able, for it endeavoured to uphold the principles of right in the midst of brutal violence. This it had no legal right to do; but all law was then silent, and if it is a proof of the extreme anarchy into which France had fallen, it testifies also the eminent rank to which the university of Paris was at that time raised in the estimation of Europe. In 1394, the university held a solemn consultation how to put an end to the schism, when three methods of extinction were devised, one of which should be adopted :-The voluntary withdrawal of the two rivals ; the judgment of arbiters chosen by both parties; or finally, a general council. The result of this deliberation was presented in writing to the king by Clemangis. Charles vi. received it favourably during a lucid interval, but soon a new return of his malady gave the advantage again to the princes about him, and they forbade any interference of the university in the affair of the schism. However, the latter persisted, declaring that its courts should be closed, and its public lectures cease, till a favourable answer was returned to its demands. At the same time a strong letter was written to pope Clement, urging him to choose one of the three proposals for decision. He called this letter a hurtful and poisonous production; his rage is said to have caused his death: he died a few days after it was received. Then kings and princes, church and university, unanimously interposed with the cardinals of Avignon to hinder another election; but their eagerness to perpetuate the schism exceeded every effort to the contrary. Each of these eighteen cardinals took an oath that, if elected, he would use every means, even the relinquishing of the pontificate, to restore unity to the church, always, however, with this addition, " Provided it is judged expedient for the good of the church, by the cardinals now existing, and hereafter to be made, or the greater part of them." Peter de Luna, who had been the legate of Clement VII., signed as the others did, and he was elected. The restricting clause of the oath rendered it a deception. Was not the new pope at liberty to appoint new cardinals who judged it better for the church to preserve the pontificate than to resign it? Could he not, calling it a case of conscience himself, refuse to lay aside St. Peter's ring after having received it? This actually took place, and Peter de He Luna, pope, under the name of Benedict XIII., after gaining the papacy by the most consummate art, maintained his hold by unconquerable obstinacy. sprang from the illustrious family of Luna, which held a high place among the nobility of the kingdom of Arragon. Arrived at the age of threescore, little in stature, insignificant, wasted by sickness, yet vigorous in constitution, he was subtle, lively, penetrating, earnest in application to study, well-informed, especially in the canon law. To these qualities he added the faults of unscrupulous ambition. He was false and treacherous, he had no regard to his plighted faith, provided only he could save appearances, and, in a word, to conclude with a reference to Maimbourg, the historian of the papal schism, "he was violently obstinate, more even than an Arragonese usually is." Gregory xI., who appointed him cardinal, showed that he understood his character, saying, when he gave him the hat, "Beware, my son, lest your moon (votre lune) should one day be eclipsed." No one had appeared more zealous than Benedict for the extinction of the schism; by this he had risen, and by the same means he endeavoured to establish himself. When he gave notice of his election by sending his legates to the king of France and the university of Paris, he expressed himself ready to make the desired concessions: they were told they had only to state what they desired. He invited them to choose the way they thought most likely to restore peace to the church. He was ready to subscribe to their wishes. He drew a frightful picture of the schism, and the evils under which Christianity suffered, in a letter he wrote to John, king of Castile. He acknowledged himself unworthy of the popedom. He had refused it even with tears, and if at last he consented to accept it, it was solely with the design of procuring peace and union without farther delay, saying, it was for the glory of God to employ so humble an instrument for this end, so that the Divine wisdom might the more clearly be manifested. made a show of these noble sentiments, saying he would rather spend his whole life in a cloister, than retain the tiara if it cost the repose of christendom. He One day, when conversing with the deputies of the university of Paris, he laid his cope upon the table, and said that he would with equal readiness part with his pontificate, if it was requisite for unity. He much blamed his predecessor; by his account, Clement vii. had been too tardy and lukewarm in carrying out so holy a work. Who would not have been deceived by such appearances? Who would have believed that this man was really the most inveterate adversary of this peace, of this union, which he appeared most warmly to desire? Nothing could soften his iron heart; neither the withdrawal of obedience by the kingdom of France, first declared in 1398, and maintained for five years, the sufferings of a long siege,— the desertion of his cardinals,-the supplications of all christendom,-or the voice of his own conscience. Hearing of the revolt of France, he said coldly, "What of it? St. Peter did not reckon that kingdom among those obedient to him." Besieged by Boucicault, he excommunicated him, and for five years opposed his anathemas to the arms of his assailants. Wanting fuel during a severe winter, he ordered one part of his palace to be destroyed, in order to furnish warmth to the remainder; he appeared daily at the loop-holes of his