haps there are some particulars in which it would be as well for them if they were to follow his example. At all events, the whole history of these allegorical heroes must be allowed to be very important, and, when fairly detailed, will bring out many points of substantial identity in their character, which should allay the mutual animosities of their respective followers, and promote their final return to a state of brotherly concord and affection. To the inhabitants of these united kingdoms in particular, the prospect of such a consummation cannot fail to be peculiarly interesting, as all the three churches, shadowed out in the allegory, do not only exist among us, but each of themis actually by law established, in one part or other of the British empire; and the inhabitants of this island have their souls con signed to the cure of Episcopal or Presbyterian pastors, according as they happen to reside in England or Scotland. These churches, too, had all of them, in former times, a considerable, and one of them a mighty influence, on the civil government; and their mutual hostilities, to which their alliance with the State gave a dreadful importance, produced effects which are still perceptible, and suggest lessons which may still be useful. At present, we mean only to state one or two observations concerning the Scottish Church, which we conceive to be neither unimportant nor unseasonable.

Protestant writers, in general, are apt to describe the Refor mation as a struggle for religious freedom; and the learned author before us, distinguished as we think he is for the fairnessand moderation, as well as the sagacity of his views, has very implicitly adopted the common opinion. Thus, in alluding tothe intolerant spirit of the Covenant in the reign of Charles the First, he represents it as destroying that free exercise of private judgment, for which (he is pleased to say) the first reformers, to their immortal honour, had strenuously contended.' (vol. II. p. 65.) Now, we humbly apprehend that the free exercise of private judgment was most heartily abhorred by the first Reformers-except only where the persons who assumed it had the good fortune to be exactly of their opinion.

For we may observe, in the first place, that in the questionsconcerning election, justification and grace, which occupy the principal department in the science of Theology, greater diver sity of opinion was tolerated among the Catholics than among the early Protestants. Upon these subjects Catholic divines debated with much freedom and vivacity; and neither incurred: the censures of their Chureh, nor ceased to be regarded as good Christians, whether they favoured the one or the other of the two great schools which we are now accustomed to distinguish as Arminians and Calvinists. But both Luther and Calvin ad

opted the peculiar tenets of this latter school exclusively, and in their utmost rigour; and these tenets were also stated as the true faith, in the third, seventh, eighth and twelfth articles of the Confession which was drawn up by our first Reformers in Scotland, and ratified by the Parliament in 1560.

કે

We may observe, in the next place, that the freedom for which our first reformers contended, did not include any freedom of dissent from the Athanasian creed. Grotius and Lardner, and Locke and Newton, those great and pious men, who were an honour to human nature, and the most illustrious advocates of Christianity, would have been adjudged by the first Reformers as well as by the Catholics, by Cranmer and Knox as well as by Bonner and Beaton, to be worthy of death in the present world, and of everlasting misery in the world to come.

martyrdoms of Servetus in Geneva, and of Joan Bocher in England, are notable instances of the religious freedom which prevailed in the pure and primitive state of the Protestant churches.

It is obvious also, that the freedom for which our first Reformers so strenuously contended, did not, by any means, include a freedom to think as the Catholics thought; that is to say, to think as all Europe had thought for many ages, and as the greatest part of Europe thought at that very time, and continue to think to this very day. The complete extirpation of the Catholic church, not merely as a public establishment, but as a tolerated sect, was the avowed object of our first Reformers. In 1560, by an act of the Parliament which established the Reformation in Scotland, both the sayers and hearers of mass, whether in public or in private, were, for the first offence, to suffer confiscation of all their goods, together with corporal punishment, at the discretion of the magistrate: they were to be punished by banishment for the second offence; and by death for the third! (See Knox's History, p. 254. folio‘edition of 1732.)

We know what is urged in defence of these violent measures; -that the Catholic religion, at that time at least, was essentially hostile to every other form of Christianity, insomuch, that even the toleration of its worship was incompatible with the safety of the Protestant interest. We must, however, beg leave to observe, that the first Reformers themselves, although they inveighed, with great vehemence, against the persecuting spirit of the Roman hierarchy, yet rested their own cause on principles of the same description-principles which, independently of every consideration of self-defence, demanded the persecution of the Catholics even to death, as one of be most sacred of Christian duties. But as most of our

modern historians have been careful to keep this important subject in the shade, it will be proper to bring it forward a little, for the consideration of those who are so fond of contrasting the terrible intolerance of the Catholic with the liberality of the Reformed Churches.

In 1564, Maitland of Lethington, who was Secretary of State, and several noblemen who were attached to the court, invited the most eminent of the reformed clergy to a private conference; and Knox, in the Fourth Book of his History, has recorded with great minuteness the debate which took place between himself and Lethington on that occasion. The whole passage is extremely curious; and as the book is scarce, we shall furnish our readers with some extracts, sufficient to manifest the nature of that hostility which our first Reformers waged with the Established Church. After much reasoning upon the Queen's good dispositions, and unhappy affection for idols, Lethington says- Our question is, whether that we may and ought to suppress the Queen's mass? or whether that her idolatry shall be laid to our charge? What ye may, said John Knox, by force, I dispute not: but what ye may and ought to do by God's express commandment, that can I tell. Idolatry ought not only to be suppressed, but the idolater ought to die the death, unless we will accuse God. I know, said Lethington, the idolater is commanded to die the death; but by whom? By the people of God, said the other. For the commandment was made to Israel, as ye may read, That if it be heard that idolatry is committed in any one city, that inquisition shall be taken and if it be found true, that then the whole body of the people shall arise and destroy that city, sparing in it neither man, woman, nor child. But there is no commandment given to the people to punish their King, said the Secretary, if he be an idolater. I find no privilege granted unto kings, said the other, by God, more than unto the people to offend God's majesty. (Knox, p. 957.)

