ans. In these times Protestantism was unknown. There were only two classes of Christians, namely, the Catholics who adhered to the faith of the apostles and acknowledged the bishop of Rome as the supreme head of the church; and the Greeks, who differed in the article of the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and the Son, and refused obedience to the pope as head of the church. Several attempts were made to reconcile the Greeks to the centre of unity without effect. The eastern empire had long suffered from the ravages of the Mahometan power. Province after province was wrested from it, and Constantinople, the seat of the empire, had been several times attacked. During these misfortunes the Greeks were several times warned of the impending vengeance of the Divine arm, for their obstinate resistance to the truth, without effect. At length, in 1453, Mahomet II. laid siege to the city of Constantinople with an army of 300,000 men, and above 100 gallies, with 130 smaller vessels. After sustaining a siege of some continuance with much bravery, on the 29th of May the Ottoman commander made dispositions for a general assault both by sea and land. The Turks advanced with great bravery and were met by the Greeks with an equal resistance, but the fate of the latter was sealed. They had too long set the commands of God at nought, and he withdrew his protection from them, leaving them to the mercy of their enemies. Notwithstanding the desperation of the Greeks, the victory was obtained by the Turks, the city was given up to slaughter and pillage, and it is reckoned that there perished in this sacking of Constantinople, forty thousand Greeks, and sixty thousand were sold for slaves. By this annihilation of the Greek empire in 1453, it is clear that the opponents of the Mahometans in 1529 were Catholics. The persecutions therefore of the Turks were levelled against the professors of the Catholic faith, as we have shewn the persecutions in every age and nation to have been invariably inflicted on that class of Christians.

We are now led into Georgia and Mingrelia, where the persecutors are the Turks and Persians, and then we are carried to the states of Barbary of which nothing need be said here, the conduct of these barbarians being familiar to every one, and every body knows they are not Catholics. From Barbary we are taken to Calabria, to which country, we are told, a great many Waldenses of Pragela and Dauphiny emigrated, having received permission to settle in some waste lands, which they soon, it is asserted, converted into "regions of beauty and fertility." Then follows an account of pope Pius the fourth meditating the destruction of these Waldenses, and sending a cardinal Alexandrino, a man of violent temper and a furious bigot, to act as inquisitor, and put the pope's determination into effect. The detail then goes on in the usual way, with the refusal of the Waldenses to comply with the request of the inquisitors, and the soldiers being sent to massacre them, and hunt them down like wild beasts. This account occupies more than two pages, and throughout the whole there is not a single date or authority. The Waldenses are said to have emigrated about the fourteenth century, and Pius the fourth did not fill the papal chair till the middle of the sixteenth century. The Waldenses are said to have built the town of St. Xist, but we should like to know how they came to name it after a saint who must have been a Roman Catholic, for we have no saints of

any other religion. Besides a glance of the map will show that Calabria is the furthermost point of Italy, and forms part of the kingdom of Naples, the inhabitants of which, we believe, were all Catholics. One of the merits of the Waldenses, be it observed, was that of fighting for their faith, not of suffering for it, as the primitive Christians did, and the Catholics now do, for conscience sake. From Calabria we come back to Piedmont, which occupies six pages, but of such ridiculous rodomontade as we think unnecessary to notice. We are next carried to Venice, where we are told a great many Protestants fixed their residence, before the terrors of the inquisition were known in that city, and many converts were made "by the purity of their doctrines and the inoffensiveness of "their conversation. The pope, (it is added,) no sooner learned the great "increase of Protestantism, than he, in the year 1542, sent inquisitors "to Venice to apprehend such as they might deem obnoxious.' Here then was not to be a total extermination; only the obnoxious few were to be selected. The pope is also made paramount here, but it is to be remarked that Venice was an independent republic, governed by its own laws, and the authorities, though Catholics, were extremely jealous of his holiness. It is therefore more than improbable that they permitted him to interfere with their jurisdiction. Be it observed too, that here is a date, namely 1542, at which time Protestantism may be said to have been in its cradle. Next we have, "Martyrdoms in various parts of Italy, in the same loose and unauthenticated style. Pope Pius the fourth is represented as commencing a general persecution of the Protestants throughout the Italian states, sparing neither age nor sex.— Now it so happens that this pope was the opposite of a persecutor, and the modern editors seem so convinced of this, that they have declined giving a single fact relating to this pretended persecution, but have contented themselves with inserting an anonymous letter, evidently fabricated, purporting to come from a learned and humane Roman Catholic to a nobleman. A small space is apportioned to "Persecutions in the marquisate of Saluces," of which neither ends nor sides can be made, and then we have eleven pages filled with " Persecutions in Piedmont, in the seventeenth century." Under this head we will select one tale, which we think will suffice as a sample of the rest. "Some of the "Irish troops having taken eleven men of Garcigliana prisoners, they "heated a furnace red hot, and forced them to push each other in till "they came to the last man, whom they themselves pushed in." No doubt, supposing the tale to be true, the man could not push himself in, but we think the "few plain Christians," when their hand was in, might have made these Irish troopers raise the devil to do their persecuting work. The next persecutions are those of Michael de Molinos, and the Quietists. Michael was a Spanish priest, and had a mind to be thought clever. He broached some new doctrines, and as a matter of course they were condemned by the pope, not for being true, but for being new, such as were not heard of before, and therefore could not be those God had revealed to his apostles. Michael was obstinate and got into the inquisition, and no more was heard of the Molinists. As for the Quietists, no one would have known about this sect, had not Fox brought the professors from their graves, where they were quiet enough. The "plain Christians" say, the Quietists were so terrified by

