duke professes to pardon "the rebels' on account of Cromwell's intercession, and refers him for a final settlement to the French ambassador, M. Servient. He seems to have deceived the English with a peace which, we are informed, turned out, like many other Popish peaces, to be but "a leper arrayed in rich clothing and gay attire;" and even this measure was yielded slowly and reluctantly, and with many delays. All shows with what parties the poor French Protestants had to contend,-soldiers who executed the bloodiest work of the Duke of Savoy,—an ambassador who could, to a considerable extent, overreach Cromwell and the Protestant powers of Europe. The Protector wished the king to make an exchange of part of his dominions, with the duke, and so bring the Protestants within the dominion of France, which was then, it would seem, more tolerant than Savoy; but the proposal was not listened to, neither was the request to punish the soldiers who had committed the crime. The measure of success, however, with which his exertions were attended, show how much might have been accomplished had the influential friends of Protestantism been always zealous, united, and persevering in behalf of their fellow-Christians. I need scarcely add, that the Protector of England was a great favourite with the Protestants of France. It is said that they had their eyes ever fixed upon him, and that they were in the habit of praying for him in their churches. We can trace in the history something like protection and safety for them so long as he lived, and an almost immediate change in their condition for the worse when he died. So to speak, he was the guardian angel of Protestantism at the period, whatever may have been the defects of his character, or the sins of his conduct.

Returning from this partial digression, and concluding the notices of the adverse influence of Popery upon the Protestant Church down to 1660, I may mention, that in that year the last meeting of the General Assembly was held. No meeting had been permitted to assemble for fifteen years previously. In 1657, the holding of

colloquies was also interdicted. Thus the Presbyterian Church government might be said to be broken up. Indeed, it is easy to see a strong hatred to this form of government breathing throughout the whole period. It was hostile to the Prelacy of the Church of Rome, and was supposed to create an imperium in imperio; but the true reasons, doubtless, were its popular character and strict discipline. This was a severe blow to the Protestant Church. So long as there were simply violence from without and desertion from within, heavy as the evils might be, the Church, in its noble constitution, still. stood, but when that constitution was not only invaded but destroyed, what remained?

It may be mentioned, as a proof of the growing strength of Popery during the whole reign of Louis XIII., that in Paris alone there was an increase of sixty-nine religious houses,-twenty of them for monks, twenty-nine for females. And if Paris, the metropolis of infidelity, was thus Popish, how much more may we believe was the country generally? Though it is rather anticipating, yet it may, in this connection, be stated, that in the reign of Louis XIV. the monastic establishments of Paris, already so many, became more numerous every year, that at its close they were 107. With their extensive enclosures they covered one-half the surface of the city. The population at that time was probably from 300,000 to 400,000. What peace or safety could be expected for the Protestant Church in such circumstances as these?

Having thus glanced at the unfavourable aspects of events in regard to the Protestant Church during the 60 years of which I write, let me turn the attention of the reader to one or two facts indicative of the favourable. Many will be reserved for subsequent and separate chapters; but, in the meantime, I may mention the following, which are of a general character; they are few compared with the long list of evil:-In 1598, it appears from a report to the Synod of Montpelier, that there were still 760 churches belonging to the

Reformed; and that between 43,000 and 44,000 crowns were annually dispensed from the public resources for their maintenance. Many of them, however, were poor and feeble. At the same period when the Princess Catherine partook of the Lord's Supper at Angers, not less than 3000 communicated along with her—a pleasing proof that there was still a large body of devout Protestants,-not a few, we may believe, in the higher stations of life. Four years after (1603), Du Plessis, speaking of the Protestant Church, could say, "Our churches, by the grace of God, and under the government of the royal edicts, enjoy a condition which they have no desire to change. The Gospel is preached freely, and not without making progress." În 1619, Bentivoglio, an historian, states the number of the churches at 700; and adds, that generally they have two ministers each. This must be an exaggeration, for, in seven years after, the numbers given in as a report to the Synod, are 623 churches, and 638 ministers. The diminution from the former number was evidently owing to the fierce and harassing persecution which had been endured in the meantime. Bearing this in remembrance, the array of churches and ministers which the Reformed were still able to present, was highly creditable to their character; and doubtless there was a great deal of latent Protestantism which could not be estimated. In 1606, not less than 3000 persons attended divine worship at Charenton, the first day that a church was permitted to be opened.