pontifical palace, with a small bell in one hand, and a candle in the other, pronouncing curses against his enemies. At length he escaped in disguise. He returned in triumph to Avignon; again he was acknowledged by the kingdom of France, and after so many ineffectual attempts to subdue him, the only result was to confirm him in his inflexibility. His rivals were as obstinate as himself. Boniface Ix. was succeeded first by Innocent vii., then by Angelo Corario, the cardinal priest of St. Mark, under the title of pope Gregory XII. Both of them, prior to their exaltation, were zealous partizans of union, but afterwards they interposed obstacles that could not be overcome. Perhaps they acted according to their consciences; they claimed power to release all men from their oaths; they used it to break their own, and committed perjury without remorse. At last the day arrived, when, deserted by almost all their adherents, the two popes were obliged to give some pledge of their willingness for unity, so much desired. An interview was proposed, and agreed to; but then both parties repeated to each other the farce they had so often acted to all Europe. They never would agree as to the time or place of meeting. Savona was the first place fixed upon. Benedict repaired thither, aware be forehand that his opponent would not come. "Gregory," says a celebrated contemporary, "made a new proposal that was agreed to; that Benedict should go to Porto Venera, and himself to Lucca, that they might be better able to confer together. Gregory accordingly left Vienna in the month of January, and travelled to Lucca, and from thence he sent different embassies, which produced no result to either party. Benedict declared that all places were alike to him, provided he remained on the sea-coast, so as to be within reach of his fleet; but Gregory, on the contrary, would only arrange to meet him in some inland town. The one was like a creature in the water who shuns the shore; the other resembled a land animal, dreading the sea. Such conduct was the more irritating, because it was well known that their terrors were merely affectation, and that both were alike secure, at sea, and on the shore. Men in general loudly murmured; nor could any one behold, without emotions of horror, two persons of more than seventy years endangering religion, the church, and their own consciences, merely to govern a few days longer."* The church of France now assumed a bold tone, justified by the circumstances. The parliament, at the instance of the king, had pronounced, in the preceding year, a second refusal of obedience to pope Benedict XIII.; but this refusal was only partial, and having reference to tithes, annates, and the disposal of benefices; yet it was condemned by many influential persons, and the kingdom was divided. The sanction of the church was acknowledged to be necessary, a general assembly of the French clergy was summoned in December, 1406, at Paris, in which the king, the nobles, and the parliament, were present. Maimbourg says, that it included sixty-four archbishops and bishops, about a hundred and forty abbots, and an infinite number of doctors and graduates from the universities of the kingdom. And now commenced a theological tilting-match between the university of Paris, which desired complete independence, and the partisans of Benedict. Among the former may be mentioned, the cordelier Peter aux Bœufs, the famous doctor John Petit, and Simon Cramand, patriarch of Alexandria, archbishop of Rheims, afterwards a cardinal. * Letter of Leonard Aretin, secretary of Gregory XII., to Petrello, of Naples.. Peter aux Bœufs was the first to speak, and he then made the comparison already mentioned, in which he represented the schism as a halo, such as is frequently seen to encircle the stars. He said, "This resemblance holds good, not only as to the shape, but also as to its origin. If the one is formed by the vapours arising from the earth, the other is from the vapours of glory, ambition, and avarice, the love of pre-eminence, the lust after gain. Like the wind mentioned in Job I. 19, it is the cause of grievous tempests, disturbances in kingdoms, national animosities, mockery of our religion, doubts as to our sacraments, and exactions by which our poorer clergy are devoured."* The preacher then accused the two popes as the authors of these miseries, and added, "As the planets are subjected to two moving forces, one of which impels them to the firmament, while the other restrains their velocity, thus the cardinals, the patriarchs, and prelates, who are planets to the church, or her head, ought to be subject to his influence, when it is well directed; but when the pope troubles or endangers the church by his irregular proceedings, it cannot be denied that the aforesaid planets (meaning the prelates) ought not to at tend him." Among other proofs, the preacher cited as a precedent the council at Rome, in 963, by which John XII. was deposed, and he called for actions, not words, by which Benedict XIII. might be reduced to submission. John Petit followed, and spoke to the same effect. The patriarch of Alexandria was next called upon,-the celebrated Simon Cramand, who had presided at many former assemblies of the French clergy. He was considered one of the brightest luminaries of his age, and was in such high repute, that when the king of France made a royal feast at Rheims for the emperor Wenceslaus, Cramand occupied the first place, Wenceslaus the second, and the king of France the third. This prelate endeavoured to give new dignity to the university by describing it as having a distant origin, hitherto unknown. He spoke of Julius Cæsar, as having brought it from Athens to Rome, and that thinking it one of his chief glories, he readily followed the advice of its professors; and king Charlemagne, who