tion, whether masters or others, if twice absent, to be admonished by the minister and elders; and if the third time, to be cited to the Session, or suspended from the Communion, without respect of persons, and these to be marked by the ministers and elders.

"2. That the minister, with the elders, shall try the knowledge of every one that comes, according to the Act of Assembly 1648, sess. 38.

"3. After persons are observed to be ignorant, or absentees from catechising, the elders on their several quarters may deal with them, by visiting their families, and exhorting their masters and themselves yet to learn.

"4. For their measures of knowledge, that the ministers shall agree upon some common questions to be proposed to every one whose knowledge they doubt, and that they insist most upon those questions which are preparatives for the Sacrament.

"5. Concerning scandalous persons, such as ordinary tipplers, and swearers, and scolders, and who live at variance with their neighbours-ordinary absentees from catechising, ordinary neglecters of the worship of God in their families, &c.-that some way be taken for trying of them, and keeping them back from the Communion if they continue in it, comformly to the directions of the General Assembly.

“6. That, at the least, there be two elders with the minister at the examination.

"7. That if any elder or deacon be appointed to wait on the absentees, and do not wait on, either himself or some other with whom he may agree, he shall be suspended from his place for a time, except he have a very reasonable excuse." The reconciling of quarrels previously to the dispensation of the Lord's Supper, seems to have been a common, as it was a most appropriate, part of sessional duty.

Nor must I omit to notice the Church's unwearied labours after the due observance of the Sabbath. The Church of Rome may make a holiday of the Lord's Day, and Charles, a professed Protestant monarch, may command the reading of a Book of sports on its sacred hours, to correct the excessive religious spirit of his people, and prepare them for a return to Popery; but the Presbyterian Church of Scotland holds by the Sabbath as a sheet-anchor of Christianity, and carefully guards and honours it. If there be one feature in her history more marked than another, it is her love for the Sabbath; and how much she is under God, indebted to this

for her superior religious knowledge, and character, and privileges, civil and sacred, in short, civilization, no one can estimate. The county of Fife being noted for its fishing and salt-making, and both employments tempting men to trench upon the rest of the Sabbath, we find frequent reference in its ecclesiastical records, particularly in the Presbyterian periods, to the efforts of the Church courts for the protection of the Sabbath. The people are forbidden to set their nets even during the "herring drove" on the Lord's Day, or to loose ships and boats which are in safe harbours. The saltmakers, also, are prohibited from working on any part of the Sabbath. A compromise seems to have been proposed by proprietors at Kirkaldy. The Synod is asked to allow them to work till six o'clock on Sabbath morning, and begin again at six in the evening; but the Church declines all compromise, and contends that there shall be no work from twelve on Saturday night till twelve on Sabbath night.

Other forms of Sabbath desecration were not allowed to pass without challenge or correction. Sabbath funerals were forbidden. "Whereas," say the Presbytery of St. Andrews, "there is a superstitious practice of making graves upon the Lord's Day, which may be conveniently avoided, the Presbytery appoint that no graves be made upon the Lord's Day. but in case of urgent necessity allowed by the minister and session." A remarkable case occurs in the Presbytery Records of Cupar, which shows how severely the honour of the Sabbath was vindicated in 1647. The offender appears to have shot some animal, probably a bird, upon the Lord's Day. This was regarded as a serious scandal; and the following is the account of the punishment:-" David Blyth, in the parish of Abdie, for shedding 'blood on the Sabbathday, is appointed to stand at the kirk door next Sabbath, bareheaded and barefooted, with the gun in his hand wherewith the blood was shed, until the last bell; thereafter to sit before the pulpit in the time of sermon; and after sermon, to acknowledge and confess his sin upon his knees, and then to be received." Whatever may be thought of this kind or degree of punishment, no enlightened Christian can doubt that the Sabbath should be protected by legislative enactment and penalty; and that dark will be the hour for Britain, when even its present imperfect Sabbath defences shall be withdrawn.

CHAPTER IV.

FROM 1660 TO 1685.

We have now arrived at a very interesting and affecting period in the history of the Protestant Church of Francethe period which preceded the revocation of the edict of Nantes, in 1685. We have marked the enactment of this edict under Henry IV., and have contemplated the Christian character of the Church, as manifested by a variety of indications during the ninety years in which it was in force. We have now to consider its abrogation. Even had it been perfectly observed all along, the civil and religious liberty which it secured to the Protestants would have been very inadequate. The joy with which its institution was hailed only strikingly proves how wretched and oppressed had been their previous condition; but its regulations were not fairly or honourably observed. At first, under Henry, and for a considerable period under Louis XIII., its provisions were pretty well regarded, and the Protestants were gladdened and increased in numbers; but during the whole course of it, and particularly towards the close, the infractions were many and grievous-the protection which it afforded only nominal.

