History. IS THE CHARACTER OF QUEEN ELIZABETH NEGATIVE REPLY. AGAIN we enter the lists, once more to mingle in the tournay fight for virgin truth-the peerless paragon of our choice. Again would we break a lance with those who. extol the virtues, exalt the claims, and contend for the honour of Queen Gloriane. Fairly matched have the combatants been; say, Ö ye spectators! to whom belongs the victory. One of our opponents' choicest weapons is an argument drawn from the indisputable fact, that in fame, influence, wealth, and power, the England of 1600 was immensely superior to the England of 1558. As the cause of this, they refer us to the sovereign. History points out other, likelier, more potent causes. It was a step in that progress which must result from the English character, rendered the greater by a mighty incubus removed from, and a mighty stimulus applied to, thought, motive, action. There was the disenthralment from Popery, the revival of learning, the discovery of America. The influence of the two former, which began to manifest itself in the reign of Henry VIII., was stayed from operation while Mary was Queen. Authoritative Popery closed up the avenues of thought. But with outward conformity to Roman Catholicism, there was intense repugnance at heart. On Elizabeth's accession, the impediments were removed, and with the veritas the vita came. The spirit of the Reformation, and the genius of knowledge, smiled upon the land; and Protestantism, moreover, removed the shackles from men's minds, taught them their own worth, and afforded nobler impulses; while the transitional spirit itself was a bold and onward one, and one that pervaded more than religion. And the very age itself had its influence. It was the fifth of the great ages of literature (the ages of Pericles, of Demosthenes, of Augustus, of Leo X., of Shakespeare). May we not attribute some amount of influence to the works of "The world-wide Shakespeare, the imperial Spenser," and hosts of others? Have the plays of the former no elevating efficacy? Does it seem possible that Spenser's poems should fail to incite to deeds of physical daring and moral bravery? And it is not difficult to account for that adventurous spirit, the results of the indulgence of which won the foundation of our maritime renown and the elevation of England to the foremost rank of power. The discovery of America-the marvellous tales adrift concerning fabulous Golcondas and El Dorados-roused the greed of many; accounts of wondrous scenes excited the curiosity of adventurers; and recitals of stupendous difficulties awoke chivalrous spirits to daring deeds. And afterwards was there, besides these, the hatred of Popery, the character of which they now understood, and their revengeful, almost diabolical, hate of the Spaniards. The action of these influences the Queen rather hindered than otherwise. For she was never a genuine Protestant, as we shall see hereafter; was by no means a munificent patron of literature-in this being far surpassed by the lords of her court; nor did she greatly encourage maritime expeditions, merely "allowing" adventurers to voyage, generally leaving them to bear all expenses and loss, but, should they be successful, demanding of them the lion's share. To this tripartite step in progress (in religion, in thought, in maritime operations), and not to the Queen, who partly hindered it, do we attribute the rapid amelioration of the condition of England in the reign of Elizabeth. B. S., however, will of course term these "mistaken views and false arguments." But a writer who takes a joke concerning female fickleness for a sober statement of conviction, may be expected to confound true arguments with false. Now let us join in closer combat with our opponents, after two preliminary observations. Some of them seem to think, that because we admit Elizabeth possessed excellence, we have therefore taken up the wrong side of the debate. Was there ever a falser idea? Besides, in this matter we are about equally balanced. For our opponents admit faults," "heavy and manifest," &c. And so it must be-there are good and evil traits in all. 66 None have denied the justice of the remark, that Elizabeth should be tried by a biblic standard. Yet, were she so judged, how manifestly, even from our opponents' articles, would she be unworthy of admiration! We will now notice-1. Elizabeth's conduct in religious matters. That she conformed to Romanism during her sister's reign is asserted by all trustworthy historians. Macaulay speaks of her as being an Adiaphorist, having no scruple about conforming to the Romish Church, when conformity was necessary to her own safety, retaining to the last moment of her life a fondness for much of the doctrine and much of the ceremonial of that church. On her accession, she re-established Protestantism. V. V. is compelled to admire her because she did so, "when she viewed so many considerations tempting her to adopt the opposite policy." Where did V. V. study history? We commend to his notice the words of Mackintosh :-" Elizabeth continued to consolidate her throne on the basis of the Protestant religion, which her enemies, as well as her friends, taught her to contemplate as the only secure foundation of her title and government." Policy urged the measure, and she herself, as Macaulay says truly, "was a Protestant rather from policy than from conviction." And throughout life (to quote Mackintosh, vol. iii., in opposition to B. S.'s statement) she " scrupled about the abolition of the honours shown to the statues and pictures of holy men; she harboured prejudices favourable to the superior sanctity of a single life; she was indulgent to the affectionate practice of praying for the souls of the departed." According to the principle already laid down, that "Elizabeth is scarcely to be blamed on account of her bigotry and intolerance, since all of that age seem to have had these failings," she would be acquitted, if it could be proved that she persecuted from religious motives. There is, however, the greatest reason to conclude that she did so on purely political grounds. B. S. comes to the conclusion that the early part of Elizabeth's reign was marked by comparative toleration, and calls rather for praise than censure, and this in the face of the law made immediately after her accession, "prohibiting the celebration of the rites of the Romish Church, on pain of forfeiture for the first offence, of a year's imprisonment for the second, and of perpetual imprisonment for the third; " which was followed by the act of 1562, rightly called by Macaulay " a retrospective penal statute against a large class." But of course B. S. will accuse such a man as Macaulay of "mistaken views," much preferring the contemporary (and almost necessarily prejudiced) testimony of Bacon, a man who scrupled very little to tamper with truth. 