1

the sufferings of their leader, that the greater part of them abjured his mode, and remained quiet; while the assiduity of the Jesuits totally extirpated Quietism. From this admission it is clear that Quietism was not true Christianism, because Christ said the latter should last till the end of the world, whereas the former evaporated like a cloud of smoke. The tenth section closes the book, and contains the pretended martyrdom of a John Calas of Thoulouse, which, like the rest of the tales, is unauthenticated and exaggerated. We pass it over, therefore, to notice more particularly the ninth section, which purports to give the "PERSECUTIONS OF THE PROTESTANTS IN FRANCE DURING THE SIXTEENTH AND SEVENTEENTH CENTURIES."

The account admits that Henry III. of France favoured the Protestants, though it is insinuated that it was more from policy than religion. Henry IV. succeeded. He was a Protestant,' but afterwards became a Catholic from conviction. This was a sad blow to the Protestants; our editors lament the fact, but still they are compelled to admit that in all other respects he was entitled to the appellation of Great. Henry, it is stated, applied himself to the cultivation of the arts of peace, and by an edict issued in 1598, called the Edict of Nantes, he granted to his Protestant subjects a full toleration and protection of the exercise of their religious opinions. All this was as it should be. He did what every Catholic king should do, and what every Catholic king would do, when his subjects deserved such toleration by their peaceable behaviour. Henry was also a great favourer of the Jesuits, which the modern editors should have noticed, as they allow him to be worthy the title of Great. Thus, then, Henry IV. was the protector and friend of the Jesuits and the Protestants, and we applaud him for it. This king was the first of the Bourbon family that now fills the throne of France, and gives protection to the Protestants of that kingdom, while the Catholics of England and Ireland are still excluded from their civil rights, In consequence of this edict, the modern editors say, "the true church "of Christ abode in peace during many years, and flourished exceedingly." We cannot refrain from smiling at this statement, as the "few plain Christians," would make us believe that the Hugonots of France, who had deluged their country with blood and pillage; who had, as far they were able, sold her to foreign mercenaries, to revenge themselves of their religious adversaries, were the sons of the true Church of Christ, though the Divine Founder had more than once, or twice, or thrice, assured his disciples that this true Church should embrace all the nations of the world, and in fact has been spread in every nation in the globe by Catholic missionaries, receiving their commission from the supreme head, the pope of Rome.

86

This state of peace was however soon broken, for, we are told, Henry was at length assassinated in 1610, by Ravaillac, a Jesuit, "filled with that frantic bigotry which the Roman Catholic religion "has so peculiar a tendency to inspire and cherish." That Henry was assassinated by Ravaillae is but too true; and notwithstanding the "frantic bigotry" which our modern editors say "the Roman Catholic religion has a peculiar tendency to inspire and cherish," there is not a Roman Catholic that does not lament the fate of this great and good

66

king. This monarch's life was twice attempted, the first time in 1593 by Barriere, and it was then asserted that the Jesuits were the instigators of the attempt. The king, however, bore testimony to the falsity of this assertion, for he plainly told the president de Harlay, that it was from a Jesuit he had information of the plot against him, and that a Jesuit had used all the influence he possessed to persuade the assassin from his purpose, assuring him that he would be damned if he took it in hand. The wretch himself declared, both on the rack and on the scaffold, that he had no accomplice. Besides, taking the circumstances in which the Jesuits then stood in France, nothing but the blindest bigotry and prejudice could induce any one to think of charging the Jesuits with the murder of Henry IV. That religious order of men had been banished the kingdom by the parliaments, for some imputed offence, and Henry had just recalled them in opposition to the parliament: now, does it stand to reason, that men would lift up their hands and embrue them with the blood of their best friend and protector? The story may do for the ignorant and bloated bigot, but the man of common sense will never give credit to it. The English Puritans, however, took the advantage of the then state of the press and the public mind to represent the assassination as having been committed through the instigation of the Jesuits, and a proclamation was issued by our James the first, banishing every one of that religious order and all Catholic priests out of this kingdom.

