Page:Protestant Exiles from France Agnew (1st ed. vol 3).djvu/254

 (3.), called , was a Romanist curate in France, and on his conversion to Protestantism he took refuge in England. He was pastor in several of the French churches in London. In 1699 he preached in the church called Le Tabernacle. He was also an author. (Smiles’ Huguenots).

(4.) Three brothers, named Du Veil, natives of Metz, were of Jewish parentage, and were won over to the Roman Catholic Church. In this communion further study and inquiry resulted in their becoming Protestants, two becoming refugees in England, and the third in Holland. The eldest, Daniel Du Veil, was baptised under royal sponsorship at the palace of Compiègne, and was thereafter named Louis Compiègne Du Veil. On his professing Protestantism, and retiring to England, Bossuet wrote a letter to him which Rou, in a book entitled La Seduction étudiée, printed with the title, “Lettre de M. Fevéque de Meaux a un savant Juif retiré en Angleterre, lequel après avoir été converti au Christianisme, mais au Christianisme Romain, avoir enfin quitté cette religion pour embrasser la Protestante, ayant été mieux instruit.” He was made librarian to the King of England, and his interpreter for the oriental languages. He published some annotated translations of Rabbinical books, including a “most elegant” Latin translation of Maimonides.

The celebrated brother was Charles Marie Du Veil. Having discovered from the Old Testament that Jesus our Lord was the true Messiah, he renounced Judaism. His father, deeply humiliated and greatly enraged, rushed at him with a drawn sword, but some bystanders prevented any murderous violence. His new convictions are ascribed partly to the influence of the celebrated Bishop Bossuet, and, at any rate, it was to the Roman Catholic Church that Du Veil united himself At his baptism he received the names Charles Marie. He became a canon-regular of Sainte Genevieve, and was a popular preacher. The degree of D.D. he received at Angers in the year 1674. He published a commentary on the first two Gospels, in which he took occasion to defend Romish dogmas and superstitions. Being recognised as a suitable opponent to the Huguenots in a public disputation, he set himself to prepare for the meeting by a more minute study of controversial treatises and books of reference. But before the appointed day he had refuted himself.

Suddenly he fled to Holland, where he abjured Popery. He took refuge in England, probably in 1677. He was ordained a minister of the Church of England, and was received into a noble family as chaplain and tutor. In 1678 he published a new edition of his Commentary on Matthew and Mark, retracting all Romish annotations and arguments. He also confessed his former complicity in Romanist misquotation — for he says as to the revised books, “now, whatever writers I quote I quote truly.” He also reprinted his Commentary on the Song of Solomon. Several commentaries followed, all in the Latin language. Readers were, however, honestly warned not to expect all the advantages which we might anticipate from his Jewish birth. He writes, “I for the most part use the ancient Latin version of the Scriptures, as being that which I am best acquainted with ; but I always diligently remark when it differs from the original texts, the Hebrew and Greek.” His “Literal Explanations” appeared in the following order:— The Minor Prophets in 1680, Ecclesiastes in 1681, and the Acts of the Holy Apostles in 1684.

The last mentioned commentary is memorable as calling attention to a new modification of his religious views. Since the date of his preceding publication, he had abjured the theory and practice of infant baptism, and had become a Baptist minister. From that community he had accepted a small salary, which, along with a small medical practice, constituted his temporal support. His new views, which he had adopted at a pecuniary sacrifice, he introduced very largely into his “Notes on the Acts.” The English translation of that exposition, being attributed to himself, is singular and interesting. I may observe that his Baptist opinions did not alienate his old French friends. Pastor Claude wrote to him as to his last commentary, “I have found in it, as in all your other works, the marks of copious reading, abundance of sense, right reason, and a just and exact understanding.” The Roman Catholic Calmet did