faced falsehoods as we have detected in this Book of Martyrs be fit for any thing but to inhabit a bedlam? The recommendation of the bishop to the dean to take the cow and the uppermost cloth of the parishioners had been better omitted; because he reminds us too closely of the griping dispositions of the Protestant established clergy in Ireland to take the poor half-starved peasants' potato, and many is the time that the cow and sheep have been seized from the poor man, notwithstanding they were the support of his helpless family, to satiate the avarice of the unfeeling rector or his tithe-proctor. But at the time Fox is speaking of, the cow and the cloth did not come within the claims of the clergy, who, not having wives to maintain, as parsons have now-a-days, seldom or ever took the tithe or due to the full demand, but rather assisted the labourer in his difficulties than ruined him when in distress. Neither was it well contrived to hint at the backwardness of the bishop to preach, for we are again reminded that the state bishops in these days are as little prone to preaching as ever the bishop of Dunkeld could be. But when the bishop is made to say that they (bishops)" are not ordained "to preach;" when he is made to "thank God that he never knew "what the Old and New Testament was," the lie is so palpable, so openly barefaced, that we blush for the depravity of that mind that could be so base, so lost to shame, as to publish it. The bishop not to know what the Bible was!!! when to bishops of the Catholic church we are indebted for the preservation of that sacred volume. The bishop not to know what the Old and New Testament was, though he was compelled by the canons of his church to read certain portions of the scripture every day in his life, and could not celebrate mass without reading some parts of one or both. Oh! shame! where is the blush.

It is needless to enter into the details of all the persons selected as martyrs by John Fox; we will therefore be brief with the remainder. Forret and four others are said to have suffered on February 28, 1538, and we have then two more, named Russel and Kenedy, who were taken up the year following, viz. 1539, and executed. Kenedy is described. as a youth 18 years of age, and being inclined to recant, felt himself suddenly refreshed by divine inspiration, and became a new creature.They were examined, it is said, but we have no account of the examination; however, being declared heretics," the archbishop (says the Book) pronounced the dreadful sentence of death, and they were immediately delivered over to the secular power." Here is another direct lie; for in no instance whatever do the clergy pronounce sentence of death on any criminal. They are forbidden to do so by the canons of the church, and it is an invariable rule at this day, borrowed from our Catholic ancestors, for the bishops to retire from the House of Lords in all cases where that tribunal has to pass sentence on a convicted peer.

The next martyr we shall notice is George Wishart, whose death led to many important events. Nine pages are devoted to the details of this man's proceedings, and contain the veriest cant and absurdity to be met with. Knox, the famous John Knox, who cut such a conspicuous figure in the pillagings, rebellions, and outrages committed in Scotland under pretence of religion, was, it appears, a disciple of George Wishart. The death of this man is, as usual, laid at the door of " the inveterate and

"persecuting prelate," Cardinal Beaton. To go through the silly sickening detail would tire the reader; we shall, therefore, content ourselves with noticing the account of his execution, to shew the total disregard paid to probability and truth. After being made to address the spectators, telling them to exhort their prelates to learn the word of God, though we always thought the prelates were to instruct the people, the narrativè goes on,-" He was then fastened to the stake, and the fagots being lighted, immediately set fire to the powder that was "tied about him, and which blew into a flame and smoke. The go"vernor of the castle, who stood so near that he was singed with the "flame, exhorted our martyr, in a few words, to be of good cheer, and "to ask pardon of God for his offences. To which he replied, "This " flame occasions trouble to my body, indeed, but it hath no wise bro"ken my spirit. But he who now so proudly looks down upon me "from yonder lofty place,' pointing to the cardinal, shall, ere long, be "as ignominiously thrown down, as now he proudly lolls at his ease.' "When he had said this, the executioner pulled the rope which was " tied about his neck with great violence, so that he was soon strangled; "and the fire getting strength, burnt with such rapidity that in less "than an hour his body was totally consumed." Is there any one in these days credulous enough to believe that the governor was so much of a fool as to place himself so as to be singed with the flames that consumed the sufferer? We think not. Besides we are told that as soon as Wishart was fastened to the stake, the fagots were lighted, which set fire to some powder tied about him, which blew into a flame and smoke. This flame and smoke must have rendered the criminal insensible, and it is, therefore, most unlikely that the governor should address a man stupified by the blowing up of gunpowder, or that the culprit should be able to return such an answer as is imputed to him. But observe, reader; after blowing up the victim, and then recovering him to reply to the governor, he is provided with a rope round his neck for the executioner to strangle him, which he does, it is said, with great violence, and here ends the martyr's suffering. This bungling account of his death is sufficient to satisfy every sensible mind that much, at least, of the preceding part of the tale, is romance and fiction.