2. Her conduct with respect to foreign relations. And first the case of Mary. Our opponents all seem to have overlooked the fact that Sadler had been appointed and the insurgents aided by Elizabeth before Mary quartered the arms of England. She, then, was the aggressor in a struggle wherein not one phase of her conduct was unblamable. Her admirers can only excuse her conduct by pleading expediency-truly, no “God-taught" or Christian rule. "Threlkeld's" accusations of Elizabeth, in connection with foreign powers, are as yet unanswered. V. V., however, eulogizes Elizabeth on account of the courage and de termination she displayed in her dealings with foreign potentates, as when, to use his own expression, Pius "fulminated his bull." Who can wonder at it, seconded by a nation enthusiastic, daring, proud, and desirous of glory? 3. In relation to her people. The admirers of Elizabeth reply to statements respecting her tyranny by urging the character of the age. But was the Bible more difficult to understand then, or the divine law of politics less clear? So you excuse her on account of the influences of the age. You declare that Charles I., who was less despotic, was executed in defiance of all justice; and James II. dethroned without equitable cause. All the results of the Queen's despotic conduct were obviated by her wondrous finesse. The commons knew they could dethrone her when they liked, but they allowed her to cajole them into passiveness. Since the time of Eve, man has constantly been fooled by woman. T. W. R. thinks her parsimonious habits were adopted to pay off the national debts. Did none of the money go to the queen's gorgeous appointments and fabulously grand wardrobe? One of V. V.'s sentences we are unable to understand—" When the credit of the government, which had been completely lost," &c., "and which had been forced to Antwerp." The credit of the government forced to resort to Antwerp! A very agreeable compagnon de voyage now-a-days, since, being so small, it would take up little room! 4. Her conduct as a woman. We complain that all our opponents have unfairly limited the question. "The character of Elizabeth does not merely mean her character in her capacity of sovereign." Agrippina's administration was wise, but was her character admirable? Our opponents (with great policy, but how much of straightforwardness ?) narrow the question, and talk of "descending," when one treats of the queen as a woman. They have not denied her immodesty, her vanity, her meanness, her duplicity, her cold-blooded cruelty. Truly she was Nec rigidâ mollior esculo, Nec Mauris animo mitior anguibus." 66 It is true, that "Without spot and blameless" is an inscription unmeet for the stone which covers human dust, but there are many of whom it may be said, She hath done what she could." We cannot, if we would, say this of Elizabeth. We are compelled to loathe her character, and deny its claim to the admiration of posterity. Turn we from the selfish, the vain, and the mean, to gaze with true admiration upon the heroine of to-day, strong in faith, rich heart-gifts, whom dying hundreds have prayed for, and whose name living thousands bless-the sacrificer of comfort, and ease, and affluence, for a career of toil, discomfort, and danger-the woman who has immolated self upon the altar of love, and given to the world an impersonation of charity—the honour of her nation, her age, her sex-Florence Nightingale! IMPOSTURE. It generally happens that when danger attends the discovery and profession of the truth, the prudent are silent, the multitude believe, and impostors triumph.-Mosheim. Politics. WOULD PARLIAMENT BE JUSTIFIED IN SANCTIONING THE OPENING OF THE CRYSTAL PALACE ON SUNDAY? NEGATIVE ARTICLE.-III. "To improve the physical condition of man as a sensitive being, and to enlarge his knowledge as an intellectual, while we overlook his eternal interests, is to neglect one of the most important duties of christian philanthropy."Dr. Dick's "Philosophy of Religion." "What will it profit a man, if he gain the whole world and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?"-Jesus Christ. 66 THE righteousness of this disputed question is so ably and so fully vindicated by "Threlkeld," in the March number of this serial, that from whatever point of view our opponents may be pleased to regard it, answers to all their objections may be found, either in the article itself, or in the principles upon which his arguments are founded. "Threlkeld" has "well done"; and whoever, upon a careful and dispassionate reading of his article, is not convinced of the obligation devolving upon man. kind to observe the sabbath as a divine injunction, must have a very obtuse understanding indeed. Believing, as we do, “Threlkeld's" arguments, as far as they go, to be unanswerable, we propose to adopt the same mode of argumentation, taking up the subject where he has left off, and supplying what he has left unnoticed. The word sabbath, as most are aware, signifies rest, or cessation from labour; and besides being instituted to preserve the memory of the creation, is, in many passages of the sacred writings, employed to represent or typify something else; thus, in Ezek. xx. 12, 20, we learn that the sabbaths were signs between God and his people; also St. Paul, in Heb. iv., undoubtedly considered it to typify the "rest which remains for the people of God." If, then, the sabbath was designed to be something more than the commemoration of an event-if it is also a type of heaven, where, after the conflicts and storms of this terrene existence, the good man is to enjoy eternal repose— then it is obvious its moral obligation must continue so long as this dispensation lasts; and hence, if, by any legislative enactment which shall tend to derogate from its sanctity, or any teaching which shall have for its object the rendering nugatory this divine precept, this heavenly boon should become void of interest to mankind, lose its moral power to bind the sympathies |