reading that poet's hymn to death, resigned himself to his fate with apparent indifference. Knox, who is always happy to find matter of reproach against his sovereign, more than insinuates that she was guilty of a criminal intercourse with this Chatelard. But the indecent and coarse manner in which he expresses himself on the subject (page 325) must serve, I should conceive, as an antidote to his most uncharitable opinion. The culprit's open trial and execution, independent of other considerations, ought to exonerate her from the unworthy suspicions of one who delighted to defame her. Mary remained in St. Andrew's till the May following, riding about the adjacent parts of Fife, and amusing herself with the pastimes of the country. Early next year she returned to St. Andrew's, where Randolph, Queen Elizabeth's ambassador, waited upon her. The following extracts from the ambassador's letter to Elizabeth may give us some idea of Mary's simple mode of life while in this city, and the innocent playfulness of her disposition. "Her grace lodged in a merchant's house; her train were very few, and there was small repair from any part. Her will was that for the time that I did stay I should dine and sup with her. Your majesty was oftentimes drunk unto by her at dinners and suppers. Very merrily she passeth her time; after dinner she rideth abroad. It pleaseth her the most part of the time to talk with me." When Randolph introduced the subject of his embassy, which was Mary's own marriage to the Earl of Leicester, he thus describes the way in which she receives it; "I had no sooner spoken these words but she saith, I see now well that you are weary of this company and treatment. I sent for you to be merry, and to see how like a bourgeois wife I live with my little troop; and you will interrupt our pastime with your grave and great matters! I pray you, sir, if you be weary here, return to Edinburgh, and keep your gravity until the queen come thither; for I assure you, you shall not get her here, nor do I know myself what has become of her: you see neither cloth of state, nor such appearance that you may think there is a queen here; nor would I have you think that I am she at St. Andrew's that I was "at Edinburgh," &c. Soon after this, poor Mary proceeded to Wemyss Castle, where she met Darnley for the first time, her marriage to whom was the beginning of those misfortunes which ended only with her existence.

At the season of Easter, the same year, Archbishop Hamilton, the prior of Whithorn, and some other dignified clergy, were accused of saying mass, and brought before the court of justiciary in Edinburgh to answer for this violation of the law. The result was that the accused, rather than submit themselves to a lay court for an ecclesiastical offence, surrendered themselves to the queen's mercy, who, to humour the prosecutors, committed them to prison for a few months, and afterwards released them by her own prerogative. This gave great offence to the Protestant party, and raised a loud cry of partiality against her.

In December, 1565, Queen Mary was again in St. Andrew's with her husband, at the time the reforming rebel lords, Moray, Glencairn, Rothes, Boyd, Ochiltree, &c., were in arms against them. "The whole barons and lairds of Fife convoyed her majesty till she came to St. Andrew's; where the said lairds and barons, especially the Pro

"1

testants, were commanded to subscribe a bond, containing, in effect, that they obliged themselves to defend the king and queen's persons against Englishmen and rebels; and, in case they should come to Fife, they should resist them to their utmost power; which charge every man obeyed. Here the queen and king issued a proclamation against the above lords, in which the following passages occur, and which are fully borne out by facts. "Now when they cannot longer be permitted to do and undo all at their pleasure; they will put a bridle into our mouths, and give us a council chosen after their fantasy. This is the quarrel of religion they made you believe they had in hand. To speak in good language, they would be kings themselves; or, at the least, leaving to us the bare name and title, they would take to themselves the credit and whole administration of the kingdom. For now, by letters sent from themselves to us, which make plain profession that the establishing of religion will not content them; but we must be forced to govern by a council, such as it shall please them to appoint us. What other thing is this but to dissolve the whole policy, and, in a manner, to invert the very order of nature; to make the prince obey, and the subjects command? Given under our signet at St. Andrews, 10th December, and, of our reign, the 1st and 23rd years, 1565."

There can be no doubt that Mary was right, and that the persons against whom this proclamation was issued, Protestants though they called themselves, were wrong. Even had religion been their chief object, the end could not justify the means. But, in point of fact, their own love of power, and the selfish policy of Queen Elizabeth, by whom they were encouraged and supported, were the governing principles of their conduct. Though the faith in which Mary had been educated cannot be defended, we must at least allow that her fate is worthy of sympathy; and, considering how much she endured for conscience sake, she is fully entitled to the praise of consistency and constancy, and even of martyrdom. Let us hope that her sufferings in this life fitted and prepared her for the happiness of a better.