brought it from Rome to Paris, * See this discourse, extracted from the manuscripts of St. Victor, in the new History of the Council of Constance, by Bourgeois de Chastenet. esteemed it one of the brightest jewels of his crown. The orator then depicted to the life the oppressions of the church of Rome. He said, "Its dispensations are mere dissipations. A single bishop or archbishop would know better how to regulate them than a secretary at the court of Rome." He was still more bold in his opinions concerning church property. He remarked that "the pope and the prelates are not lords of the possessions of the church, but the defenders and managers, while the temporal lords are the lawful owners." Returning to Benedict, he forcibly contrasted his conduct before and after his election to the popedom, the disinterestedness he appeared to manifest at first, and the ambition he had subsequently evidenced. The speaker closed by repeating the opinion of the doctors, who declared him to be a heretic, whoever it might be, who should violate his oath, in order to retain the papacy. The university finally decided, in accordance with this opinion, that a pope who has sworn that he would resign for the peace of the church, whenever it should seem right to the assembled cardinals, or to the majority of them, ought now to yield; and that if he obstinately refused, he was perjured and unfaithful to God and man, and ought to be declared a heretic by the assembled prelates, to be treated as such, and compelled to submit by the secular powers. The chief of the supporters of Benedict was William Filastre, dean of Rheims. The presence of the king did not prevent his speaking unreservedly. He blamed Charles vi. for the withdrawal of obedience from Benedict, and compared him to Uzziah, who seized the office of the priesthood, on which account, he added, that king was struck with leprosy. Moreover he considered that such a withdrawal was impossible. He said he would "use a familiar illustration. The citizens of Paris speak against the character of their provost, as men now do against our holy father, and refuse any longer to obey him. The provost has had some condemned and executed, and in that condition they remain. Even so our holy father may excommunicate us, and we shall remain under our punishment, like the thief who is hanged, for we have not deprived the pontiff of the power of the keys." But the real authority no longer resided at Rome, or at Avignon. The dean of Rheims had not well chosen the time for exalting his pope. His words appeared so many insults to his sovereign prince, and an apology to the king was required from him. "Sire," he said, "I spoke with my lips only; I spoke imprudently. I say not this to excuse myself, but to obtain your clemency. I am a poor man, brought up in the fields; my natural character is rough; and I have not lived with princes or nobles, so as to learn the style of speaking which is used in their presence. Henceforth I shall be more prudent, and more faithful to your Majesty, if you are pleased to have pity on me. Peter d'Ailly, bishop of Cambray, next came forward. He opposed the withdrawal, and urged the formation of a general council, formed from the supporters of both popes, and assembled to consider as to promoting unity in the church and reformation of manners. The debate was resumed by John Juvenal des Ursins, the advocate-general, who showed more earnestness than erudition. He tartly rebuked the dean of Rheims for attributing temporal as well as spiritual supremacy to the pope. Neither history nor the canon law seemed to perplex him. He said it was not by the will of the pope that Pepin succeeded Childeric; the latter resigned because he had no children, and devoted himself to a religious life. The right of assembling councils rested with monarchs, when the design was to judge the popes, and decide as to matters of faith. He cited the examples of Constantine and Theodosius, and a decree of Nicolas. He said, this right belongs to the crown, not to Pepin or Charles, but to the king of France. The bishop of Rome was formerly elected by the clergy and laity, in the same manner as the other bishops who are his brethren. And as to the supremacy of St. Peter, he added that the apostolic seat, or headship, was first fixed at Jerusalem, then at Antioch, and afterwards at Rome, "and methinks it were well could it be restored to Jerusalem, its original abode." The council, which represented the French church, established by a decree the withdrawal of obedience, as in 1398, which the king confirmed. Benedict replied by a thundering bull, excommunicating the authors and supporters of the decree, whoever they might be, whether cardinals, archbishops, princes, kings, or emperors. This bull reached Paris amidst the horrors of a fearful attempt. The duke of Orleans, the king's brother, and John Sans Peur, duke of Burgundy, who had long been enemies, were formally reconciled before the altar; they received the communion together; but three days after, on the night of November 23rd, 1407, the latter caused the duke of Orleans to be murdered. He found a bold apologist in the famous teacher John Petit, and the king forgave the murderer of his brother. No longer did royal or religious authority rule in France; the kingdom was subjected to a triple scourge-foreign war, civil discord, and contests about religion. Nothing was heard from one extremity of the land to the other but the noise of arms, the cries of combatants, the groans of an agonizing nation; and above all these distressing sounds, the voices of two high priests, who execrated the king, the clergy, the people, and anathematized each other. THE ENVIRONS OF EDINBURGH. to IN passing up the Frith of Forth, we behold in every direction extensive and delightful prospects, diversified by a