that posture his majesty slumbered away some part of the time, and bore all these hardships and afflictions with incomparable patience." (Ibid.) The tree, thus rendered famous by having contributed to the safety of the king, did not long survive the restoration of the royal fugitive, English zeal taking the usual form, in that time as in the present, and carrying away the old oak piece by piece, in memory of the remarkable event which it had witnessed. Fortunately a well-authenticated acorn of the original tree was preserved and planted on the spot where its parent stood, and the present representative of the royal oak being preserved from the knives of loyal antiquaries by a high iron railing, has attained a respectable antiquity, and considerable dimensions.

In the course of his perilous wanderings Charles gave many instances of presence of mind, for which he deserves great credit. While acting the part of William Jackson, a domestic in attendance on Mrs. Jane Lane, it happened that his horse lost a shoe. They stopped at a smith's to have it replaced, and the king with much coolness entered into conversation with the artizan, agreeing with him that "that rogue, Charles Stuart, if taken, deserved to be hanged