(To be continued.)

L.

ROM. ix, 23. Which he had before prepared unto glory; i. e., either the believing Gentiles whom God reserved in readiness to fill up the place of the unbelieving Jews; or, else, whom he designed to prepare for future eternal glory by the preaching of the Apostles; i. e., prepare all such of them as sincerely believed and obeyed the Gospel.

ROM. ix. 30, 31. Righteousness, the law of righteousness; i. e., the method of obtaining mercy from God. The passages in St. Paul where righteousness or justification are mentioned are exactly agreeable to the remarkable texts in Deut., vi. 25 and elsewhere-It shall be our righteousness, if we observe to do all the commandments. The Septuagint truly renders it our way to obtain (God's) mercy.

PYLE.

'Knox's History, p. 383.

2 P

VOL. II.

ARCHBISHOP USHER AND THE MILLENNIUM.

It appears to be a distinctive mark of the great and good that, do what they will, they must in some degree, benefit their species; whether they are right, or whether they are wrong, posterity must cull some good from them, for the weeds cannot be sufficiently strong to choke the flowers which they have reared. Archbishop Usher is a case in point. In reading his great work On the Succession of the Christian Churches,' we, who have seen the fulfilment of certain events, must be convinced that the learned essayist has taken an erroneous view; but, at the same time, we discover such masterly skill in arrangement, such patient research, and such deep erudition, that we cannot fail to rise up better and wiser men after the perusal. We admit that an error has been committed, but on that very shoal on which that great man was wrecked there is now, as it were, a lighthouse for us to steer by; we confess that, in this one instance, he has fallen, but he has fallen, "like one of the princes," without losing any of his claims upon our admiration and esteem.

The Millennium, indeed, is a rock upon which too many, not only of insignificant barks, but also of nobly freighted vessels, have split; and, without classing them for a moment together, we cannot but think that the Irish metropolitan was as much mistaken in the view he took of this matter, as Cerinthus was when he spoke of his sensual paradise. The one tells us that the reign of Christ with his saints has already taken place; the other teaches us to look forward to it as one of carnal gratification; and we would ask which theory is the most credible?— that which tells us that the pure kingdom of Christ was actually manifested during the first thousand years of the Christian era, or that which tells us that it is yet to come, and that it will be a reign of voluptuous indulgence? Are not both theories equally unsatisfactory, and do not both give us a degrading idea of the perfection of Christ's spiritual kingdom? History and experience teach us that the one must be incorrect religion and the Bible convince us of the positive wickedness of the other; and thus, whilst we are satisfied that both are equally wrong, we know also that the error of the one is harmless, because only opposed to the experience of men; but the error of the other is blasphemous, because opposed to the revelation of God.

The error of the archbishop was a consequence of the times in which he lived. War was being waged against Popery, and no opportunity could be lost of furthering the cause of Protestantism. The most unholy alliances were formed, and the Church condescended so far as to admit the most pestilential of heretics into the league. Under these circumstances Usher entered the lists; his task was to show the abominations of Romanism. In this he would be materially aided if prophecy could be shown to be on his side. If the rise of Popery could be demonstrated to synchronize with the prophetical solution of Satan, whilst, at the same time, the links of Christ's Church could be demonstrated to have been preserved in an unbroken succession. We have no doubt but that he

1 De Christian: Ecc. Successione et Statu.

acted upon sincere conviction, but he was evidently biassed by prejudice. For, mark the absurdities which his method of interpreting the Revelations involves; for he had to prove, 1st, that the devil was chained and not permitted to exercise his evil influence upon earth for a thousand years after Christ; that is, during the existence of the Gnostic, Ebionite, Manichæan, Arian, and a hundred other heresies; 2udly, that unlimited power was given to him during another thousand years; and, 3rdly, that the only people who, during that time, continued the true Church were a set of men whom contemporary historians declared to be impregnated with the vilest heresies. Considering the difficulties to contend against, he has gone far to show that black must be white; but a short examination of each of the points before specified must convince us that, with all his learning, he has failed to prove an absurdity.