The death of Henry IV. made way for Louis XIII. his son, who being a minor, the kingdom, we are told, "was nominally governed by "the queen mother, but really by her minion, cardinal Richelieu, a man "of great abilities, which were unhappily perverted to the worst pur"poses. He was cruel, bigotted, tyrannical, rapacious, and sensual; "he trampled on the civil and religious liberties of France; and hesi"tated not to accomplish his intentions by the most barbarous and in"famous methods.' Here is a character for poor cardinal Richelieu ! but we do not wonder at the picture, as we are subsequently informed that when the mild and meek Hugonots resolved to take up ARMS and FIGHT like warriors, not preach like apostles, for their new-fangled theories, this cardinal-minister defeated all their enterprizes, and caused the walls and fortifications of their chief town, Rochelle, to be destroyed. This success on his part was quite sufficient to earn him so good a name from the advocates of these fighting religionists. The narrator next says:

During the fifty years which succeeded the reduction of Rochelle, the Protestants suffered every indignity, injustice, and cruelty, which their barbarous persecutors could devise. They were at the mercy of every petty despot, who, drest in a little brief autho rity,' wished to gratify their malice, or signalize the season of his power, by punishing the heretics, and evincing his attachment to the infallible church. The consequences of this may easily be imagined; every petty vexation which can render private life miserable, every species of plunder and extortion, and every wanton exertion of arbitrary power, were employed to harrass and molest the Protestants of all ranks, sexes, and ages. At length, in 1684, the impious and blasphemous tyrant Louis XIV. who, in imitation of the worst Roman emperors, wished to receive divine honours, and was flattered by his abject courtiers into the belief that he was more than human, determined to establish his claim to the title of le grand, which their fulsome adulation had bestowed on him, by the extirpation of the heretics from his dominions. Pretending, however, to wish for their conversion to the true faith, he gave them the alternative of voluntarily becoming papists, or being

compelled to it. On their refusal to apostatize, they were dragooned; that is, the dragoons, the most ruffianly and barbarous of his Christian majesty's troops, were qnartered upon them, with orders to live at discretion. Their ideas of discretion may easily be conceived, and accordingly the unhappy Protestants were exposed to every species of suffering, which lust, avarice, cruelty, bigotry, and brutality, can engender in the breasts of an igno rant, depraved, and infuriated soldiery, absolved from all restraint, and left to the diabolical promptings of their worst passions, whose flames were fanned by the assurances of the bishops, priests, and friars, that they were fulfilling a sacred duty, by punishing the enemies of God and religion!"

He then goes on to state that more than five hundred thousand persons escaped or were banished; that those who either were purposely detained, or were unable to escape, were condemned to the gallies, and chained, and imprisoned, and marched from one end of the kingdom to the other; till at length "the Lord (Oh! bless the cant) of his infinite mercy," raised up a deliverer in the person of queen Anne of England, who interfered in their favour, and Lewis in a fright released the captives from their sufferings.

We have not space to enter into a minute refutation of the barefaced falsehoods contained in this narration; nor is it necessary, as the whole is evidently a piece of exaggeration carrying its own refutation. We shall therefore content ourselves with giving a testimony on the other side of the question, and leave the decision with the public. Fox endeavours to make the revocation of the edict to arise from religious motives, whereas it was occasioned by the rebellious proceedings and disposition of the Hugonots. That the French government were desirous they

should be converted from the restless doctrines of Calvinism there can be no doubt, but the mode adopted, and the revocation of the edict of Nantes, is very differently related by Proyart, in his Life of the Dauphin, father to Louis XV. and son to the revoker of the edict. This author gives a letter from the Dauphin on this very subject, in which the prince says:→→→

I shall not detail that chain of enormities, which have been consigned, in so many authentic records, those secret assemblies, those oaths of confederation, those leagues with foreign powers, those refusals to pay the public taxes, those seditious threats, those open conjurations, those sackings and burnings of towns, those masssacres in cold blood, those assaults upon the kings' persons, those multifarious and unheard of sacrileges. It is sufficient to say, that, from Francis L. down to our days, that is, under seven consecutive reigns, all those evils have desolated the kingdom, with more or less fury. This is the bistorical fact, which may be loaded with a variety of incidents, but the substance of which cannot be denied, or called in question. Now, if the prince has not the right of commanding the conscience, he has that at least of providing for the safety of the state, and of chaining down fanaticism, which threatens to introduce anarchy and confusion. Although the king knew well enough, that the Hugunots had nothing for the primordial titles of their privileges, but injustice and violence; although their late infractions of the edicts appeared to him a sufficient reason to deprive them of the legal existence, which they had invaded in arms, yet his majesty wished to take counsel. Among other things, it was objected, that the Hugunots, depending upon the assistance of the princes of their religion, might possibly take up arms, &c. The king answered, he was prepared for the worst ; that nothing would be more painful to him, than being forced to shed a single drop of the blood of his subjects; but that he had armies, and good generals, and would employ them in case of necessity against rebels, who wished to bring destruction upon their own heads. The suppression of the edict was agreed upon unanimously. The king, who always wished to treat his most disaffected subjects, as a pastor, and a father, neglected no measures that could win their hearts, and, at the same time, remove their ignorance. He granted pensions, distributed alms, established missions, caused books to be circulated, both for the use