multiplicity of captivating objects which crowd in rapid succession on the eye. The outline of the scene appears the youthful traveller to comprehend all the rich variety that the artist can desire, or the vivid imagination of the poet conceive. The green hills of the Ôchils, as they break the sloping surface of the country to the north-west, seem to be placed there as the boundary of the lowlands; while far beyond them rise in majestic grandeur the more distant and rugged mountains of the highlands, the blue summits of which are traced in bold perspective among the lowering clouds by which they are encompassed. On the left the gentle acclivities of the Lothians bound the horizon to the west; while Arthur's Seat, and the neighbouring crags, appear to spread abruptly from the smooth fields and verdant plains around. The elevated site of the old city of Edinburgh, with its ancient castle, the new town, with its apparent continuation to the town of Leith, encompassing the Calton hill with its various buildings, compose a group of highly interesting objects; and when to this picture are added the seats of the nobility and gentry, the numerous villas and woods that adorn the shores, with the changing position of the vessels, contin ually floating on the surface of the Forth, we are struck not only by the effect of the hand of nature, but by that of the public spirit, taste, and affluence of the country. Let us now, in accomplishing our purpose in reference to the environs of Edinburgh, first glance at Holyrood. At the bottom of the Cannongate a sewer or strand crosses the street, on the east side of which we find ourselves in a territory which affords protection to debtors, some of whom are permitted to reside within its limits. This sanctuary is very extensive, the whole valley as far as Duddingstone, inclusive of Arthur's Seat, and Salisbury crags, being included within its bounds. a One legend connected with the foundation of the abbey is, that David 1., while hunting in the forest of Drumsheuch, was placed in the utmost peril by the attack of a stag, and that when defending him- | self from his assailant, a cross miraculously descended from heaven into his hand, on seeing which the stag fled in dismay. We mention this only as specimen of the tales which were current in times of great ignorance, credulity, and superstition. It is also said that in a dream which the monarch describes himself to have had, he fancied himself commanded to erect an abbey on the spot of his remarkable preservation, and that in obedience to the dictate he founded the abbey of Holyrood in 1128. Of this building merely the mouldering ruins of the chapel which are behind the palace remain. Here are deposited the remains of David 11., James 11., James v. and Magdalen his queen; Henry, Lord Darnley, and also those of Mary Queen of Scots, in what is denominated the royal tomb. Of this edifice the north-west portion alone is ancient, the other parts were built in the reign of Charles 11. by Robert Myln, the King's mason. The building was quadrangular, and the interior surrounded with piazzas. abbey, except the north-west tower, was burned by the troops of Cromwell. After the Restoration, it has been said, the palace acquired its present dimensions and beautiful appearance, for the accommodation of the duke of York, who resided in it, with his family and court, during the years 1681-2. In 1745, it was occupied for a short time by prince Charles Edward; and in the following year for a few nights only by the duke of Cumberland. A gain in 1795, the southern apartments were fitted up for the reception of the Compte d'Artois, where he kept his little court till 1799, at which date he succeeded to the kingly dignity, as Charles x. of France. In 1822, the palace was restored to more than its former splendour by the visit of the then reigning sovereign George IV. A suit of apartments was arranged for him in the south side of the quadrangle. In 1830, by one of those extraordinary revolutions in kingdoms which, like events apparently trivial, can only be traced to the providence of Him who ruleth over all, Charles x., the formerly Compte d'Artois, ex-king of France, again found an asylum in Holyrood. Fraught with recollections of many interesting and important events is this exciting spot. Here in imagination we see Mary Queen of Scots,-for though she might never have occupied the precise apartment which is said to have been hers, and though we may search in vain for the marks of Rizzio's blood, yet without effort we may feel ourselves gazing on the place where she dwelt, and know that the lifeblood of her favourite was but too surely spilt here. It was here she listened to the heart-stirring music of Chatelar and Rizzio;-it was here that the marriage of Sebastian was celebrated;-here she had an interview with the lion-hearted reformer John Knox ;-here the unhappy queen received with shrieks, and with those horrors which ever accompany a guilty deed, the intelligence of the murder of Darnley;-and here she saw the object of strong, but sinful affections, barbarously torn from her side by his murderers. This palace was left by James, the son of queen Mary, in 1603; and in 1617, on his visiting Edinburgh, it was ordered to be repaired and newly thatched. This was the second outlay for repairs, and a considerable sum was expended for the Arthur's Seat is a particularly inthird time, when Charles I. visited it interesting point. From it may be had 1633, in partly re-furnishing this beautiful and interesting pile. Charles was crowned with much ceremony and state in the chapel royal. In 1650, the whole of the palace and an extensive view of twelve counties, with the old town spread beneath like a chart, and around an animating variety-towns, hills, and lakes, with the beautiful bay-like appearance of the |