First, then, did the transaction referred to in Rev. xx. 1, &c., take place in the year of our Lord 1. According to Usher it did; according to common sense it did not. We there read that the angel cast the devil "into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more till the thousand years should be fulfilled." This prophecy, says the prelate, was actually accomplished, when our Saviour (the angel) came upon earth and destroyed idolatry. But is it not ridiculous to say that the powers of Satan were then laid prostrate? Were not his attempts upon the Christian Church proportionate to the hate he must have felt at seeing his diabolical assaults so successfully combated ? If there was ever a time when he was active and vigilant in his opposition to the religion of Christ, it was in the first age of Christianity, when he drank so deep of the blood of martyrs, and laughed with hellish glee over the torments of expiring saints. If there was a time when he could range free as air over the surface of the wide earth, and wreak his vengeance upon Christ's little ones, it was when prince and people, potentate and rabble, of all nations throughout the known world, were employed in doing his work, and were putting into execution his damnable schemes against young Christianity. Nor could idolatry then be said to be destroyed. We it had received its death-blow, but its dying efforts were grant still vigorous. New candidates were yearly introduced into the Pantheon, and appropriate fables were constantly being invented. Those three hundred years formed, indeed, a glorious page in church history, and their memorial shall ever be treasured in ecclesiastical archives; but to say that then Satan was restrained "from going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it," is to deprive it of half its brightness, and to diminish the lustre of those victories which martyrs and confessors then obtained.

And then we are told that during the subsequent thousand years his influence was unchecked. But how was this evinced more than in the preceding ages? Hildebrand, indeed, established the supremacy of the Popedom; but surely this was not worse than the supremacy of Arianism, which had been established some seven centuries before. He forbade the marriage of priests; but this was not worse than the promiscuous concubinage which many of the Gnostics would have allowed. Above all, we are told that he insisted upon the observance of fasting; an enforcement likely, indeed, to meet with much opposition, but certainly not a sign of the depravity of his times. Now, view Romanism in the worst light possible, and you cannot see the agency of Satan half so strikingly ex

hibited as in the schisms which, during the primitive ages, rent the Church's unity.

And then comes the question, if the Romish Church was become the field upon which liberated Satan was to exercise all his prowess, where was that church to which our Lord had promised an eternal duration? Rome was heretic, her children were emissaries of Satan, and therefore the members of the true church were to be sought for without the pale of her community. Here, indeed, they who join in what has been so aptly termed the vulgar howl" against Popery are driven to their last shifts." The Church," say they, "was extant but not visible; it was there, albeit laid prostrate." It is, as Jerome says, "veritas claudi et ligari potest; vinci non potest." But is not this getting on rather too fast? The truth of the holy father's saying we allow. We allow that the combined powers of evil may raise their bold fronts against truth, and bind it so tight in chains as to cripple all its energies; but we know of no time when they succeeded in entirely removing it from sight. Arianism did much against it, and expelled it from the haunts of civilized society; but yet it was neither unheard nor unseen; for the prisons echoed with the cries of its imprisoned ministers, and the stillness of the desert was relieved by the sounds of exiled orthodoxy. Well then, they will say, we can show you where this church was to be found. In the Vaudois you shall find her brave defenders, and there, and there only, her true characteristics were to be traced. Let us then search the few records which are left and see who and what were these bold maintainers of catholic truth. Take, indeed, our account and you may think their doctrines were such as Christ and his Apostles taught; they considered Holy Scripture to be an absolute rule of faith; they admitted of only two sacraments, and protested against the celibacy of the clergy. But then search the writers on the other side of the question, and your opinion must at once be changed. They considered the world to be God's temple; so far so good, but why conclude from this that God will not also have temples built with hands? They might admit the truth of St. Paul's assertion that "the law entered that sin might abound;" but why infer from it that the Mosaic law was sin, and therefore to be rejected? Such were the dogmas which they built upon the pure tenets of Christianity, and these are the men who (we are to believe) preserved the trite Church upon the earth. The Waldenses may have had some well-wishing, although dreadfully mistaken, persons amongst their numbers; but, as a body, they were heretics; whilst the Albigenses exhibited the error of the Manichæans in its worst form, and propagated a system more scanda`lous than any which has disgraced the annals of the world.

(To be continued.)

If we can be saved without charity and keeping the Commandments, what need we trouble ourselves for them? If we cannot be saved without them, then either faith without them does not justify; or if it 'does, we are never the better, for we may be damned for all that justification. Bp. Taylor's Fides Formata.

1 Magdeburg Centuries-Cent. xii. c. 8.

2 Æneas Sylvius, Coccius, Parsonius, &c., as quoted by Usher.