greater depth or complication than that of a guilty conscience. And a system of religion which would have left this unprovided for, we may venture to pronounce, would have been utterly unsuitable to man, and therefore utterly unworthy of the wisdom and goodness of God.

How appositely, then, to this awful feeling does the doctrine of the atonement come into the Christian system! How astonishingly has even its general belief chased from the Christian world those superstitious phantoms with which paganism ever has been, and even at this day is haunted! But, above all, what a relief has it afforded to the humble penitent! "This," said the pious Melancthon, "can only be understood in conflicts of conscience." It is most true. Let those, therefore, who have never felt such conflicts beware how they despise what they may yet be impelled to resort to, as the only certain stay and prop of their sinking spirits. "It is a fearful thing," says an inspired writer, "to fall into the hands of the living God." Against this fear, to what resource could we trust, but that which the mercy God has no less clearly revealed to us? "Seeing, then, that we have a great high priest that is passed for us into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession; for we have not a high priest who cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities, but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. Let us therefore come boldly to the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help us in time of need."

of

CHAPTER XVII.

The use of history in teaching the choice of favourites.-Flattery. Our taste improved in the arts of adulation.-The dangers of flattery exemplified.

IT is not from the history of good princes alone, that signal instruction may be reaped. The lives of the criminal and unfortunate, commonly unfortunate because criminal, will not be read in vain. They are instructive, not only by detailing the personal calamities with which the misconduct was followed, but by exhibiting that misconduct as the source of the alienation of the hearts of their subjects; and often as the remote, sometimes as the immediate, cause of civil commotions and of revolutions.

But caution is to be learned not from their vices only, but from their weaknesses and errors; from their false judgments, their ignorance of human nature, their narrow views arising from a bad education, their judging from partial information, deciding from infused prejudices, and acting on party principles; their being habituated to consider petty unconnected details, instead of taking in the great aggregate of public concerns; their imprudent choice of ministers, their unhappy spirit of favouritism, their preference of selfish flatterers to disinterested counsellors, and making the associates of their pleasures the dispensers of justice and the ministers of public affairs.*

*The Romans seem to have had just ideas of the dignity of character and office attached to the friend of a prince, by denominating him, not favourite, but particeps curarum.

'Tis by that close acquaintance with the characters of men which history supplies, that a prince must learn how to avoid a jealous Sejanus* a vicious Tigellinus,† a corrupt Spenser and Gaveston, a rapacious Empson and Dudley,§ a pernicious D'Ancre,|| an ambitious Wolsey, a profligate Buckingham; we allude at once to the minister of the first James, and to the still more profligate Buckingham of the second Charles; a tyrannical Richelieu, a crafty Mazarine, a profuse Louvois,+t an

Sejanus, the minister of Tiberius, after committing the most enormous crimes to please his master, and to gratify his own revenge, fell into disgrace, and was strangled in prison, A.D. 31.

Tigellinus was the favourite of Nero, till that tyrant, suspecting his fidelity, sentenced him to die by his own hand.

Hugh Spenser, father and son, were the favourites of Edward II., and, in consequence, became the objects of popular vengeance. The former was taken prisoner at Bristol, and executed without trial in 1326. The younger Spenser suffered the same year at Hereford, and with circumstances of great barbarity. Piers Gaveston, another favourite of the same monarch, perished in a similar manner, after a mock trial, in 1312.

§ Richard Empson and Edmund Dudley, the one called the saw and the other the razor of Henry the Seventh's oppression, had rendered themselves so odious to the people, that the son and successor of the monarch deemed it prudent to make them a sacrifice, though certainly against law. They were accordingly executed in 1509.

Barthelemi Concini, marshal D'Ancre, was a native of Florence, and the favourite of Mary de Medicis, consort of Henry IV. of France. That princess, on obtaining the regency, conferred upon him the title of marquis. Louis XIII., however, ordered him to be arrested, but the marshal made such a resistance, that the officers shot him with a pistol, in 1617.

Thomas Wolsey, after attaining the dignity of cardinal, and nearly succeeding to the papal throne, fell into disgrace, and died in 1533.

** George Villiers, duke of Buckingham, the favourite of two kings, was assassinated by Felton, a disappointed lieutenant, in 1628. His son, who was a greater profligate than his father, dissipated an immense fortune, and died in misery in 1687.

tt Francis Michael le Tellier, marquis de Louvois, was born in 1641, and died in 1691.

intriguing Ursini,* an inefficient Chamillard,+ an imperious Duchess of Marlborough, and a supple Masham.

History presents frequent instances of an inconsistency not uncommon in human nature-sovereigns the most arbitrary to their subjects, themselves the tools of favourites. He who treated his people with disdain, and his parliaments with contempt, was, in turn, the slave of Arran,‡ of Car,§ and of Villiers. His grandson, who boldly intrenched on the liberties of his country, was himself governed by the Cabal.||

It may sound paradoxical to assert, that in a period of society, when characters are less strongly marked, a sovereign is, in some respects, in more danger of choosing wrong. In our days, and under our constitution, indeed, it is scarcely possible to err so widely, as to select, for ministers, men of

*Anne Marie de Tremouille, wife by her second marriage of Flavio des Ursins, duke of Bracciano, became again a widow in 1698. At this time she was so great a favourite of the queen consort of Philip V. of Spain, that she bestowed all kinds of preferment at pleasure. On the death of the queen in 1712, her power ended, and she died in poverty at Rome, in 1722.

Michael de Chamillard, obtained the favour of Louis XV. by his skill at billiards. He became successively minister of finance and of war, though deficient of every qualification for either office. He died in 1721.

The earl of Arran, son of the duke of Chatelherault, in Scotland, aspired to the hand of queen Elizabeth, and betrayed the interests of his sovereign James, who lavished upon him a profusion of favours.

§ Robert Car, another worthless favourite of the same monarch, was created by him earl of Somerset. He and his countess were tried and convicted of the murder of sir Thomas Overbury; but, though the inferior instruments were executed, the principals escaped through their interest at court.

The word Cabal was made up of the initials of five profligate statesmen, who managed the counsels of Charles II. These ministers were, Clifford, Arlington, Buckingham, Ashley, and Lauderdale.

such atrocious characters as those who have been just held up to detestation. The very improvement of society, therefore, has caused the question to become one of a much nicer kind. It is no longer a choice between men, whose outward characters exhibit a monstrous disproportion to each other. A bold oppressor of the people, the people would not endure. A violent infringer on the constitution, the parliament would not tolerate. But still, out of that class from which the election must be made, the moral dispositions, the political tendencies, and the religious principles of men may differ so materially, that the choice may seriously affect, at once, the credit and happiness of the prince, and the welfare of the country. The conduct of good and bad men will always furnish no inconsiderable means of distinction; yet, at a time when gross and palpable enormities are less likely to be obtruded, because they are less likely to be endured, it is the more necessary for a prince to be able accurately to discriminate the shades of the characters of public

men.

While, therefore, every tendency to art or dissimulation should be reprobated, the most exact caution should be inculcated, and the keenest discernment cultivated, in the royal education. All that can improve the judgment, sharpen the penetration, or give enlarged views of the human mind, should be put in exercise. A prince should possess that sort of sight, which, while it takes in remote views, accurately distinguishes near objects. To the eye of the lynx, which no minuteness can elude, should be added that of the eagle, which no brightness can blind; for whatever dazzless, darkens. He should acquire that justness, as well as extent of mind, which should enable him to study the character of his enemies, and decide upon that of his friends; to penetrate keenly, but not invidiously,