A Church so spiritual and faithful-as we have seen, from indubitable evidence, the Church of France was, to a great extent, at the period of which we speak-could not be endured by the Popish multitude, whether lay or clerical, and so there was incessant hostility every now and then breaking out into direct persecution. Even where the king and civil power were disposed to befriend the Protestants, the ecclesiastical party were too strong for them; and either by force or fraud, as best suited the purpose, stirred them up into opposition. Hence, in various parts of France, especially the more remote, many of the provisions of the edict of Nantes were never complied with, and in others these provisions were ever and anon openly violated. A Popish nobleman or landlord kept a whole parish in misery.

The truth is, the edict was never a cordial or hearty measure. It was extorted by circumstances, and being disliked by the most powerful party in the country, it could not be expected to be well observed. Solemn promises may have been made, but the history of the edict conclusively shows

that the Romish doctrine--no faith is to be kept with heretics-was no obsolete imagination, but a stern reality. The least resistance, on the part of the Protestants, to the most arbitrary proceedings, however excusable in their trying circumstances, was always and immediately laid hold of as a reason for greater encroachments and severity. There can be little doubt these were often provoked, for the very purpose of affording an occasion, from the irritation which might be created, still further to abridge the narrow freedom. Remembering these things, we need not wonder to learn that, so early as 1603, there were not less than fifty-four destitute Protestant churches-that, four years later, there were vexatious lawsuits about churches, one of which entailed upon the poor Protestants a debt of not less than from seven to eight thousand livres-and that, ten years subsequently, there were complaints of persecution from a variety of districts embracing many churches-persecution which had lasted for years, and involved the sufferers in most serious pecuniary burdens. The Protestant Church may, as she advanced in years, have lost somewhat of the piety for which she was distinguished at first, and errors may have occasionally appeared which were not sufficiently rebuked; but even these were owing to the harsh treatment of her Popish neighbours. The Presbyterian Church government was invaded. From 1645 to 1659, a period of fourteen years, no General Assembly or Synod was allowed to be held, and so the Church had no opportunity of checking incipient error, or exercising necessary discipline. In such circumstances, it would have been strange if the Presbyterian Church did not suffer some degeneracy. Were the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland not to meet for fourteen years, how serious would be the evil! The very fact, however, of the continued and bitter, and increasing hostility of the Church of Rome to her, is no mean proof that she still retained her decidedly evangelical character. Popery has little quarrel with error, however serious. Indeed, error is always, to a great extent, allied to herself. It is truth, vital, living Christianity, which is intolerable to her spirit, principles, and claims. The highest authority has said, "All who will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution." And the history of the French Protestant Church impressively proves and proclaims the sentiment.

But we must turn to more direct evidence of the tyrannical treatment to which the Protestant Church was subjected

previous to the repeal of the edict. In religious persecution, the oppressed party often suffers for political reasons. It is punished, not because it is religious, but because it is disloyal and seditious. In restraining it, the State is only acting on self-defence. Hence the origin of the penal enactments against Popery in this country; but it was not thus with the Protestants of France. No one, with the least pretence of reason, could accuse them of doubtful attachment to the Crown. They were, like the suffering Presbyterians of Scotland, remarkable for their loyalty. At the very time that the twenty year's persecution began, which terminated in the abrogation of the edict of Nantes, they had rendered a distinguished service to the family of the reigning monarch -so much so, that both Louis XIV. and his mother acknowledged it by public proclamation; and yet they were forthwith made the victims of the most intolerable oppression. What does this prove, but that the true source of their suffering was their religion-the hatred of the unrenewed mind of man to the free and holy Gospel which they professed. We shall mark a few of the more prominent points in the march of persecution, merely premising that we have room for very few, and that there can be no question the whole which is recorded bears a very small proportion to what was actually inflicted. So early as 1626, the Synod of Castres was constrained to present such a summary of wrongs as the following:

"His Majesty is most humbly petitioned to cast his royal eyes of compassion upon the deep afflictions of his Protestant subjects, who, though they have always laboured to gain and keep the love and friendship of their fellow-citizens, as countrymen, are yet, notwithstanding, in divers places of the kingdom, molested in their persons, disturbed in the exercise of their religion, deprived of their temples, yea, and see them demolished before their faces ever since the peace, or else given away from them for dwelling-houses unto the Romish priests and ecclesiastics; and that they be dispossessed of their burying-places, and the dead bodies of very many persons digged up most ignominiously; that our ministers have been barbarously beaten, bruised, wounded, and driven away from their churches, although they have been the most innocent and inoffensive persons in the world, who neither injured the public in general, nor any one in particular, as our general deputies shall more and at large make report hereof unto his Majesty."