MURDER OF CARDINAL BEATON.

An account of this bloody deed follows the death of Wishart, who was said to have predicted the Cardinal's untimely end. We know not from whence Fox obtained the particulars of this event; we have examined Burnet and Heylin, but they differ widely from his narrative.— If he copied from Buchanan, the character of this man, thus given by Dr. Heylin, a Protestant writer and divine, in his Cosmography, will shew that no reliance is to be placed on his testimony. "George Buchanan, an ingenious poet, but an unsound statesman; whose History and Dialogue De jure Regni, have wrought more mischief in the world than "all Machiavel's works." Dr. Stuart, another Protestant author, says of him: "His zeal for the earl of Murray overturned altogether his allegiance as a subject, and his integrity as a man. His activity against "Mary in the conferences in England, was a strain of the most shame"less corruption; and the virulence with which he endeavouaed to de

"fame her by his writings, was most audacious and criminal. They in"volve the complicated charge of ingratitude, rebellion, and perjury," (Hist. of Scotland, ii. 245.) So much for this writer Buchanan, who may well be classed with Fox and the modern editors. But to the narrative. Fox says the cardinal went to Finhaven to solemnize a marriage between the eldest son of the earl of Crawford, and his own natural daughter, Margaret, and that while there," he received intelligence that an "English squadron was upon the coast, and that consequently an inva"sion was to be feared. Upon this he immediately returned to St. "Andrew's, and appointed a day for the nobility and gentry to meet, “and consult what was proper to be done on this occasion." From this statement it would seem that the cardinal was supreme in temporals, as well as in spirituals, or how could he summon the nobility to attend upon him? As to the natural daughter, this is a gratuitous fabrication to cast a slur on the celibacy of the Catholic clergy, which none of the reformed preachers had the gift to preserve. The appointment of a day of consultation we also deem a fiction; for though the cardinal was, we believe, primate of the Scottish church, he was not the regent of the kingdom, whose province was to guard and protect the country against invasion. The fact is, the kingdom of Scotland was at this time infected with the seditious doctrines of the Genevian reformers, whose horrible cruelties and restless doings we have displayed in our review of the pretended Huguenot martyrs. James V. who reigned in that kingdom, had been solicited by his uncle, Harry of England, to throw off his spiritual obedience to the see of Rome, but refused, and his premature death, leaving an infant daughter, the unfortunate Mary, who was afterwards butchered by her cousin Elizabeth, then only a few days old, threw the kingdom into a state of confusion, and it became the prey of fanatical enthusiasm and faction. Such was the state of Scotland when the event took place of which we are treating. The manner in which the cardinal was put to death we shall give from the Book of Martyrs. It says, "In the mean time Norman Lesley, eldest son of "the earl of Rothes, who had been treated by the cardinal with injus"tice and contempt, formed a design, in conjunction with his uncle, John "Lesley, who hated Beaton, and others who were inflamed against him << on account of his persecution of the Protestants, the death of Wishart, " and other causes, to assassinate the prelate, though he now resided in "the castle of St. Andrew's, which he was fortifying at great expense, "and had, in the opinion of that age, already rendered it almost impreg"nable. The cardinal's retinue was numerous, the town was at his devotion, " and the neighbouring country full of his dependents. However, the conspirators, who were in number only sixteen, having concerted "their plan, met together early in the morning, on Saturday the 29th "of May. The first thing they did, was to seize the porter of the cas"tle, from whom they took the keys, and secured the gate. They then "sent four of their party to watch the cardinal's chamber, that he might "have no notice given him of what was doing; after which they went "and called up the servants and attendants, to whom they were well known, and turned them out of the gate, to the number of fifty, as "they did also upwards of an hundred workmen, who were employed "in the fortifications and buildings of the castle; but the eldest son of

"the regent, (whom the cardinal kept with him, under pretence of superintending his education, but, in reality, as an hostage,) they kept "for their own security.