When Lethington stated, that Calvin and some others of the foreign Reformers had counselled their followers to be quiet and submissive even under persecution, Knox very truly and wisely observed, that this referred to Christians so dispersed, that they have no other force but only to sob to God for deliverance.— That such indeed (he continues, p. 358) should hazard any further than these godly men wills them, I could not hastily be of counsel. But my argument has another ground; for I speak of a people assembled together in one body of a commonwealth, unto whom God has given sufficient force not only to resist, but also to suppress all kind of open idolatry; and such a people, yet again I affirm, are bound to keep their land clean and unpolluted.

When, in the course of the discussion, Knox quoted the example of Jehu, who, even while he was a private person, receiv ed a divine commandment to destroy the posterity of Ahab:

We are not bound to imitate extraordinary examples, said Lethington, (p. 360), unless we have like commandment and assurance. I grant, said the other, if the example repugn to the law. But where the example agrees with the law, and is as it were the execution of God's judgment expressed in the same, I say that the example approved of God stands to us in place of a commandment: For as God in his nature is constant and immutable, so can he not damn [condemn] in the ages subsequent that which he has approv. ed in his servants before us. But in his servants before us, he by his own commandment has approved, that subjects have not only destroyed their kings for idolatry, but also has [have] rooted out their whole posterity, so that none of their race was left after to empire above the people of God, Whatsoever they did, said Lethington, was done at God's commandment. That fortifies my argument, said the other; for God by his commandment has approved that subjects punish kings for idolatry and wickedness by them committed. We have not the like commandment, said Lethington.. That I deny, said the other; for the commandment, that the idolater shall die the death, is perpetual, as ye yourself have granted; ye doubted only, who should be the executers against the king; and I said, the people of God; and have sufficiently proved, as I think, that God has raised up the people, and by his prophet has anointed a king, to take vengeance upon the king and his posterity, which fact God since that time has never retracted; and therefore to me it remains for a constant and clear commandment to all people professing God, and having the power to punish vice, what they ought to do in the like case.

Dr M'Crie, in his excellent Life of Knox, p. 299, has said, in reference to this discussion between Knox and Lethington, that both parties held that idolatry might justly be punished 'with death.' But this is not to do justice to his hero. We have seen that our root-and-branch Reformer went a great deal farther. In fact, it was not possible for the most bigoted Catholic to inculcate more distinctly the complete extirpation of the opinions and worship of the Protestants, than John Knox inculcated as a most sacred duty, incumbent on the civil government in the first instance, and, if the civil government is remiss, incumbent on the people, to extirpate completely the opinions and worship of the Catholics, and even to massacre the Catholics, man, woman and child.

At present, every sect of Christians will no doubt be shocked with principles so savage; but it has been pleaded in his favour, that vehemently as he inculcated these principles, he did not practise what he preached. They [the Reformers] discovered no disposition, says Dr M'Crie, to proceed to capital punishment, even when it was completely in their power. I never read, nor heard of an instance, in the time of our Reformer, of a person being put

modern historians have been careful to keep this important subject in the shade, it will be proper to bring it forward a little, for the consideration of those who are so fond of contrasting the terrible intolerance of the Catholic with the liberality of the Reformed Churches.

In 1564, Maitland of Lethington, who was Secretary of State, and several noblemen who were attached to the court, invited the most eminent of the reformed clergy to a private conference; and Knox, in the Fourth Book of his History, has recorded with great minuteness the debate which took place between himself and Lethington on that occasion. The whole passage is extremely curious; and as the book is scarce, we shall furnish our readers with some extracts, sufficient to manifest the nature of that hostility which our first Reformers waged with the Established Church. After much reasoning upon the Queen's good dispositions, and unhappy affection for idols, Lethington says- Our question is, whether that we may and ought to suppress the Queen's mass? or whether that her idolatry shall be laid to our charge? What ye may, said John Knox, by force, I dispute not: but what ye may and ought to do by God's express commandment, that can I tell. Idolatry ought not only to be suppressed, but the idolater ought to die the death, unless we will accuse God. I know, said Lethington, the idolater is commanded to die the death; but by whom? By the people of God, said the other. For the commandment was made to Israel, as ye may read, That if it be heard that idolatry is committed in any one city, that inquisition shall be taken and if it be found true, that then the whole body of the people shall arise and destroy that city, sparing in it neither man, woman, nor child. But there is no commandment given to the people to punish their King, said the Secretary, if he be an idolater. I find no privilege granted unto kings, said the other, by God, more than unto the people to offend God's majesty. (Knox, p. 357.)

When Lethington stated, that Calvin and some others of the foreign Reformers had counselled their followers to be quiet and submissive even under persecution, Knox very truly and wisely observed, that this referred to Christians so dispersed, that they have no other force but only to sob to God for deliverance.That such indeed (he continues, p. 358) should hazard any further than these godly men wills them, I could not hastily be of counsel. But my argument has another ground; for I speak of a people assembled together in one body of a commonwealth, unto whom God has given sufficient force not only to resist, but also to suppress all kind of open idolatry; and such a people, yet again I affirm, are bound to keep their land clean and unpolluted."

When, in the course of the discussion, Knox quoted the example of Jehu, who, even while he was a private person, received a divine commandment to destroy the posterity of Ahab: