cruelly oppressed in the kingdom of France." It was written by the eminent Protestant minister, Claude.

Dr. Calamy, in his "Life and Times," states that Charles II., when in Paris, though strongly urged, could not be prevailed on to own the French Protestant Church, by attending divine service at Charenton; so that any favour which he may have shown to any of the refugees in this country, is extremely suspicious. Wodrow, in his unpublished writings, states that Mr. Stewart, a well informed friend, informed him, that about the latter part of the king's reign, the Duke of Schomberg's son-a leading Protestant familywas sent over by the Protestants to represent their sufferings to Charles, and to beg for his interposition. The king granted him a private audience, but his brother James got behind. the hangings, and heard all that passed. When the Protestant returned to France, he was immediately sent to the Bastile, or some other place of imprisoment. So it was, that he never more was heard of.

All this shows the close sympathy and connection which subsisted between the Popish monarchs of France and Britain; in short, that they were leagued for the advancement of Popery, so far as circumstances permitted. Of course, Louis was able to act much more openly and freely than his British friend, though James was fast preparing to follow in his steps, particularly in the purchase of Popish conversions. And now let us mark what influence the French Protestants had in breaking up this Popish league at the Revolution of 1688. It must be borne in mind, that when James ascended the throne, there was no prospect of a favourable change— that so far from this, the prospects grew darker and darker; and yet his power became more consolidated. Sir Walter Scott says "The enemies of the monarch were so completely subdued, both in Scotland and England, that no prince in Europe seemed more firmly seated on his throne." very risings against his authority, which he so successfully extinguished, tended to strengthen it. Scotland, once the foremost to rise, though she held by her principles was so worn out by thirty years of unprecedented suffering that she was unable to move; and yet the danger of the Popish designs of James needed but to be reduced from an abstract to a practical form, to arouse the people of Britain. In the poor persecuted French refugees who came over in hundreds and in thousands, and wandered all over the country, the necessary

The

stimulus and alarm were given. They were so many witnesses and preachers of the horrors of Popery. They told the British people, in a more impressive way than could be done in broken words, what they might expect on the revival and re-establishment of the power of the Church of Rome. This came in excellent time to defeat the monarch's plans. And three years later, when the Prince of Orange stood forth upon the field, the same French Protestants appeared in a new but most important form. The same hurricane in France, which had driven so many to the British shores, scattered not a few to Holland. Many of them had been trained to arms in their native country, and now unemployed, placed themselves under William. To the usual courage of their nation, they added the fire of men who had just been suffering for their Protestant faith, and who were about to be engaged in what was really a Popish war. It is easy to see what their spirit and resolution must naturally have been. Accordingly, they formed an important part of the Dutch army, on the presence of which the fate of the British Revolution turned. "The wisdom and power of the Prince of Orange," says Sir Walter Scott, in his "History of Scotland," "nay, even the assistance of his military force, were absolutely indispensable to the settlement of England,, divided as it was by two rival political parties, who had indeed been forced into union by the general fear of James' tyranny, but were ready to renew their dissensions the instant the overwhelming pressure of that fear was removed." Thus do we see that the French Protestants, both by the picture of their sufferings, and by their presence as soldiers, exerted an important influence on the great Revolution of 1688; and what a mortification must this have been to Louis, that the very men whom he had been persecuting as Protestants in France, should appear upon a foreign shore, and aid in defeating finally, and, we trust, for ever, the disastrous designs of Popery upon the British empire; in short, that his league should in part be frustrated by his own former subjects whom he hated and despised, and under the leadership, too, of one who had been his most successful military op ponent on the Continent! This, together with the loss of so many of his best subjects, must have been deeply galling to the proud patron of Popery. Had matters been otherwise ordered-had the French Protestants not been persecuted so severely-or had they not touched the British soil, who can tell, humanly speaking, how different might have been the

result? It is beautiful to see God educing good to his Church on a great scale, from the sufferings of his saints in a limited quarter. Even historians, who are not accustomed to acknowledge the providence of God, are struck with the rapidity and peaceful manner in which the Protestant Revolution of 1688 was accomplished. Nothing could seem more unlikely-the clouds were thickening-the long reign of persecution seemed to have accomplished its object both in France and Britain-Christian men were at their wits end; but "man's extremity proved to be God's opportunity." The Most High interposed, and so disposed the hearts of men, that in two short years, the king, of his own accord, fled to a foreign land, at a moment when his continued presence or his forced departure would have been the source of many hazards; and for the first time almost in history, the heads of two great and keen-spirited parties sunk their mutual jealousies and dissensions in anxiety for the common good of the nation, and were eminently successful in their deliberations and labours for this end. How easy is it for God to extricate from the most formidable dangers, and at the least expected hour!

THE CHURCHES OF FRANCE AND SCOTLAND VINDICATED FROM THE CHARGE OF REBELLION-THE OBJECTIONS OF DR. PUSEY CONSIDERED.

THE Presbyterian Churches of France and Scotland have often been charged with rebellion. I have repeatedly, though incidentally, referred to this accusation. But it may be proper to be a little more full and distinct in the answer, the more especially, as Dr. Pusey, one of the leaders in the new school of revived Popery in England, has, in a very strong manner, attacked the Protestant Churches of France and of Britain on this score; and it is to be feared his sentiments and feelings are participated in by no small or uninfluential party, who generally range themselves under his standard. There can be no doubt, that, prompted by self-defence, the Presbyterians of France and of Scotland. have occasionally felt themselves constrained to resist the persecuting tyranny to which for many long years they were subjected. Was this unlawful? Dr. Pusey and many others, some of them far sounder men, have contended that it was so that in all circumstances, passive obedience and nonresistance are a Christian duty-and that in departing from

this principle, they violated the law of Christ, and were chargeable with rebellion. He holds, that patience and unresisting suffering are the strength of the Church. Others

have quoted our Lord's saying to Peter-" Put up thy sword into its place, for all they that take the sword, shall perish with the sword"-attempting to show historically, that where Christians have had recourse to self-defence in behalf of their religion, they have always been cut off by the sword. But Dr. Pusey, in a recent sermon before the University of Oxford, has gone greater lengths than any writer whom we remember on the same subject. He holds, that the French Protestants were allowed to fall a prey to the horrible Popish plot of St. Bartholomew, in which sixty to seventy thousand were massacred in the basest treachery, "because they were an active, busy, scheming body, with worldly wisdom;" and that the Church and people of England were preserved from the Popish Gunpowder Plot, because "they were passive." He is pleased also, in his presumptuous interpretation of Providence, to attribute the decline of religion in Great Britain, in the last century, to the Revolution of 1888, and to regard it as an expression of the judgments of God on the nation for dethroning the Popish James! He speaks of men daring" to call the Revolution of 1688 " glorious Revolution"-declares that we must "disavow" the sins of the men who carried it through; and that, had the people "remained passive under the shadow of God's wings, the tyranny had passed over; but man interposed schemes of his own-they did that which their Lord upon the cross was taunted to do, but did not- they saved themselves,' and so they were permitted to mar the good purpose of God." He speaks also of the age of Charles II., being the golden age of the divines of the English Church, when their passive virtues were called forth and exercised by suffering; whereas, the last century was the deadest and shallowest period of English theology and of the English Church; and that the Revolution of 1688 "ejected a valuable portion of her members-the nonjurors-divided and so weakened her," &c.

66

a

It would greatly and unnecessarily swell this little work to enter upon a discussion of these and similar points. There is not one of them which would not admit, as an objection, of a satisfactory answer. Let me rather shortly advert to the general principle which is involved in cases of resistance. No Christian doubts that in all cases it is the great

and imperative rule to submit to authority, however despotic, and that it is unlawful and sinful to resist it; but most Christians have usually allowed that there are exceptions to this rule that if a Government commands what is contrary to, or forbids what is enjoined by, the law of God, it is the duty of subjects in these cases to obey God rather than man― just as parents and masters are to be resisted when they require what is contrary to the Divine will. These, however, are rare and terrible steps, which are to be resorted to only in the clearest cases, and after all other means have failed. Such, we contend, was substantially the case on those occasions where the Protestant Presbyterians of France and Scotland betook themselves to arms against their oppressors. These oppressors forbade what God had enjoined; for instance, they denied them the free exercise of public worship. Would it have been right here to have obeyed man, and to have abandoned the worship of God? The Christians of France and of this country did not hastily rise in rebellion. They bore long, and with pre-eminent meekness, all the hardships and persecutions to which they were exposed. They showed vastly more forbearance and good temper under provocation than the Puseyites in controversy, who are so forward to condemn them. It was only when all other resources failed, that they betook themselves to the last extremity; and not a few of their reluctant risings in self-defence were the act of the moment, prompted not by deliberate design, but the urgency and suffering of the occasion. These considerations surely go far, not only to vindicate their proceedings, but to proclaim them worthy of approbation. It is no answer to say, that Scripture and the primitive Church give no authority to, or example of, resistance to civil government. The cases to which we refer are confessedly extreme. Scripture deals rather in general principles, leaving the application to enlightened conscience, than in minute details of cases, and of all possible exceptions to general rules. It does not tell us to resist parents when they command what is wrong; yet this must be taken for granted. As Christianity does not deprive men of their natural rights, of what they possessed as men antecedent to, and independent of, revelation, so the burden of proving the obligation of non-resistance in every possible case, even the clearest and most atrocious, obviously rests with Dr. Pusey and his friends, and those who hold his sentiments; and that can be done only by their adducing from Scripture a direct prohibi