done has been by order of my brethren. But if your grace complain that it has been done with out your commandment, so I a answer has been all that has been done within the realm in the work of reformation. And therefore, madam, before I either feel or profess repentance, I must be convicted of transgressing some just law a matter which I believe impossible; as in what I have done, I have acted in obedience to the general kirk of this realm." "You shall not escape me so,' replied the queen. "Is it not treason to accuse a prince of cruelty?" The lords agreeing, the following sentence of Knox s letter was read: "this fearful sum, mons is directed against the two brethren, to make, no doubt a preparative on a few, that a door may be opened to execute cruelty upon a greater multitude." "So," said the queen, "what say you to that?" The whole assembly now looked at the reformer, anxious to hear what answer he could produce. Say what you can," exclaimed the queen; "for I think you have enough to do." "I will first then, desire of your grace," rejoined Knox, "and of the most honorable audience, to declare whether the obstinate papists be not deadly enemies to all who profess the gospel of Christ; and whether they do not earnestly desire the extermination of them, and of the true doctrine that is taught in this realm ?" The queen remained silent, but the lords unanimously exclaimed, "God forbid that our lives or doctrines stood in the power of the papists; for just experience has taught us that cruelty lies in their hearts." "Who

then thinks, my lords," replied Knox, "that their unsatiable cruelty would end in the murder of these two brethren, now unjustly summoned and accused; but that these few are intended to prepare a way against the whole? And now, madam, I have not accused your grace; but I affirm, that those who have inflamed your grace against these two men, are the sons of the devil, and therefore must do the works of their father the devil, who was a liar and mur. derer from the beginning." "You forget yourself," said one of the lords, "you are not now in the pulpit." "I am in the place," replied Knox, "where I am demanded of conscience to speak the truth, and therefore the truth I will speak, impugn it who list." After some farther conversation, Knox was permitted to depart. On taking the votes, he was unani. mously acquitted of the charge. The secretary, enraged at the decision, brought the queen into the room, and proceeded again to call the votes. The lords were deeply offended at this attempt to bias their judgments; and, praising Knox's modesty and sensible answering, again absolved him of the charge.

The mortification of the queen was excessive; and learning that the bishop of Ross, a zealous Roman Catholic, had voted for the acquittal, she openly upbraided him, "Trouble not the child," said she," for he is newly wakened out of his sleep. Why should not the old fool follow the footsteps of those who have passed before him?" The bishop coldly replied, that it was neither affection for the man, nor love for his opinions,

1

that had influenced his vote, but the simple truth had compelled him to join in the sentence of acquittal. Thus did God again defeat the designs of Mary against the reformer. "And that night," observes Knox, "there was neither fiddling nor dancing in the court; for madam was disappointed of her purpose, which was to have had John Knox in her will, by vote of her nobility."

We judge this pause in our narrative no improper opportunity of introducing an observation upon the temper, manner, and language of our reformer. Doctor Robertson, in all the refinement of modern liberalism, while he admits the many virtues by which he was distinguished, yet represents him as "rigid and uncomplying, show ing no indulgence to the infirmities of others; and as uttering his admonitions with an acrimony and vehemence more apt to irritate than to reclaim." From Dr. Robertson we are not surprised to hear such sentiments; but even Dr. McCrie, whilst he most eloquently describes the virtues of his character, assumes rather the attitude of an apologist than a defender, and tells us, that "it is not so much the man as the reformer that should engage our attention," and admits, by implication, that we search him in vain "for courteous manners and winning address," and pronounces his expressions "vehement and harsh." Now, of all this description, whether from Dr. Robertson or Dr. McCrie, we happen to be lieve just not one word. About the characters both of the living and the dead, there often occur most specious misrepresentations

and mistakes. We have known
a most amiable man to be reputed
a misanthrope; a most charitable
man a miser; a well bred man a
boor; a modest man proud; and
a profound scholar a consum-
mate blockhead. Now, if such
misrepresentations are often gi-
ven of living characters, how
much more readily may they be
circulated of the dead! The living
man can live down the slanders of
his enemies; or, at all events, there
are some who, knowing him in
private, will defend him in public;
but the dead man has no opportu-
nity of speaking or acting in his
own defense; a slander once ori-
ginated is propagated without ex-
amination from volume to volume;
and men conclude that it must be
true, because it is repeated with-
out contradiction. These slanders
against Knox invented by ene-
mies, and, we are sorry to say it,
permitted to pass uncontradicted
by friends, we are, therefore, de-
termined to refute. No doubt it
will be pronounced a rash attempt
to interpose our feeble shield
against the combined attacks of
both friends and enemies. But
the shield is not feeble,-it is the
shield of truth-of fact-of ho-
nesty; and once upraised it will
remain unpierced by every mis-
sile. One charge, and only one,
we admit to lie heavy against
Knox. It is the charge of uncom-
promising honesty. He gave sin
its own name, and therefore he
has been called rude. This we
admit to be a generation of the
church, in which gentler and softer
names must sound in "ears polite.'
But Knox learned his phraseology
from the bible; and hence he has
been charged with rudeness of

speech. Our defense of his speech and his manner we reduce to one point:-they were both derived from the bible, and by the bible they should be judged. Let those who accuse John Knox of rudeness of speech, read the language of John the Baptist, Matt. iii. 7, when he addressed the Pharisees and Sadducees, the learned and the rich of his day. "O gene

let his memory not be wounded
in the house of his friends. We
defend him, not merely because
we revere his memory, but be-
cause he that of harshness accu-
ses him, accuses the Lord that
sent him.
[To be continued.]

ration of vipers, who hath warned THE PRACTICE IN THE SEVERAL

you to flee from the wrath to come!" Let those who accuse. Knox's admonitions of "acrimony and vehemence, calculated to irri tate," read the words of a greater than John the Baptist, Matt. xi. 23," And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted unto heaven, shalt be thrust down to hell." Let them hear him again, Matt. xii. 34, address the Pharisees, "O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things?" But, above all, let them hear him, Matt. xxiii. 13, begin that tremendous assault upon the strong hold of wickedness, "Wo unto you, Scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!" "Ye blind guides." "Ye fools and blind." "Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?" Read, we repeat it, this tremendous chapter, and then say, ye sweet worded, ye softly whisper. ing, ye flattering spirits of this gentle and liberal age, is there in all the objurgations of John Knox one sentence of severity surpassing the standard of the New Testament! John Knox learned of Christ to speak truth concerning sin and sinners; and therefore, the world has hated him just as it hated his Master. The world was, and still is, angry with him; but

JUDICATORIES OF THE CHURCH

OF SCOTLAND,. 1830.*

(Continued from page 224.) Translation.-If the minister of another parish is presented to a vacant parish, his qualification to government, and his letter of acceptance must be laid on the presbytery table along with the presentation. There is no injunction given to him to preach before the congregation as in the case of a probationer. A call to him is immediately appointed to be moderated in, according to the form mentioned above. If he is already a member of the presbytery he is afterwards directed to intimate from his pulpit, that there is a call to him from another parish, and an intention to transport him there; and, at the same time, to summon such of his parishioners as wish to defend their right to their minister to attend the presbytery on a particular day, when the case is to be heard. The minister himself is summoned apud acta, or by letter, if he does not happen to be present.

If the parish attends and urges its right to retain its minister, the presbytery judges between it and the competing parish. In former times, and even at a recent date, transportations were not allowed.