on a closer examination and analysis of the character of each, I should assign to Cromwell, as his ascendant trait, that of a political profligate, with its not unusual concomitant of an aspiring and intrepid spirit; but to Mahomet an undeviating, well-managed, and successful hypocrisy, without being illustrated by one feature of greatness, unless in the impiety of his hypocrisy itself. Beyond this no trait of magnanimity is found in him; he inspired his followers with enthusiasm, but he was himself no enthusiast; he rendered them careless of death, and intrepid in battle, but he set them no example of personal courage; his vices were those of a low and base mind, lust which knew no limit, and cruelty which knew no mercy; in his hypocrisy I perceive no deep and refined policy, but a grossness, which must have defeated its own purpose in any other age, and with any other people than those whom Mahomet had to act upon, who were indeed suited to him, and he to them. John of Leyden, and Matthias of Munster trod

in the very steps of the Arabian impostor; they aimed at the same end, adopted the same means, exhibited a perfect similitude of character, and in all probability would have been equally successful; but the age of the Reformation and the systematic policy of Western Europe were not adapted to their mean and gross hypocrisy, and soon crushed their ill-timed ambition: while in Cromwell we behold with all his hypocrisy the character of a great man; profound policy, grandeur of design, and daring action. Impenetrable to others, he unlocked the counsels and the very thoughts of all around him by the superiority of his genius he triumphed not over Arabians, but over the wisest and the greatest men of an enlightened and gallant age;--in the witty language of the sarcastic Bishop of Gloucester, he outwitted the Presbyterians, outprayed the Independants, and outfought the Cavaliers. The phlegmatic but obstinately brave Hollander, the stately Spaniard, the artful Frenchman elated with the triumph of Richlieu,

His

Richlieu, and the desperate Turk, trembled at his name, and received his will as that of a sovereign: in fine, though in a bad cause, he raised his nation to a Roman glory. religion was not all hypocrisy, but, though often artfully and wickedly assumed, was in general the religion of his heart, and had at least the sincerity of unenlightened zeal to plead he had no low and base-souled vices; he was no sensualist, no debauchee : he could smile, he could be familiar, and even sportive with his intimates; he had the affections and tenderness of a father; he was not cruel; like the generous Julius, though daring in battle, he stained not his victories with blood, the blood of the conquered; proscriptions followed them not as with Sylla and Augustus, nor perhaps is there an usurper to be found in all history, under whom so few suffered from the axe or the cord. I am no panegyrist of Cromwell; a disgusting hypocrisy entered deeply into his character, but political profligacy more; he was greater than Richlieu, had

more

more personal magnanimity, and without the odious vices of implacable malignity, revenge, and cruelty. He was the most singular instance that I recollect in history of a superior mind descending to a low and abject hypocrisy, but it was only his instrument; it never depressed the energy of his spirit, it never checked the boldness of his ambitious soaring, and political profligacy of the highest or proudest flight was always ascendant in him. He left hypocrites enough behind him, but none with his genius, and therefore his usurped greatness rose and fell with him. It was his own achievement, and no meaner arm could sustain the conflict. He certainly however was not an example fitted to the purpose of this essay, and for this reason it would seem that the author ought not to have adduced this character at all. But in opposition to this apparent propriety, he has dwelt upon a considerable extent, for two reasons: one, that hypocrisy, however conspicuous in him, was but an under part of his character, it facilitated

it to

facilitated his ascent to that eminence of greatness and power to which he rose; while a profligate ambition, and a genius and courage equal to his ambition were ascendant, the master qualities, to which he owed his success and triumph over every competitor. If I had resolved to adduce him, it would have been in respect of his ambitious profligacy, and without regard to any under qualities, whether hypocrisy, or any other.

My next reason for noticing

him at present is in reply to some principal objections, which were urged at our last meeting against the tenor of my reasoning from singularly mixed characters, where Nature steps out of her common course, and with a liberal hand blends together qualities, which are generally incompatible with each other. No theory or system is answerable for extraordinary anomalies.

I have principally adverted to profligates and hypocrites in the higher roads of life, because they are more conspicuous, and, being more noticed, are more discriminately

subject