66

"All this was done with so little noise, that the cardinal was not "waked till they knocked at his chamber door; upon which he cried "out, "Who is there?' John Lesley answered, My name is Lesley.' "Which Lesley?' inquired the cardinal; 'is it Norman?' It was I answered, that he must open the door to those who were there; but "instead of this, he barricadoed it in the best manner he could. However, finding that they had brought fire in order to force their way, "and they having, as it is said by some, made him a promise of his life, he opened the door. They immediately entered with their swords "drawn, and John Lesley smote him twice or thrice, as did also Peter "Carmichael; but James Melvil, (as Mr. Knox relates the affair) perceiving them to be in choler, said, 'This work, and judgment of God, although it be secret, ought to be done with greater gravity:' and "presenting the point of his sword to the cardinal, said to him, 'Repent "thee of thy wicked life, but especially of the shedding of the blood "of that notable instrument of God, Mr. George Wishart, which albeit "the flame of fire consumed before men, yet cries it for vengeance upon thee; and we from God are sent to revenge it. For here, before my God, I protest, that neither the hatred of thy person, the love of thy riches, nor the fear of any trouble thou couldst have done to me "in particular, moved or moveth me to strike thee; but only because "thou hast been, and remainest, an obstinate enemy of Christ Jesus, " and his holy gospel.'. Having said this, he with his sword run the "cardinal twice or thrice through the body; who only said, '1 am a "priest! Fie! fie! all is gone!' and then expired, being about fifty"two years of age."

66

66

We have here the acknowledgment of Fox or his modern editors, that a set of the "saints" were inflamed" against the cardinal, and that another hated him. But how different is this disposition to that which is taught in the gospel of Christ, and which these pretended reformers professed to follow. The rule laid down in the sacred volume by our divine Lawgiver was, that we should love our enemies, return good for evil, and pray for those that persecute us; but here, we are told, the new lights" entered into a murderous and secret design to assassinate an individual who had rendered himself obnoxious to them by his zeal for the established order of things. We are not going to justify the burnings of cardinal Beaton, because we are not sufficiently acquainted with the history of those transactions; but this much may be said, that what he did was done under the sanction of the established laws and usages of the country, and it cannot be proved, though it may be asserted (falsely) that he was actuated by any other motive than a sense of justice towards society, whose peace was endangered by the wild and latitudinarian notions of the disciples of Calvin's school. The executions under the cardinal must be attributed to the turbulence of the times, and it would have been much better that the veil of oblivion had been thrown over the deeds of those ages, than to have them placed constantly before the eyes of the ignorant multitude for the express and professed purpose of exciting the same passion, namely HATRED, against

the Catholics of the present day, that the bloody conspirators of the sixteenth century had imbibed against cardinal Beaton. How much more to the credit of these enlightened days would a contrary line of conduct have been; and instead of exciting hatred against the professors of the most ancient faith of Christendom, a desire had been evinced to see justice done to all parties, and the spirit of Charity spread among dissentients on speculative doctrine. But since the Catholics have been so unceasingly and widely represented as cruelly inclined from the principles of their religion, it becomes the bounden duty of a press devoted to the cause of Truth, to let the public see both sides of the case, in order that a fair and just conclusion may be formed of the respective merits due to the party said to be persecutors, and the party said to be persecuted. It is with this feeling we have taken up our pen, and with no other view will we continue to exercise it, than that of enabling our readers to gather from our pages that knowledge of the history of the pretended Reformation so essential for them to know.

In the primitive ages of Christianity we observe nothing of the disposition shewn by the new reformers, who pretended to discover corruptions in the then established religion of all nations. On the contrary, we find the martyrs suffering persecution for righteousness sake, and confessing their faith in Christ with courage and fortitude, but at the same time with meekness and submission to their temporal rulers. Not so, however, with the evangelical preachers of the new doctrines. They were inflamed with a diabolical hatred towards those whom they deemed their oppressors, and under the cloak of the most blasphemous pretences they committed murder and rebellion. We see it admitted by Fox, or the hatred-inspiring editors, that the work of assassination was committed in cold blood, on the part of one of the assassins, who affirmed that it was a judgment of God, and consequently that they looked upon themselves as the instruments of Divine vengeance, in seeking to satiate their malice. How far their judgment was correct we will leave Burnet to decide, who observes, "that scarce any of the conspirators died "an ordinary death;" from which we may conclude that the vengeance of God followed them for the diabolical deed, and the blasphemous pretensions under which it was perpetrated.

66

There is another circumstance connected with this affair mentioned by Dr. Heylin, in his History of the Presbyterians, which is not generally known, and therefore deserving our notice. Speaking of the cardinal's death, this historian says, "In the relating of which murder, in Knox's History, a note was given us in the margent of the first edition, "printed at London, in octavo, which points us to the godly act and say"ing of James Melvin, for so the author calls this most wicked deed. "But that edition being stopped at the press by the queen's command, "the history never came out perfect till the year of our Lord 1644, "when the word godly was left out of the marginal note, for the avoiding of that horrible scandal which had been thereby given to all sober "readers." Who indeed but must be scandalized and horrified at the conduct of men, who setting themselves up for the reformers of corruption and the preachers of true doctrine, held out murder, secret coldblooded assassination, as a GODLY ACT!!!

The death of Cardinal Beaton was the signal for the work of defor