In 1637, there were 647 pastors, and 807 churches. There appears to have been a growth of the Protestant population onwards to 1669, so that De Rulhiere states, that not less than 2000 ministers were affected by the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes, in 1685. It is to be remembered, that in seasons of odium and persecution, it is the natural tendency, as it is the interest of the suf fering, to keep as quiet as possible, at least as quiet as principle will allow.

I shall not here say any thing of the orthodoxy of

the Church. It was only sound doctrine which could sustain so large a body of men through such a protracted warfare. Nor shall I advert to the efforts of the Church to maintain and enlarge the professional literature of her ministers in the midst of all her trials. That will afterwards be referred to. But it may be proper here to remind the reader of the loyalty of the French Protestants. Much, very much, was done to extinguish it. Their Christian principle, however, was strong, and bore up under the pressure. They might be denounced as rebels-as Christian men, contending for the privileges of the Church of Christ, have in all ages been denounced-but they were, in truth, the most loyal subjects. In the long struggle between the Court and the Aristocracy, in the early part of the reign of Louis XIV., usually called the war of the Fronde, they stood by the Crown so much so, that the Protestant towns which, in the spirit of Popish persecution, had been broken down, proved the king's best defence; and part of the fortifications of Montauban was actually raised by the hands of the Protestant students of divinity. This was in 1652; and so deeply were the king and his party, who had treated the Reformed so ill, impressed with their loyal and devoted services, that Louis, in his answer to one of the letters of Cromwell, a few years after, in the case of the Piedmontese, says, that he was the more disposed to listen to the Protector's call, from his own experience," in regard to mine own subjects, who are of the same profession, having," he adds, "cause to applaud their fidelity and zeal for my service: they, on their parts, not omitting any occasion to give me proof thereof, even beyond all that can be imagined, and contributing in all things to the welfare and advantage of my affairs." How sad to think that these are the very men whom the writer's father, Louis XIII., SO "shamefully entreated" at Bearne, and Montauban, and Rochelle; and whom the writer himself, as Louis XIV., still more barbarously persecuted by the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes, and a thousand unutterable cruelties, to which we shall afterwards refer.

In concluding this chapter, it may be proper to record the names of a few of the leading ministers of the Protestant Church, who flourished during the period of 60 years, the account of which we are drawing to a close. I do not refer to the distinguished Frenchmen-the Reformers and Divines of the Reformation-several of whom spent most of their days, such as Calvin, Farel, Beza and Rivet, in Switzerland or Holland; nor do I refer to Marloratus, who suffered for the truth at Rouen; and Viret, who preached the Gospel to listening thousands at Lyons. These, and many other eminent teachers of the truth, may be said to have belonged to the 16th century. I refer to their successors- -the faithful men of the first half of the 17th century,—and how noble is the array!

Du Moulin, a first-rate controversialist, whose works against Popery may be consulted with advantage to this day. Morus, famed at once for his eloquence and learning. Mestrezat, profound in the Popish controversy. Aubertin, whose single work on the Eucharist of the ancient Church is said to have obtained more celebrity for him than many hundred volumes do for their authors. Bochart, a celebrated orientalist and illustrator of Scripture. Faucheur, eminent for persuasive eloquence. Daille, remarkable for erudition: many of his works, which are very numerous, are well known. The same remark applies to Drelincourt, whose work on Death is said to have passed through more than 40 editions in different languages. Du Bosc, eminent not only as a preacher, but for such general talent and address, that he was employed in all negotiations with the Government, relative to the Reformed; and is understood by his influence, to have postponed the fatal measure of the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes for years. Claude, the opponent of Bossuet, and author of various works, among others, of the Defence of the Reformation, generally allowed to be the most masterly vindication of the separation from the Church of Rome which has ever been published.